Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Burgold

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Admiring twa coming to the conclusion that having the opposition party attempt to neuter any POTUS through the use of never-ending "investigations" is stupid.  

 

And it only took him, what, 25 years of doing it, to come to that conclusion?  

 

See where we keep making our mistake is in judging him on his consistency i.e. hypocrisy. But, if we look at the whole picture we’ll see that he is utterly consistent, it’s just that he isn’t fair or interested in actual justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

See where we keep making our mistake is in judging him on his consistency i.e. hypocrisy. But, if we look at the whole picture we’ll see that he is utterly consistent, it’s just that he isn’t fair or interested in actual justice.

 

Oh, I came to that conclusion 10 years ago  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twa, important questions:

 

1. Do you believe a sitting president can be indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, and punished while still President?

 

2. If a President has all of the above happen, what things should survive beyond him that he has done, and what things should be undone?

 

 

I'm not really concerned with the procedural side of things here, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know your asking twa, but I don’t think president can be indicted (a long with all the rest) while he is president. He’d have to be impeached first...

 

I know it’s wrong, but I think that’s what makes the most sense. If he was convicted while he was president he could pardon himself...

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Except that Trump is guilty.

 

what does our law say?

 

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Admiring twa coming to the conclusion that having the opposition party attempt to neuter any POTUS through the use of never-ending "investigations" is stupid.  

 

And it only took him, what, 25 years of doing it, to come to that conclusion?  

 

 

the investigation is not the issue, nor is attempts.

 

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

See where we keep making our mistake is in judging him on his consistency i.e. hypocrisy. But, if we look at the whole picture we’ll see that he is utterly consistent, it’s just that he isn’t fair or interested in actual justice.

 

that is rich coming from you :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

Twa, important questions:

 

1. Do you believe a sitting president can be indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, and punished while still President?

 

2. If a President has all of the above happen, what things should survive beyond him that he has done, and what things should be undone?

 

 

I'm not really concerned with the procedural side of things here, btw.

 

1 No, they need to be removed from office first.

 

2 whatever you have the votes and authority,along with desire, to undo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, visionary said:

I'm pretty sure a president can not pardon themself.

I thought so to when I saw the above posts.  Did a little reading on it and it sounds like it isn't 100% clear one way or another.  It would have to be decided by the Supreme Court.  Which makes Trump appointing justices more important.  

 

I wonder if SC justices would have to recuse themselves if they were appointed by Trump?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I thought so to when I saw the above posts.  Did a little reading on it and it sounds like it isn't 100% clear one way or another.  It would have to be decided by the Supreme Court.  Which makes Trump appointing justices more important.  

 

I wonder if SC justices would have to recuse themselves if they were appointed by Trump?

Hmmm, I guess I'm not completely sure.  I've listened to a bunch of discussions by legal experts and former prosecutors and the like on the issue of indictments and self-pardoning and it seemed established that a president can not pardon themself, but unclear whether or not a president can be indicted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No President has ever tried to pardon themselves.

 

Common sense (non-legal common sense, that is) says they can't.  The law is a little less clear.  Considering it would place the President above the law, it's unlikely for an objective court to say that the Pres can, but unfortunately the courts that would hear such a thing are also the ones that Trump appoints judges to, so the actual answer is slightly less clear.

 

That being said, it would reserve to the President powers even the Kings in Britain did not have.  Generally speaking, if you give the President more power than King George III, you've gone too far.

 

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I know your asking twa, but I don’t think president can be indicted (a long with all the rest) while he is president. He’d have to be impeached first...

 

I know it’s wrong, but I think that’s what makes the most sense. If he was convicted while he was president he could pardon himself...

I've seen a lot of people across the spectrum on the topic.  It's a mostly open question, but a lot of strong footing for the President to at a minimum be indicted.

 

Beyond that is less certain. Some DOJ guidance suggested no further than indictment but that isn't binding.

 

Personally, I'm of the mind that it should all be able to happen.  If not, we really have no true safeguard against a rogue criminal President when backed by a rogue accomplice Congress.  The founders may not jave envisioned such worthless lapdogs in Congress, but I also suspect they did not envision a President being able to just avoid prosecution for wrongs they commit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would not make the  president above the law, congress could still impeach him under the law, then he could indicted... would put him under the law. Or since a presidency only lasts 4-8 years wait until he is out of office if congress doesn’t impeach.

 

The other thing is that the people get to decide on who is in congress every two years. So, if congress was a lapdog for the president and the american people wanted justice all they would have to do was vote in people who promised to impeach him, give LEA authority to indict him.

 

What you are arguing for is the ability for an unelected agency to remove an elected official from office. Im not a fan of that. Even in this case. Thats sort of what Iran has with its "presidential elections".

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, she's right. I don't like abortion. I don't want there to be abortions. Just making it illegal isn't going to stop it though. We already know what the real world consequences are (lots of research, data, and statistics already exist). Making it illegal does very little to change the rate of abortion. The number of abortions in the U.S. has been declining for the past 20 years though. Sex education and access to birth control seem to be the most important factors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

it would not make the  president above the law, congress could still impeach him under the law, then he could indicted... would put him under the law. Or since a presidency only lasts 4-8 years wait until he is out of office if congress doesn’t impeach.

 

The other thing is that the people get to decide on who is in congress every two years. So, if congress was a lapdog for the president and the american people wanted justice all they would have to do was vote in people who promised to impeach him, give LEA authority to indict him.

 

What you are arguing for is the ability for an unelected agency to remove an elected official from office. Im not a fan of that. Even in this case. Thats sort of what Iran has with its "presidential elections".

I think you might be combining my discussion on self-pardons and whether he can be indicted/tried/etc.

 

If the President self-pardons then even if impeached he could not be tried and convicted (though obviously he has to admit guilt to accept a pardon).  The ability to self-pardon would functionally put the President above the law, since even if impeached and convicted (politically) in the Senate and removed from office, he could not be legally held accountable in a court.

 

In the alternative, if we're talking about whether a President, in the absence of a self-pardon, can be indicted/tried/etc., then yes, he's not above the law regardless of whether he can or cannot be, but my view is that if he can't be any of those things, or really anything less than full punishment, then we end up potentially in an absurd situation where potentially a known criminal can protect themselves from conviction so long as they remain in office.

 

This does create a pretty wacky scenario though, where a President could still be President but from jail.

 

Really the only thing that could definitively NOT be done would be the death penalty.

 

And while that sounds crazy, imagine the alternative.  Like imagine if Trump killed Bob Mueller in the middle of 5th Avenue while confessing to every imagined collusion related offense on live TV.

 

If the President cannot be indicted/tried/sentenced/etc., then we essentially are saying the President can be illegitimate, a criminal, etc., and face no consequences until he leaves office.  Then imagine the President is up for reelection.  If he wins he gets to escape punishment for 4 more years.  Something of a major conflict, isn't it?

 

Of the two options, I find the one with a jailed President to be the less absurd of the two options, despite it being wacky.  It removes most of the conflicts that would come with being President while being a criminal (except with regards to criminal justice legislation).

 

It of course also makes it that much harder for the Congress to avoid impeaching and convicting him.  If the President can't be indicted/tried/convicted, you'll have a bunch of Congressmen saying "oh but he hasn't been proven guilty so we can't impeach" while knowing he can't be indicted/tried until after he's impeached/leaves.

 

In the alternative, if the President is able to be indicted/tried/convicted/sentenced/punished, no one can pretend the President is innocent.  Congress then has to actively defend a criminal President in order to not impeach him, a much harder thing for the Congress to do compared to just pretending bad acts didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think of if the president killed someone in the streets, there would be enough votes for impeachment. A president removed from office can’t pardon himself. So he could be indicted.

 

 

Iif he kills someone and gets re-elected, the voting public decided the killing was justified,

 

If impeaching trump was a way to guarantee re-election you would see lines of republican congressmen chomping at the bit to impeach him. 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A indictment would be a waste of time(and subject to manipulation), if you have evidence you present it to congress and/or the people who then decide if there is need for impeachment hearings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2018 at 9:32 PM, TheGreatBuzz said:

May want to edit that.  Name calling is frowned up here.

Depends on who he said it to.

@TKs Issues is eating his cheez sammiches. ??

This is the wild west, and I'm okay cuz I'm not arguing. I  rarely post anymore. 

But let's get it together, debate-wise. Bring a topic, and back it up.

BTW, has any network other than MSNBC brought up how Trump hated Pat Buchanan, but has now become him?

Funny....where is Pat?

Edit...meant to put that in a different thread, but hey...

Edited by skinsmarydu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

A indictment would be a waste of time(and subject to manipulation), if you have evidence you present it to congress and/or the people who then decide if there is need for impeachment hearings.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

He said an indictment would be a waste of time then he goes on to say that the evidence should be turned over to Congress!!!!

Oh my goawd that’s too funny...like I think I’m gonna pee!!!!

Edited by AsburySkinsFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

He said an indictment would be a waste of time then he goes on to say that the evidence should be turned over to Congress!!!!

Oh my goawd that’s too funny...like I think I’m gonna pee!!!!

 

when ya dry off consider what possible use a indictment would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

...I know that’s what’s so funny!! You think that giving the evidence to Congress would be MORE useful!

Seriously, I  almost fell outta the chair again ... 

And his homey got spoofed. 

Monumental weekend already! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I guess Manafort would know. 

Or Gates. 

Or Papadopoulos. 

Or Flynn. 

?

 

care to tell me the answer to my question?

8 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

...I know that’s what’s so funny!! You think that giving the evidence to Congress would be MORE useful!


since they are the only ones that can do anything besides make noise....yes

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...