Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!


brandymac27

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Prosecuting somebody for criminal behavior is not exactly making things up.  Procedure are well laid out for prosecuting somebody for criminal behavior.

 

What is making things up is saying since somebody is President that they can't be prosecuted for a crime in the normal criminal justice system.  The Constitution doesn't say that.

 

Which is why I changed the description from "making things up"

 

to

 

"the constitution doesn't say we can't do it this way"

 

It gives a well defined way to handle it. You're suggesting we do it some other way, because the constitution doesn't say we can't do it that way.

 

And I'm saying the history of SCOTUS rulings says they don't determine things that way. There's a lot of things the constitution doesn't say we can't do. That's not how they handle it. Usually, if the constitution provides a way to do something, then that's the way it's done.

 

People on both sides of the isle are conflicted on this. It isn't a partisan issue. And it's about more than whether you're a literal interpretation person or not.

 

And, to be clear, I don't have an opinion on it because I'm not interested in pretending to be a constitutional scholar. I recognize both arguments and I don't know which one should ultimately win. I understand the issue of checks and balances and separation of powers and I get why this is more messy than what you and others want to admit it to being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, boobiemiles said:

Trump only visions is too be better than the person behind him.  He has no vision for America.  Keep cashing those checks though. 

 

 

Trump is merely concerned with perception. That is why he speaks the way he does. Everything is a tag line.  Every phrase is repeated over and over until people are repeating it mindlessly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tshile said:

It gives a well defined way to handle it. You're suggesting we do it some other way, because the constitution doesn't say we can't do it that way.

 

But it doesn't.  The Constitution does not describe how to punish somebody for crimes committed while in office.

 

The only thing it describes is a way to remove somebody from office that has committed a crime.  And nobody believes the Founding Fathers believed that removal from office is the only punishment somebody in office should receive for (many) crimes.  If the Founding Fathers thought it was important that the impeachment happened BEFORE any other punishment, adding a simple sentence to the Constitution would have made that clear.

 

If the Constitution actually gave a well defined way for punishing somebody for committing a crime while in office, the point would be moot.

 

The Constitution is not meant to be an exhaustive document of what can't (or can) be done (such a document would be ludicrously long.)  There are certain prescribed things that can't be done:  Congress shall make no law...  And certain thing that specifically allowed:  Congress shall have the power to....

 

But there are a whole lot of things that the Constitution is silent on, including whether a President needs to be impeached before or after being prosecuted for crimes in office.

 

To say the Constitution requires that impeachment happens before other criminal processes is reading something into the Constitution that isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying it louder for the people in the back.

 

Impeachment is a political process focused on removal of people from office.

 

It has nothing to do with prosecuting crimes in a criminal justice setting.

 

 

That is not to say the argument that such prosecution would interfere with the office of the President, while stupid, doesn't hold at least a tiny bit of water (at least until you really think about it), but the impeachment process really has nothing to do with prosecution and doesn't talk about order.

 

And I suspect the DOJ guidance was written by either Nixon apologists or scaredy cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so I personally understand this right?

 

An "impeachable offense" is not an official verified thing.  There are crimes that the house & senate can view as something worthy of impeaching the President over, but there isn't a list in a book somewhere of "impeachable offenses?" 

 

In otherwords, in a doomsday extreme scenario, a President could be sworn in and then 10 minutes later immediately impeached just because........assuming the congress/senate had the number of folks on board to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

criminal prosecution in office creates constitutional crisis when it is the chief executive over law enforcement.

if you have enough evidence to prosecute then impeachment is likely needed,but the burden of proof needs to be higher than a grand jury indictment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Just so I personally understand this right?

 

An "impeachable offense" is not an official verified thing.  There are crimes that the house & senate can view as something worthy of impeaching the President over, but there isn't a list in a book somewhere of "impeachable offenses?" 

 

In otherwords, in a doomsday extreme scenario, a President could be sworn in and then 10 minutes later immediately impeached just because........assuming the congress/senate had the number of folks on board to do it?

 

The exact phrase used is "high crimes and misdemeanors".  

 

Which some people interpret to mean "anything that's actually illegal".  Although I would think means "whatever Congress thinks justifies impeachment."  

 

And realistically, even the former is such a low bar as to make the latter interpretation workable.  If, for example, Congress decides that Trump is hurting their chances to keep their job, then they'll think of something.  

 

 


 

11 minutes ago, twa said:

criminal prosecution in office creates constitutional crisis when it is the chief executive over law enforcement.

if you have enough evidence to prosecute then impeachment is likely needed,but the burden of proof needs to be higher than a grand jury indictment

 

Obviously, the "even if Trump is indicted, we still won't do anything" talking point has been issued.  

 

And the "We won't do anything, because of our respect for the constitution.  (You believe us, right?)" one.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

The exact phrase used is "high crimes and misdemeanors".  

 

Which some people interpret to mean "anything that's actually illegal".  Although I would think means "whatever Congress thinks justifies impeachment."  

 

And realistically, even the former is such a low bar as to make the latter interpretation workable.  If, for example, Congress decides that Trump is hurting their chances to keep their job, then they'll think of something.  

 

 

 

It is an old phrase adopted from British legal circles essentially related to crimes associated with abuse of power.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

 

"The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office."

 

Which especially, seems that the Founding Fathers meant to limit what you could impeached for, but not necessarily criminally prosecuted.  For example, today a speeding ticket would not be part of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so not an impeachable offense, but that doesn't mean government officials should be immune to prosecution if caught breaking traffic laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 


 

 

Obviously, the "even if Trump is indicted, we still won't do anything" talking point has been issued.  

 

And the "We won't do anything, because of our respect for the constitution.  (You believe us, right?)" one.  

 

 

 

That would depend on the evidence and the will of the peoples representatives.

 

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

Which especially, seems that the Founding Fathers meant to limit what you could impeached for, but not necessarily criminally prosecuted.  For example, today a speeding ticket would not be part of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so not an impeachable offense, but that doesn't mean government officials should be immune to prosecution if caught breaking traffic laws.

 

Their drivers break traffic laws all the time with impunity when operating under presidential authority. ....the traffic law is not binding, along with other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, twa said:

Their drivers break traffic laws all the time with impunity when operating under presidential authority. ....the traffic law is not binding, along with other things.

 

I break traffic laws all the time too with impunity without operating under Presidential authority.  That doesn't mean that I can't be prosecuted for them if I'm caught and the state decided to prosecute me.

 

The President is no different.  Ulysses S. Grant was charged with speeding in DC.  The police kept his horse and buggy, he paid a fine, and had to walk back to the White House.

The Constitution does not lay out a special thing for the President in terms of impeachment.  Impeachment qualifies for "all Civil Officers of the United States"

 

Clearly, all civil officers of the US are not immune from prosecution of basic traffic laws and can't be ticketed (or tried for murder) without being impeached first.  And the Constitution certainly does not describe a special context for the President.

 

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

To suggest based on that, the President is immune from laws without being impeached, but other civil officers are not is reading some thing into that, which isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

Think the founders intended forced recusal?

I think they intended for no one to be above the law.

 

So does the President need to be forced to recuse based on just purely the plain language of the Constitution, probably not.  But if he doesn't he runs the risk of obstruction charges, as he well should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I break traffic laws all the time too with impunity without operating under Presidential authority.  That doesn't mean that I can't be prosecuted for them if I'm caught and the state decided to prosecute me.

 

The President is no different. .

 

The President is different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

criminal prosecution in office creates constitutional crisis when it is the chief executive over law enforcement.

if you have enough evidence to prosecute then impeachment is likely needed,but the burden of proof needs to be higher than a grand jury indictment

Criminal acts in office create the Cobstitutional crisis, the prosecution corrects it. We have governmental mechanisms in place to remove and replace a POTUS. 

As for your notion of impeachment, we’re now seeing what happens when the corruption extends to the party who is then entrusted with holding one of their own accountable.

The US cannot survive an unaccountable POTUS who is criminally active.

 

If Obama was maliciously shot and killed someone beyond ANY reasonable doubt and there was video evidence demonstrating his crime, and the Democrats were in control of Congress but refused to impeach him. What would you suggest happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to think we have evidence he committed a crime, you need to at least present some evidence or wait for the investigators to do so.

 

OR of course convince the right people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, twa said:

You seem to think we have evidence he committed a crime, you need to at least present some evidence or wait for the investigators to do so.

 

OR of course convince the right people

Answer the question that I asked please.

I am asking SPECIFICALLY about the idea that a criminal POTUS must be allowed to remain in office if/when Congress fails to uphold its accountable duties.

Now answer my scenario.

 

And for the love of god use the damn quote feature, I KNOW you know how, and I'm pretty sure I know why you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I break traffic laws all the time too with impunity without operating under Presidential authority.  That doesn't mean that I can't be prosecuted for them if I'm caught and the state decided to prosecute me.

 

The President is no different.  Ulysses S. Grant was charged with speeding in DC.  The police kept his horse and buggy, he paid a fine, and had to walk back to the White House.

The Constitution does not lay out a special thing for the President in terms of impeachment.  Impeachment qualifies for "all Civil Officers of the United States"

 

Clearly, all civil officers of the US are not immune from prosecution of basic traffic laws and can't be ticketed (or tried for murder) without being impeached first.  And the Constitution certainly does not describe a special context for the President.

 

In fairness Grant was probably drunk so I'm guessing this was letting him off light.

 

 

But this does raise the "actions in furtherance of duties of the Presidency" defense, which I do buy.  President can order snipers to take the shot if its legitimately in the interests of the nation.

 

So treating traffic laws like guidelines I can generally get behind because usually that falls under furtherance of his duties.

 

But once you get outside of that, nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, twa said:

You seem to think we have evidence he committed a crime, you need to at least present some evidence or wait for the investigators to do so.

 

OR of course convince the right people

 

There is actually ton of evidence that he committed crimes already in the public domain.  There isn't any conclusive evidence (yet), but there is a mountain of evidence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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