PleaseBlitz Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, twa said: You are agreeing with the law, it does make me wonder if I get conjugal visits out of our proximity though. Those words in that order might as well be hieroglyphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 52 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: We have a line of succession, but how could we leave a known murder in the White House simply because removing that murder would be difficult? The President's primary responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution, he is subject to it, and is not above the law. The White House is not some Presidential get out of jail free card. The 25th Amendment already gives us the language: "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." It does NOT stipulate that the President can only be removed from office by impeachment, death or resignation. That is the argument that @twais making. Yawwwwnnnnnn....for the love of god do you have a condition that prevents you from answering a question? To take a step back, if this is the argument, I think twa is right. You can certainly be prosecuted for a crime and not be removed from office. Even if Trump is convicted of a serious crime, there isn't a Constitutional means to remove him other than impeachment. When the Constitution talks about "conviction" when talking about impeachment, it is talking about the Senate finding them guilty. Grant was speeding, prosecuted, and not impeached. Public officials absolutely are tried for crimes and convicted without being removed from office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allen Like Claude Allen, Trump could be convicted of a crime (e.g. breaking campaign finance laws), not impeached, and remain in office (if he refuses to resign). The Mueller investigation can't be a run around to get Trump removed from office without an impeachment. A literal reading of the Constitution allows for impeachment without criminal prosecution and criminal prosecution without impeachment. And the later has certainly happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 the power of impeachment is also stipulated (in the very same statute language) for judges and all other "civil officers" of the united states (all other senate confirmed federal officials). Impeachment of judges and federal officers is extremely rare.... have NO judges or senior government officials ever been charged with (and tried for) any crimes? ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, mcsluggo said: the power of impeachment is also stipulated (in the very same statute language) for judges and all other "civil officers" of the united states (all other senate confirmed federal officials). Impeachment of judges and federal officers is extremely rare.... have NO judges or senior government officials ever been charged with (and tried for) any crimes? ever? Google search....third click http://www.nashvillepublicradio.org/post/nashville-judge-casey-moreland-arrested-allegedly-obstructing-fbis-investigation-him#stream/0 Smith says all these allegations, if true, would amount to “egregious abuses of power by a sitting judge.” The mayor has released a statement that says Moreland should have a chance to defend himself in court — but still calls for his resignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 10 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Google search....third click http://www.nashvillepublicradio.org/post/nashville-judge-casey-moreland-arrested-allegedly-obstructing-fbis-investigation-him#stream/0 I don't think that guy is a federal judge, meaning he is not an officer of the United States. He's a county judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: I don't think that guy is a federal judge, meaning he is not an officer of the United States. He's a county judge. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/29/federal-judge-arrested-battery-resign/28187213/ Google search "sitting Federal judge arrested" First link WASHINGTON – U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller announced Friday he will resign Aug. 1, almost one year since he was arrested and charged with battery of his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, mcsluggo said: the power of impeachment is also stipulated (in the very same statute language) for judges and all other "civil officers" of the united states (all other senate confirmed federal officials). Impeachment of judges and federal officers is extremely rare.... have NO judges or senior government officials ever been charged with (and tried for) any crimes? ever? A recent example, just to start. I'm sure there's a lot more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuller My understanding is that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution doesn't center on the impeachment language of the constitution, but on the unique role and responsibility of the office. I think it's more comparable to other hands off approach such as political question doctrine. I personally don't find the argument too convincing for the following reasons - Congressional immunity is spelled out in Article 1 one of the Constitution. Interestingly, there is no mention of presidential immunity in Article 2. Founders knew that certain protection of the legislature was necessary to avoid the tyranny of the executive and/or ensure a well functioning government. Yet they chose not to include any comparable protection for the president. I think this is a deliberate choice. - The office of the presidency argument gets even weaker thanks to the 25th amendment. Vice President and members of the cabinet can remove the president from office if the president is unable discharge the powers and duties of the office. If the president disagrees, Congress decides. I think most people think of the the inability as some kind of non-obvious mental infirmity. But why should this not apply to criminal conviction or perhaps even a truly contentious criminal proceeding against a president? With that said, I think Mueller will choose to simply refer all the results of the investigation to Congress. Not necessarily because a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, but it's a much smoother, orderly process to let Congress address the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Others https://www.nytimes.com/1921/10/21/archives/federal-judge-arrested.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-arrested-in-fbi-sting-involving-guns-drugs-stripper/ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-judge-arrested-and-charged-bribery You get the point I'm sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: I don't think that guy is a federal judge, meaning he is not an officer of the United States. He's a county judge. It happens to federal judges too. This guy was tried, convicted, refused to resign, and only resigned after the House was ready to start the impeachment process (which took ~2 years). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Frederick_Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Not federal, but an interesting story nonetheless.... https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/politics/on-eve-of-impeachment-meetings-ketchum-quits-wv-supreme-court/article_0bb52c20-b886-53c9-b221-b3f3991554ce.html http://www.thenewscenter.tv/content/news/WVa-Gov-Justice-wants-lawmakers-to-impeach-Supreme-Court-Justice-Allen-Loughry-486582201.html Also since we're talking about impeachment, some interesting history of impeached officials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States Some things they were impeached for: "corruption", "drunkeness", "Improper acceptance of gifts from litigants and attorneys", "Sexual assault, and obstruction of justice during the resulting investigation" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/29/federal-judge-arrested-battery-resign/28187213/ Google search "sitting Federal judge arrested" First link What does that have to do with impeachment? He resigned. 5 minutes ago, PeterMP said: It happens to federal judges too. This guy was tried, convicted, refused to resign, and only resigned after the House was ready to start the impeachment process (which took ~2 years). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Frederick_Collins This is the best example cited to. I'll note that (1) he was not impeached, he resigned, (2) Trump needs to be impeached AND convicted by 2/3 of the Senate and (3) this guy lost his law license due to the conviction, which I imagine is a requirement for being a judge, and Trump has no such requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 The Constitution says nothing that prevents any civilian office holder from criminal investigation and prosecution, and then subject to impeachment and removal from office. Clinton was subject to criminal investigation, impeachment, and wasn't convicted in the Senate. So any civilian office holder in the Trump administration is subject to the same as Clinton and this includes Trump himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 20 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: What does that have to do with impeachment? He resigned. This is the best example cited to. I'll note that (1) he was not impeached, he resigned, (2) Trump needs to be impeached AND convicted by 2/3 of the Senate and (3) this guy lost his law license due to the conviction, which I imagine is a requirement for being a judge, and Trump has no such requirement. I'm not really arguing with you, I don't think. Trump could be convicted of a crime and not removed from office. I could certainly see a case where Trump is found guilty of accepting a "donation" from a foreign power, refuses to resign, is not impeached, and remains in office. In the past, the FEC has essentially fined people for that sort of activity. The only point, I was really trying to make in this conversation, is that a literal interpretation of the Constitution doesn't support the idea the President can't be prosecuted for a crime without being impeached. The Constitution doesn't say anything special about the President in terms of impeachment or immunity from crimes that wouldn't apply equally to federal judges. Based on a literal reading of the Constitution, if federal judges can be tried for crimes without being impeached so can the President and we certainly see that with federal judges. (I also don't think having a law license is a requirement to be a federal judge. Certainly, you are appointed for life. Not appointed until your law license is no longer good.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 @PeterMP I don't think we are disagreeing either, and I agree with everything you just said. Everyone posting instances of judges resigning instead of getting impeached don't seem to realize that those judges are adhering to societal norms that dictate that an honorable person not serve is a position of public trust after being convicted of crimes, or face significant political pressures, so they resign. Trump does not give a **** about societal norms. He could get charged with straight-up treason and he would not resign, and any Republican controlled House or Senate would not impeach or convict him. There will always be at least 1/3 Rs in the Senate, enough to block conviction, even if the evidence was a slam dunk. Then we'd probably have to wait for courts to decide if he has to stand trial while holding office, which would take enough time that it would become moot because his term ends and he (hopefully, dear God) gets voted the **** out. THEN he'll have pardoned himself and we'll have to wait for SCOTUS to decide if a President can self-pardon.* THEN and only then could a trial commence. *Presidential pardons are only for federal crimes, potentially he could be charged with state crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 49 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: What does that have to do with impeachment? He resigned. AFTER he was arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Just now, AsburySkinsFan said: AFTER he was arrested. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Sorry I missed the kerfuffle between Sanders and Acosta today. That looked fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 hour ago, mcsluggo said: the power of impeachment is also stipulated (in the very same statute language) for judges and all other "civil officers" of the united states (all other senate confirmed federal officials). Impeachment of judges and federal officers is extremely rare.... have NO judges or senior government officials ever been charged with (and tried for) any crimes? ever? 1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said: IT DOES NOT MATTER. It does when I was answering this question. Obviously, if they were arrested then they were charged. Therefore dispelling the idea of judicial immunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Sorry I missed the kerfuffle between Sanders and Acosta today. That looked fun! Nothing like the Press Secretary confirming that the WH thinks that media is the enemy of the state. I'm sure their thoughts and prayers will be helpful when a MAGAt Qbertard kills or injures some media people soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Nothing like the Press Secretary confirming that the WH thinks that media is the enemy of the state. I'm sure their thoughts and prayers will be helpful when a MAGAt Qbertard kills or injures some media people soon. Oh, they aren't responsible for the things that people do in response to what the Trump Administration says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 I think all of us think SOME of the media is the enemy. Acosta is a dumbass for pressing that point. He had no chance of getting Sanders to agree with him and made himself out to be the enemy. He'll be celebrated in certain circles though, so yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Just now, Kilmer17 said: I think all of us think SOME of the media is the enemy. Acosta is a dumbass for pressing that point. He had no chance of getting Sanders to agree with him and made himself out to be the enemy. He'll be celebrated in certain circles though, so yay. So you think that Acosta is a dumbass for pressing the point that even the President's own daughter does not believe that the press is the enemy of the people, and yet the WH has yet to correct the position of POTUS who has used that very description? Why again is it stupid for him to press for that clarification? Oh and Alex Jones, and Sean Hannity are by their own admission NOT members of the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Just now, Kilmer17 said: I think all of us think SOME of the media is the enemy. Acosta is a dumbass for pressing that point. He had no chance of getting Sanders to agree with him and made himself out to be the enemy. He'll be celebrated in certain circles though, so yay. No. All of us don't. Probably because some of us can differentiate between actual journalists (who are media) and those who are entertainers (who are not media). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Media is the wrong term, far too broad. TrumpKlan thinks the “press” is the enemy of the people. Its a critical distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.