Printable View
Not that I raised. It's the legal standard used by Mueller. There's 10 more examples, follow the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belthazor
Again, Mueller per the OLC decision, the President cannot be prosecuted while occupying his constitutionally mandated seat. He needs to be impeached and removed from office first (or after he leaves office).
Well, I presume you posted the most damning of the 10, and again, I don't think it meets that legal standard with the information at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyX
---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------
Generally I agree with you here, though in WA DC I'm not sure anything is truly certain:Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyX
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.f5d0d1c36045
"Congress would do well to let the investigation proceed with minimal interference. But congressional leaders of both parties should also try — in advance — to get the administration to confirm that, in the event Mueller yields potential evidence of criminal conduct by Trump, that evidence will be disclosed in detail to Congress once the investigation is concluded.
Without an agreement now, that decision will presumably be up to Rosenstein, who under the regulations will receive Mueller’s report. If Congress subpoenas the report, Rosenstein could claim that it is privileged — leaving Congress and the executive branch to fight things out in a lengthy court battle."
I personally have mixed feelings about a president being able to commit crimes while in office and not be prosecuted until they leave, but I don't see a good alternative either...
An extreme example:
What if a president found out they had a terminal illness and likely only be alive 2-3yrs out of their four yr term. Personal morals and character are now all that stands in the way of doing pretty much anything they want...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belthazor
The President, any President, cannot commit crimes while in office without recourse. Congress has the power to impeach any sitting President for high crimes and misdemeanors. Once impeached, a president may be prosecuted for crimes like any private citizen. The issue in the Mueller investigation is that the President didn't commit the crime of collusion and whether obstruction of justice is applicable is highly debatable. First, obstruction would have to show intent that the President was not just interfering with an investigation, but that he was trying to prevent an investigation from finding criminal behavior. The supposed criminal behavior didn't exist, so exactly what was the President obstructing? Secondly, the supposed obstruction didn't happen. Are we going to claim the president obstructed justice for thinking about firing Mueller? The claim is that his subordinates refused to carry out the President's orders to stop the investigation. The fact is the President didn't stop it. He may have wanted to stop it, but he never actually did it. Furthermore, he was Mueller's boss. The DOJ works for the President. Trump had the right to fire Mueller. And going back to the first point, there was no criminal behavior Trump was covering up. So, even if he had fired Mueller, it probably isn't obstruction.
To be clear, Congress has the power to investigate the President. There are something like 15 different investigations in progress right now by Congress. And to be honest, I think most Americans would agree that Congress is actually abusing its power by its frivolous use of its investigative powers. However, that is an issue which will be decided by elections. In other words, for the most part, the system is working as its intended to work. As I have pointed out earlier, though, my main issue with the Mueller investigation is that it was an investigation in search of a crime. There was no real evidence that suggested collusion by the President. It is likely that Mueller has known the evidence which started the investigation was bogus over a year ago and yet he continued his investigation. I am hopeful that the DOJ will investigate the behavior which prompted this whole fiasco. I mean, we had a sitting President under surveillance since 2015 by the previous administration based on evidence provided through purely political actors in a pure political attempt to smear a candidate and win an election. Now, I am not arguing that there was anything illegal about trying to smear a candidate. However, there very well may be something illegal in how this effort was tied to the acting administration and sent up the channels of law enforcement, in effect, politicizing the DOJ, FBI, and CIA and using them as tools to win an election.
In my opinion, the Democrats are not letting go for several reasons here even though the Mueller report should be the end of the road.
1) I think the Democrats don't want to focus on policy. Their own caucus is divided between the mainstream Democrats and the far left progressive (shall we say) Socialist wing of the party. We saw the negative attention the green new deal got. Until Pelosi and the leaders can develop a message which satisfies the entire party and doesn't scare the hell out of the independent voters they need, then any distraction is welcome.
2) Admitting that the Mueller report even partially exonerates Trump is very problematic for Democrats. They have been claiming that there was collusion for 2+ years now and to admit they were wrong would be demoralizing. Some members, like Adam Schiff have been making all sorts of claims during the process which, frankly, never came close to panning out. In politics, never admit you were wrong until you are absolutely proven wrong and then, change the subject. So, the Dems are kinda locked in a box. They don't really want to completely change the subject (see item #1) and they cannot admit they were wrong. So, we get more impeachment talk.
3) The Democrats are just unable to accept the 2016 election. They have never come to terms with losing that election and I think it has led them to a lot of crazy behavior. There has been a sort of trend among Democrats recently such that they blame every lost election on malfeasance. This is a local and national issue. Well, if you think your opponent has come to power illegally (for whatever reason) then you are going to go to very drastic means to seek vengeance/revenge. This has led to some very imbalanced behavior by many Democrat members.
Anyhow, the above is merely my opinion and I could be wrong.
I appreciate your thoughts and agree with you to an extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
You don't really address my extreme example though. Investigations take time. To impeach a president takes time. Then, even if impeached, more time to prosecute. Then more time for sentencing. Then more time for the inevitable appeal.
In the scenario I offered, the president in question would be dead long before all of that (and the conviction could be vacated due to the death prior to resolution of the case and/or appeal process).
---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------
Here you are spot on!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
(though I think Rep's suffer some of the same issues)
Congress is under no compulsion to 'prove' anything prior to impeachment. It is a political process. Plus, there is the 25th amendment. If the President was terminally ill and Congress felt he was unable to do his job, they could remove him under those grounds. The Democrats have already floated this idea to remove Trump. Another crazy idea in my humble opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belthazor
I think the Reps did suffer some of these issues (minus the belief all elections are stolen) when they went after Clinton back in the 90's. When Whitewater folded, the Republicans fell back on the Lewinsky thing which was a rather big joke. You can find old posts of mine where I didn't support the Republicans there. And of course, Clinton got impeached for lying to Congress rather than any of the actual crimes he was accused of committing. It set a bad precedent then and it is partly why some Democrats are seeking their pound of flesh now. Like Trump now, Clinton was a total con-man. And, like then, the opposing party has no idea what to do with him. Clinton, though, was a smooth hillbilly whereas Trump is an uncouth carnival barker.
Agreed, though that changes nothing as far as my point is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
Impeachment still takes time. Even if you get him/her out of office, all of the fallowing things still need to happen, and would have to be completed prior to the presidents death:
a legal investigation
most likely a grand jury
a trial & conviction
the inevitable appeal/s failing
If these things don't all happen, then the terminal president can pretty much do as they please with little consequence.
Also, with politics in WA DC nothing is certain, as evidenced by the senate acquitting Bill Clinton of impeachment.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...nton-impeached
"Five weeks later, on February 12, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. The president was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty,” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50. After the trial concluded, President Clinton said he was “profoundly sorry” for the burden his behavior imposed on Congress and the American people.".
So Clinton got to stay in office as both houses of congress must agree to impeach a president. So again, I generally agree with you here, but extreme situations can and do happen.
If public opinion were very strongly sided with the president in question, it could also slow/stall things down (for instance).
I am just saying it's possible, not how likely, nor who might act in such a manner. Just exploring the legalities of possible, in this case somewhat extreme situations that could occur due to the laws surrounding the presidency.
---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------
Agreed, I think many liberals will never rest until a Rep president is impeached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
Also, I'm not sure Clinton's problem was lying to congress:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...nton-impeached
"the Starr Report outlined a case for impeaching Clinton on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael...sexual-conduct
"But let us be clear: Bill Clinton was not impeached for being a sexual predator. Bill Clinton was impeached for breaking the law, for obstructing justice, for committing perjury, and for lying in front of a federal judge during a deposition – that is, contempt of court. That’s why he was impeached."
---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------
This would generally be quite difficult without the presidents medical records, unless it was completely obvious by looking/listening to him/her that they were terminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
First, I think we are in general agreement and are just sort of brainstorming at this point. So, I think your example is just you offering a hypothetical gotcha to the process and you're exploring it. Ok. I just don't think it is such a big deal. I mean, your claim could apply to anyone with a terminal illness. Should the terminally ill President (let's call him TIP) start making bizarre decisions, you better believe Congress would use the 25th amendment to get him out of there. And frankly, there isn't a whole lot a President can do which would be dire. As we saw with the Mueller case, Trump asked for stuff, his subordinates thought he was crazy, and they ignored him. And that was for stuff he was probably well within his rights to ask for (i.e. getting rid of Mueller). You think some general would start bombing Chicago because the President asked him to? You think that instruction would even reach a general who could begin such a act? You say such things can and do happen and yet, in 250+ years, it has yet to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belthazor
In short, you have offered to worry over a very non-problematic problem.
In terms of Clinton, my point is that he was not impeached over the things he was being investigated for. He was impeached for process crimes. Lying mostly. And if there is one thing we have learned about the Clintons, lying is about as natural as breathing for them. Let's be honest, a lot of men and women have lied about affairs. It isn't like Clinton is unique in that regard. He just happened to do it in front of Congress and a judge. What he did was certainly illegal and unethical, but why was he being asked about these things in the first place? The Lewinsky thing never should have been made public and it certainly should never have been tied into the Whitewater investigation or added to the special prosecutor's plate. I think even Ken Starr regrets how the whole thing went down. There is a serious argument to be made that this whole special prosecutor/independent investigator thing is just, in general, a bad idea when it comes to monitoring Presidential behavior. Congress has the authority and it should reside with them.
Exactly, and I did say I wasn't discussing the likelihood, just the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------
Depends on which end of the stick you are on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
Also, mental illness does not have to be obvious to be devious/dangerous
---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
Agreed to a large degree, though I do have a couple comments I am out of time tonight.
I appreciate you thoughts.
This is an irrelevant argument being floated by conservative media. The obstruction is the crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
---------- Post added at 02:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 AM ----------
Collusion was the Prseident's and his media outlet's invention. We've now found out that Don Jr. told Mueller he would plead the 5th and that is why he was not subpoenaed (others threatened the same). Further, Mueller didn't subpoena the president as we are now learning due to a possibly artificial time constraint imposed by Barr. Other's lied (for which they were charged) and improperly destroyed or didn't preserve evidence. Which is why Mueller said he couldn't clear the president of conspiracy, there just wasn't enough evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
:idiot2:Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyX
Funny how all of the libertarian and supposed "independents" on here that didn't vote for Trump yet somehow parrot all of his talking points without looking at the report...sad :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
Funny how.... :idiot2:Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyX
Funny indeed since I said if the Donald is proven/convicted of having his hand in the cookie jar he should get a spank (arrested/spend some time in the US hotel/prison).Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyX
I never hear a liberal ( or Clinton) supporter ever make such a comment, but I would LOVE to be wrong if you would care to enlighten me :)
Partisan politics' is for "hacks" (quoting some one we all know ;) )
No party is going to have ALL good people doing the "right" thing.....
Sorry,...off topic...
Is that a question? Read more than the first two words next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------
Thank you for proving me right. You haven't even looked at the report and have fallen right in line with Trump, his talking points, and his disgrace of an attorney general who Makes John Mitchell look like sunshine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belthazor
I haven't looked at the report yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyX
So what?
I am not supporting the Donald, nor overlooking anything he might have done wrong, and I agree if he did commit a crime he should be punished.
Thank you for proving me right, that you would never say a liberal did something/anything wrong.
Please prove me wrong and say liberals make mistakes/do wrong, EVEN the (AHHHHHHHHHHHH) Clinton's!
Then you're doing exactly what they want, burying your head in the sand...not overlooking for sure, you're not looking at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Belthazor
---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------
Give me an example and I'll analyze it. {challenge thingy}Quote:
Originally Posted by Belthazor
As soon as you write more than two words worth reading, I'll do it. Until then... :idiot2:Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyX
---------- Post added at 12:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------
Lots of liberals have admitted Hillary sucks. They just waited until after she stopped running for President. :sly:Quote:
Originally Posted by Belthazor
Partisanship is part of our political process, so we cannot get too upset by it. However, on a site like ODN, where the goal should be about having intellectual discussion based on logic, then partisanship does run into a brick wall unless we keep feeding into it. If we cannot as a group agree on the facts, then we cannot have a real debate on any subject. I fear that there are some posters who like to introduce their own version of reality and that's fine to a degree. On the other hand, it is problematic when they resort to ad homs when they fail in convincing people that they are right. For instance, you and I both agree that Donald is a huge tool, but we also see positive things he has done and, as it relates to the Russian investigation, we see the Mueller report as largely vindicating Trump's claims that he was investigated for behaviors he did not commit.
Now, from a partisan angle, we could say he was completely exonerated. Not what Barr's summary nor the report actually states. However, as it relates to Russian collusion, the government could not find enough evidence to support it. In a country where we are presumed innocent, then Trump is innocent of collusion. We have an adversarial justice system. The prosecutors try to find evidence and the accused get to rigorously defend themselves. Now, a partisan on the opposite side of Trump may claim foul because Trump didn't cooperate with Mueller in some way or form, but so long as Trump defended himself legally, then the results are pretty clear. He is innocent of all charges. A partisan may like to attack the AG, Bill Barr. The fact is that Barr read Mueller's report, and he and Mueller discussed the report. They worked together in summarizing the report's conclusions. Mueller left the matter of obstruction to the AG because, ultimately, Mueller felt that the law would prevent Trump from being prosecuted for this anyhow. Barr went even further and indicated the findings didn't support a criminal proceeding. A partisan would then keep on digging and claim Barr was in the tank for Trump. However, prior to Barr's nomination, he was considered a good choice for the job and most people, even partisans, believed he was fair and wouldn't succumb to pressure from Trump. Of course, now that certain partisans didn't get what they wanted, Barr is a louse.
What I'm saying is to stop feeding the trolls. They won't stop. They aren't susceptible to logic. They are not even trying to pretend to have an intellectual conversation. Notice the partisan likes to cast off all disagreements as spin or due to only reading selected non-approved source material. You cannot penetrate their little bubbles. Sure, these partisan trolls exist on both sides of the aisle, but here on ODN, we really only have one of any significance. You're a big boy and can make your own decisions. Just realize, your words are like water that only make him grow more emboldened. Otherwise, your words, like water, are just tasteless and opaque in his eyes.
(my apologies Even for walking all over your thread here, but you seem to have left the bldg at the moment anyway...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
Hmmm, I suppose that could be true, but not where I was at. I am not trying to make a semantic difference here, but I think we are talking about totally different aspects. I have actually had a liberal say that the Clinton's were incapable of "doing wrong". I don't see that has changed, however, the younger generation is getting involved now and I have heard a growing change of guard/new ideas/not a career politician/different issues talk out of some liberal circles.
I think most liberals think Hillary was "robbed" of her much deserved time at president as the most intellectual woman in America (aside: my last girlfriend would not support her after that comment became common…).
---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------
I totally agree politics can be/is divisive by nature, but the reason I have been at ODN is because reason can prevail (at least to a lurker if not some of the participants). When Apok wrote not tooo long ago one of his regrets was policing the site so hard, but I disagree. You are correct a number of members over the yrs use ad homs as a tool during the discussion to try to distract from weak argumentation. I appreciate it when ODN staff steps in and keeps these things from progressing to the point of, well most discussion boards on the net!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------
Yes (though I love wood working tools and would rather call him some thing else.....) I agree with you here too. the Donald is a nut, but he is president. I think he may make some good progress with China though we shall see. He is not the "same ole" career type politician we have had in my lifetime. In a couple yrs "we" can choose who is the next president. Congress is a bigger problem IMHO...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
"Congress and diapers need to be changed often and for the same reasons"
(unknown)
---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------
An old man that walks to the park everyday to feed the pigeons thinks he is just interacting with nature in a basically harmless way that helps the birds. He doesn't always see the pigeon poop all over everybody's cars and the other issues that it causes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
Perhaps we should put up a sign like at the zoo:
"Please don't feed the trolls"
:)
"some people say..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
Well, she wouldn't have sucked as president. Sure wouldn't have the former Soviets laughing at us or Kim Jun doing a victory tour.
---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------
You mean conspiracy, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------
I refer to my post 109 and your reply in post 110. Who's the troll? You must have a wheelbarrow to carry those balls around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibelsd
How could such knowledge of possible futures be known?Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyX
Support please (thingy)…..