soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,787
- 6,035
- 136
Unfortunately it’s the branch that wants to shape their narrative and protect Trump, not the House.Wow. I knew it was going to happen, but congress acting at light speed?
Unfortunately it’s the branch that wants to shape their narrative and protect Trump, not the House.Wow. I knew it was going to happen, but congress acting at light speed?
What? Are they going to ask him about Hilary's emails?Unfortunately it’s the branch that wants to shape their narrative and protect Trump, not the House.
What? Are they going to ask him about Hilary's emails?
Thought I'd bump this since Cohen started testimony today. Tomorrow will be open and televised. In case you are wondering how the GOP are feeling about this...
Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
Thought I'd bump this since Cohen started testimony today. Tomorrow will be open and televised. In case you are wondering how the GOP are feeling about this...
Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
Wow, that's a whole other level of deplorable right there.Thought I'd bump this since Cohen started testimony today. Tomorrow will be open and televised. In case you are wondering how the GOP are feeling about this...
Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
So what if there are some illegal revelations? Unless there is a bigly enough number of Repubs willing to even do anything about it, Pelosi likely won't go through the show of a dead end impeachment process. She's said as much. No one believes a sitting president can be indicted, so then what happens? probably nothing.
While the overall opinion probably falls more towards not being able to indict the president, lots of very accomplished and knowledgeable lawyers disagree.
After all, if you can’t arrest and indict the president what stops him from killing Congress? Really. If legally he can’t be arrested while he’s the president, the only way to remove him from the presidency is through Congress impeaching him and he can’t be arrested for killing Congress to prevent them from impeaching him...what?
Yes it’s an absurd result but it’s also the undeniable consequences of that line of legal thinking. Whenever a line of thinking reaches that sort of absurd conclusion it should be examined very closely. I for one think no one is above the law.
Wow, that's a whole other level of deplorable right there.
There's got to be some recourse for Pelosi here, right? If not outright censure, then at least removing Gaetz from the hearing tomorrow?
Saw a twitter reply to his tweet here: Hahahaha!Wow, that's a whole other level of deplorable right there.
There's got to be some recourse for Pelosi here, right? If not outright censure, then at least removing Gaetz from the hearing tomorrow?
Ridiculous conjecture. The problem with you reasoning is that even if a President were charged, convicted & imprisoned they'd still be President unless removed from office via impeachment or the 25th amendment.
Ridiculous conjecture. The problem with you reasoning is that even if a President were charged, convicted & imprisoned they'd still be President unless removed from office via impeachment or the 25th amendment.
That’s not a problem with my reasoning at all. Why would it be?
If you can offer a concrete, specific example as to how my reasoning is wrong I would love to hear it.
Would still be POTUS. Would not be able to continue to commit more crimes. An incarcerated president would be effectively incapacitated leaving the VP to stand in. If you look at his reasoning there is nothing faulty. He's correct - if we cannot incarcerate a POTUS then the POTUS can continue to commit crimes up to and including killing, or more plausibly, bribing/threatening Congress to prevent impeachment.
Beyond what I offered earlier, there's no point to indictment w/o prosecution. Should the DoJ attempt to prosecute any President, he can fire them instead, thus invoking a Constitutional crisis that only Congress can address via impeachment. The answer to all of it is that any President must be removed from office prior to criminal proceedings against them. I'm confident the framers of the Constitution made it so by intention.
The Constitution & the law define the ways that power transfers to the Vice Prez & that's not one of them. The authority of the office stays with the person in office so long as they hold it.
The Constitution & the law define the ways that power transfers to the Vice Prez & that's not one of them. The authority of the office stays with the person in office so long as they hold it.
So now the RNC is taunting it’s own former deputy finance chair? Lol.
Looks like little Matt isn't the only one taking a swing at Cohen.
RNC Taunts Michael Cohen in New Video: ‘Have Fun in Prison!’
https://www.mediaite.com/online/rnc...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
I will note that has held manifestly untrue for state governors charged with state crimes and that you haven’t provided a single legal argument as to why I’m wrong.
Similarly, what documents relating to the creation of the constitution make you think the founders intended to create a chief executive immune from law enforcement while in office? I suspect I can find a great deal that says exactly the opposite.