• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Michael Cohen will testify to House Oversight Feb 7 about his work for Trump

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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...

D0XIkEUVYAAfy8h.jpg


Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
 
MomentsofSanity said:
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
Click to expand...

It's pretty interesting to see just how quickly Republicans have internalized the organized crime mentality. We are in fact seeing a member of Congress publicly threatening to blackmail a witness before Congress unless he shuts up about criminal activity by the president.
 
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.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
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...

D0XIkEUVYAAfy8h.jpg


Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
Click to expand...
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?
 
nOOky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
UNCjigga said:
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?
Click to expand...

It won't happen, and that would cause Republicans to say that Pelosi was being partisan. But it ought to happen

More important to me than the blackmail threat is the purpose for it. Trying to cover up criminal activity by a President is basically becoming a co-conspirator. Of course there are a lot of those in Congress already...
 
UNCjigga said:
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?
Click to expand...
Saw a twitter reply to his tweet here: Hahahaha!
https://twitter.com/x/status/1100518964864663552



18 U.S.C. § 1512 (d)
Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from
— (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; or attempts to do so, shall be fined... or imprisoned not more
than 3 years, or both.
 
Last edited:
Jhhnn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jhhnn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
woolfe9998 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jhhnn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jhhnn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. While improsoned the president could not perform the duties of his office. (25th amendment) More importantly, he could not prevent any other constitutional officers from removing him.
 
Jhhnn said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says, "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office." Given the restrictions on outside communications from prison, I think that qualifies. Since it's never happened before, we might need a court ruling on it but that is how I think it would come out.
 
fskimospy said:
So now the RNC is taunting it’s own former deputy finance chair? Lol.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Trump himself is responsible for Cohen turning on him. After those tapes were released Trump went off on Cohen over twitter. It was after that Cohen decided to cooperate with Mueller. If Cohen is a threat to Trump and that is why they are saying this idiotic crap, then it was a self-inflicted wound anyway. A consequence of the fact that Trump can't control himself.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, go ahead. Indict Trump. It won't change anything. He'll stay right where he is & do what he does until he dies, resigns, his term expires or until he's removed from office by the Cabinet or Congress. The power of the office cannot be transferred via any other mechanisms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top