SDNY fingers Trump and his campaign.

[fskimospy]

Yeah, It's hard to explain how Trump himself is shielded from legal recourse if his stooge is going to jail for what he was told to do.. However the DOJ appears to be of the current opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. I keep seeing "Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator." So the hitch is they just aren't going after him while president. It probably will have to happen when he leaves office. Even if he does time it won't be in a PMITA prison. If anything, as it stands now, a deal will be made in exchange for his resignation. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree with people who are saying that prosecutors should indict Trump anyway and let the courts make that decision. After all the DOJ works for the president and frankly opinions like that are probably crafted with the president's best interests in mind. There is zero actual judicial precedent that states that the president can't be indicted.

 

[hal2kilo]

This is 100% irrelevant. Trump used his own money but because the purpose of the payment was to influence the election he made a secret, undeclared, illegal contribution to it. This is a felony. Oops indeed, haha. The evidence he committed at least one felony is overwhelming and there’s no escaping it.

At this point the only question about this is how we move forward with the prosecution. It’s already in writing that federal prosecutors have concluded he committed a felony.

Yea, but Bill lied.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah, It's hard to explain how Trump himself is shielded from legal recourse if his stooge is going to jail for what he was told to do.. However the DOJ appears to be of the current opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. I keep seeing "Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator." So the hitch is they just aren't going after him while president. It probably will have to happen when he leaves office. Even if he does time it won't be in a PMITA prison. If anything, as it stands now, a deal will be made in exchange for his resignation. I hope I'm wrong.

Which brings us back to: if you run for President, you pull out all the stops, break every law, do whatever you must to win, because if you win you are immune from consequences, but if you lose you might be fucked. This describes the death of democracy.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I agree with people who are saying that prosecutors should indict Trump anyway and let the courts make that decision.

At the very minimum it would seem that the President would not be immune to prosecution by a state. That would seem to contradict separate sovereignty.

 

[fskimospy]

At the very minimum it would seem that the President would not be immune to prosecution by a state. That would seem to contradict separate sovereignty.

Frankly the idea that the president is immune from prosecution on any level becomes increasingly insane the more I think about it. It basically means that you can commit as many felonies as you want in order to win an election so long as your political party controls at least 34 seats in Congress (which basically one of the two parties always will).

By this logic Trump could literally go on a murder spree and would be able to continue killing US citizens with his bare hands until the House drafted, debated, and passed articles of impeachment and the Senate convicted him. That is an insane result. The only logical train that is not insane is that the president is not immune from the law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Frankly the idea that the president is immune from prosecution on any level becomes increasingly insane the more I think about it. It basically means that you can commit as many felonies as you want in order to win an election so long as your political party controls at least 34 seats in Congress (which basically one of the two parties always will).

By this logic Trump could literally go on a murder spree and would be able to continue killing US citizens with his bare hands until the House drafted, debated, and passed articles of impeachment and the Senate convicted him. That is an insane result. The only logical train that is not insane is that the president is not immune from the law.

There's no way to know but closing off an entire floor for a hearing?

The timing and extraordinary secrecy is suspicious.

I wonder if we're talking criminal actions by Trump being examined by the grand jury for indictment? Obviously speculation but something very big is up if the stairwells are being searched for reporters.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, It's hard to explain how Trump himself is shielded from legal recourse if his stooge is going to jail for what he was told to do.. However the DOJ appears to be of the current opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. I keep seeing "Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator." So the hitch is they just aren't going after him while president. It probably will have to happen when he leaves office. Even if he does time it won't be in a PMITA prison. If anything, as it stands now, a deal will be made in exchange for his resignation. I hope I'm wrong.

The whole thing is structural, built in to the Constitution. Any President must first answer to Congress & then to the Judiciary. It's actually a constraint on Judicial power. If it weren't that way then judges could order the President jailed at any time & he'd still be President. That won't work.

My fellow Americans need to acknowledge that they kinda lost it when they made Trump president. Huge mistake. Yeh, sure- we have our differences but Trump just makes it worse. We all need to do better by each other.

 

[Jhhnn]

Frankly the idea that the president is immune from prosecution on any level becomes increasingly insane the more I think about it. It basically means that you can commit as many felonies as you want in order to win an election so long as your political party controls at least 34 seats in Congress (which basically one of the two parties always will).

By this logic Trump could literally go on a murder spree and would be able to continue killing US citizens with his bare hands until the House drafted, debated, and passed articles of impeachment and the Senate convicted him. That is an insane result. The only logical train that is not insane is that the president is not immune from the law.

I have no doubt that the Secret Service would restrain the Prez from strangling anybody. I also have no doubt that the Cabinet would invoke the 25th amendment if anything like that happened.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no doubt that the Secret Service would restrain the Prez from strangling anybody. I also have no doubt that the Cabinet would invoke the 25th amendment if anything like that happened.

So to be clear you are saying that our system of law has decided that the President should be immune from all laws because the defense against a murderous president exists, based on the Secret Service illegally restraining him while a majority of people personally appointed and politically indebted to the president revolt against him?

Hmmm. That sure doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's no way to know but closing off an entire floor for a hearing?

The timing and extraordinary secrecy is suspicious.

I wonder if we're talking criminal actions by Trump being examined by the grand jury for indictment? Obviously speculation but something very big is up if the stairwells are being searched for reporters.

Deep State Witch Hunt! A nefarious plot against the Great Leader & Redeemer! Or some such. Send hopes & prayers.

 

[Jhhnn]

So to be clear you are saying that our system of law has decided that the President should be immune from all laws because the defense against a murderous president exists, based on the Secret Service illegally restraining him while a majority of people personally appointed and politically indebted to the president revolt against him?

Hmmm. That sure doesn't sound right to me.

That's America. Deal with it.

 

[fskimospy]

That's America. Deal with it.

No, that version of America is entirely based off a DOJ opinion that has never been affirmed by any court.

Before saying the president can go on a homicidal spree without being subject to the law unless the secret service illegally detains him it seems only reasonable to have a court say that’s what the law demands.

 

[WelshBloke]

Were I the President's lawyers I'd probably be real worried about the raft of information the FBI seized from Cohen and Trump's clumsy attempts to distance himself that could threaten privilege.

You have to feel for his lawyers. He has to be the worst client to have. Theres no saying what he'll say in public next and he probably can't remember what he's told other people plus he doesn't really understand what the fuck is going on.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, that version of America is entirely based off a DOJ opinion that has never been affirmed by any court.

Before saying the president can go on a homicidal spree without being subject to the law unless the secret service illegally detains him it seems only reasonable to have a court say that’s what the law demands.

You're employing a logical fallacy in a fantasy scenario, reducing the situation to absurdity.

Let us refer to things as they are & to the real possibilities stemming from them. I figure that Individual 1 will be implicated in even greater malfeasance in the near future, rendering his tenure as Prez untenable even for a GOP controlled Senate. There's no love lost for Trump in that relationship. They just have to figure out how to sell it to their base.

You'll notice that there has been scant defense of Trump from that quarter. The retiring Orrin Hatch says he doesn't care & Rand Paul says it shouldn't be illegal & that's about it. Here's one expressing his concerns-

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-senator-says-hes-concerned-trump-was-involved-crime

I see Trump's demise as inevitable, the sooner the better.

 

[fskimospy]

You're employing a logical fallacy in a fantasy scenario, reducing the situation to absurdity.

Let us refer to things as they are & to the real possibilities stemming from them. I figure that Individual 1 will be implicated in even greater malfeasance in the near future, rendering his tenure as Prez untenable even for a GOP controlled Senate. There's no love lost for Trump in that relationship. They just have to figure out how to sell it to their base.

You'll notice that there has been scant defense of Trump from that quarter. The retiring Orrin Hatch says he doesn't care & Rand Paul says it shouldn't be illegal & that's about it. Here's one expressing his concerns-

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-senator-says-hes-concerned-trump-was-involved-crime

I see Trump's demise as inevitable, the sooner the better.

That's not what a logical fallacy is. I am not saying your statement is wrong because it would lead to an absurd outcome, I am simply noting something that is undeniably true - by your interpretation of the law the president may not lawfully be prevented from engaging in mass murder until he is removed from office. The secret service would be committing crimes themselves by detaining him and stopping his murder spree - it would be unlawful detention.

If you can indicate to me how any part of what I wrote is logically or factually incorrect I would love to hear it.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's not what a logical fallacy is. I am not saying your statement is wrong because it would lead to an absurd outcome, I am simply noting something that is undeniably true - by your interpretation of the law the president may not lawfully be prevented from engaging in mass murder until he is removed from office. The secret service would be committing crimes themselves by detaining him and stopping his murder spree - it would be unlawful detention.

If you can indicate to me how any part of what I wrote is logically or factually incorrect I would love to hear it.

Your whole scenario is absurd. The Founders evidently did not entertain the idea that a serial murderer would become President & neither will I.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your whole scenario is absurd. The Founders evidently did not entertain the idea that a serial murderer would become President & neither will I.

Well the Founders saw fit to not forbid the indictment of a President. You may not like it, but it has been argued that the Founders would approve of it and not by internet lawyers.

 

[fskimospy]

Your whole scenario is absurd. The Founders evidently did not entertain the idea that a serial murderer would become President & neither will I.

The founders also did not say that the president couldn't be indicted. There is no such provision in the Constitution. The scenario might be extreme but it's literally what you're arguing the president can do. Saying 'well the president wouldn't do that' is not an argument.

Your argument is that the president can commit any and all crimes he wishes to while in office and cannot be arrested or indicted for them. The only way his criminal activity can be brought under control is to rely on political partisans of his own party to decide to cast party interests aside or for his own appointees to turn against him. Simply put that is a terrifying immunity to the law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The founders also did not say that the president couldn't be indicted. There is no such provision in the Constitution. The scenario might be extreme but it's literally what you're arguing the president can do. Saying 'well the president wouldn't do that' is not an argument.

Your argument is that the president can commit any and all crimes he wishes to while in office and cannot be arrested or indicted for them. The only way his criminal activity can be brought under control is to rely on political partisans of his own party to decide to cast party interests aside or for his own appointees to turn against him. Simply put that is a terrifying immunity to the law.

Have a look here.

 

[kage69]

Have a look here.

Great link, kudos.

"It’s clear that in the case of the impeachment, the Founders wanted a Senate to act as a jury that was focused on the evidentiary truth, not partisan politics. But the 17th Amendment changed that.
Consequently, the best way to follow the Framers’ intent is to first indict Trump and allow the charges to be heard in the independent judiciary. If Trump is convicted of crimes, then impeachment can take place swiftly. But waiting for a GOP-controlled Congress to do the right thing is not only laughable, it undermines what the Framers had envisioned as a check on a corrupt and criminal president."

Seems pretty straight forward to me. If a certain group of treasonous cowards were to suddenly have a collective 'attack of consciousness' and find their sense of duty enhanced though, maybe do the right thing, I'm OK with that too. As long as the dementia riddled Russian asset goes, I'm happy. Pence may be a fundie nut, but he won't be around long and at least he can read. Keeping my fingers crossed he goes too though. I think a President Pelosi would be a fantastic smack in the face to those that enabled this fiasco of an admin. Someone of her experience being in charge might go a long way in correcting some of the last 2 years.

 

[Jhhnn]

The founders also did not say that the president couldn't be indicted. There is no such provision in the Constitution. The scenario might be extreme but it's literally what you're arguing the president can do. Saying 'well the president wouldn't do that' is not an argument.

Your argument is that the president can commit any and all crimes he wishes to while in office and cannot be arrested or indicted for them. The only way his criminal activity can be brought under control is to rely on political partisans of his own party to decide to cast party interests aside or for his own appointees to turn against him. Simply put that is a terrifying immunity to the law.

That's not my argument. Let's play it the other way. Should the President be indicted & convicted there's nobody to imprison him because he's still the chief law enforcement officer. If Congress fails to remove him from office we'd then have a convicted felon as Prez. It also puts us in the realm of self pardon, something disallowed in cases of impeachment.

They're just going to keep it simple, make removal from office the first order of business, as it should be. When he's no longer the Prez then he's just like the rest of us & it can be dealt with from there.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not my argument. Let's play it the other way. Should the President be indicted & convicted there's nobody to imprison him because he's still the chief law enforcement officer. If Congress fails to remove him from office we'd then have a convicted felon as Prez. It also puts us in the realm of self pardon, something disallowed in cases of impeachment.

They're just going to keep it simple, make removal from office the first order of business, as it should be. When he's no longer the Prez then he's just like the rest of us & it can be dealt with from there.

The mayor is the chief law enforcement officer for a city. Do you think for a second the city police wouldn’t arrest him if he went on a crime spree?

 

[SMOGZINN]

That's not my argument. Let's play it the other way. Should the President be indicted & convicted there's nobody to imprison him because he's still the chief law enforcement officer.

Perhaps it is time we consider moving the DOJ out of the executive branch and into the Judicial branch.

 

[Jhhnn]

Great link, kudos.

"It’s clear that in the case of the impeachment, the Founders wanted a Senate to act as a jury that was focused on the evidentiary truth, not partisan politics. But the 17th Amendment changed that.
Consequently, the best way to follow the Framers’ intent is to first indict Trump and allow the charges to be heard in the independent judiciary. If Trump is convicted of crimes, then impeachment can take place swiftly. But waiting for a GOP-controlled Congress to do the right thing is not only laughable, it undermines what the Framers had envisioned as a check on a corrupt and criminal president."

Seems pretty straight forward to me. If a certain group of treasonous cowards were to suddenly have a collective 'attack of consciousness' and find their sense of duty enhanced though, maybe do the right thing, I'm OK with that too. As long as the dementia riddled Russian asset goes, I'm happy. Pence may be a fundie nut, but he won't be around long and at least he can read. Keeping my fingers crossed he goes too though. I think a President Pelosi would be a fantastic smack in the face to those that enabled this fiasco of an admin. Someone of her experience being in charge might go a long way in correcting some of the last 2 years.

Except we won't have a GOP Congress come January 3. The notion that trial followed by impeachment would be a shorter path than impeachment alone doesn't make any sense, either. The evidence would have to be presented twice to remove Trump. Just do it once to get the job done.The wicked Nancy & her evil minions will undoubtedly send a writ of impeachment to McConnell & his minions in rather short order. There is a distinct lack of Trump support noises from over there, huh? Rally around the beleaguered President? Not exactly. Not nearly. Looks more like people running from a skunk.

 

[Jhhnn]

The mayor is the chief law enforcement officer for a city. Do you think for a second the city police wouldn’t arrest him if he went on a crime spree?

Why do you insist on dealing in abstractions? There is a real situation unfolding in front of us. Greater legal minds than our own have clearly chosen the path of impeachment, and I'm good with that. It's how we've proceeded in the past, as well.