- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...8e53a448a14_story.html?utm_term=.a19dbdc9efab
And yes he's a republican.
And yes he's a republican.
West Virginia justice indicted
- Thread starter Hayabusa Rider
- Start date
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,680
- 3,568
- 136
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 19,022
- 12,181
- 136
UNCjigga
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 24,988
- 9,303
- 136
When I hear "West Virginia justice" this is what comes to mind:
Darn it, now I've gone and insulted someone's feelings. In Kentucky.
Darn it, now I've gone and insulted someone's feelings. In Kentucky.
Ask Martha Stewart.
Stuff like this is why Trump's lawyers will never allow him to be interviewed by the FBI. Other than Rudy, maybe, but he's playing this as PR, not as a legal liability.
hal2kilo
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2009
- 24,521
- 11,154
- 136
Seems very familiar to the behavior of Pruitt. Sorry assed petty thieves. So much for government service.
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Slight correction. This is why Trump's lawyers will resist him being interviewed. At the end of the day all remains to be seen. The SCOTUS wasn't very forgiving to Nixon and the next step was to haul him in under subpoena, which almost certainly would have been approved as well. Cowering under a desk saying "It isn't illegal if a President does it" would not have saved him.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,344
- 126
As the saying goes "It's the coverup that gets you". This guy was being investigated and then started threatening witnesses once the heat was on. And on top of that was lying to authorities about it. Took something petty and turned it into something not so petty.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,080
- 136
Heres a web page you can actually read:
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...ted-on-22-charges/2231529514185/?spt=rrs&or=1
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...ted-on-22-charges/2231529514185/?spt=rrs&or=1
Oh, please. The Constitutional solution is impeachment. Congress, not the Judiciary, has that responsibility. The POTUS can't be hauled anywhere while in office.
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Oddly enough there are many legal scholars who are better versed than you that disagree. But you can always call them up and yell at them.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 19,022
- 12,181
- 136
When I hear "West Virginia justice" this is what comes to mind:
The look on the baby's face mirrors my feelings when looking at this image.
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Here's more than you and Rudy on this subject.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../09/can-robert-mueller-subpoena-donald-trump/
It looks like "can't" is completely erroneous. Mueller may try to subpoena and Trump MAY be able fight it off, or perhaps not.
You can call and complain here:
Offices
- District of Columbia
- 1100 Connecticut Ave. NW
- Suite 1300B
- Washington, DC 20036
- 202-463-0571
Here's more than you and Rudy on this subject.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../09/can-robert-mueller-subpoena-donald-trump/
It looks like "can't" is completely erroneous. Mueller may try to subpoena and Trump MAY be able fight it off, or perhaps not.
You can call and complain here:
Offices
- District of Columbia
- 1100 Connecticut Ave. NW
- Suite 1300B
- Washington, DC 20036
- 202-463-0571
You're being deliberately obtuse. Let's say Trump defies a subpoena. Then what? Federal marshals obviously won't haul him before the court, will they? Nope. At that point Congress has to follow the Constitution & determine if that act alone is grounds for impeachment. If they don't, then he gets away with it at least until he's out of office. It's just that simple.
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
If the SCOTUS makes a decision that Trump will appear then US Marshals will obviously do what the COURTS tell them. You set Trump up as a God-King and he's not. The Secret Service is not there to defy the courts, but to protect Trump. They can accompany them where ever he is required to go. Congress can do what they want but since you say that Trump will defy courts then Congress has no say either. Trump will not leave and you have your dictator, the God-King for life. Woe is us!
Don't be a dumbass. The US Marshals are part of the DoJ. The President commands them, not the courts. Attempting to arrest the President (that's what happens when people defy a court order) would be to show contempt for the chain of command. They wouldn't even try. It's structural, baked in by the Constitution. Fortunately, the Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach & remove a president for high crimes & misdemeanors. Defiance of a court issued subpoena is irrefutable proof of just that. Should Congress fail to act then that's the way it is until the people elect a Congress who see it differently.
As you say, no man is above the law but the law is different when it comes to the President. He has to be impeached or run out of time in office to be just like the rest of us. It's right there in the Constitution. Don't blame me- I didn't write it.
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-serving-as-president/?utm_term=.808627ee949e
Now what if Trump says he the impeachment is FAKE SAD NO COLLUSION meaning illegitimate and refuses to accept it?
In any case what you are talking about is compliance. Trump can refuse to honor but that does not mean he can't be subpoened. BTW, this would probably serve as material for impeachment all on its own.
It won't work for him because he would no longer be President if removed from office by Congress. Pence would toss him out on his ass if for no reason greater than personal ambition. He hasn't established the kind of paramilitary/ security leader cult enjoyed by Mussolini that could prevent it. That's also structural, baked into the system.
Which is what I said. You're just chasing your tail with the subpoena routine. What it comes down to, and I suspect Mueller would agree, is that only Congress can hold the President to account. To subpoena Trump would only complicate that, unnecessarily involve the Judiciary. It's a dead end. They can't force compliance, either. They'll just point to impeachment.
So Mueller will push forward, indicting lesser players, putting their nuts in a vise, until he runs out of exploitable leads or uncovers very compelling proof of criminal activity by the President. Then he'll issue his report which will ultimately end up in the hands of Congress. They have to choose what to do from there.
This goes way beyond Trump in terms of national security. From the Russian perspective, there's an exploitable flaw in our national headset where they can help us fuck ourselves. Why the Hell else would they do it?
Americans need to take a long hard look at what they believe that makes them susceptible. Maybe we need to look at what decades of corrosive right wing propaganda have done to us. Let's face it- too many conservatives have really shitty attitudes about their fellow Americans. Trump feeds off it.
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
We agree on this. I think that Mueller doesn't need to talk to Trump at all. I do think that if Mueller finds proof of a crime that the DOJ examine it's policy and if they find that filing charges is acceptable (no I don't want a fight, the consensus is currently "no" but it is not set in stone), then it perhaps it would be wise to do so AND issue a report. Why? Because there eventually things may come down to the SCOTUS and self pardons. It might (and yes this is hypothetical) add weight if it comes down to it. Will it be held as valid? Who knows but there is no legal restriction in making the attempt, just policy subject to change.
I'm thinking that Trump needs to be hit with the kitchen sink and if processes can run concurrently (legal action and impeachment) then so be it.
If impeachment is launched I expect that every single person remotely involved may be pardoned, just like Ford did with Nixon. By lodging criminal charges it MIGHT be seen as criminal obstruction by an accused felon and PERHAPS these be disallowed. Strange as it may seem I could see Gorsuch going for that based on the Founders and Natural Law.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,080
- 136
395 years are on the table.
But because he's a white hetero male they'll give him 2.
And because he's a judge, the two will be suspended.
But because he's a white hetero male they'll give him 2.
And because he's a judge, the two will be suspended.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 17K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter