lol noQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Printable View
lol noQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Not really
3 false or misleading statements in the first 3 sentences.
Oh, its Solomon, one of Hannity's groupies.
Shared by Lewk, the resident dumbass.
More par for the course than interesting.
It's 2019 and we're arguing like middle schoolers over whether a summary counts for the full assignment.
Twitter Link
The president of the law and order party is effectively above the law.
Mueller's ass must look like a gridiron.
"Our investigation concluded that the president didn't not commit a crime. But was the crime he didn't not commit a crime crime, or just crime? And really, what even is crime? DOJ policy forbids me to opine. Get all applications in to me before the deadline, cos it's a fine line between strifeful crimes and a life of crime. But you will reach the day, and it's all mine..."
Is that an actual quote?
An accurate summary.
Finding it difficult to blame Mueller. He has to adhere to what he believes is dept. policy and the law. The failure lies with congress. It's remarkable that the only Republican legislator (afaict) who's publicly and forcefully called out Trump and Barr over this is a TPer.
I might be wrong here, but AFAIK the DOJ policy about how they can't indite a sitting president is just that: a policy. There's no, like legal precedent, constitutional interpretation or case law behind it, it's just something the DOJ has decided they can't do - again, as far as I know.
That not withstanding, he could seriously do with a) dropping the Yoda speak and b) Agree to testify before congress.
There's nothing to stop them from inditing a sitting President, but the President still has the power to issue pardons, so if they charged him with something he could pardon himself and they'd never be able to charge him for the same crime again. The only limit to that power is through impeachment. There are other hijinks that can happen since the President is in charge of legal enforcement, and the DoJ is under him in the executive branch, not the judicial. If you want to charge the President with a crime and don't want to wait for his term to expire, it needs to be done through Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It's not clear if the president could pardon himself. The Supreme Court would have to decide in the end.
Given the Attorney General and DoJ work for the President, who would have judicial standing to go against him in that case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I know that's an argument that's been had, but I haven't heard any reasoning I buy. I also never heard anyone argue that the President lacks that power before Trump. It just looks like wishful thinking to me. The text from the constitution:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Since one limitation was explicitly mentioned ("except in cases of impeachment"), and that limitation makes it clear they thought about the case of a President pardoning himself, it's hard to argue that there's an extra secret limitation that's both broader and adjacent to the non-secret one. The President cannot pardon himself if he's impeached, but barring some involvement of impeachment, his power to pardon is pretty unlimited.Quote:
Originally Posted by US Constitution
It's never really come up before. We've never seen a president who was just prepared to sort of brazen it out if he got caught doing a crime. Even Nixon was, like, "yup, busted!" and resigned before he could be impeached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
That's not true. Nixon was prepared to brazen it out for years even after he was busted. It was only when the Republicans in Congress made it clear he would be impeached if he didn't resign that he finally did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
This also came up in debates about Clinton (Bill).
Still believing in the Russian collusion hoax?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I asked about that earlier but no one gave an explanation. Barr did write that 'memo' outlining why the DoJ can't indict a sitting president (something about being in charge of law enforcement, not wanting to impede his duties of office, plus broad Executive powers). Probably why Trump wanted him as AG. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Since AG Barr would never agree to criminal indictments, the 'policy' perpetuates itself. Mueller seems to be a process & procedure lawyer, following 'guidelines' and rules as mandates. Presidential indictments were never on the table because that's 'policy'.
What's even crazier about this is how Barr misled the public about the report's findings....and even made it sound like Mueller could have gone outside DoJ guidelines if he wanted to. So many contradictions and confusions, what a mess. :(
You could use the same argument at the state level (for governors), and sitting governors have been charged with state-level crimes (including the governor of Missouri just last year). The concept of pardon was never intended to be used on the person issuing it. Precedent would certainly not be on the president's side.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Wraith, the case of impeachment mentioned in that clause refers to impeachment of other officials.
I accounted for both interpretations, and state != federal. States have their own rules and laws, and the powers they give to their governors have no bearing on the powers the President has.
Come on, it's understandable for the non-Americans, but I thought it was common knowledge here that if you want to try a sitting President for a crime, you have to get Congress to do it. It was an explicit power given to them. Do you really want to defend an interpretation that allows any prosecuting attorney with a grudge, a law-enforcement buddy, and a messiah complex to go and arrest the President whenever he's in their jursidiction? Because there's some extra secret invisible words in the Constitution? That's silly.
TDS in action. Some people will always believe the ends justifies the means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Still getting your news from Fox? :picard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The 2nd part of Muller's report was about Obstruction of Justice: attempts to create false evidence, limit the investigation, witness tampering and intimidation. "But for the OLC memo..." Trump would be charged, prosecuted, and likely convicted.
I'm not sure if/how that memo applies to state prosecutions for crimes like bank fraud, insurance fraud, or money laundering. But if Trump puts his thumb on the scale and tries to use his position to make those investigations go away, that's not just Obstruction of Justice but Abuse of Power. :donkey:
Can pardons be granted before any (criminal) indictment is made?
If POTUS can't be indicted while in office, the whole "self-pardoning" thing is moot. The more likely scenario is that a president could be charged for crimes after leaving office, but could be pardoned by their successor.
I'm not clear about granting broad immunity from future charges, but isn't that what Ford did for Nixon? :noob:
The constitution implies that you don't need charges, but I don't think you can apply double jeopardy rules unless charges have been brought. Without charges brought the pardon isQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
effectively pointless, or at leastvulnerable to challenge.
I don't know how well tested this one is in court. I don't think Nixon was charged before he was pardoned, but I don't think anybody ever challenged it either.
I don't think there's anything explicitly prohibiting indictment, it's just that indictments are toothless and counter-productive while he's President.Quote:
If POTUS can't be indicted while in office, the whole "self-pardoning" thing is moot. The more likely scenario is that a president could be charged for crimes after leaving office, but could be pardoned by their successor.
I doubt Trump's successor is going to be keen on pardoning him. Though maybe they'll still be worried about what they'll be charged with when they leave office, and hope the other party reciprocates later.
I believe the Supreme Court ruled that Presidential pardons can't be applied to crimes that haven't happened yet. Keeps a President from saying "I pardon myself from everything in perpetuity" on his way out the door. Though it'd be fun to see Jimmy Carter with a license to kill.Quote:
I'm not clear about granting broad immunity from future charges, but isn't that what Ford did for Nixon? :noob:
He's referring to obstruction of justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Ah yes the "obstruction" of covering up a crime that never happened. You need some ocean front property in Arizona?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Are you an idiot or is there some other reason why you don't understand what obstruction of justice is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Obstruction is independent of the crime being investigated. Interfering with an investigation is a crime no matter what the investigation would have found otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And you can't invoke 5th Amendment Rights (against self-incrimination) unless charges are brought first. I think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
And in charge of the executive branch, which includes the DoJ. So that OLC 'memo' continues as internal policy and 'Rule of Law', until it's challenged. But 'policy' prohibits any challenge...do I have the clusterfuck right? :rolleyes:Quote:
I don't think there's anything explicitly prohibiting indictment, it's just that indictments are toothless and counter-productive while he's President.
VP Pence would. Assuming he'd be Trump's successor when impeachment/removal from office or resignation would take effect, after a re-elected second term. Quite a stretch, but never say never. :sour:Quote:
I doubt Trump's successor is going to be keen on pardoning him. Though maybe they'll still be worried about what they'll be charged with when they leave office, and hope the other party reciprocates later.
Just learned this, and it seemed relevant enough to share:
Quote:
After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggests that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.
The double jeopardy clause says nobody can "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", so you need to be put in jeopardy once before it activates. I believe you can take the self-incrimination clause of the fifth any time you'd otherwise provide evidence that could be used against you.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Sounds about right to me.Quote:
And in charge of the executive branch, which includes the DoJ. So that OLC 'memo' continues as internal policy and 'Rule of Law', until it's challenged. But 'policy' prohibits any challenge...do I have the clusterfuck right? :rolleyes:
Yeah, you're right about Pence. I was only thinking about the cases where that doesn't happen. I think that's more likely - this congress doesn't seem likely to impeach & convict, and if Trump gets re-elected, I think I'll just be done with this country so it won't matter.Quote:
VP Pence would. Assuming he'd be Trump's successor when impeachment/removal from office or resignation would take effect, after a re-elected second term. Quite a stretch, but never say never. :sour:
Interesting. But Nixon still has a presidential library, and guys like Roger Stone have 'memorialized' Nixon with tattoes on their back.
Better yet is how Oliver North turned his crimes into pardons, got his own show on Fox, made movies and wrote books, then became president of the NRA.
Yeah, we really do have two Americas, and certain people really ARE above the law. Imputation and acceptance of guilt? What a joke :down:
We can't all move to Canada!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
If Trump can't be impeached it's because Senate Republicans have sold out to power and greed. And if Trump gets re-elected it's because we've sold our souls to the sell-outs. We get the government we deserve, so shame on us if we sign up for four more years of this crap. :sad:
This might be the most I've ever agreed with you. I'll treasure this memory always.
(Wraith, I meant that if someone gets a pardon, they lose the right to invoke the 5th Amendment because the double jeopardy rule no longer applies.)
Hey, nothing beats a bunch of lay people bantering about legal stuff, right? On our worst days we still sound smarter than Trump and his sycophant psychos :D
The pardoning powers of most governors are based on that of the president. If state officials can charge a sitting governor despite technically working for them, I don't see why the same can't happen at the federal level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Your argument equally applies to governors. And yet we allow it and it's a power that hasn't been abused. We don't put someone above the law just because to do otherwise would inconvenience them.
It certainly is not common knowledge (think about why Nixon didn't pardon himself after deciding he was going to resign). I've talked to people who teach constitutional law for a living and the consensus is that there's no consensus. It really can go either way depending on how you interpret the text as well as precedent.
Incidentally, the reason we allow impeachment separate from criminal indictment is because impeachment does not require a crime to have been committed (e.g., it could be used for gross incompetence or unwillingness to obey the Constitution). It's a separate mechanism for a separate problem.
I suspect this will be a total waste of time but, let me ask you this: have you read what the Mueller report has to say about this yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I've read the summary that was written by the top lawyer in the country. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint