Impeach the MotherF%@KER!

[BIGUN 1,298]

15 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Judge Victor Marrero sharply rejected longstanding Department of Justice opinions that say a president cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office

There is no debate over whether a former president can be indicted for conduct that occurred while in office. In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

The issue then becomes; "if" Trump were to win re-election AND had committed federal crimes during his first term . . . The federal statute of limitations for such crimes would run out prior to his completion of the second term.

[yoink 321]

15 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Mark,

“If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey,” the president tweeted."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/07/syria-congress-challenge-trump-038149

Let's see what the one with 'great and unmatched wisdom' does now that his party is not with him.

Jerry Baumchen

To quote Stephen Colbert "He's gone full God-Emperor".

And I see that we're considering pulling out of the OpenSkies Treaty too. You've got to start wondering if Putin isn't saying 'remember the promises you made me, comrade. It would be... unfortunate if you were to be removed from office without completing them."

What an absolute nutter. 

[jakee 1,489]

51 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

There is no debate over whether a former president can be indicted for conduct that occurred while in office. In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. 

There clearly is a debate. 

 

The justice department does not make the law, and the decisions of the justice department do not set a legal precedent. While theirs is an informed opinion, it doesn’t actually matter what they say if a judge says different.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

There clearly is a debate. 

 

The justice department does not make the law, and the decisions of the justice department do not set a legal precedent. While theirs is an informed opinion, it doesn’t actually matter what they say if a judge says different.

Except that their opinion is binding on the executive branch, which means they cannot indict even if they wanted to. It effectively is law.

 

Without that Mueller could very well have investigated and indicted for Obstruction of Justice.

Edited October 8, 2019 by SkyDekker
Add

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Except that their opinion is binding on the executive branch, which means they cannot indict even if they wanted to. It effectively is law.

Right, but (as could become the case here) the President could be indicted at State level, try the defence that he is immune, and see that defence rejected by the courts. The Justice department would then need to reconsider their position.

 

Aside from that, I liked that the judge commented on Trump’s use of personal attorneys to argue Executive privileges. One of the most insidious parts of the whole shoddy affair is the normalisation of sending personal cronies to do State business. It’s bonkers that Trump thinks it supports him that Zelensky mentioned Giuliani first in that phone call. Giuliani is a personal employee of Trump the private citizen. He doesn’t work for the government. He is not White House staff. He has no accountability or responsibility to the US taxpayer, and no ethical oversight from any branch of government. His only responsibility is to advance the personal interests of DJT. So what the fuck is he doing out there?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

16 minutes ago, jakee said:

Right, but (as could become the case here) the President could be indicted at State level, try the defence that he is immune, and see that defence rejected by the courts. The Justice department would then need to reconsider their position.

 

Aside from that, I liked that the judge commented on Trump’s use of personal attorneys to argue Executive privileges. One of the most insidious parts of the whole shoddy affair is the normalisation of sending personal cronies to do State business. It’s bonkers that Trump thinks it supports him that Zelensky mentioned Giuliani first in that phone call. Giuliani is a personal employee of Trump the private citizen. He doesn’t work for the government. He is not White House staff. He has no accountability or responsibility to the US taxpayer, and no ethical oversight from any branch of government. His only responsibility is to advance the personal interests of DJT. So what the fuck is he doing out there?

I agree with you completely.

Though, should note that I have little faith in the Supreme Court upholding such a judgement.

As I have said before, only a state can really hold him accountable at a criminal level. At the federal level he is currently above the law and can ensure he is never prosecuted.

Edited October 8, 2019 by SkyDekker

[billvon 2,990]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

There is no debate over whether a former president can be indicted for conduct that occurred while in office.

Clearly there is, since Judge Victor Marrero sharply rejected longstanding Department of Justice opinions that say a president cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office.

[JerryBaumchen 1,356]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

Clearly there is

Hi Bill,

Everything so far is an opinion.  Of the DOJ, others, etc.  The courts will decide just what is.  And that is the way it should be IMO.

I can see this one going all the way to SCOTUS.

Nixon thought that the tapes were his, SCOTUS thought otherwise.  And, that was the end of him.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Alexis de Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America, said that eventually everything in this country would be decided in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

Edited October 8, 2019 by JerryBaumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

 ...Giuliani is a personal employee of Trump the private citizen. He doesn’t work for the government. He is not White House staff. He has no accountability or responsibility to the US taxpayer, and no ethical oversight from any branch of government. His only responsibility is to advance the personal interests of DJT. So what the fuck is he doing out there?

Upholding his responsibility. 

He's advancing the personal interests of Trump. 

 

One of those personal interests is getting re-elected. So Trump sent Giuliani over there to dig up dirt on Biden. 
That's why the impeachment inquiries began.

Captain Obvious, at your service. :p

Edited October 8, 2019 by wolfriverjoe

[yoink 321]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

It’s bonkers that Trump thinks it supports him that Zelensky mentioned Giuliani first in that phone call. Giuliani is a personal employee of Trump the private citizen. He doesn’t work for the government. He is not White House staff. He has no accountability or responsibility to the US taxpayer, and no ethical oversight from any branch of government. His only responsibility is to advance the personal interests of DJT. So what the fuck is he doing out there?

I didn't even consider this. 

 

Giuliani is mentioned so frequently in relation to Trump that I think my brain had come to the assumption that he was a federal employee. Great point!

[billvon 2,990]

5 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Nixon thought that the tapes were his, SCOTUS thought otherwise.  And, that was the end of him.

Keep in mind that those were different times.  The Trump DOJ has stated outright that, if Nixon was president today, they would have tried to protect him.  Back then the DOJ was more about justice.  And several Republicans have admitted that the two cases are very similar - but today right wing media is making a difference in protecting criminal presidents.  A FOX News pundit to Sean Hannity: "You are the difference between Donald J. Trump and Richard Nixon.”

[BIGUN 1,298]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

Judge Victor Marrero sharply rejected longstanding Department of Justice opinions that say a president cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office.

Quote

 

There are ... incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it. Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office ...

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, § 1563 (1833)

https://www.lawfareblog.com/indicting-and-prosecuting-sitting-president

 

Personally, I think the Dems will waste the next couple of years chasing a determination; rather than putting up someone who can win.  

[jakee 1,489]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Personally, I think the Dems will waste the next couple of years chasing a determination; rather than putting up someone who can win.  

It's not an either/or situation.

[yoink 321]

27 minutes ago, jakee said:

It's not an either/or situation.

It shouldn't be, but I think he might be right.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

5 minutes ago, yoink said:

It shouldn't be, but I think he might be right.

I'm convinced he's right; I've been beating that drum all along. But who? Michael Bloomberg? Sherrod Brown?

[jakee 1,489]

4 minutes ago, yoink said:

It shouldn't be, but I think he might be right.

In what way? What does a potential impeachment of Trump (one which is incredibly unlikely to remove him from office) have to do with the Democratic primary process?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

4 minutes ago, jakee said:

In what way? What does a potential impeachment of Trump (one which is incredibly unlikely to remove him from office) have to do with the Democratic primary process?

Winning. Right now we have Trumps potential impeachment to make us feel smart and the current field of Democratic Presidential hopefuls to make us feel stupid. Rather than either we should have focused on finding, and rallying around, a centrist candidate who could beat Trump. 

[yoink 321]

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

In what way? What does a potential impeachment of Trump (one which is incredibly unlikely to remove him from office) have to do with the Democratic primary process?

I've been saying since year one that the Democrats are focusing on the wrong things and are assuming too much.

Their entire focus since 2016 has been on bitching about Trump rather than really pushing any new candidates or any new manifesto. They've  been assuming that Trump will self destruct and have been putting all their energy into making that happen, and confident they'll sail through with whatever candidate wins the primaries, which is exactly how Clinton lost last time.

When Trump's approval rating was in the gutter (I think it hit 35% at one point?) the Dems should have been shotgunning the media with 'we understand why you voted for Trump and we've listened. Here's how we're changing to represent you, reluctant Trump voters' message. Building an understandable and relatable platform as a party, rather than waiting for the primaries and all the inevitable carnage it would bring.

Now the primaries are here their internal efforts are split, and as Bigun says, will probably keep focusing on removing Trump rather than getting themselves elected. To me that makes a Trump victory more likely, not less. That's how the two are related.

 

I've not seen ANY coherent message come out of the Dems in the last three years other than 'Trump is bad, mmkay?' Instead of getting reluctant trump voters invested in the Democratic primary candidates by promoting them and their ideas, they've been doing exactly what they've done for the last 40 years and Trump showed us that in order to win right now, you need to change the game.

 

[jakee 1,489]

20 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Winning. Right now we have Trumps potential impeachment to make us feel smart and the current field of Democratic Presidential hopefuls to make us feel stupid. Rather than either we should have focused on finding, and rallying around, a centrist candidate who could beat Trump. 

Who should have? Who is actually in a position to do that?

 

Sorry dude, but framing an american poilitcal party as a single unified organism with a single unified focus is a pretty dire misrepresentation of how american politics works.

[jakee 1,489]

24 minutes ago, yoink said:

Their entire focus since 2016 has been on bitching about Trump rather than really pushing any new candidates or any new manifesto. They've  been assuming that Trump will self destruct and have been putting all their energy into making that happen, and confident they'll sail through with whatever candidate wins the primaries, which is exactly how Clinton lost last time.

That's simply not true though. It's not supported by any objective assessment of the last election. Clinton brought an exceptionally detailed manifesto to the table. She lost because was the victim of the most sustained and focussed character assassination any of us have ever seen, and came up against a candidate no-one expected with a message no-one (not even his own side) took seriously until too late.

 

Quote

I've not seen ANY coherent message come out of the Dems in the last three years other than 'Trump is bad, mmkay?' Instead of getting reluctant trump voters invested in the Democratic primary candidates by promoting them and their ideas, they've been doing exactly what they've done for the last 40 years and Trump showed us that in order to win right now, you need to change the game.

You put far too much stock into the assumption that the last thing that happened is guaranteed to happen again. Trump won the last election with madness, it doesn't mean madness will win every future election - just as Obama winning two elections with reason didn't mean reason prevailed last time.

 

Even so, what if Trump did change the game and that's how you've got to play it? Well then, Trump's victory showed that constant attack is the best form of attack, and he won in the midst of a virtual civil war with almost every well known leader of his party. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

Clinton brought an exceptionally detailed manifesto to the table. She lost because was the victim of the most sustained and focussed character assassination any of us have ever seen, and came up against a candidate no-one expected with a message no-one (not even his own side) took seriously until too late.

Isn't it incredible how quickly people forget. Clinton had a full platform. Trump's platform was: I am rich and I hate migrants on the southern border.

Now people are saying that if only if the DNC has a clear platform they will win.....it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[DJL 235]

53 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Winning. Right now we have Trumps potential impeachment to make us feel smart and the current field of Democratic Presidential hopefuls to make us feel stupid. Rather than either we should have focused on finding, and rallying around, a centrist candidate who could beat Trump. 

Amen.  The joke is that if Trump doesn't get impeached the Democrats will actually have to get one of these people elected.  I don't have much faith in any of the candidates to win and that has little to do with whether I agree with them although I'm having trouble getting behind any of the three front runners.  The candidate needs to be able to win, that is the most important ability that a good Presidential candidate must have or else they will NEVER be a good President.

[yoink 321]

18 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Isn't it incredible how quickly people forget. Clinton had a full platform. Trump's platform was: I am rich and I hate migrants on the southern border.

Now people are saying that if only if the DNC has a clear platform they will win.....it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

The last election PROVED that you don't win on policies right now, you win on emotion, and remember - Trump is a master at this.

Instead of realizing that and targeting it over the last three years they've been developing policies, just as they did before. And they'll lose the same way. The average right-centrist voter isn't interested in hearing about the details of exactly how budget will be balanced, or the international trade agreements that will be made. They just want to know that they've been listened to and that the party as a whole isn't just going to move to be more and more left wing. 'I know you didn't want to vote for Trump and we heard you' should have been what the D party have been screaming.

That's the manifesto the Democrats should have been pushing - the emotional one, so that when it's time for policy presentations and debates you've already won that one.

Literally the entire foundation of the electoral system is burning around us. Fix that first. Get into power to stop the harm being done, even if it means compromising on some stances like universal health care or gun control. THEN promote renewables and immigration.

Edited October 9, 2019 by yoink

[JerryBaumchen 1,356]

47 minutes ago, yoink said:

Get into power to stop the harm being done, even if it means compromising on some stances like universal health care or gun control. 

Hi Will,

I agree with a lot of what is being said lately in this thread.

However, ( unless the D's nominate some total dufus ) it will come down to a referendum on Trump.  IMO ( and I have been wrong a lot in my life ) it will be between the D candidate vs Trump.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  One good thing about this whole impeachment stuff is that nobody, but nobody is talking about The Wall anymore.  I think that it is very possible that the whole impeachment effort may continue right thru the Nov elections.  Whether that hurts or helps Trump is what we will have to wait & see.

PPS)  I agree with that portion of your post as shown above.  Health care & gun control ( which I support both ) should not be the focus of the effort to dislodge Trump.

Edited October 9, 2019 by JerryBaumchen

[JoeWeber 2,720]

22 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Will,

I agree with a lot of what is being said lately in this thread.

However, ( unless the D's nominate some total dufus ) it will come down to a referendum on Trump.  IMO ( and I have been wrong a lot in my life ) it will be between the D candidate vs Trump.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  One good thing about this whole impeachment stuff is that nobody, but nobody is talking about The Wall anymore.  I think that it is very possible that the whole impeachment effort may continue right thru the Nov elections.  Whether that hurts or helps Trump is what we will have to wait & see.

PPS)  I agree with that portion of your post as shown above.  Health care & gun control ( which I support both ) should not be the focus of the effort to dislodge Trump.

I'm thinking it will come down to a referendum on the Left. So far, we suck. We knew on day one how he won and how he would win again if we played the same ball game. Well, we are playing the same game and losing again. We do not yet have Trump on the ropes, but that won't stop the Dem's from ripping at each other at the next debate. It's never too late to make the right decision even if you're sure you're going in. And it's still not too late for a truly electable D Candidate to enter the race. But instead it's Gramps, Gramps and the school Marm heading down the stretch. Not good.