• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Justice Department appoints special prosecutor for Trump/Russia

ddt said:
Fair enough. But impeachment is only part of the process; it's about the removal from office of a federal officer. If I understand correctly, that same person - be it Trump, or Pence, or anyone else in this executive - could afterwards also be indicted in a normal criminal court. If they couldn't, what was Ford's pardon of Nixon about?
Click to expand...

Of course. I was only addressing the fact that there need not be a prosecutable crime underlying charges of obstruction of justice or impeachment proceedings.
 
The little derail about building a wall has gone to AAH. It wasn't sufficiently focused to make a standalone thread but participants are free to post their thoughts on border walls in an appropriate thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
ddt said:
Fair enough. But impeachment is only part of the process; it's about the removal from office of a federal officer. If I understand correctly, that same person - be it Trump, or Pence, or anyone else in this executive - could afterwards also be indicted in a normal criminal court. If they couldn't, what was Ford's pardon of Nixon about?
Click to expand...

It depends on if what they did was a civil crime.You can be impeached and removed from office for offenses that are not punishable under statue law. If Trump was impeached and convicted for Abuse of Power, he would probably not be indictable. If he was impeached and removed for Obstruction of Justice, he would be.
 
And it just gets worse with every new development:

Trump: Firing 'nut job' FBI chief 'eased pressure'

US President Donald Trump told Russian officials that firing FBI director James Comey eased "great pressure" on him, US media report.
Citing a document summarising the meeting in the Oval Office last week, the New York Times said Mr Trump called Mr Comey a "real nut job".
Click to expand...

Yes he discussed the Comey firing with the Russians...:rolleyes:
 
dudalb said:
It depends on if what they did was a civil crime.You can be impeached and removed from office for offenses that are not punishable under statue law. If Trump was impeached and convicted for Abuse of Power, he would probably not be indictable. If he was impeached and removed for Obstruction of Justice, he would be.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Constitution doesn't spell out what constitutes a 'high crime'.
 
acbytesla said:
Yeah, the Constitution doesn't spell out what constitutes a 'high crime'.
Click to expand...

Which was entirely intentional, since the primary purpose of impeachment is to allow the people's representatives to oust a President whom they deem to be unacceptable, for whatever reason they choose.
 
Argumemnon said:
If we start throwing politicians in prison for lying we might as well switch back to monarchy.
Click to expand...


It isn't about lying, which many politicians and most conservative ones feel is part of their job description.

It's about perjury, a crime which is (or at least used to be) heinous enough to warrant the impeachment of Bill Clinton for denying that he had a BJ from a consenting adult.

(A denial which in other circumstances, it bears pointing out, would have been considered the gentlemanly thing to do by most people of his generation.)

I suppose that to Republicans lying under oath about a perfectly legal (and dare I say quite common) act conducted in privacy between two consenting adults is far more egregious than lying under oath about potentially criminal acts, but that's just how they roll.

I'm quite sure that their politics and ideology (not to mention their all-consuming lust for power at the expense of the entire country and anything even faintly resembling personal integrity) have nothing whatsoever to do with this seemingly contradictory application of what, for them, constitutes standards.

At least, I'm sure that's what their defenders will say.
 
Garrette said:
Your first point is true and something the anti-Trump crowd (and I am part of it) needs to be prepared for. I have said to others who crowed about Mueller's appointment that they were conditioning their joy on the assumption that Mueller will find nasty stuff that brings about Trump's downfall, but it is entirely possible he will not. If that is the case, we must be willing to accept it as a vindication of Trump. Of course, that assumes an absence of shenanigans that bring the investigation itself into doubt, and that's a rabbit hole I do not want to go down.
Click to expand...

I think a murkier, middle-muddle is the most likely outcome. There won't be a provable quid pro quo so the Justice Department will not be able to prove collusion and thus charges against Trump will not be filed. So Trump/Republicans will bleat about that for a looooong time. On the other hand, there will be evidence of coordination or cooperation or whatever noun is chosen to show that the Russians did play a "significant" role in the election. Which the Dems will bleat about louder and louder as we approach November, 2018. Maybe some underlings will face doing some time in the Big House.
 
logger said:
There couldn't be any more normal person than Pence.
Click to expand...

Bhwawawawawawawaw! logger made a funny.

Pence was born 300 years too late. He would have made a great Puritan: straight-laced, prudish to a fault, a god-botherer with the best of them. In the 21st century, the best you can about him is that he is an anachronism.
 
Priebus called Comey to swat down Russia scandal. Now he's worried he's in the memos.

President Donald Trump isn’t the only one in the White House who could be caught in a compromising position by James Comey’s secret memos. The president’s chief of staff is worried he could be soon in the crosshairs, as well.

Comey, the former FBI director who was fired earlier this month by Trump, took detailed notes of his interactions with the president and senior Trump administration officials in order to properly document conversations that were on the verge of improper.
Advertisement

Three White House officials told The Daily Beast that Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has privately expressed worry about a possible Comey memo specifically involving one of their reported chats, and how it might play in the press and to investigators.

“Nervous laughter,” one official succinctly characterized Priebus’ demeanor in the midst of recent revelations.
Click to expand...
 
Stacko said:
Priebus called Comey to swat down Russia scandal. Now he's worried he's in the memos.

President Donald Trump isn’t the only one in the White House who could be caught in a compromising position by James Comey’s secret memos. The president’s chief of staff is worried he could be soon in the crosshairs, as well.

<snip>
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Why characterize them as "secret" memos? Should he have been posting about them on Facebook every day?

It seems like plenty of people knew it was something he did routinely when he felt it might be needful.

I don't think it's that much of an altogether uncommon practice.

Maybe more people should be doing it.
 
quadraginta said:
Why characterize them as "secret" memos? Should he have been posting about them on Facebook every day?

It seems like plenty of people knew it was something he did routinely when he felt it might be needful.

I don't think it's that much of an altogether uncommon practice.

Maybe more people should be doing it.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it is when you're talking about law enforcement and investigations. Priebus knows better to get within a mile of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom