• 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.

Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
ETA: RE-reading my post, I completely see how you ended up with your inference. I clearly did a poor job of expressing my thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
Not a problem, just give me your friend's phone number and I'll patiently explain why she's full of **** ;)

The greater good thing? There was no greater good. It was explicitly good for only a very targeted constituency. That's the problem, IMO. It's a false narrative that this was a case of clean air vs. your friend's wallet.

(Though clean air would probably help asthmatics??)

Yes, the "winners and losers" is off-topic for this particular thread and I apologize for contributing to the derail ...
 
Did anyone ever try to subpoena Nixon, the man, vs. the tapes? I don't know how big of a sacred cow that would be, if Mueller tried it with Trump. Trump did say in January that he was "looking forward" to testifying under oath. He will be incapable of doing it without lying, so I can see why Fox News calls it a perjury trap. Maybe the problem is a guy who can't open his mouth without lying?

I'm curious what the resignation of Ty Cobb says about the state of Trump's defenses, will see if it's a topic in other threads. I don't really need another CNN piece, or Vanity Fair or whoever, explaining why this time the WH is REALLY in chaos. On the other hand having lawyers bail on you right and left can't be a good thing. Trump does deserve representation, but it seems many on his team are foreseeing ethical pitfalls to serving in that role. I really don't understand what those would be, exactly.
 
Minoosh said:
Did anyone ever try to subpoena Nixon, the man, vs. the tapes? I don't know how big of a sacred cow that would be, if Mueller tried it with Trump. Trump did say in January that he was "looking forward" to testifying under oath. He will be incapable of doing it without lying, so I can see why Fox News calls it a perjury trap. Maybe the problem is a guy who can't open his mouth without lying?

I'm curious what the resignation of Ty Cobb says about the state of Trump's defenses, will see if it's a topic in other threads. I don't really need another CNN piece, or Vanity Fair or whoever, explaining why this time the WH is REALLY in chaos. On the other hand having lawyers bail on you right and left can't be a good thing. Trump does deserve representation, but it seems many on his team are foreseeing ethical pitfalls to serving in that role. I really don't understand what those would be, exactly.
Click to expand...

Clinton tried to use the defense that he was too important and too busy for the Paula Jones case to continue. He lost that one and didn't appeal. Jones lost the case and Clinton-ites paid her off to end endless appeals.

This was a civil and not a criminal case. Clinton was deposed. That is where he famously denied having sex with Lewinsky. From Wiki:
In April 1999, Judge Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones's lawyers for expenses incurred,[19][20][21] far less than the $496,000 that the lawyers originally requested.[21]
Click to expand...

Trump is pretending he's too important and too busy. Looking at his actual schedule that is totally indefensible and should be laughed out of even the SCOTUS.

The Constitution says only Congress can try the POTUS and their only remedy is impeachment. I do hope Trump becomes the first POTUS to be indicted after leaving office.


The GOP is getting nervous about all this the closer it is getting to Nov. They would be wise to impeach Trump while Pence then Ryan are in replacement line. If they don't do it by November, they risk Pence and Trump being impeached together.

Notice Nancy Pelosi is campaigning against impeaching Trump. That's not because she is really against it. It's because she doesn't think it's a winning campaign issue.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Clinton tried to use the defense that he was too important and too busy for the Paula Jones case to continue. He lost that one and didn't appeal. Jones lost the case and Clinton-ites paid her off to end endless appeals.

This was a civil and not a criminal case. Clinton was deposed. That is where he famously denied having sex with Lewinsky. From Wiki:

Trump is pretending he's too important and too busy. Looking at his actual schedule that is totally indefensible and should be laughed out of even the SCOTUS.

The Constitution says only Congress can try the POTUS and their only remedy is impeachment. I do hope Trump becomes the first POTUS to be indicted after leaving office.


The GOP is getting nervous about all this the closer it is getting to Nov. They would be wise to impeach Trump while Pence then Ryan are in replacement line. If they don't do it by November, they risk Pence and Trump being impeached together.

Notice Nancy Pelosi is campaigning against impeaching Trump. That's not because she is really against it. It's because she doesn't think it's a winning campaign issue.
Click to expand...

In fact, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a President cannot be tried in criminal court. It has been argued he can't. But there is very little in the Constitution that supports this argument.
 
acbytesla said:
In fact, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a President cannot be tried in criminal court. It has been argued he can't. But there is very little in the Constitution that supports this argument.
Click to expand...

I was trying to parse the actual words and I had a hard time finding an argument for that.

Though obviously Clinton's civil case was allowed by the courts.

Article I section 3
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Click to expand...

So once impeached POTUS can be indicted. Nixon did have to be pardoned in order not to got to trial for obstruction of justice.


I just don't see Mueller challenging that with an indictment first.

But I agree, probably not settled law whether the indictment can be done before impeachment.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I was trying to parse the actual words and I had a hard time finding an argument for that.

Though obviously Clinton's civil case was allowed by the courts.

Article I section 3

So once impeached POTUS can be indicted. Nixon did have to be pardoned in order not to got to trial for obstruction of justice.


I just don't see Mueller challenging that with an indictment first.

But I agree, probably not settled law whether the indictment can be done before impeachment.
Click to expand...

You've highlighted the passage that is used to argue against a criminal prosecution of a sitting president. That said, I see no problem in in indicting a President and waiting until that President leaves office for the trial to begin. Nixon was an un-indicted co-conspirator.
 
acbytesla said:
You've highlighted the passage that is used to argue against a criminal prosecution of a sitting president. That said, I see no problem in in indicting a President and waiting until that President leaves office for the trial to begin. Nixon was an un-indicted co-conspirator.
Click to expand...

Article 2, the executive power shall be vested in a president. That is the power an attorney would use to indict. If the president let's them do that then he seems to think they can.

Normally the court will stay out of a political debate between the two branches. this is in one branch.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Article 2, the executive power shall be vested in a president. That is the power an attorney would use to indict. If the president let's them do that then he seems to think they can.

Normally the court will stay out of a political debate between the two branches. this is in one branch.
Click to expand...

No it is not. Executive power IS NOT the power an attorney would use to indict. Where did you come up with that?
 
acbytesla said:
No it is not. Executive power IS NOT the power an attorney would use to indict. Where did you come up with that?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant to pursue an indictment. A federal attorney is completely receives their power from the executive, and only an executive officer can get an indictment from a federal court.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Sorry, I meant to pursue an indictment. A federal attorney is completely receives their power from the executive, and only an executive officer can get an indictment from a federal court.
Click to expand...

That's not true either. Also, one can be indicted on the State level. What happens if it is found out that Trump violated criminal laws in New York?
 
acbytesla said:
I don't get your point. The US Attorney is sworn to uphold the law not obey the orders of POTUS.
Click to expand...

They have no independent authority to resolve a disagreement between themselves and the president over what upholding the law means. They serve at the pleasure of the president. It is his authority to determine what is constitutional for the executive branch.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They have no independent authority to resolve a disagreement between themselves and the president over what upholding the law means. They serve at the pleasure of the president. It is his authority to determine what is constitutional for the executive branch.
Click to expand...

That's false. Where do you get this? The US Attorney is only appointed by the President. He doesn't do the President's bidding, nor should he. If it is obvious that the President broke the law, it is incumbent that it be prosecuted.
 
acbytesla said:
That's false. Where do you get this? The US Attorney is only appointed by the President. He doesn't do the President's bidding, nor should he. If it is obvious that the President broke the law, it is incumbent that it be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

If the president disagrees, and has him fired, the ex prosecutor has no recourse. The president is the final word on the subject. He has no independent power to do his own bidding in the event of a disagreement.

ETA: look at marbury v Madison, the president won that one.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
If the president disagrees, and has him fired, the ex prosecutor has no recourse. The president is the final word on the subject. He has no independent power to do his own bidding in the event of a disagreement.

ETA: look at marbury v Madison, the president won that one.
Click to expand...

Marbury v Madison is not remotely relevant. That case was about midnight judicial appointments made by the outgoing John Adams that weren't delivered and honored by incoming President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marbury, but denied the writ that would have made him the Justice of Peace. What the court did was make itself the arbiter of the law through Judicial Review. This is a power that the court has wielded ever since but the power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

It has NOTHING to do with the US Attorneys. BTW, Nixon pulled the stunt you are suggesting. It was called the Saturday Night Massacre. It led to the end of his Presidency.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Marbury v Madison is not remotely relevant. That case was about midnight judicial appointments made by the outgoing John Adams that weren't delivered and honored by incoming President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marbury, but denied the writ that would have made him the Justice of Peace. What the court did was make itself the arbiter of the law through Judicial Review. This is a power that the court has wielded ever since but the power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

It has NOTHING to do with the US Attorneys. BTW, Nixon pulled the stunt you are suggesting. It was called the Saturday Night Massacre. It led to the end of his Presidency.
Click to expand...

It is relevant to the extent officials will have little recourse to compel executive action if the president doesn't want to.

No one disputes that Nixon absolutely acted in his power to do so.
 
Last edited:
Giuliani also offered new rationale for why Trump fired then-FBI Director James B. Comey in May 2017, saying the president was justified in removing Comey because Comey would not publicly say that the president was not under investigation as part of the FBI’s probe of Russian election interference.

“He fired Comey because Comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn’t a target of the investigation,” Giuliani said. “He’s entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that, and he couldn’t get that,” Giuliani said. “So he fired him, and he said, ‘I’m free of this guy.’ ”
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6cde54-4e76-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html

You know Rudy, loose lips sink ships. The fact that Hillary was cleared of criminal wrong doing and Trump wasn't might just be perfectly justifiable.

Incidentally this relates to the constant desire of Trump and his cronies to investigate Hillary Clinton for some vaguely improper sounding business. Trump has been crying like a whiny baby about how his AG wouldn't investigate hillary Clinton or whatever instead of him.

"If you investigate me, then you must investigate Hillary too! What about whitewater? Benghazi? Uranium deals? Hello Jeff Sessions?! INVESTIGATE GOD DAMMIT!!!!"
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is relevant to the extent officials will have little recourse to compel executive action if the president doesn't want to.

No one disputes that Nixon absolutely acted in his power to do so.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, it was so transparent that Nixon was subverting the law by firing Archibald Cox, that the AG refused his order and so did the Deputy AG. And 11 days later a new Special Counsel was appointed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom