• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Trump indicted for 2020 election interference

pgwenthold said:
However, acts that happen outside of his duties as President, including those committed in the context of running for reelection, are absolutely subject to prosecution after he leaves the office.
Click to expand...

disagree. crimes committed during unofficial acts while he’s in office must be fair game and demonstrably the 25th and impeachment as safeguards against abuse of office are inadequate.
 
dirtywick said:
disagree. crimes committed during unofficial acts while he’s in office must be fair game and demonstrably the 25th and impeachment as safeguards against abuse of office are inadequate.
Click to expand...

The 25th and impeachment get him out of office, at which point he can be prosecuted. They are completely adequate for that.
 
Even in the days of Dicknose Nixon, conversations like this would've been so far off the wall that cries of 'Send for the net!" would be drowned out by "Send for the fly swatter!"

Who can we blame for the monkey-cage craziness of these our times? Why, Orange Mussolini, and nobody else. Hell's afire, he's the one who brought up shooting somebody on 5th Ave.
 
pgwenthold said:
The 25th and impeachment get him out of office, at which point he can be prosecuted. They are completely adequate for that.
Click to expand...

well it didn’t do that though. they refused to initiate the 25th and refused to impeach. it failed

what you have now is a somewhat popular president can commit crimes unrelated to his duties of office freely. that’s broken
 
dirtywick said:
well it didn’t do that though. they refused to initiate the 25th and refused to impeach. it failed

what you have now is a somewhat popular president can commit crimes unrelated to his duties of office freely. that’s broken
Click to expand...

But now that he is out of office, he is getting prosecuted.

I don't see the problem. It's not like he's got away with it.
 
pgwenthold said:
So the practice is pretty clear, that the President in office can't be prosecuted for any crimes committed, and, moreover, cannot be prosecuted for any acts carried out while performing the duties of the President, whose job it is to carry out the policies of the United States...
Click to expand...

The first American president entered office in 1789, two hundred thirty-five years ago. But until just recently we had never -- going back over two centuries -- ever felt it necessary to have this conversation: can a sitting president be arrested for criminal acts they commit while in office? It just wasn't on anyone's radar.

I find it very telling and deeply troubling that now we are discussing this: how to deal with a president who commits crimes while in office. It's become the new normal.

What trump has done to this country is both tragic and heartbreaking. It's a national nightmare that won't end but just keeps going on and on. :(
 
The Don said:
.....until he's pardoned by the next Republican President.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's another thing incomprehensible to most Europeans: Why can a president pardon any criminal, just because they want to? That makes no sense at all, IMHO.
 
newyorkguy said:
The first American president entered office in 1789, two hundred thirty-five years ago. But until just recently we had never -- going back over two centuries -- ever felt it necessary to have this conversation: can a sitting president be arrested for criminal acts they commit while in office? It just wasn't on anyone's radar.

I find it very telling and deeply troubling that now we are discussing this: how to deal with a president who commits crimes while in office. It's become the new normal.

What trump has done to this country is both tragic and heartbreaking. It's a national nightmare that won't end but just keeps going on and on. :(
Click to expand...

It will end only when he dies of natural causes - which will lead to a MAGA conspiracy that he was poisoned, etc.
 
The Don said:
.....until he's pardoned by the next Republican President.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If he's convicted by the State of New York or the State of Georgia both which Trump has been indicted in, Trump would be unable to be pardoned by POTUS.

He could be pardoned by their respective Governors. In the State of Georgia he would have to serve 5 years in prison before being eligible for a pardon.
 
sackett said:
Even in the days of Dicknose Nixon, conversations like this would've been so far off the wall that cries of 'Send for the net!" would be drowned out by "Send for the fly swatter!"
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that. Nixon famously said "that if the President does it, it is not a crime."

Huge differences between the mid 1970s and today. Both the Senate and the House was dominated by Democrats. Nixon didn’t gaslight everything. SCOTUS in the 1970s was a relatively moderate court. Nixon was very dishonest. He wasn't nicknamed Tricky Dick for nothing. But his dishonesty pales in comparison to Trump's.
 
newyorkguy said:
The first American president entered office in 1789, two hundred thirty-five years ago. But until just recently we had never -- going back over two centuries -- ever felt it necessary to have this conversation: can a sitting president be arrested for criminal acts they commit while in office? It just wasn't on anyone's radar.

I find it very telling and deeply troubling that now we are discussing this: how to deal with a president who commits crimes while in office. It's become the new normal.

What trump has done to this country is both tragic and heartbreaking. It's a national nightmare that won't end but just keeps going on and on. :(
Click to expand...

Gerald R Ford, of course, is who kept us from having this conversation nearly 50 years ago and forcing a decision by the SCOTUS then. And that SCOTUS would've certainly agree that yes, Nixon could be indicted.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Yes, a sitting President should be immune from criminal prosecution. Otherwise every DA and his cousin will be indicting the sitting President for partison reasons so as to hobble his administration.
Click to expand...
This is a non sequitur to what you quoted. Are you siding with Trump's idiotic assertion everything the POTUS does could be a crime?

Oh dear, however did we get by for a couple of centuries without a single POTUS being charged with murder for ordering assassinations? :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is a non sequitur to what you quoted. Are you siding with Trump's idiotic assertion everything the POTUS does could be a crime?

Oh dear, however did we get by for a couple of centuries without a single POTUS being charged with murder for ordering assassinations? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If we allow sitting Presidents to be indicted for crimes, the Red Deadbeat states would start indicted Biden for everything under the sun.
 
Hercules56 said:
If we allow sitting Presidents to be indicted for crimes, the Red Deadbeat states would start indicted Biden for everything under the sun.
Click to expand...

So far on their first attempt they failed. Mayorkas is still in office. The charges were bogus.

The GOP wants the whole Congress to be infected with their disease. It's projection and they caught it from Trump.
 
acbytesla said:
...Nixon famously said "that if the President does it, it is not a crime." ...
Click to expand...
I believe the reference is to the Huston Plan -- put together by a White House aide -- to battle domestic terrorism in 1970. It essentially suspended 4th Amendment rights against illegal search-and-seizure for targeted groups and individuals. Only the FBI director complained about the plan to Attorney General John Mitchell, that it was clearly unconstitutional, Mitchell agreed and contacted Nixon. Nixon then rescinded his approval of the plan. But some facets of the plan -- notably burglarizing the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist -- were carried out. It came to light during the Watergate Hearings.

Three years after leaving office, Richard Nixon agreed to do a series of interviews with journalist David Frost. During one of the interviews, Frost asked (and this is an edited version):
  • Frost: "And in the Huston plan it stated very clearly, with reference to the entry that was being proposed, it said very clearly, use of this technique is clearly illegal, it amounts to burglary…Why did you approve a plan that included an element like that … that was clearly illegal?"
  • Nixon: "Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal."
Link to interview transcript

Of course, the context is very different than what we have today. Nixon was arguing that he, like other presidents, had to balance national security versus legal protections. And also far different than what we've seen, when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and US Attorney General John Mitchell objected, Nixon didn't become enraged and fire them. He listened to their counsel and rescinded his original order.

I was no fan of Richard Nixon but to compare him with donald trump does a huge disservice. To Richard Nixon.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
I believe the reference is to the Huston Plan -- put together by a White House aide -- to battle domestic terrorism in 1970. It essentially suspended 4th Amendment rights against illegal search-and-seizure for targeted groups and individuals. Only the FBI director complained about the plan to Attorney General John Mitchell, that it was clearly unconstitutional, Mitchell agreed and contacted Nixon. Nixon then rescinded his approval of the plan. But some facets of the plan -- notably burglarizing the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist -- were carried out. It came to light during the Watergate Hearings.

Three years after leaving office, Richard Nixon agreed to do a series of interviews with journalist David Frost. During one of the interviews, Frost asked (and this is an edited version):
  • Frost: "And in the Huston plan it stated very clearly, with reference to the entry that was being proposed, it said very clearly, use of this technique is clearly illegal, it amounts to burglary…Why did you approve a plan that included an element like that … that was clearly illegal?"
  • Nixon: "Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal."
Link to interview transcript

Of course, the context is very different than what we have today. Nixon was arguing that he, like other presidents, had to balance national security versus legal protections. And also far different than what we've seen, when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and US Attorney General John Mitchell objected, Nixon didn't become enraged and fire them. He listened to their counsel and rescinded his original order.

I was no fan of Richard Nixon but to compare him with donald trump does a huge disservice. To Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...

That's what I get for relying on my memory. I thought Nixon was referring to some of his other misdeeds. But I have to disagree with suggesting that Nixon wasn't a big time sleazeball starting with his first run for congress. The dirty tricks Nixon engaged in during the 1972 reelection campaign were pretty ugly.

That said, Nixon was a much better President than Trump. He signed multiple landmark legislations to protect the environment. And Nixon was whipsmart.

Trump is so much worse than Nixon, but Trump is much worse than almost every President.
 
newyorkguy said:
The first American president entered office in 1789, two hundred thirty-five years ago. But until just recently we had never -- going back over two centuries -- ever felt it necessary to have this conversation: can a sitting president be arrested for criminal acts they commit while in office? It just wasn't on anyone's radar.

I find it very telling and deeply troubling that now we are discussing this: how to deal with a president who commits crimes while in office. It's become the new normal.

What trump has done to this country is both tragic and heartbreaking. It's a national nightmare that won't end but just keeps going on and on. :(
Click to expand...

Trump wasn't the first repug president to commit crimes in office.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is a non sequitur to what you quoted. Are you siding with Trump's idiotic assertion everything the POTUS does could be a crime?

Oh dear, however did we get by for a couple of centuries without a single POTUS being charged with murder for ordering assassinations? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


It's another case of every accusation being a confession.
"We would launch baseless prosecutions of our political opponents at every opportunity if we could, so obviously our opponents would too."
 
JayUtah said:
This was expected. Trump had until the 12th to indicate his intention to appeal, and to request a stay of the order. The aggressive deadline is to keep him from dragging it out indefinitely.
Click to expand...

And Trump filed his motion for an appeal and stay on the 12th. Taking almost every minute available. Delay, delay, delay.

John Roberts followed that up with a 7 day deadline (Next Tuesday)for Jack Smith to file his response.

Jack Smith in contrast to Donald Trump filed the State's response today. They responded in a single day.
 
acbytesla said:
And Trump filed his motion for an appeal and stay on the 12th. Taking almost every minute available. Delay, delay, delay.

John Roberts followed that up with a 7 day deadline (Next Tuesday)for Jack Smith to file his response.

Jack Smith in contrast to Donald Trump filed the State's response today. They responded in a single day.
Click to expand...

Stalling is a decent tactic and benefits him. He's hoping that any conviction will happen AFTER he's sworn in which means he cant go to prison while President.
 
Hercules56 said:
Stalling is a decent tactic and benefits him. He's hoping that any conviction will happen AFTER he's sworn in which means he cant go to prison while President.
Click to expand...

In Donald Trump's case, that may be true. He hopes he will be re-elected President and he can use the onus of that office to drive off all attempts to hold him accountable. How we see him stall in these cases is particular, because it shows what a person can do who (arguably) has the resources to manipulate the legal process. Obviously that's not available to everyone who has criminal charges against them.

However, in general, if a brief or motion is due at 5:00 pm on a certain day, it will be submitted at 4:59 pm that day. This is just how lawyers work. It's usually not considered slovenly or obstructive. If you've been given a certain amount of time to prepare work, why would you not avail yourself of all the allowed time to get it right?

That Smith's response was delivered the next day is the exception, not the rule. In cases involving Trump, that might have an effect. It's likely a lot of the court's resources are occupied with this one case. In other situations, the court may not be prepared to act on submissions until the deadline (e.g., to schedule clerk time) because they are scheduling many case operations together. So in most ordinary cases, filing early doesn't speed things up.
 
Hercules56 said:
Stalling is a decent tactic and benefits him. He's hoping that any conviction will happen AFTER he's sworn in which means he cant go to prison while President.
Click to expand...

It's a tactic for sure. Decent however, it is not. It's a blatant attempt to obstruct the administration of justice.
 
acbytesla said:
It's a tactic for sure. Decent however, it is not. It's a blatant attempt to obstruct the administration of justice.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it seems to be perfectly legal. If I was out on bail but knew I was guilty as sin and facing prison time, I might do the exact same thing. Nobody wants to go to prison.
 
JayUtah said:
That Smith's response was delivered the next day is the exception, not the rule. In cases involving Trump, that might have an effect. It's likely a lot of the court's resources are occupied with this one case. In other situations, the court may not be prepared to act on submissions until the deadline (e.g., to schedule clerk time) because they are scheduling many case operations together. So in most ordinary cases, filing early doesn't speed things up.
Click to expand...

well since everything about the is case is exceptional, including the significance of the potential advantage of the stalling itself, the commentary about why it's remarkable is because it gives the impression that they're onto his stalling tactic for what it is. jack smith also dragging the case out and taking every last moment to file his motions would also be significant in a bad way, even if it's standard operating procedure
 
Hercules56 said:
Unfortunately it seems to be perfectly legal. If I was out on bail but knew I was guilty as sin and facing prison time, I might do the exact same thing. Nobody wants to go to prison.
Click to expand...

Sure, I get that. If you have been accused of a crime and you know you're innocent and the evidence supports your innocence, you would more likely interested in expedition, not delay.

That Trump is using every availabe frivolous tactic to delay says a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom