Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul2 said:
Everyone now understands that if the President can get either the Senate or the House to follow anywhere, the President can get away with anything, maybe even staying in office forever, because impeachment is the only remedy.

Once responsible people control all of Congress and the Presidency, we need a law passed that overrules that OLC opinion.
Click to expand...

If a president can maintain the loyalty of 34 senators, he/she apparently can commit any federal crime that he/she desires (at least as long as the statute of limitations expires before he/she leaves office). I think that statutes of limitations clauses should be amended to exclude time when the accused was in a position in which they could not be prosecuted.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
If a president can maintain the loyalty of 34 senators, he/she apparently can commit any federal crime that he/she desires (at least as long as the statute of limitations expires before he/she leaves office). I think that statutes of limitations clauses should be amended to exclude time when the accused was in a position in which they could not be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
That oughta do it.
 
Paul2 said:
Why? What part of the constitution says that the President can't be criminally indicted while in office? My understanding is that the power to impeach does not forestall indictment.
Click to expand...

That is the wrong follow up to your post. Regardless of whether the president can or cannot be charged, you argued for a law changing it. But the president has his own take care clause. Congress doesn't have a power to tell him his interpretation is wrong and have it change policy
 
plague311 said:
They think that since he's closing that means that Trump did nothing wrong. Trump supporters truly don't understand what happened in the Mueller report.
Click to expand...

You think anybody who saw a episode of "Law and Order" would understand the concept of "We think X broke the law, but are having a hard time finding evidence that will stand up in court". Happens al lthe time:The DA Knows a individual is guilty, but does not indict because he does not have the evidence that would stand up in court to convice.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
If a president can maintain the loyalty of 34 senators, he/she apparently can commit any federal crime that he/she desires (at least as long as the statute of limitations expires before he/she leaves office). I think that statutes of limitations clauses should be amended to exclude time when the accused was in a position in which they could not be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't the other senators change the filibuster in this scenario? I think you would still need to say 51.
 
dudalb said:
You think anybody who saw a episode of "Law and Order" would understand the concept of "We think X broke the law, but are having a hard time finding evidence that will stand up in court". Happens al lthe time:The DA Knows a individual is guilty, but does not indict because he does not have the evidence that would stand up in court to convice.
Click to expand...

Mueller found sufficient evidence (according to Mueller)
 
Belz... said:
I thought it was neither, and that he was simply saying that there was no turning back from that point.
Click to expand...
That's "crossing the Rubicon" which is basically the same incident, but the "die is cast" quote is referring to a more existential point of no return he'd made some many years before. Returning to Rome without an army at the Senate's summoning meant seizure, trial, and a gruesome death.

He didn't commit all the crimes he did just to surrender himself. He made the decision to march a legion into the home province years before he actually did it.
 
And even if there was some "technically on the books" way to address Trump... so? What happens when he just says "No. Not doing it because I say so."

What are the Democrats going to make Trump do something? Don't make me laugh. They're playing 3 Dimensional Chess and he's playing "Flip the board over and take a dump on it" and the Demcrats screaming "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! THAT'S AGAINST THE RULES OF CHESS!" is exactly what he wants. He gets off on being told what he can't do and doing it anyway.

Even if through some magic the Democrats got enough Republicans or Independents to cross the aisle to make impeachment anything other than pure pipe dream how does anyone honestly see that going down?

They'll call Trump to testify. He'll say no. They'll say he has to. He'll throw down a reverse card from a pack of Uno. They'll bring in the Supreme Court. He's still say no. What do we do then call Boba Fett?

Trump is not playing politics or law. He's playing "How much can I get away with."

A lot of people are blinded by the Trump:Nixon comparison I think only works about 75% or so. I think comparing Trump to Andrew Jackson is a lot more illuminating.

Long story short when someone suggested that Andrew Jackson should probably ease up on the genocide of Native Americans, ya know just a little, and the matter went to the Supreme Court who ruled against Jackson, Jackson (in what I could imagine where his only free moments being shooting people and beating his own would be assassins with a stick) basically told them "Hey if you feel froggy, jump."

"[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” - President Jackson (or "The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." according to some other sources. Regardless he basically told them to "Go fish.")
 
Last edited:
In need of repeating:

"If we had had confidence that he clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so," Mueller said, implicitly refuting Trump's repeated statements that Mueller had exonerated him. "We did not, however, make a determination to whether the president did commit a crime."
Click to expand...
 
plague311 said:
"I want to get people to mock me, so I make trolling comments."

Like, why? It's such a weird pattern of behavior. It's intellectually lazy, adds nothing to the conversation, and proves that you'll say things that are knowingly false. I just can't figure out what is acquired from this type of nonsensical attention seeking.
Click to expand...

Logger is banned, someone steps up.....
TBD leaves in a huff, someone steps up......

"Always two there are, a master and an apprentice". (The Sith)
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
If a president can maintain the loyalty of 34 senators, he/she apparently can commit any federal crime that he/she desires (at least as long as the statute of limitations expires before he/she leaves office). I think that statutes of limitations clauses should be amended to exclude time when the accused was in a position in which they could not be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Going after Nixon in 1995 or Trump in 2045 would probably strike a lot of people as too after the fact to not be seen as petty.

Not that I disagree in theory (or even practice in a certain sense) I just think political realities would limit its usefulness.
 
applecorped said:
"If we had had confidence that he clearly did commit a crime we would have said so,"
Click to expand...

Well, that's just the opposite of what Muller actually said and literally contradicts what he did say about not wanting to accuse a sitting president of a crime for which Justice Dept cannot prosecute - but ya gotta grab at those straws.
 
applecorped said:
"If we had had confidence that he clearly did commit a crime we would have said so,"
Click to expand...

They specifically did not make such a judgement.

"We did not, however, make a determination to whether the president did commit a crime."

How could Muller conclude that when he was specifically not even considering it?
 
Last edited:
Why address or grapple with the statement actually made when you can just make up a quote out of thin air and assign it equal validity?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Why address or grapple with the statement actually made when you can just make up a quote out of thin air and assign it equal validity?
Click to expand...

Why yes I absolutely agree with your statement that it is impossible to describe just how witty and handsome I am!
 
Fundamentally, this doesn't change my mind on anything:

1. Trump should step down.

Barring that

2. Congress should impeach him.

I think 2 has become a lot more realistic, but I still don't think the Senate will actually remove him.
 
Fundamentally, this doesn't change anything.

1. X should happen.
2. But it won't.

Is the short version of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom