Barr lied

WeToddDid2 said:
Are you also advocating that Obama be charged with obstruction?

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

Obama administration[edit]
On June 20, 2012, President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege in order to withhold certain Department of Justice documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious controversy ahead of a United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to produce the documents.[27][28] Later the same day, the House Committee voted 23–17 along party lines to hold Holder in contempt of Congress over not releasing the documents.[29]

Executive privilege was also used in a lawsuit stemming from the 2012 implementation of the "Net Worth Sweep" against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Obama administration did not disclose roughly 11,000 documents from the plaintiffs in the discovery process as they related to the reasoning behind the 2012 actions.[citation needed]
More...

HW Bush was not re-elected after nominating Barr.

Load: 2020 Presidential Elections
Select: Trump Vs Biden
Virtual Impeachment /on
Democrat Political Risk /off
 
maximumpossiblesuffering said:

  1. userqueThe Constitution provides the sole way to remove the President. Once his term is over or he leaves office, he can be prosecuted for crimes. Otherwise, to allow a state or federal prosecution of the president would be clearly contrary to the Constitutional scheme. We have seen the havoc that rogue district court judges have been able to do. Allowing a criminal prosecution of the president would be far worse.

    Both parties have generally refrained from prosecuting members of the former administration, in light of how easily it could turn into banana republic-style cycles of payback. That truce seems likely to collapse however, another causality of our decent into third world status.
    More...
    Thanks, but we never got there. Our discussion was whether or not The President can commit a crime...in this case, obstruction: Whether or not a President is above the law.

    That said, to your question as to whether a sitting President can be prosecuted. I never offered debate on that issue. Even so, we don't disagree that impeachment is the proper remedy for a sitting President.

    Now, I've responded to you--even though it wasn't about what I chose to debate. Your turn to respond to me: Do you agree with @Buy1Sell2 that a President is above the law? If so, please explain.

    Last edited: Today at 6:53 PM
    #41 Today at 6:30 PM
    Share

    Even if Trump actually obstructed, there is no way meets the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Trump wanting to fire Mueller is not obstruction or even attempted obstruction. The President normally relies on his advisors for their legal and political assessment of his decisions. Even if Trump actually fired Mueller in spite of the advice of his advisors, the most his political opponents could hope for is attempted obstruction. Giving the order for firing Mueller is not enough. It owould be likely the firing of Mueller would have to be shown to cause irreversible damage or at least excessive delay or damage to the investigation. Examples that might fall under real, rather than technical obstruction might be perjury over a substantive matter, destruction of evidence, or witness tampering.

    You might want to watch the movies Quicksand and 52 Pickup. The Democrats dug themselves another hole with their false accusation political strategy and may want to stop digging. The "Blowback" is coming. Real crimes, real cases, and real prosecutions. If the perpetrators continue on their present course, maybe real jail time as well. From FBI Agents, Politicians, and maybe even some in media if conspiracy charges involving them are appropriate.

    Trump said he would drain the swamp and drain the swamp he will.
More...

I'll look into those movies, thanks.

My debate was centered only upon whether or not a President is above the law. I say no. @Buy1Sell2 says yes.

Even so, the lawmakes themselves define and decide what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
WeToddDid2 said:
Are you also advocating that Obama be charged with obstruction?

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

Obama administration[edit]
On June 20, 2012, President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege in order to withhold certain Department of Justice documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious controversy ahead of a United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to produce the documents.[27][28] Later the same day, the House Committee voted 23–17 along party lines to hold Holder in contempt of Congress over not releasing the documents.[29]

Executive privilege was also used in a lawsuit stemming from the 2012 implementation of the "Net Worth Sweep" against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Obama administration did not disclose roughly 11,000 documents from the plaintiffs in the discovery process as they related to the reasoning behind the 2012 actions.[citation needed]
More...

Again, my debate is whether A President is above the law.

I haven't entered any recent debates/discussions about Obama, Hillary, Emails, Etc.
 
userque said:
Again, my debate is whether A President is above the law.

I haven't entered any recent debates/discussions about Obama, Hillary, Emails, Etc.
More...

There is already a test for this. Can the president of the United States shoot a political opponent in cold blood and not face criminal charges? Of course not.

Now that we can agree the president can at least be charged with one crime under a certain set of circumstances we can agree there may be other sets of circumstances that may warrant charging the president with a crime.

What circumstances and and what crimes is what is open for debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top