Giuliani gets to the constitutional question on presidential indictments

[UsualName]

Okay, well we will be watching for the prosecution put on by Mr. "Speedy-Pace." Oh that's right. His evidence all depends on how Trump behaves.

Mueller is investigating the entirety of the Russian and Trump campaign involvement. It is a “yuge” investigation. The fact that he has already cleaned out most over the lower level sympathizers shows he is moving at fast rate. No need for Trump’s behavior there.

Trump has the presidency of the United States hindering Mueller’s ability to approach him in anything similar to a traditional “subject” (Giuliani’s word, not mine). But, even the presidency or going “full legal” won’t prevent him from eventually having to answer for the obstruction allegations.

 

[Tony Stark]

his argument is weak... Its the weakest one I have seen him make. He seems biased on this.


just because ken starr drafted an indictment, showed it to Clinton and Clinton then pleaded guilty does not mean that as a matter of law a President can be indicted. It could have been a bluff by Starr. That is not legal precedent. it is not law of any kind.

The guy who thought the birther lawyers were going to win birther cases thinks he knows more than Napilatino Lol!!!!!

 

[piezoe]

Also doesnt mean that Mueller has found a crime on Trump just because Starr trapped Clinton on perjury. We know he is trying- but he is not there yet. The lefties will use this constitutional debate about indictment to argue that Mueller has all sorts of crimes and evidence on Trump but just can't indict him because he is president- then the next day they argue that there is no constitutional barrier to indicting him. Pretty confused bunch.

And there are a lot of bumper sticker legal arguments going on: "No man is above the law" blah, blah, blah. Okay but you have to establish what the law is. You dont get to make it up just because you think you get to fill in the blanks where the constitution does not provide guidance. Also, it is interesting that the lefties do not chant this bit about no one being above the law when the discussion is about Hillary.

Why doesn't Trump just go ahead and shoot Hillary, and then just pardon himself? Problem solved.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

But, even the presidency or going “full legal” won’t prevent him from eventually having to answer for the obstruction allegations.

The Constitution provides a venue for such questions, the congress, and a process, impeachment. Otherwise, Mueller needs to BTFO. Trump has a country to run and a world to straighten out after 30 years of American surrender.

 

[UsualName]

The Constitution provides a venue for such questions, the congress, and a process, impeachment. Otherwise, Mueller needs to BTFO. Trump has a country to run and a world to straighten out after 30 years of American surrender.

Technically, impeachment is only the removal from office, it is not justice.

Giuliani got to the heart of the matter, maybe scotus will have to decide in the end but this is not settled law.

 

[piezoe]

what kind of discourse is that?
why create such a useless post?

ok piezoe give the dispositive case law on this.
Tell us Piezoe what is your authority for stating that a sitting President may be indicted.


(I realize not a slogan type thought makes most of the lefties here queasy but I thought you understood by now sometimes the law is not settled. I thought you would realize if the law were easy and constitutional rights and issues did not frequently collide or manifest there would be little need for a Supreme Court.)

You guys are arguing something that is so absurd that your arguments deserve no more than ridicule. Of course the President is not above the law. Of course the President can be impeached and convicted. Of course the President can be indicted. Why argue about the order. Impeachment first, indictment second, or indictment first, impeachment second,. Either works great! They are two separate processes: one political, codified in the Constitution; the other legal, codified in statutory law. Neither affects the other. Why not just do both!

All of the Rudy Julie-Annie arguments in the world have no affect on the law. Ignore them.

 

[jem]

I am not arguing anything absurd or even what you claim piezoe.

I point out there is no controlling case law or authority on this subject. Of course one will argue the Constitution already provides the sole mechanism for dealing with a President. And the otherside might argue the Constitution does not provide the exclusive method.


You have not presented a legal basis or even a strong argument for stating a sitting President can be indicted. And its no wonder why. All you really have is the statement... of course he can.

In reality, neither Gullianni nor Napolotano nor Mueller knows either.

and certainly not 5 cents a post foreign troll like Tony. (by the way I predicted the birther matter would get in court and it did in Georgia and Obama defaulted rather than produce evidence of his birth... so Tony go that wrong too.)


its seems to me all most the lefties here can not separate ideology from reality.

You guys are arguing something that is so absurd that your arguments deserve no more than ridicule. Of course the President is not above the law. Of course the President can be impeached and convicted. Of course the President can be indicted. Why argue about the order. Impeachment first, indictment second, or indictment first, impeachment second,. Either works great! They are two separate processes: one political, codified in the Constitution; the other legal, codified in statutory law. Neither affects the other. Why not just do both!

All of the Rudy Julie-Annie arguments in the world have no affect on the law. Ignore them.

 

[Tony Stark]

(by the way I predicted the birther matter would get in court and it did in Georgia and Obama defaulted rather than produce evidence of his birth... so Tony go that wrong too.)

You said Obama wouldnt be able to get on multiple state ballots you fucking birther idiot

 

[jem]

we had serious threads about this and in those threads i went through the issues of evidence and foundation and I predicted that issue would get into court. I was right it did.

If I recall your previous posts you are referencing a short joking thread years before the election.

you bring this up on every thread you 5 cent a post foreign troll.
you know I got it right . it wound up in court...

I am sure if I checked you as AK 47 predicted it would never get to court.

You said Obama wouldnt be able to get on multiple state ballots you fucking birther idiot

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Why doesn't Trump just go ahead and shoot Hillary, and then just pardon himself? Problem solved.

How can he do that?

Last I heard, Hillary died quite a while ago.