This seems to be the new line, that Mueller is looking for an exit of some kind. While Donald Trump is on twitter talking about pardoning himself. Those two things don’t seem to add up.
Giuliani gets to the constitutional question on presidential indictments
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
This seems to be the new line, that Mueller is looking for an exit of some kind. While Donald Trump is on twitter talking about pardoning himself. Those two things don’t seem to add up.
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.
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.
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.
You think they don't but actually they do. Camp Trump is signaling that it is going to go full legal and full savage, slash and burn right at the time that Mueller is is trying to figure out how the hell he can get around the pesky little problem of the constitution and his lack of evidence even if he does bring a case. Think they are not connected? Think again.
I was totally buffaloed by Julie -Annie up to just now. I had no idea he wasn't a real lawyer. He's a great comedian however. When trump shoots Commie, I mean Comey, why not shoot Julie -Annie too, just for kicks, and then just say, "Pardon Me!" If King George could only see what is going on with his little colonies he'd really get a kick out of it. If I were His Majesty Donald J. Trump, after I shot Comey and Julie, I'd march right on over to the Washington Post and really kick some ass.
Certainly is more than one Moby Dick to choose from though.
Another would be when he headed up the Bay Area region and prosecuted the Sony Barger/Hells Angels case where he offered immunity up the ying yang and plea bargains up the ying yang to line up all his ducks to flip. Then none of them flipped or those that did had nothing to say that implicated anyone and they all skated. That one cost him his post there, and he suddenly was reassigned to the east coast.
And then there was the Enron/Anderson Little Moby Dick. Mueller and Weisman did their scorched earth prosecution and out of bounds investigations and sent several execs to prison for a couple years while their appeals were pending. Then the Supreme Court overturned their convictions 9-0.
Yup, as I have said, he has his little fun until a full-fledged defense team shows up and he has to respond to the judge as well. Look no further than that little fiasco shaping up with the russian company defense team. Mueller took a free shot and indicted them from afar. Easy-peasy stuff that made him appear ballsy. Not so easy when they show up with a full defense team.
MORE TO COME
As a Canadian wannabe you may not understand that we no longer concern ourselves with what the King of England/UK says or does and actually we made that point pretty clear while King George was still alive.
Last edited:
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.
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.)
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 are so RIGHT! This is an area of Law that has been completely abandoned to common sense. I fear for the country!
P.S. there is always a possibliity that Julie-Annie's head really is attached directly to his sternum.