US Politics Mega-thread - Page 989

On December 16 2018 00:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:
For a while there was a non-zero chance Trump wouldn't run in 2020 on the back of the fact that he hates all the actual working part of the job and would rather just be doing everything he does enjoy (rallies, tweeting, watching TV) from the comfort of his far nicer homes. But that door's shut because I am pretty sure he believes the only thing protecting him and his family is his POTUS power.

On December 16 2018 04:12 Emnjay808 wrote:

Hillary seems to be well protected and she’s not potus

On December 16 2018 04:12 Emnjay808 wrote:

Hillary seems to be well protected and she’s not potus

On December 15 2018 21:30 ReditusSum wrote:
Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868. He was a Democrat.
Nixon resigned. Was never impeached.
No President has ever been removed from office. Johnson beat his conviction by 1 vote.
Presidents cannot be indicted. Supreme Court would toss it in the garbage if it was tried. In the future that might change, but for right now that's how it is. President is immune except for impeachment.
Trump's father lived to be 93 (almost 94). His mother lived to be 88. He has the world's best health-care. I seriously doubt he dies before 2024.
GOP will not turn on Trump. I put Trump's chances at being the Republican nominee in 2020 at higher than 95%.

United States v. Nixon required the president to turn over his tapes to a court seeking to use them in a criminal case against other defendants; Clinton v. Jones held that Bill Clinton could not stay a sexual-harassment lawsuit against him until leaving office

On December 16 2018 04:24 Wulfey_LA wrote:


You should take it easy on Presidents cannot be indicted.. There is extremely limited case law and to the extent there is both times the court ruled that the President was subject to normal laws and due process. The notion of Presidential immunity is only found in OLC memos written by lawyers working for Presidents who asked that they be found immune. If you ask lawyers who were working for Presidents that wanted to be found immune, you get answers saying that Presidents are immune. If you ask lawyers working for Special Counsels investigating Presidents (guys working around Kenn Starr), then you get answers saying that Presidents can be prosecuted. The court has not rule[d] specifically on criminal charges, only civil ones. We are left with only the precedent that President Clinton could not delay the sexual harassment suit against him until leaving office EDIT: and that President Nixon had to turn over his tapes during prosecution of some of his underlings. Both Presidents claimed immunity and were told NO by the courts.



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/05/presidential-indictment/560957/

On December 16 2018 05:45 Introvert wrote:
its DOJ policy and I think Mueller has already acknowledged it. so as far as these lawyers are concerned he cant be indicted. there is no way the policy is changed right now.

also calling those memos flimsy is just lol.

On December 16 2018 06:08 Ayaz2810 wrote:


It is flimsy. It's the difference between a suggestion and a law. Big difference.

On December 16 2018 06:35 farvacola wrote:
In the interest of quibbling, I’d note that the common law necessarily allows for changing the rules while playing, decisional law has the potential to create new rules as a matter of course. As for federal prosecutors following their own rules, it’s true that they would almost certainly continue to adhere to them “midgame”, but federal prosecutors aren’t Trumps only worry

On December 16 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:


In the interest of being clear, I'd note that I didn't claim the rules can't be changed, but that they won't. If there were something so bad that it merited a change, he'd simply be impeached first (barring Trump actually walking onto Fifth Ave and shooting someone).

Although the Court determined in Clinton v. Jones that “ [t]he fact that a federal
court’s exercise of its traditional Article III jurisdiction may significantly burden
the time and attention of the chief Executive is not sufficient to establish a violation
of the Constitution,” 520 U.S. at 703, this determination must be understood
in light of the Court’s own characterizations of the manageable burdens imposed
by civil litigation. By contrast, criminal proceedings do not allow for the flexibility
in scheduling and procedures upon which Clinton v. Jones relied. Although the
Court emphasized that “ our decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing
the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court
may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place,” id.
at 691, a criminal prosecution would require the President’s personal attention
and attendance at specific times and places, because the burdens of criminal
defense are much less amenable to mitigation by skillful trial management. Indeed,
constitutional rights and values are at stake in the defendant’s ability to be present
for all phases of his criminal trial. For the President to maintain the kind of effective
defense the Constitution contemplates, his personal appearance throughout
the duration of a criminal trial could be essential. Yet the Department has consistently
viewed the requirement that a sitting President personally appear at a trial
at a particular time and place in response to judicial process to raise substantial
separation of powers concerns. See Memorandum for Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr.,
Counsel to the President, from Douglas W. Kmiec, Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Constitutional Concerns Im plicated by D em and fo r
Presidential Evidence in a Criminal Prosecution (Oct. 17, 1988).29

On December 16 2018 07:48 Wulfey_LA wrote:



Let's see what happens with the SDNY files an indictment against Donald based on the Cohen plea.