US Politics Mega-thread - Page 99

On April 11 2018 03:22 Velr wrote:
If your justice system is SOOOO open to discrimination, you better scrap it. Justicia is blind for a reason... But well, you still got lynch mobs (juries)...
Baseline is, in court justice should win, not the law or another strange concept.

On April 11 2018 03:22 Velr wrote:
If your justice system is SOOOO open to discrimination, you better scrap it. Justicia is blind for a reason... But well, you still got lynch mobs (juries)...
Baseline is, in court justice should win, not the law or another strange concept.

On April 11 2018 03:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty similar to what got Edwards charged (friends buying off his mistress). Who knows if it will end up equally anemic; certainly in a real court or the House Trump would end up with a similarly hung jury resulting in a mistrial.

On April 11 2018 04:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:


My opinions about the Mueller investigation are changing. I don't think it is plausible that the investigation actually hits Trump, because President's can't go down for things they do as candidates. And the Comey firing would require a hostile congress to form an obstruction of justice charge. Big but here, the Mueller investigation is at this point latched itself on as a tick to practically the entire Trump campaign team. The latching onto all these guilty guys gives Mueller a legitimacy that no special counsel has every dreamed of. Everyone around Trump is going down. His closest allies are getting their lives opened up and charged for it. The Russia Collusion angle is never going to stick on the big man himself. His underlings managed that for him and will get charges for it. The real game now is whether Trump has the mental fortitude to realize that he is not personally in jeopardy the way his underlings are. If he panics, and purges Mueller, then everything changes. That would be an in office abuse of power that only Sean Hannity has the blindness not to see. Every leak around Trump shows him ranting and raving and going on about how to fire Mueller. Is he dumb enough to do it?

On April 11 2018 04:25 Gorsameth wrote:

Trump being safe from the investigation assumes no evidence exists that can proves Trump knew.

Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein insists that this quote “means you can’t indict and try a sitting president. He has to be removed first.” It really does not. In Federalist 69, Hamilton was assuring his contemporaries that they did not have to fear the creation of a “single magistrate.” He made this statement to contrast to “[t]he person of the king of Great Britain [who] is sacred and inviolable.” He was not expounding on inherent immunity and would hardly be making such an implied argument in an essay designed to quell concerns over presidential powers. Hamilton was assuring readers that a president could be stripped of his office and still prosecuted under the Constitution.

As the Hamilton essay suggests, the Framers were worried about the powers of the chief executive, and such immunity would presumably weigh heavily in that debate, as it should in our current debate. Reading that immunity into the Framers’ silence would permit a radical expansion of the powers of the presidency — something most textualists and civil libertarians resist.

GOODMAN: The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has concluded that a sitting President is immune from criminal indictment while he is office. The OLC conclusion is predicated, in significant part, on the notion that an “alternative mechanism” exists: a President suspected of a most serious crime can be impeached instead and then prosecuted. In your analysis, however, a President cannot necessarily be impeached for many serious crimes unless they directly relate to an abuse of official power. If you are correct, does it mean at least one of the central reasons that the OLC gives for its conclusion that the President cannot be indicted is wrong?

SUNSTEIN:

Yes, it does. I agree with OLC’s conclusion, on Article II grounds, but there is a gap: Some serious crimes are not a legitimate basis for impeachment, but still, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for those crimes.

On April 11 2018 05:10 Mohdoo wrote:
why in the world would a president ever be immune from indictment? It goes against so many core values that established our constitution and government as a whole.

On April 11 2018 05:27 Plansix wrote:

The president cannot be charged with a crime while in office(this is a majority legal opinion, rather than objective fact) The states or other parts of government do not have power of the head of the executive branch. You want to charge the president with a crime, congress needs to remove them from office and then the ex-president can be charged. The only group that has equal power to the presidency is congress.

Just remember that the next time you vote for a presidential candidate. You are voting to make them immune to criminal prosecution during their time in office.

On April 11 2018 05:30 ShoCkeyy wrote:


2018 votes can't come any sooner. Time for indictments to fly loose. I'm also curious how many Congress members are willing to go down with the boat rather than impeach if it came down to it.

On April 11 2018 05:30 ShoCkeyy wrote:


2018 votes can't come any sooner. Time for indictments to fly loose. I'm also curious how many Congress members are willing to go down with the boat rather than impeach if it came down to it.

On April 11 2018 05:42 ShoCkeyy wrote:
They didn't mind impeaching Bill for sexual acts and that was a republican majority, so if they don't impeach for even worse causes, then I feel there will be major backlash. And I'm only basing this if they were able to do something against Trump.

On April 11 2018 05:27 Plansix wrote:

The president cannot be charged with a crime while in office(this is a majority legal opinion, rather than objective fact) The states or other parts of government do not have power of the head of the executive branch. You want to charge the president with a crime, congress needs to remove them from office and then the ex-president can be charged. The only group that has equal power to the presidency is congress.

Just remember that the next time you vote for a presidential candidate. You are voting to make them immune to criminal prosecution during their time in office.

On April 11 2018 03:22 Velr wrote:
If your justice system is SOOOO open to discrimination, you better scrap it. Justicia is blind for a reason... But well, you still got lynch mobs (juries)...
Baseline is, in court justice should win, not the law or another strange concept.

At about 12.40pm on 2 January 1996, Timothy Jackson took a jacket from the Maison Blanche department store in New Orleans, draped it over his arm, and walked out of the store without paying for it. When he was accosted by a security guard, Jackson said: “I just needed another jacket, man.”

A few months later Jackson was convicted of shoplifting and sent to Angola prison in Louisiana. That was 16 years ago. Today he is still incarcerated in Angola, and will stay there for the rest of his natural life having been condemned to die in jail. All for the theft of a jacket, worth $159.

Jackson, 53, is one of 3,281 prisoners in America serving life sentences with no chance of parole for non-violent crimes. Some, like him, were given the most extreme punishment short of execution for shoplifting; one was condemned to die in prison for siphoning petrol from a truck; another for stealing tools from a tool shed; yet another for attempting to cash a stolen cheque.

On April 11 2018 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:



yes but why? what philosophy is this consistent with? why would we want it to be like that?