see4
Well-Known Member
Uhhh... you came up with that one all on your own?
lol, sorry dude, I had to zing you on that one...
mueller wants to interview trump
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
lol, sorry dude, I had to zing you on that one...
PCXV
Well-Known Member
I sit with ideas I ingest and then, when later realized, I claim them as my own. lol
see4
Well-Known Member
I predict within the next 3 years the market is going to nose dive unless something changes drastically. The market is fairly unhealthy right now. The dollar is weaker, which could lead to inflation at rates higher than we expect. And we aren't offsetting that with raising interest rates enough. -- In the end... boom goes the dynamite.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance
Chuck Prince, Citigroup, 2007
These guys are the sloppy drunks at the party who eventually ruin it. Why do they keep getting invited?
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
Trump would fail a Spirograph
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
this should tell us all we need to know...
stupid ass fucking republicans electing someone without seeing taxes first.
wanna bet congress passes a law that makes it necessary from now on?
Excessive_Toker
Well-Known Member
Terps
Well-Known Member
Yea keep lying to yourself... This economy has nothing to do with Obama..
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
It's about half over at best.
The reason they're going to want to interview Trump is to compare what he does or doesn't say to the information they already have. Trump and his team of lawyers have basically three options:
- Refuse to have an interview and answer only in written form.
- Allow Trump to be interviewed but with counsel present to monitor questions.
- Allow a free interview.
The problem is going to be if Trump's lawyers insist on him taking the 5th. Many civil and criminal attorneys to that because they think that if they do it makes the prosecutors case harder to prove.
The problem they (Trump's lawyers) have in this case though is that Mueller in all likelihood already has enough to charge Trump right now. All taking the 5th will do is pretty much add gas to the fire of an obstruction charge.
Most people think that taking the 5th is an easy way out. It isn't. All it does is broadcast to everybody that you are in fact guilty of something, and that you don't want to be a witness against yourself. (That is your constitutional right, of course.)
In my opinion, charges are going to start by no later than June - July. If it happens faster than that, I'll be surprised.
But it's coming. Trump can't win this one. If he stonewalls, they'll know for sure they have a case. If he doesn't, he's BOUND to screw up and give them all the rope they need to hang him.
coloradolivin
Well-Known Member
and after july, if there are no charges against trump. will you finally admit that the russia thing is a hillary fantasy that got taken way too far?
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
That is not going to happen. For you to even suggest that makes you, sorry to say, a blithering idiot of epic proportion.
Two people have already plead guilty to lying about exactly that. No matter what happens, it's already proven that Trump officials worked with the Russians. They have guilty pleas in hand.
The only question now is: who else did and did Trump know about it?
coloradolivin
Well-Known Member
sorry, I have a memory longer than a goldfish.
why do I care about trump officials? that just sounds like a name you gave to someone to make it seem scary. papadopolous never met trump and wasnt even hired by him and the other guy apparently got fired by trump when he lied
so again, when july rolls around and no charges are brought against trump, are you going to admit that trump has nothing to do with russia and hillary is a piece of shit for wasting all these resources
coloradolivin
Well-Known Member
"Flynn, who pleaded guilty in December to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador."
and who interviewed flynn? peter strzok, who has now been fired from the trump russia investigation because he was trying to sabotage trump the entire time
what do you say to that tacomac?
and who interviewed flynn? peter strzok, who has now been fired from the trump russia investigation because he was trying to sabotage trump the entire time
what do you say to that tacomac?
coloradolivin
Well-Known Member
wow, you completely avoided the elephant in the room that is peter strzok
well done for one-upping the status quo of stupidity.
well done for one-upping the status quo of stupidity.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
Probably earlier than that. Prosecutors are generaly (except in comey's case) reluctant to make any charges close to an election. They don't want to be seen as trying to influence them (except in comey's case).
Interviewing trump still indicates a near end of the road in terms of people. You don't interview the king until you already have all the facts. They still need to build a case, but at the point they interview trump they don't belive any substantial new avenues of investigation will open against him.
They have mountains of evidence already though, and not just for simple obstruction charges. They can easily prove conspiracy on multiple crimes, potentially including espionage.
The real question is whether they will charge trump himself, or leave him an unindicted conspirator with sealed indictments for later use.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The process of impeachment and removal from office is concisely codified in the constitution and two presidents have been impeached by the house but both were acquitted by the senate. For impeachment, a house majority is required and this is possible even if the GOP controls the house. However, in order to make anything of an impeachment, two thirds of the senate have to vote for the president to be removed from office. Fat chance of that, even with a DNC senate. I don't see that ever happening.
For those who still don't know, impeachment is only the process of deciding whether to hold the president responsible for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Censure is another option that the senate may take.
I would love to see the president indicted. The constitution doesn't provide a clear answer about prosecuting a sitting president. There is no historical precedent and constitutional scholars are divided on the issue. It is theoretically possible, since it is not explicitly ruled out by the constitution but the scotus is to decide what is the intent of the document.
I can't name the clause but I think that there is a passage, something to the effect of "no one is above the law". It's in there somewhere and (if I'm right) it means that it is a constitutional principal. Principal is to be the guidance for the explication of the intent of the framers when something is not explicitly codified.
There are two arguments against it (arresting a sitting president) that are often used. Firstly, it is argued that the gov't would not be able to function smoothly and efficiently if hobbled at the highest level. Secondly, it is argued that it would be untoward for a grand jury to undo the will of the people as expressed by an election. I'm sure that there are other arguments and I'd love to argue them.
To the first, I would not even respond. It's irrelevant. The agenda of a criminal should not be the agenda of the gov't and such a regime should be hobbled. To the second, I actually find it to be a strong constitutional argument. I did not say that I concede to it. In this case we are investigating the collusion of the regime with a foreign government having interfered in that very election.
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law." -Ken Starr
For those who still don't know, impeachment is only the process of deciding whether to hold the president responsible for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Censure is another option that the senate may take.
I would love to see the president indicted. The constitution doesn't provide a clear answer about prosecuting a sitting president. There is no historical precedent and constitutional scholars are divided on the issue. It is theoretically possible, since it is not explicitly ruled out by the constitution but the scotus is to decide what is the intent of the document.
I can't name the clause but I think that there is a passage, something to the effect of "no one is above the law". It's in there somewhere and (if I'm right) it means that it is a constitutional principal. Principal is to be the guidance for the explication of the intent of the framers when something is not explicitly codified.
There are two arguments against it (arresting a sitting president) that are often used. Firstly, it is argued that the gov't would not be able to function smoothly and efficiently if hobbled at the highest level. Secondly, it is argued that it would be untoward for a grand jury to undo the will of the people as expressed by an election. I'm sure that there are other arguments and I'd love to argue them.
To the first, I would not even respond. It's irrelevant. The agenda of a criminal should not be the agenda of the gov't and such a regime should be hobbled. To the second, I actually find it to be a strong constitutional argument. I did not say that I concede to it. In this case we are investigating the collusion of the regime with a foreign government having interfered in that very election.
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law." -Ken Starr
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Of course, he could always pardon himself. But then the chances of two thirds of the senate voting to remove him from office would certainly improve.
Trump is probably in very deep shit.
Trump is probably in very deep shit.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
The constitution is resilient. Democracy is not.
The argument against indicting a sitting president has nothing to do with succession of power; that is clearly delineated.
It is rather an argument over constitutional separation of powers. Really the only remedy in the constitution to a president acting illegally is impeachment (the 25th is for incapacitation). To put a president on trial is a violation (they say) of the articles dealing with which branch does what.
Democracy however is dying. When one person is essentially above the law through conspiracy with the congress, democracy dies and dictatorship rises.
The constitution explicitly gives the president virtually unlimited power. They did that because they could never imagine a president would so thoroughly abuse those powers without the congress stopping them.
Bad decision.
The argument against indicting a sitting president has nothing to do with succession of power; that is clearly delineated.
It is rather an argument over constitutional separation of powers. Really the only remedy in the constitution to a president acting illegally is impeachment (the 25th is for incapacitation). To put a president on trial is a violation (they say) of the articles dealing with which branch does what.
Democracy however is dying. When one person is essentially above the law through conspiracy with the congress, democracy dies and dictatorship rises.
The constitution explicitly gives the president virtually unlimited power. They did that because they could never imagine a president would so thoroughly abuse those powers without the congress stopping them.
Bad decision.