Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[Papageorgio]

Dumb shit, you took the gloves off, if you don’t like the name calling then maybe you should have used your shit for brains and fuckin figured it out.

You are now quoting out of context, if you can’t be honest and you need to cherry pick, then fuck you.

I was giving a what if, I said Obama was innocent. Like I said, when you can comprehend what you fucking read let me know. Your dishonesty isn’t surprising, dumb ass.

I was completely honest. Your examples were not. If you're going to compare Trump to anyone, it should be Nixon.

I wasn’t comparing, how stupid are you? I was giving a what if scenario, my you are a moron, how do you even breathe? I have dealt with someone this stupid in a long time, are you a public school teacher?

What if you didn't stupidly use Obama as an example?
Your point would have made some sense.

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

If Republicans could have indicted the Great Obama , they would have
Crooked Donnie will not be so lucky

That is exactly my point, it would have made the Presidents job all the tougher. As it stands now, we have the impeachment process which is still a solid way for the justice system to work.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don’t think the intent was for a president to get away with murder

The founders wanted nobody to be above the law

Correct, hence Article II, Section 4.

Once removed from office via the impeachment process a former president and private citizen can be indicted and subject to criminal prosecution.

I believe a President is a private citizen and should not be above the law

He is not above the law. Only the House can impeach, only the Senate can convict, and only then can he be tried for any crimes.

That is not "above the law" it is only immunity from prosecution unless impeached.

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

 

[martybegan]

I don’t think the intent was for a president to get away with murder

The founders wanted nobody to be above the law

Correct, hence Article II, Section 4.

Once removed from office via the impeachment process a former president and private citizen can be indicted and subject to criminal prosecution.

I believe a President is a private citizen and should not be above the law

He is not above the law. Only the House can impeach, only the Senate can convict, and only then can he be tried for any crimes.

That is not "above the law" it is only immunity from prosecution unless impeached.

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don’t think the intent was for a president to get away with murder

The founders wanted nobody to be above the law

Correct, hence Article II, Section 4.

Once removed from office via the impeachment process a former president and private citizen can be indicted and subject to criminal prosecution.

I believe a President is a private citizen and should not be above the law

He is not above the law. Only the House can impeach, only the Senate can convict, and only then can he be tried for any crimes.

That is not "above the law" it is only immunity from prosecution unless impeached.

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

He's shielded by the partisan whims of the minority led Senate. If they choose to shield the president to protect their political power, then there is no accountability.
There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments.

 

[Papageorgio]

Dumb shit, you took the gloves off, if you don’t like the name calling then maybe you should have used your shit for brains and fuckin figured it out.

You are now quoting out of context, if you can’t be honest and you need to cherry pick, then fuck you.

I was giving a what if, I said Obama was innocent. Like I said, when you can comprehend what you fucking read let me know. Your dishonesty isn’t surprising, dumb ass.

I was completely honest. Your examples were not. If you're going to compare Trump to anyone, it should be Nixon.

I wasn’t comparing, how stupid are you? I was giving a what if scenario, my you are a moron, how do you even breathe? I have dealt with someone this stupid in a long time, are you a public school teacher?

What if you didn't stupidly use Obama as an example?
Your point would have made some sense.

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

 

[martybegan]

Correct, hence Article II, Section 4.

Once removed from office via the impeachment process a former president and private citizen can be indicted and subject to criminal prosecution.

I believe a President is a private citizen and should not be above the law

He is not above the law. Only the House can impeach, only the Senate can convict, and only then can he be tried for any crimes.

That is not "above the law" it is only immunity from prosecution unless impeached.

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

He's shielded by the partisan whims of the minority led Senate. If they choose to shield the president to protect their political power, then there is no accountability.
There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments.

The president can only be removed from office via impeachment. It goes to reason that you cannot allow a president to remain in office if he is on trial for a crime, convicted and sentenced. So the courts have rightly decided that impeachment and removal have to happen first.

The constitution is clear on the removal method, hence the president is not "Above the Law"

Your whining about the process notwithstanding.

 

[Papageorgio]

Correct, hence Article II, Section 4.

Once removed from office via the impeachment process a former president and private citizen can be indicted and subject to criminal prosecution.

I believe a President is a private citizen and should not be above the law

He is not above the law. Only the House can impeach, only the Senate can convict, and only then can he be tried for any crimes.

That is not "above the law" it is only immunity from prosecution unless impeached.

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

He's shielded by the partisan whims of the minority led Senate. If they choose to shield the president to protect their political power, then there is no accountability.
There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments.

What are they shielding? If A Republican is removed the Republican VP would then become President. Pence in this case is well regarded and if the Senate sees the evidence and finds him guilty then the Republicans would vote to remove the President because it is in their best interests with their constituents.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I was completely honest. Your examples were not. If you're going to compare Trump to anyone, it should be Nixon.

I wasn’t comparing, how stupid are you? I was giving a what if scenario, my you are a moron, how do you even breathe? I have dealt with someone this stupid in a long time, are you a public school teacher?

What if you didn't stupidly use Obama as an example?
Your point would have made some sense.

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

WTF?

You honestly believe your own bullshit, don't you. Yikes!

So, you believe a President can be indicted without any evidence of a crime ?

What's the plan for trial if they did so? Where does the evidence come from?

Would a judge even hear it?

Do you imagine the DOJ would allow those US attorneys to do so?

That would be a complete breakdown of our judiciary.
You are one dopey, dude.

 

[martybegan]

I wasn’t comparing, how stupid are you? I was giving a what if scenario, my you are a moron, how do you even breathe? I have dealt with someone this stupid in a long time, are you a public school teacher?

What if you didn't stupidly use Obama as an example?
Your point would have made some sense.

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

WTF?

You honestly believe your own bullshit, don't you. Yikes!

So, you believe a President can be indicted without any evidence of a crime ?

What's the plan for trial if they did so? Where does the evidence come from?

Would a judge even hear it?

Do you imagine the DOJ would allow those US attorneys to do so?

That would be a complete breakdown of our judiciary.
You are one dopey, dude.

A good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted.

 

[Papageorgio]

I wasn’t comparing, how stupid are you? I was giving a what if scenario, my you are a moron, how do you even breathe? I have dealt with someone this stupid in a long time, are you a public school teacher?

What if you didn't stupidly use Obama as an example?
Your point would have made some sense.

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

WTF?

You honestly believe your own bullshit, don't you. Yikes!

So, you believe a President can be indicted without any evidence of a crime ?

What's the plan for trial if they did so? Where does the evidence come from?

Would a judge even hear it?

Do you imagine the DOJ would allow those US attorneys to do so?

That would be a complete breakdown of our judiciary.
You are one dopey, dude.

You are really stupid, you keep twisting my words, if you can’t be honest in discussions there is no point continuing the conversation. I can’t deal with your dishonesty or your stupidity. Let me know when you want an honest conversation.

 

[Papageorgio]

What if you didn't stupidly use Obama as an example?
Your point would have made some sense.

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

WTF?

You honestly believe your own bullshit, don't you. Yikes!

So, you believe a President can be indicted without any evidence of a crime ?

What's the plan for trial if they did so? Where does the evidence come from?

Would a judge even hear it?

Do you imagine the DOJ would allow those US attorneys to do so?

That would be a complete breakdown of our judiciary.
You are one dopey, dude.

A good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted.

That is the point that sails over this nut jobs head. Some people are hopelessly stuck on stupid.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I believe a President is a private citizen and should not be above the law

He is not above the law. Only the House can impeach, only the Senate can convict, and only then can he be tried for any crimes.

That is not "above the law" it is only immunity from prosecution unless impeached.

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

He's shielded by the partisan whims of the minority led Senate. If they choose to shield the president to protect their political power, then there is no accountability.
There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments.

The president can only be removed from office via impeachment. It goes to reason that you cannot allow a president to remain in office if he is on trial for a crime, convicted and sentenced. So the courts have rightly decided that impeachment and removal have to happen first.

The constitution is clear on the removal method, hence the president is not "Above the Law"

Your whining about the process notwithstanding.

I never said that an indictment could remove a president.
Obviously the congress would still have to act. Certainly though, the prospect of political cuntery is greatly reduced if not eliminated if the president is facing serious criminal charges. It would be difficult to justify not removing them under those circumstances.

There is nothing in the constitution that disallows this.

 

[martybegan]

He is not above the law. Only the House can impeach, only the Senate can convict, and only then can he be tried for any crimes.

That is not "above the law" it is only immunity from prosecution unless impeached.

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

He's shielded by the partisan whims of the minority led Senate. If they choose to shield the president to protect their political power, then there is no accountability.
There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments.

The president can only be removed from office via impeachment. It goes to reason that you cannot allow a president to remain in office if he is on trial for a crime, convicted and sentenced. So the courts have rightly decided that impeachment and removal have to happen first.

The constitution is clear on the removal method, hence the president is not "Above the Law"

Your whining about the process notwithstanding.

I never said that an indictment could remove a president.
Obviously the congress would still have to act. Certainly though, the prospect of political cuntery is greatly reduced if not eliminated if the president is facing serious criminal charges. It would be difficult to justify not removing them under those circumstances.

There is nothing in the constitution that disallows this.

There is nothing in the constitution that says it's allowed either.

Would you really want a President on Trial still serving in office?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I believe a President is a private citizen and should not be above the law

He is not above the law. Only the House can impeach, only the Senate can convict, and only then can he be tried for any crimes.

That is not "above the law" it is only immunity from prosecution unless impeached.

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

He's shielded by the partisan whims of the minority led Senate. If they choose to shield the president to protect their political power, then there is no accountability.
There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments.

What are they shielding? If A Republican is removed the Republican VP would then become President. Pence in this case is well regarded and if the Senate sees the evidence and finds him guilty then the Republicans would vote to remove the President because it is in their best interests with their constituents.

Nonsense.

I guarantee that the incoming senate would not vote to remove this president regardless of how many indicments could be brought. If they were brought though, only then would they have no political choice but to do so.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Being politically shielded from the law is the same as being above the law.

The minority led Senate has the final say.

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

He's shielded by the partisan whims of the minority led Senate. If they choose to shield the president to protect their political power, then there is no accountability.
There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments.

The president can only be removed from office via impeachment. It goes to reason that you cannot allow a president to remain in office if he is on trial for a crime, convicted and sentenced. So the courts have rightly decided that impeachment and removal have to happen first.

The constitution is clear on the removal method, hence the president is not "Above the Law"

Your whining about the process notwithstanding.

I never said that an indictment could remove a president.
Obviously the congress would still have to act. Certainly though, the prospect of political cuntery is greatly reduced if not eliminated if the president is facing serious criminal charges. It would be difficult to justify not removing them under those circumstances.

There is nothing in the constitution that disallows this.

There is nothing in the constitution that says it's allowed either.

Would you really want a President on Trial still serving in office?

Of course I don't want a sitting president on trial. That's why it would be incumbant upon Congress to act accordingly in a timely fashion.


Only the SCOTUS can decide.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What if you didn't stupidly use Obama as an example?
Your point would have made some sense.

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

WTF?

You honestly believe your own bullshit, don't you. Yikes!

So, you believe a President can be indicted without any evidence of a crime ?

What's the plan for trial if they did so? Where does the evidence come from?

Would a judge even hear it?

Do you imagine the DOJ would allow those US attorneys to do so?

That would be a complete breakdown of our judiciary.
You are one dopey, dude.

A good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted.

Brilliant!

Then what?

Especially with a POTUS?

Where does that go?

 

[martybegan]

No, because it's the law (the constitution) that sets up the situation in the first place.

He is shielded via the constitution, not politics. In fact the situation was set up to avoid political indictments from the States if they didn't get their way in disputes.

He's shielded by the partisan whims of the minority led Senate. If they choose to shield the president to protect their political power, then there is no accountability.
There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments.

The president can only be removed from office via impeachment. It goes to reason that you cannot allow a president to remain in office if he is on trial for a crime, convicted and sentenced. So the courts have rightly decided that impeachment and removal have to happen first.

The constitution is clear on the removal method, hence the president is not "Above the Law"

Your whining about the process notwithstanding.

I never said that an indictment could remove a president.
Obviously the congress would still have to act. Certainly though, the prospect of political cuntery is greatly reduced if not eliminated if the president is facing serious criminal charges. It would be difficult to justify not removing them under those circumstances.

There is nothing in the constitution that disallows this.

There is nothing in the constitution that says it's allowed either.

Would you really want a President on Trial still serving in office?

Of course I don't want a sitting president on trial. That's why it would be incumbant upon Congress to act accordingly in a timely fashion.


Only the SCOTUS can decide.

Or we avoid the issue by not letting States try to use political indictments to influence executive decisions they don't like.

Morons like you will gladly destroy this country to get your pound of Trump-flesh.

You are nothing but short sighted twats.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What if you didn't stupidly use Obama as an example?
Your point would have made some sense.

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

WTF?

You honestly believe your own bullshit, don't you. Yikes!

So, you believe a President can be indicted without any evidence of a crime ?

What's the plan for trial if they did so? Where does the evidence come from?

Would a judge even hear it?

Do you imagine the DOJ would allow those US attorneys to do so?

That would be a complete breakdown of our judiciary.
You are one dopey, dude.

You are really stupid, you keep twisting my words, if you can’t be honest in discussions there is no point continuing the conversation. I can’t deal with your dishonesty or your stupidity. Let me know when you want an honest conversation.

I'm no twisting anything. Your point is dumb as shit.

You're suggesting a president can be indicted without having committed any crime.

I'm asking you how they would pull that off?

 

[martybegan]

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

WTF?

You honestly believe your own bullshit, don't you. Yikes!

So, you believe a President can be indicted without any evidence of a crime ?

What's the plan for trial if they did so? Where does the evidence come from?

Would a judge even hear it?

Do you imagine the DOJ would allow those US attorneys to do so?

That would be a complete breakdown of our judiciary.
You are one dopey, dude.

A good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted.

Brilliant!

Then what?

Especially with a POTUS?

Where does that go?

It makes being president unworkable, because every State that doesn't like what the executive is doing can get their AG to start indicting the president or federal officials.

 

[martybegan]

Obviously not to you, I used Obama because he was the least likely to be involved in a scandal and I was showing how if we had the power to indict a Presidency his tenure would have been rocked with indictment after indictment because you can indictmso easily, that is why we have the impeachment process rather than an indictment first process. You being a stupid asinine partisan hack took offense immediately by me using Obama when had you any compression skills would have realized what I posted instead of being a dishonest partisan hack.and taking my posts out of context.

So, you cried because you said I took you out of context. I did not. Your point is the same and completely retarded. My point remains the same.

Indictments require crimes, dope.
A prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable dout.

Obama never committed any crimes. There was never anything to indict him on.

You still miss the point dumbo. I never said Obama committed any crime dummy. All an indictment is, is a formal accusation, that a wrong may have been committed, it doesn’t mean you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that is what a trial is for. All you need is a judge to agree with an attorney that a wrong may have been committed and you can indict, it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence, it means it may have been committed, it is a low bar to jump. You may want to learn to read dummy.

WTF?

You honestly believe your own bullshit, don't you. Yikes!

So, you believe a President can be indicted without any evidence of a crime ?

What's the plan for trial if they did so? Where does the evidence come from?

Would a judge even hear it?

Do you imagine the DOJ would allow those US attorneys to do so?

That would be a complete breakdown of our judiciary.
You are one dopey, dude.

You are really stupid, you keep twisting my words, if you can’t be honest in discussions there is no point continuing the conversation. I can’t deal with your dishonesty or your stupidity. Let me know when you want an honest conversation.

I'm no twisting anything. Your point is dumb as shit.

You're suggesting a president can be indicted without having committed any crime.

I'm asking you how they would pull that off?

They wouldn't care about winning the trial it would be to score political points with their lap dog moronic base (i.e you,) and make it impossible for the President to carry out his job.