Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

States or the federal govt have a duty to prosecute crimes.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The number of indictments doesn’t mean squat. The evidence would be what matters. There is due process and removing a President without due process is a major mistake.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Only if they have committed crimes, of course.

You have a problem with that?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

 

[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.

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.

The number of indictments doesn’t mean squat. The evidence would be what matters. There is due process and removing a President without due process is a major mistake.

The number certainly does matter. One may be questionable but many removes doubt that there will be a conviction.
Obviously, Congress would be briefed on the evidence. Their process would remain the same beyond that.

When you look at the flimsy process used against Clinton, the amount of evidence in my scenario would be far more appropriate to the seriousness of the process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

WTF?

Who wouldn't care? Of course they must prove their case or be removed.

 

[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.

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.

The number of indictments doesn’t mean squat. The evidence would be what matters. There is due process and removing a President without due process is a major mistake.

Well, the charges are made only when the prosecutors have the evidence they need.
So yeah, the evidence of multiple crimes would be huge.
How many of Trump's guys have walked because that wasn't the case?

I'm not suggesting there is no due process.

Ive said multiple times that Congress would be shown the evidence and their process would go from there.

 

[martybegan]

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.

States or the federal govt have a duty to prosecute crimes.

But they do not have the authority to prosecute a sitting president. Only the House and Indict, and only the Senate can convict.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Only if they have committed crimes, of course.

You have a problem with that?

It wouldn't be about crimes, it would be about States not getting their way.

I can see California indicting trump for Climate Change if your method was the way things work.

 

[martybegan]

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.

WTF?

Who wouldn't care? Of course they must prove their case or be removed.

So a prosecutor who gets an indictment but loses the case is always fired?

 

[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.

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.

The number of indictments doesn’t mean squat. The evidence would be what matters. There is due process and removing a President without due process is a major mistake.

Well, the charges are made only when the prosecutors have the evidence they need.
So yeah, the evidence of multiple crimes would be huge.
How many of Trump's guys have walked because that wasn't the case?

I'm not suggesting there is no due process.

Ive said multiple times that Congress would be shown the evidence and their process would go from there.

They can do that already without having to indict the President at the State level,

You just want to be able to score political points because "ORANGE MAN BAD"

What a **** you are.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The number of indictments doesn’t mean squat. The evidence would be what matters. There is due process and removing a President without due process is a major mistake.

The number certainly does matter. One may be questionable but many removes doubt that there will be a conviction.
Obviously, Congress would be briefed on the evidence. Their process would remain the same beyond that.

When you look at the flimsy process used against Clinton, the amount of evidence in my scenario would be far more appropriate to the seriousness of the process.

Clinton was given due process for a sitting US President, something you want to deny Trump.

I am thankful the writers of the Constitution were much brighter and wiser than a partisan dummy such as yourself.

I tire of the left’s butt hurt.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The number of indictments doesn’t mean squat. The evidence would be what matters. There is due process and removing a President without due process is a major mistake.

Well, the charges are made only when the prosecutors have the evidence they need.
So yeah, the evidence of multiple crimes would be huge.
How many of Trump's guys have walked because that wasn't the case?

I'm not suggesting there is no due process.

Ive said multiple times that Congress would be shown the evidence and their process would go from there.

They can do that already without having to indict the President at the State level,

You just want to be able to score political points because "ORANGE MAN BAD"

What a **** you are.

And he is putting under the guise of being fair. Since when is denying someone due process fair?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

Or we just keep the system the same, as per the constitution, where only the House has the right to indict the president, and only the Senate can convict him.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

Let’s keep the same process we used with all other Presidents and you get over your loss in 2016.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

States or the federal govt have a duty to prosecute crimes.

But they do not have the authority to prosecute a sitting president. Only the House and Indict, and only the Senate can convict.

Who says there is no authority to prosecute a sitting president? You are then suggesting they are above the law then.

It's the same evidence whether congress impeaches on their own or with an indictment.

Let's say congress opted not to remove a president who is accused of criminality.
That president finishes his term and is out if office. He then is charged and convicted of multiple serious felonies.

How then did congress protect the American people from a corrupt president?

They didn't , they failed. They should be impeached.

 

[martybegan]

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.

States or the federal govt have a duty to prosecute crimes.

But they do not have the authority to prosecute a sitting president. Only the House and Indict, and only the Senate can convict.

Who says there is no authority to prosecute a sitting president? You are then suggesting they are above the law then.

It's the same evidence whether congress impeaches on their own or with an indictment.

Let's say congress opted not to remove a president who is accused of criminality.
That president finishes his term and is out if office. He then is charged and convicted of multiple serious felonies.

How then did congress protect the American people from a corrupt president?

They didn't , they failed. They should be impeached.

Since only congress can remove the president, having a sitting president indicted by another authority makes no sense.

It would be maligned for political reasons by hack-twats like you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

Let’s keep the same process we used with all other Presidents and you get over your loss in 2016.

2016 has not a thing to do with it, dope.

I gurantee indictments will happen. There are far too many serious crimes for this to be left soley to the political cucks in the senate. They will be given no choice.