Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Certainly a criminal conviction is sufficient grounds for removal by congress.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Bullshit. That wouldn't fly.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

There is certainly a difference between losing a case and a frivilous case.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Certainly a criminal conviction is sufficient grounds for removal by congress.

A conviction can still happen after impeachment. The indicting agency can send their information to congress.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

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?

There is certainly a difference between losing a case and a frivilous case.

So every prosecutor who has tried a frivolous case has been fired?

 

[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.

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.

I have no interest in political points. Only in assuring a corrupt president is not politically protected by congress.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Who is indicting him? The way it works is that Mueller will conclude his investigation, and give the House his findings then the House decides whether to pursue impeachment. If they impeach, then the Senate will then vet the articles of impeachment and move from there.

You can’t indict a sitting President, so your guarantee is worth nothing as are all your guarantees.

Go ahead and change the procedure, I’m sure with all your power you can get that done in no time.

 

[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.

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.

Fuck you, liar.
I've never even suggested as much.

There's nothing in the constitution regarding indictments, dope.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I have no interest in political points. Only in assuring a corrupt president is not politically protected by congress.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Where is there no due process, dope?

 

[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.

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.

Derp....the constitution says nothing about it, dope.

 

[bendog]

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.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Certainly a criminal conviction is sufficient grounds for removal by congress.

A conviction can still happen after impeachment. The indicting agency can send their information to congress.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

Thats assuming there is an impeachment.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Derp....the constitution says nothing about it, dope.

The Constitution gives only the House the right indict a president for removal, and only the Senate the right to try him and remove him.

based on that the Federal Courts have implied that any indictment of a president has to come from the House, then the Senate removes him, then the locality where the crime was committed can try him.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Certainly a criminal conviction is sufficient grounds for removal by congress.

A conviction can still happen after impeachment. The indicting agency can send their information to congress.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

Thats assuming there is an impeachment.

That how the system works and was designed.

 

[bendog]

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.

Who is indicting him? The way it works is that Mueller will conclude his investigation, and give the House his findings then the House decides whether to pursue impeachment. If they impeach, then the Senate will then vet the articles of impeachment and move from there.

You can’t indict a sitting President, so your guarantee is worth nothing as are all your guarantees.

Go ahead and change the procedure, I’m sure with all your power you can get that done in no time.

THAT is incorrect. The AG will determine whether Mueller's findings go public.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Who is indicting him? The way it works is that Mueller will conclude his investigation, and give the House his findings then the House decides whether to pursue impeachment. If they impeach, then the Senate will then vet the articles of impeachment and move from there.

You can’t indict a sitting President, so your guarantee is worth nothing as are all your guarantees.

Go ahead and change the procedure, I’m sure with all your power you can get that done in no time.

Who say a president cannot be indicted?

 

[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.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

Where is there no due process, dope?

Your unsubstantiated fears are not above the law, let Congress take care of the Presidency, I am sure if Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be removed from office. Nutter.

You and you political agenda will then be under Pence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Derp....the constitution says nothing about it, dope.

The Constitution gives only the House the right indict a president for removal, and only the Senate the right to try him and remove him.

based on that the Federal Courts have implied that any indictment of a president has to come from the House, then the Senate removes him, then the locality where the crime was committed can try him.

Nope. The courts have said nothing.

The ban is only a Nixon era policy at DOJ.