Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[rightwinger]

Regardless

The Trump presidency is tumbling around him. No amount of Nothing Burgers or Witch Hunts wil save him

His best scenario is he announces he won't run in 2020 and they let it go

 

[nat4900]

o, Cohen's guilty plea and his conviction says he's guilty, fool. Obviously their payments were illegal if he was charged for them.

Exactly..........If Cohen IS guilty (as his plea specifies) AND if tape recordings prove that Trump approved of those pay-offs, then the choice is simple:

Either Cohen is not really guilty.....OR

Cohen IS guilty and SO IS Trump.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Again there is a process in place to remove a President to do so any other way would truly destabilize the government for decades and decades.

NO ONE is disputing the current procedure for impeachment........What this thread is about is the REMOVAL of the DOJ guideline (not a law) for indicting a sitting president on criminal charges when warranted..........This is what this thread is about.

Think, nat, for just a second.

Suppose President Trump were indicted and convicted and sent to prison. He would still be President, while hanging out in the yard with the rest of the guys. And considering the fact that the Bureau of Corrections is under his Dept. of Justice, it would be sort of bizarre, no?

He would be indicted and then congress would have no choice but to impeach and remove him.

So indicting a President means he needs to be impeached? Isn’t there due process? Would we need to have a trial?

Congress would have to weigh the evidence.
Firstly, don't think this would be the only indictment.
Secondly, congress would no doubt want closed door testimony to review the evidence for the indictment(s).

Don't forget, we know Trump authorized the payments.

 

[nat4900]

But if it's a bullshit charge, President Pence would likely pardon him after he leaves office.[/QUOTE]


Ask Gerald Ford how well THAT played out for him.

 

[Polishprince]

If at least 34 senators agree that the burden of proof hasn't been met by the Persecution, they must vote to acquit and that is that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If at least 34 senators agree that the burden of proof hasn't been met by the Persecution, they must vote to acquit and that is that.

Kind of hard to do that if he's facing multiple indictments on multiple fronts.
Mueller is now moving on to the business.

 

[rightwinger]

If at least 34 senators agree that the burden of proof hasn't been met by the Persecution, they must vote to acquit and that is that.

As it should be

But if they are voting to maintain political control of the Government, all of them need to be voted out of office

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If at least 34 senators agree that the burden of proof hasn't been met by the Persecution, they must vote to acquit and that is that.

Kind of hard to do that if he's facing multiple indictments on multiple fronts.
Mueller is now moving on to the business.

Something besides Stormy?

 

[rightwinger]

21 Republican Senators would be required to impeach. With the number of Red State Senators who do not need to worry about losing, it is unlikely Trump would be impeached

But political payback would be fierce in 2020

 

[Polishprince]

21 Republican Senators would be required to impeach. With the number of Red State Senators who do not need to worry about losing, it is unlikely Trump would be impeached

But political payback would be fierce in 2020

I think you are dramatically underestimating our President's popularity.

The payback will be against those who would actually vote to remove President Trump.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again there is a process in place to remove a President to do so any other way would truly destabilize the government for decades and decades.

NO ONE is disputing the current procedure for impeachment........What this thread is about is the REMOVAL of the DOJ guideline (not a law) for indicting a sitting president on criminal charges when warranted..........This is what this thread is about.

Think, nat, for just a second.

Suppose President Trump were indicted and convicted and sent to prison. He would still be President, while hanging out in the yard with the rest of the guys. And considering the fact that the Bureau of Corrections is under his Dept. of Justice, it would be sort of bizarre, no?

He would be indicted and then congress would have no choice but to impeach and remove him.

So indicting a President means he needs to be impeached? Isn’t there due process? Would we need to have a trial?

Congress would have to weigh the evidence.
Firstly, don't think this would be the only indictment.
Secondly, congress would no doubt want closed door testimony to review the evidence for the indictment(s).

Don't forget, we know Trump authorized the payments.

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached, it is all the same unless you are looking for an advantage somehow, if that is the case be careful what you wish for because it will boomerang on the Dems one day, just the way it is.

 

[Papageorgio]

21 Republican Senators would be required to impeach. With the number of Red State Senators who do not need to worry about losing, it is unlikely Trump would be impeached

But political payback would be fierce in 2020

21 Republican Senators would be required to impeach. With the number of Red State Senators who do not need to worry about losing, it is unlikely Trump would be impeached

But political payback would be fierce in 2020

Senators cannot impeach, only the House can vote to impeach. The Senate would convict and depending on the charges and evidence, they could certainly convict.

 

[rightwinger]

Let the SCOTUS tell us a president is above the law

 

[rightwinger]

21 Republican Senators would be required to impeach. With the number of Red State Senators who do not need to worry about losing, it is unlikely Trump would be impeached

But political payback would be fierce in 2020

21 Republican Senators would be required to impeach. With the number of Red State Senators who do not need to worry about losing, it is unlikely Trump would be impeached

But political payback would be fierce in 2020

Senators cannot impeach, only the House can vote to impeach. The Senate would convict and depending on the charges and evidence, they could certainly convict.

No shit Sherlock

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If at least 34 senators agree that the burden of proof hasn't been met by the Persecution, they must vote to acquit and that is that.

As it should be

But if they are voting to maintain political control of the Government, all of them need to be voted out of office

That would be a serious constitutional crisis.
I would hope they would not act politically in that case.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If at least 34 senators agree that the burden of proof hasn't been met by the Persecution, they must vote to acquit and that is that.

Kind of hard to do that if he's facing multiple indictments on multiple fronts.
Mueller is now moving on to the business.

Something besides Stormy?

I don't doubt that multiple counts of obstruction could be brought.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

And the impeachment process is the means by which an unfit – or unlawful – president is removed from office.

Unfortunately most people are too stupid and ignorant to understand the process the Framers created.

And politicians lack the courage and integrity to indict a president once removed from office, fearing that they too would be subject to prosecution when they leave office.

 

[Papageorgio]

21 Republican Senators would be required to impeach. With the number of Red State Senators who do not need to worry about losing, it is unlikely Trump would be impeached

But political payback would be fierce in 2020

21 Republican Senators would be required to impeach. With the number of Red State Senators who do not need to worry about losing, it is unlikely Trump would be impeached

But political payback would be fierce in 2020

Senators cannot impeach, only the House can vote to impeach. The Senate would convict and depending on the charges and evidence, they could certainly convict.

No shit Sherlock

Then why did you say 21 Republican SENATORS would be required to IMPEACH? Dumb shit Sherlock.

 

[debbiedowner]

It ain't really too complicated, and it's based on the Constitution AND LOGIC, which is where it leaves Leftists scratching their pointy little heads.

The President cannot be indicted WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. If he commits a real crime, sufficient to invoke the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language for impeachment, then he can be impeached by the HR and removed from office after trial in the Senate. Then he would be a private citizen and could be indicted.

Could he peremptorily pardon himself while President? Nobody knows. It would certainly be rude.

But if it's a bullshit charge, President Pence would likely pardon him after he leaves office. Promptly, would be my guess.

So where in the constitution does it say a sitting President cannot be indicted?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

NO ONE is disputing the current procedure for impeachment........What this thread is about is the REMOVAL of the DOJ guideline (not a law) for indicting a sitting president on criminal charges when warranted..........This is what this thread is about.

Think, nat, for just a second.

Suppose President Trump were indicted and convicted and sent to prison. He would still be President, while hanging out in the yard with the rest of the guys. And considering the fact that the Bureau of Corrections is under his Dept. of Justice, it would be sort of bizarre, no?

He would be indicted and then congress would have no choice but to impeach and remove him.

So indicting a President means he needs to be impeached? Isn’t there due process? Would we need to have a trial?

Congress would have to weigh the evidence.
Firstly, don't think this would be the only indictment.
Secondly, congress would no doubt want closed door testimony to review the evidence for the indictment(s).

Don't forget, we know Trump authorized the payments.

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached, it is all the same unless you are looking for an advantage somehow, if that is the case be careful what you wish for because it will boomerang on the Dems one day, just the way it is.

I never said indictments were needed.
They would certainly make it more politically tricky for the Senate to vote no.

Boomerang?

You dopes have made political investigations against democratic admins a matter of course. The only difference is you always end up with nothing. This is your boomerang, dope. Enjoy it.