Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[nat4900]

What?

Impeachment wouldn't "clog up the Presidency"?

Trump's fat ass may "clog up" the west wing....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is just stupid.

Say we have a Democratic President elected in 2020 and he gets caught in a Teapot Dome scandal and takes bribes to enrich himself but a Democratic House refuses to Impeach.

Wouldn't you think indicting him would be the appropriate remedy?

Of course you would. And you'd be correct

In that theoretical case, the Democrat President wouldn't be indicted either. He wouldn't appoint a special counsel, and his own men in the DOJ would never pursue and indictment.

Further, I wouldn't want to see any President rule the nation from a jail cell, even a liberal one. I don't think it would be a good role model for the children to see the President deliver his SOTU in an orange jumpsuit.

You're dodging the question

Say we have a Democratic President elected in 2020 and he gets caught in a Teapot Dome scandal and takes bribes to enrich himself but a Democratic House refuses to Impeach.

Wouldn't you think indicting him would be the appropriate remedy?

Of course you would. And you'd be correct

The appropriate remedy is for the people to demand their elected representatives impeach and remove from office a president unfit to hold that office – regardless the political/partisan consequences.

Of course that won’t happen – the people are too stupid, ignorant, and lazy to demand Congress follow Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution as the Framers intended.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.

You honestly don't see a difference with Trump and how this all went down with the election?

I have said over and over, let Mueller investigate and if it means Trump is impeached and the Senate convicts, then so be it.

We followed w procedure and processes already in place. That’s how our justice system works.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

An opinion that would be likewise moot if Congress would only do its job and remove Trump via impeachment – and if the people were to abandon their willful ignorance of, and unwarranted opposition to, the impeachment process.

Are we still not waiting for Mueller to finish?

 

[BluesLegend]

I see the left are unhinged again. Look you idiots you want to get rid of president Trump them impeach him, convict him in the Senate and remove him from office.

 

[Papageorgio]

This is just stupid.

Say we have a Democratic President elected in 2020 and he gets caught in a Teapot Dome scandal and takes bribes to enrich himself but a Democratic House refuses to Impeach.

Wouldn't you think indicting him would be the appropriate remedy?

Of course you would. And you'd be correct

In that theoretical case, the Democrat President wouldn't be indicted either. He wouldn't appoint a special counsel, and his own men in the DOJ would never pursue and indictment.

Further, I wouldn't want to see any President rule the nation from a jail cell, even a liberal one. I don't think it would be a good role model for the children to see the President deliver his SOTU in an orange jumpsuit.

You're dodging the question

Say we have a Democratic President elected in 2020 and he gets caught in a Teapot Dome scandal and takes bribes to enrich himself but a Democratic House refuses to Impeach.

Wouldn't you think indicting him would be the appropriate remedy?

Of course you would. And you'd be correct

Nope, we need to follow the same procedures, and if there is an investigation and the wrong doing is there, those people that get elected every two years would be compelled to do what was best for the country.

 

[BluesLegend]

Because the left don't like Trump, because Trump kicked their ass and mocks them, they want to scheme up some easier way of getting him out of office vs impeachment.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I see the left are unhinged again. Look you idiots you want to get rid of president Trump them impeach him, convict him in the Senate and remove him from office.

They probably will.
Recall they've been demanding that for 2 years so the relatively weak turnout by the Right in the mid-terms allowing them to take the House shows they are probably in a better position to do that now than they were before.

The weakness of the Right is appalling.

Exactly the same apathy and lack of resistance the Right showed in Venezuela until they eventually got a dictator.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.

Wrong.

Impeachment is due process, which is why indictment is unnecessary.

And the problem isn’t investigations of elected officials per se, the problem is investigations started in bad faith, used as a political weapon to hobble an opponent.

 

[BluesLegend]

I see the left are unhinged again. Look you idiots you want to get rid of president Trump them impeach him, convict him in the Senate and remove him from office.

They probably will.
Recall they're been demanding that for 2 years so the relatively weak turnout by the Right allowing them to take the House shows they are probably in a better position to do that now than they were before.

The weakness of the Right is appalling.

Extending our majority in the Senate isn't weakness. Dem's needed to win the Senate, they won the House instead the morons.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Extending our majority in the Senate isn't weakness. Dem's needed to win the Senate, they won the House instead the morons.

We should have taken both houses. Period. And could have.

And they still will have some serious powers at their disposal. Least of which is making his 2nd two years a Lame Duck term.

Oh...btw...did you notice Kavanaugh helped out Planned Parenthood today?
Hate to say it but....Told Ya.

 

[imawhosure]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

Go for it gnat, lol. Maybe that will keep you so busy, you won't be able to post your phony-e-baloney propaganda on here-)

 

[Papageorgio]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.

Wrong.

Impeachment is due process, which is why indictment is unnecessary.

And the problem isn’t investigations of elected officials per se, the problem is investigations started in bad faith, used as a political weapon to hobble an opponent.

That what I am saying, if we went to indictments over impeachment we are not following due process. Investigate, send the conclusions of the investigation to the House, have them vet the charges, then if impeachment is voted for, then send it to the Senate.

To indict before impeachment then it is a problem and every Presidency from then on would be crippled with indictments.

Look at Benghazi, if you had a judge indict Obama with negligence, from that moment on, he would spend time on defending himself and not the nation. The idea sounds good however it is fraught with many problems and in the long term it could hurt all Americans.

 

[nat4900]

Go for it gnat, lol.

Go for what, dimwit???..........I asked a question in the O/P

Obviously the question was beyond your comprehension,....so, my friendly advice is for you to not abandon your GED courses.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

An opinion that would be likewise moot if Congress would only do its job and remove Trump via impeachment – and if the people were to abandon their willful ignorance of, and unwarranted opposition to, the impeachment process.

Are we still not waiting for Mueller to finish?

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

A misdemeanor is bad conduct or bad acts by civil officers of the United States, to exhibit gross incompetence in office, where a civil officer is clearly unfit to hold office – such as Trump.

Indeed, Trump’s incessant lying and his unwarranted attacks on the judiciary are impeachable offenses that warrant his removal from office.

It was not the Framers’ intent that a president should be removed from office via the impeachment process the sole consequence of alleged criminal wrongdoing – Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove from office a president the states should never had elected to begin with – again, such as Trump; it illustrates why the president isn’t elected by popular vote.

Which brings us back to the ignorance and stupidity of the American people who have no understanding of the Foundation of this Nation, and elected officials who disregard the original intent of the Framers for partisan reasons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.

Wrong.

Impeachment is due process, which is why indictment is unnecessary.

And the problem isn’t investigations of elected officials per se, the problem is investigations started in bad faith, used as a political weapon to hobble an opponent.

That what I am saying, if we went to indictments over impeachment we are not following due process. Investigate, send the conclusions of the investigation to the House, have them vet the charges, then if impeachment is voted for, then send it to the Senate.

To indict before impeachment then it is a problem and every Presidency from then on would be crippled with indictments.

Look at Benghazi, if you had a judge indict Obama with negligence, from that moment on, he would spend time on defending himself and not the nation. The idea sounds good however it is fraught with many problems and in the long term it could hurt all Americans.

The Framers already had this all figured out – the problem isn’t whether or not indictments are appropriate, lawful, or Constitutional, the problem is our ignorance of, or contempt for, what the Framers designed.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

An opinion that would be likewise moot if Congress would only do its job and remove Trump via impeachment – and if the people were to abandon their willful ignorance of, and unwarranted opposition to, the impeachment process.

Are we still not waiting for Mueller to finish?

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

A misdemeanor is bad conduct or bad acts by civil officers of the United States, to exhibit gross incompetence in office, where a civil officer is clearly unfit to hold office – such as Trump.

Indeed, Trump’s incessant lying and his unwarranted attacks on the judiciary are impeachable offenses that warrant his removal from office.

It was not the Framers’ intent that a president should be removed from office via the impeachment process the sole consequence of alleged criminal wrongdoing – Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove from office a president the states should never had elected to begin with – again, such as Trump; it illustrates why the president isn’t elected by popular vote.

Which brings us back to the ignorance and stupidity of the American people who have no understanding of the Foundation of this Nation, and elected officials who disregard the original intent of the Framers for partisan reasons.

You are not understanding what I posted. Maybe you have the thread confused.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.

Why?

Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.

You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.

Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.

Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Which backs up Trumps claim he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and nobody could touch him

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.

Why?

Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.

You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.

Obama was never in danger of being indicted, fool. There is no equivalence.

Trump is not being railroaded. He knowingly made these payments. He and his people have lied endlessly about their relationship with Russia. Criminality is found everywhere they look. This will be worse than watergate for Republicans.

The Great Obama was scandal free

Crooked Donnie has never been without scandal
Most of his own creation