The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    How's that? Can you cite a US code or something?

    Now if you're talking impeachment, it really doesn't matter. Impeachment is a political, not criminal, process. Really doesn't matter if any laws are broken for an impeachment. Similar in that respect to a voter recall.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    uhm... State of the uniom address to congress... hee hee... can't take a trick can he?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Something for the deep State folks to get a grip on:
    http://www.stonekettle.com/2018/01/dirty-tricks.html

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Worse than it looked:
    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a15948142/trump-state-of-the-union-lost/
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Well yeah, this is going to contribute to the justification for throwing him out of office. That matters.
     
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Anything can contribute to that. Even just subjective opinion.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Hopefully evidence is still influential in congress.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Regarding tampering itself, 18 USC § 1512(b)(2)(a) and (c)↱; § 1512(c)(2); § 1512 (d)(1), (2), and possibly (4). Furthermore, all eyes are on 18 USC § 1513(e) and (f)↱, regarding intimidation, as we have at least colloquial assertions of prima facie, and the White House presently behaves within a range that has people trying to figure out if the president is actually trying to force his own prosecution, and the only real question left before that becomes a genuine possibility is which of several perverse reasons explains why he has chosen such a course.

    Remember that President Trump already has a pretty darn good appearance of having confessed to one count of obstruction, when he threw a bunch of people under the bus in order to boast in a TV interview that he was obstructing justice.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    "18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 — Obstruction of Justice". http://bit.ly/2FENsY5
     
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Executive branch cannot be legally charged with obstruction, nor intimidation, of departments under its own legal authority.
    But like I said, impeachment isn't a legal matter.
     
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Why? It's unnecessary.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    But the President can be, as well as any other official. After impeachment.

    Also money-laundering, violation of the emoluments clause, and various other crimes - right up to treason, which Nixon, Reagan, WECheney, and now Trump, seem to have committed.
     
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Would you like to borrow a jaw bone to hit stuff with?
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    After seeing someone post that the "Executive Branch" cannot be charged with obstruction of justice because it has legal authority over the Department of Justice, some alternative to banging head on table would probably be a good idea.
     
  17. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Why did you say after impeachment?
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    How's that work? Can you cite a U.S. Code, or something?
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Which? Evidence or Congress?
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Why did you say "executive branch"? Same reason - to include the President.
    Why did you try to claim that obstruction of justice could not be charged in the exact circumstances in which it most likely to occur and be charged? (When the obstructor has authority over the obstructed) That's a bit silly, one would think.
     
  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Charging a president for executing his Constitutional duty would set off a constitutional crisis.
    But what specific parts of your cited US code did you think were relevant? I couldn't find it.
    Evidence.
    After impeachment, it would no longer set off a constitutional crisis.
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Then my answer is that empiricism is always necessary in governance, even if it isn't legally required. Otherwise we are making decisions based on fantasy.
    It's a little too late to start worrying about that.
     
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Political procedures, like impeachment, only require enough agreement. Even if only on fantasy.
    How's that?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page