Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 82

Thread: Can a Sitting President be Indicted?

  1. #61
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,345
    Amen (Given)
    11581
    Amen (Received)
    24761
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    What Mueller actually chose to do is pass the buck to Barr to handle. Which is not a bad thing to do. Barr is the boss and can make the actual decision and can easily go against policy if he wishes.
    And they hate Barr because he's going back with a team of lawyers and investigators to the poison tree from which this whole mess grew.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  2. #62
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,909
    Amen (Given)
    1602
    Amen (Received)
    1438
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    "Willy-nilly" no - it has to be done with extreme care, and every step double and triple checked. One misstep and the person who does it is toast.
    "The person" himself, can not violate DOJ policy.

    If grounds had been found to indict, there would have been no time wasted in removing Trump from office so that indictment could be done - and he has enough enemies among the Republicans that removing him from office would have been a shoo in.
    Wrong. A sitting president can't be indicted for anything. DOJ policy! He can be investigated, special council, and he can be impeached, congress. Only after ousted from office can he actually be indicted.
    Mueller in fact declared there were no grounds for indictment.
    That's idiotic.

    and they haven't, so that would indicate that they don't have a case to pursue.

    So - you're saying that Congress is derelict in its duty? When they clearly are seeking any and every excuse to get rid of Trump? It's more likely that they can't find anything that will stick
    Wrong, they are doing exactly what they should do in such a case. Inform the public concerning all the facts, "public hearings and witness testimony" and then impeachment. Only then, once out of office, can the president be indicted.

  3. #63
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,909
    Amen (Given)
    1602
    Amen (Received)
    1438
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    What Mueller actually chose to do is pass the buck to Barr to handle.
    I know that's what you'd all like to think, but it isn't up to Barr to rule on, it's up to congress which is exactly what Mueller intended.


    Which is not a bad thing to do. Barr is the boss and can make the actual decision and can easily go against policy if he wishes.
    So, you admit that Mueller can't buck policy. Good boy. Barr can say whatever he want's, but he has no power to stop congress from carrying out their oversight responsibilities regardless of his cover-up.

  4. #64
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,345
    Amen (Given)
    11581
    Amen (Received)
    24761
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    "The person" himself, can not violate DOJ policy.
    Absolutely false. Policy is not law. "The person" can make exceptions with good reason, as policy is not binding.

    Here, lemme help you with this....

    The Difference Between a “Policy” and a “Law”

    No matter what anybody tells you, including JimL on Tweb, there are no laws proscribing what an employer can say about a former employee. The distinction that confuses people is between a policy adopted by the employer and a law passed by a legislative body.

    Policies are the rules a company adopts that outline things such as how many vacation days employees may take or how many paid sick days employees may take. When a legislative body meets and decides to control how fast you can drive your car, and attaches a fine or other penalty for driving in excess of that speed, that’s a law.


    (I may have added the bolded part )

    And, our buddies at Wiki...

    A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. Policies are generally adopted by a governance body within an organization. Policies can assist in both subjective and objective decision making. Policies to assist in subjective decision making usually assist senior management with decisions that must be based on the relative merits of a number of factors, and as a result are often hard to test objectively, e.g. work-life balance policy. In contrast policies to assist in objective decision making are usually operational in nature and can be objectively tested, e.g. password policy.

    The term may apply to government, private sector organizations and groups, as well as individuals. Presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are all examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome.


    I suspect, however, you'll simply continue to ignore fact and spew forth more ignorance.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  5. #65
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,973
    Amen (Given)
    4870
    Amen (Received)
    21707
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    "The person" himself, can not violate DOJ policy.


    Wrong. A sitting president can't be indicted for anything. DOJ policy! He can be investigated, special council, and he can be impeached, congress. Only after ousted from office can he actually be indicted.

    That's idiotic.


    Wrong, they are doing exactly what they should do in such a case. Inform the public concerning all the facts, "public hearings and witness testimony" and then impeachment. Only then, once out of office, can the president be indicted.
    So you are saying that the whole investigation was a waste of time and never should have been done in the first place and congress should just get on with business as usual and drop this whole mess? right?

  6. #66
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,345
    Amen (Given)
    11581
    Amen (Received)
    24761
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    So you are saying that the whole investigation was a waste of time and never should have been done in the first place and congress should just get on with business as usual and drop this whole mess? right?
    But ONLY because the investigation didn't yield the results they wanted! Otherwise, they'd be calling for the rope!
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  7. #67
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,973
    Amen (Given)
    4870
    Amen (Received)
    21707
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    I know that's what you'd all like to think, but it isn't up to Barr to rule on, it's up to congress which is exactly what Mueller intended.
    Uh no. Barr could indict if he wanted to. Policy doesn't apply to the head of the department. That is what the Justice dept does.

    Congress can't even impeach unless the president is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and how can he be found guilty of them if he hasn't been indicted and tried?

  8. #68
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,401
    Amen (Given)
    5554
    Amen (Received)
    5747
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Uh no. Barr could indict if he wanted to. Policy doesn't apply to the head of the department. That is what the Justice dept does.

    Congress can't even impeach unless the president is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and how can he be found guilty of them if he hasn't been indicted and tried?
    Or if a sitting president can't be indicted for Constitutional reasons but there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime then it is the duty of the Attorney General to inform Congress, and it is Congress' duty to impeach the president and remove him from office so that he can be indicted and held accountable in a court of law. The problem for Democrats is that Barr did his duty, but Mueller's report is conspicuously deficient in the "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" department, which is why Democrats haven't already filed articles of impeachment citing Mueller's report as evidence.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  9. #69
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,909
    Amen (Given)
    1602
    Amen (Received)
    1438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Or if a sitting president can't be indicted for Constitutional reasons but there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime then it is the duty of the Attorney General to inform Congress, and it is Congress' duty to impeach the president and remove him from office so that he can be indicted and held accountable in a court of law. The problem for Democrats is that Barr did his duty, but Mueller's report is conspicuously deficient in the "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" department, which is why Democrats haven't already filed articles of impeachment citing Mueller's report as evidence.
    The congress has the report, they don't need the unelected atty gen to inform them with his spin. The reason dems haven't filed articles of impeachment as of yet is because they want all the evidence out there, and they want the american people, for the good of the country, to be fully informed before actually impeaching. They don't need the atty gen's approval, oversight is their responsibility, and it is their decision as to how best to go about it. The Atty Gen was just doing the Presidents bidding, he's a shill and a liar which will soon be born out so that even you'll have difficulty spinning your denials.

  10. #70
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,345
    Amen (Given)
    11581
    Amen (Received)
    24761
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    The congress has the report, they don't need the unelected atty gen to inform them with his spin.
    Perhaps you are unaware that the Attorney General is always an unelected positon? Including Eric 'I'm still the president's wingman' Holder?
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  11. Amen Mountain Man amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •