Apparently according to a US Justice Department ruling in 1973, a sitting president CANNOT be indicted...period. So liberals threatening to do so are conducting a witch hunt that is doing nothing but costing taxpayers money and stifling the administration.
Ill just post a link to the ruling so it dont take up the whole page.
The last paragraph sums it up if you dont want to read all of it.
" In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
Randolph D. Moss Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel "
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 06-21-2017).]
The liberal sheep don't know this, and the media isn't going to tell them.. So they play along.. being sheep and all.. I don't even thnk if they knew and ,understood the waste of funds if they care. it aint their tax dollars as they pay zero.. part of that 47% Romney talked about
Originally posted by E.Furgal: The liberal sheep don't know this, and the media isn't going to tell them.. So they play along.. being sheep and all.. I don't even thnk if they knew and ,understood the waste of funds if they care. it aint their tax dollars as they pay zero.. part of that 47% Romney talked about
Any liberal sheep that are following MSNBC and processing what they are seeing and hearing on that media channel would know that there is an established legal precedent that a President cannot be indicted while in office.
I remember E.Furgal's other recent thread on Pennock's, It tis what it tis, which he started with a learned presentation on the legal definition of "obstruction of justice."
I would not be posting a page-link to this new essay in just any Pennock's thread, but there are serious legal minds here, so perhaps there will be some interest.
I'd be very surprised if impeachment even happened but the funniest part of the whole exercise is that for some reason Liberals forget the the guy in the batting circle is more reliably conservative than Mr. Trump.
I mean, it's not like they'd get Hillary but they sure do act like it.
I dont see any possibility of impeachment, especially with republican control of both houses of Congress. To me the cries of impeachment from the liberals is just a hollow threat thats never going to happen. It amounts to just beating their chest to look and feel good to themselves...like a bully does.
I dont see any possibility of impeachment, especially with republican control of both houses of Congress. To me the cries of impeachment from the liberals is just a hollow threat thats never going to happen. It amounts to just beating their chest to look and feel good to themselves...like a bully does.
Impeachment is one of the last remaining wet dreams of leftists to get rid of President Trump.
So far we seen them try:
. Vote recounts
. Pleas for faithless electors
. Disruption of the Inauguration
. Claims of violation of the Emoluments clause of the US Constitution
.....and more
One failure of leftie magical thinking after another.
I'd be very surprised if impeachment even happened but the funniest part of the whole exercise is that for some reason Liberals forget the the guy in the batting circle is more reliably conservative than Mr. Trump.
I mean, it's not like they'd get Hillary but they sure do act like it.
If they were to somehow remove Trump from office, the Vice President, Mike Pence, would then step into the position. However, anyone who thinks that they wouldn't immediately begin to find a way to remove Pence as well is fooling themselves. Pence would be much easier to remove than Trump because he's more of a typical politician and will cave under the political and/or financial pressures that Trump has been able to somehow survive to this point. Once Pence is removed, they would just keep moving down the line unless the Democrats would be able to force Pence into giving them everything they want. They can't seem to do that with Trump and it likely irritates them to no end. Some of the Republican establishment as well. Both sides participate in dirty politics, the Democrats are just better at it. And I'm sure that there are some people who think that if Trump were removed, the Presidency would then go to the "runner up," Hillary Clinton. I mean, why not let your followers think that if it helps your cause right?
If they were to somehow remove Trump from office, the Vice President, Mike Pence, would then step into the position. However, anyone who thinks that they wouldn't immediately begin to find a way to remove Pence as well is fooling themselves.
All due respect, I think you are fooling yourself if you think we're just going to stand by and watch them pick off leader after leader until they're back in charge.
Look, so far the right has been ungodly patient with the left. That will not be the case if they were to attempt regime change through machinations of the legal / political systems or God forbid, through violence.
As for the violence angle, I don't think it would be much of a war. For God's sake their #1 assassin fired 50 rounds from 50 feet away and only manged to wound four unarmed guys who were standing up, not moving. Then he got shot by a lesbian. Makes me laugh just writing it.
It's all theoretical anyway. Trump is going strong, driving Liberals bat sh*t crazy over the smallest issues while he remakes DC.
The other day he suggested we could offset some of the operating cost for the wall by powering it with solar panels. As the Cable Guy says, that's hilarious right there, I don't care who you are.
Pundits and even some Republican politicians want him to tone it down on Twitter. Hell, I say dial it up to 12.
Sorta like playing Roy Orbison over the loud speakers at the end of "Mars Attacks"........Wohoooooooo..........pop.
Listen, we may not win this war but damn, it's good to be fighting, not bowing.
( Great, now I've got Roy in my head just as I was going to bed )
[This message has been edited by RayOtton (edited 06-21-2017).]
All due respect, I think you are fooling yourself if you think we're just going to stand by and watch them pick off leader after leader until they're back in charge.
I wasn't saying that at all. I was just laying out what the Democrats' game plan may be. There was a chance to have another Democrat in office for four to eight years and they missed it to a guy they thought didn't have a chance in hell. Arrogance was probably their biggest mistake in the election. They'll do whatever they feel they need to do to assert what power they have. The Republicans tried the same thing in the first couple of years of the Obama Presidency. They just aren't as good at dirty politics as the Democrats are. The Democrats just seem to be able to circle the wagons and stick together in one voice better than the Republicans do. The Republicans tend to eat their own and it hurts them in the political arena. Not saying that's a bad thing to not be politically dirty. Just that if one side is "cheating," it's hard to keep up when you're not. Not saying the Republicans should cheat either. Of course, the Democrats are hurting lately with Nancy "I'm a great leader" Pelosi and that the Democrats' message is "We're not Trump." There's a lot of Beltway Syndrome going around lately.