The policy and politics of Trumpism

Jon said:

haven't read this yet, 60 pages, but it is reported that this doc outlines a path to Indicting a President

for the pure joy of irony it came out of the Ken Starr investigation

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ential.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

more on the subject
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/...ndicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html?smid=tw-share

meanwhile the Orange one is tweeting about his right to Pardon


nothing to see here, move along

Click to expand...

And pardons are only used on someone who is guilty of something.

Bamaro said:

And pardons are only used on someone who is guilty of something.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true.

People have to be pardoned all the time who were wrongly convicted. A Chief Executive CAN pardon someone who MAY have committed a crime from "all crimes he may have committed." Andrew Johnson pardoned an attorney who sided with the Confederacy of crimes he "may" have committed. Ronald Reagan very seriously considered pardoning Oliver North and John Poindexter, neither of whom had even gone to trial at the time he was leaving office. He was talked out of doing it by his advisers, who said any pardon offered in those last hours would stain his legacy, a lesson lost on both Bush 41 and Bill Clinton.

It's just like treason - everyone uses it wrong to overstate the case.

Trump might have broken the law, but since we are NOT at war with Russia, Tim Kaine is an idiot for calling it treason. Even left-wing Vox admitted this recently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mit-treason-under-legal-definition/471533001/

Russia, as legal experts have noted, is formally at peace with the United States, so any actions taken with Russia would not technically be considered treasonous.

Bamaro said:

And pardons are only used on someone who is guilty of something.

Click to expand...

More to the point, does a pardon prevent impeachment? Since impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, I'm not so sure that it does.

TIDE-HSV said:

I'm older and I had lost faith that, with Nixon's machinations, there were enough moral men left in Congress to do justice. I'm not talking about Republicans. There were enough Democrats who were not certainties to vote their consciences. Of course, in the end, they never had to. I've not given up hope on this...

Click to expand...

You're a better man than I.


I gave up hope long ago. There is much more tribalism now in DC than there was in 1974, back when there were still conservative Dems and liberal Repubs. The Right has collared the GOP, the Left has collared the Dems, and anyone even remotely considered somewhere in between (like John McCain would be a good example) is attacked as "in name only."

Of course, some Democrats in 1974 were ALSO aware of the closed door intelligence investigations showing that the Kennedy boys were up to their necks in assassination talk of foreign leaders. And I SUSPECT that's where this winds up going - because common sense tells me that if you want to have influence AFTER the election, you try to buy both sides BEFORE it, not just one.

It's like the Hugh Freeze thing - there's no telling what's NOT getting a lot of play that Congress already either knows or at least has a pretty good idea happened.

But then again - we have to have some actual EVIDENCE. If this doesn't stick to Trump then as more than one person has noted, it will be impossible to ever nail him for anything perhaps short of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue (at least there we can argue premeditation, ha ha).

jthomas666 said:

More to the point, does a pardon prevent impeachment? Sicne impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, I'm not so sure that it does.

Click to expand...

No. Impeachment is a congressional action and not pardonable.

selmaborntidefan said:

Actually, that's not true.

People have to be pardoned all the time who were wrongly convicted. A Chief Executive CAN pardon someone who MAY have committed a crime from "all crimes he may have committed." Andrew Johnson pardoned an attorney who sided with the Confederacy of crimes he "may" have committed. Ronald Reagan very seriously considered pardoning Oliver North and John Poindexter, neither of whom had even gone to trial at the time he was leaving office. He was talked out of doing it by his advisers, who said any pardon offered in those last hours would stain his legacy, a lesson lost on both Bush 41 and Bill Clinton.

It's just like treason - everyone uses it wrong to overstate the case.

Trump might have broken the law, but since we are NOT at war with Russia, Tim Kaine is an idiot for calling it treason. Even left-wing Vox admitted this recently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mit-treason-under-legal-definition/471533001/

Russia, as legal experts have noted, is formally at peace with the United States, so any actions taken with Russia would not technically be considered treasonous.

Click to expand...

You're getting into semantics and also the tree falling in the woods area here.

Pardoning people could backfire. They could be called to testify against Trump without being able to claim 5th amendment protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the question then becomes, who will compel them to testify.

jthomas666 said:

More to the point, does a pardon prevent impeachment? Since impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, I'm not so sure that it does.

Click to expand...

Gee, you and I are on the same page quite often nowadays.

That doesn't make me feel very comfortable.....

Bamaro said:

You're getting into semantics and also the tree falling in the woods area here.

Click to expand...

Uh, no.

I'm getting into LEGAL reality, and I'm not a lawyer (nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night).

Bill Clinton (and I only use him as an example, not because I'd like to feed him to bears) committed perjury. He committed obstruction of justice, too. Nixon committed OOJ as well. Trump MAY have at this point.

You stated what a pardon was, but your statement is simply not correct, nor is it semantics. Given that treason is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the FACT of what it is hardly constitutes semantics. Indeed, it could be argued that guilt or innocence depends on semantics if one wishes to go that far.

You're correct that IN GENERAL pardons are given for people who have actually committed crimes. But one does not have to be guilty of a crime to receive a pardon.

I watched during the whole Clinton imbroglio and watched Mario Cuomo - an adjunct professor at a law school with a degree from St John's. I watched this partisan bozo get on TV and try to minimize Clinton's flagrant lying under oath with the notion that he as a candidate might have lied to a constituent by making a promise that he would do something that he never followed through on and that was lying. Because a law school graduate actually thinks there's an equivalence between something with no legal ramifications and breaking the law. (Of course, I surmise that had it been Bob Dole under oath, Cuomo would have had an entirely different view of lying, but I digress).

Let's be clear: THIS is FAR worse than what Bill Clinton did IF - and that's kinda the thing here - IF you have: a) a crime; and b) evidence.

But I suspect we may get an education in the near future about these terms once again. I'll guarantee you 90% of Americans think impeach means "remove from office," but it doesn't.

Pardons were discussed on Madow the other night. Acceptance of the pardon implies guilt. Burdick v US
confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/case.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

Feel free to PM me for legal advice!:biggrin:

92tide said:

the question then becomes, who will compel them to testify.

Click to expand...

Not really. The question is more who will compel a Republican led house to impeach him, and then after that who will compel a Republican led Senate and a Republican Chief Justice to vote to Convict if by some miracle the House impeaches him.

New York Times Editorial Board ravages Spicey in goodbye

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/opinion/sean-spicer-well-always-have-facts.html

81usaf92 said:

Not really. The question is more who will compel a Republican led house to impeach him, and then after that who will compel a Republican led Senate and a Republican Chief Justice to vote to Convict if by some miracle the House impeaches him.

Click to expand...

that was sort of implied in what i wrote.

81usaf92 said:

Not really. The question is more who will compel a Republican led house to impeach him, and then after that who will compel a Republican led Senate and a Republican Chief Justice to vote to Convict if by some miracle the House impeaches him.

Click to expand...

The way it is heading, they will do it on their own to cut loose of this lying, incompetent, narcissistic fool.

81usaf92 said:

Not really. The question is more who will compel a Republican led house to impeach him, and then after that who will compel a Republican led Senate and a Republican Chief Justice to vote to Convict if by some miracle the House impeaches him.

Click to expand...

The Chief Justice has no vote in the matter. He does act as judge in the trial, but only the Senate votes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"No greater love hath any man than to lay down his friends for his life."

Trump 3:16

OK (and this is original), I MUST confess I got this wrong.

It should be this:


"No greater love hath any man than to lay down his friends for his life."

Trump 20:17-21