General Political Discussion

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by homoe

And spill his guts he did..........

Wish I was more optimistic about this information making any difference at all.

[theoddz]

But then, there's THIS, and we have to keep everything in perspective: (the SDNY investigation is the one that will actually GET Trump and his crime family)



~Theo~

[BullDog]

I agree with this. I think Mueller has done a good job but I have thought for a long time that ultimately it will be SDNY (if anyone) that brings the Trump family down.

Originally Posted by theoddz

But then, there's THIS, and we have to keep everything in perspective: (the SDNY investigation is the one that will actually GET Trump and his crime family)



~Theo~

[C0LLETTE]

Don't know about you, but I have no idea what Mueller or the SDNY are up to. I just nod my head when I hear/see this "expert" or that "expert" depending on who seems closer to my own ideology...that's a lousy way to predict the future .

[Martina]

I suppose his testimony mattered, but I couldn't care much.

Obviously, the state of New York can file charges that Trump can't pardon himself for. I don't think the pardon is an issue though because I don't think they'll file before the election. This Supreme Court will not allow a sitting president to be indicted. I do think that figuratively, if not literally, Trump will leave the White House in handcuffs.

[charley]

Originally Posted by Martina

I suppose his testimony mattered, but I couldn't care much.

Obviously, the state of New York can file charges that Trump can't pardon himself for. I don't think the pardon is an issue though because I don't think they'll file before the election. This Supreme Court will not allow a sitting president to be indicted. I do think that figuratively, if not literally, Trump will leave the White House in handcuffs.

I have learned a lot from watching Rachel Maddow, whom I absolutely adore. From her show, I have understood that there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents the indictment of a sitting President. Apparently, "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."

That was from Article II, Section 4, of the American Constitution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arti...s_Constitution

Agnew was threatened with being indicted unless he resigned because they were afraid that after Nixon left - the rationale being that they didn't want Agnew to end up as the President (Agnew was a crook), hence the threat. So Agnew quit, and got a slight slap on the wrist...

Maddow explained the why and how of that situation clearly, as follows:

“The key point is that "under Justice Department rules,” that is a reference in fact to the standing internal Justice Department policy that says a sitting president of the United States can't be indicted. It's not a law that says a president can't be indicted. It's not written into Justice Department regulation. It's just a department policy. And it is a policy that derives from a very specific place.
...

“I mean, what the Dixon memo said in 1973, what that memo said was you could indict a vice president but incidentally you couldn't indict a president. And the way that the history of it has been remembered since then is that that 1973 OLC memo was written specifically with the Richard Nixon Watergate problem in mind and it was a definitive look at whether a president can be indicted, and even in the context of Watergate they believed that Nixon – really it was about Agnew and specifically trying to get to an outcome where the answer would be, yes, you can bring charges against Agnew.”

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rac...how/2019-02-21

[~ocean]

Originally Posted by charley

I have learned a lot from watching Rachel Maddow, whom I absolutely adore. From her show, I have understood that there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents the indictment of a sitting President. Apparently, "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."

That was from Article II, Section 4, of the American Constitution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arti...s_Constitution

Agnew was threatened with being indicted unless he resigned because they were afraid that after Nixon left - the rationale being that they didn't want Agnew to end up as the President (Agnew was a crook), hence the threat. So Agnew quit, and got a slight slap on the wrist...

Maddow explained the why and how of that situation clearly, as follows:

“The key point is that "under Justice Department rules,” that is a reference in fact to the standing internal Justice Department policy that says a sitting president of the United States can't be indicted. It's not a law that says a president can't be indicted. It's not written into Justice Department regulation. It's just a department policy. And it is a policy that derives from a very specific place.
...

“I mean, what the Dixon memo said in 1973, what that memo said was you could indict a vice president but incidentally you couldn't indict a president. And the way that the history of it has been remembered since then is that that 1973 OLC memo was written specifically with the Richard Nixon Watergate problem in mind and it was a definitive look at whether a president can be indicted, and even in the context of Watergate they believed that Nixon – really it was about Agnew and specifically trying to get to an outcome where the answer would be, yes, you can bring charges against Agnew.”

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rac...how/2019-02-21

First ~ I wish every American who can would open a window and yell "YOUR FIRED" as the handcuff Trump and take him out of OUR White House ~ ))

Second ~ I adore Rachel Maddow as well ~

I just wanted to share a mental picture of what I saw while reading this post ! lolol