General Political Discussion

[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

[Martina]

I understand that it's legally possible to indict a sitting President. I just don't believe this Supreme Court will allow it.

[charley]

Originally Posted by Martina

I understand that it's legally possible to indict a sitting President. I just don't believe this Supreme Court will allow it.

I'm glad you are aware of that fact, but I'm not sure that many Americans understand that fact.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a world of difference between the "policy" of the Justice Department (and the A.G.) as well as that of politicians (in general) and what the Constitution actually says.

I find that policy itself betrays what it means to be American; in other words, policy itself is un-American.

So, the core issue for me is not to be concerned as to whether or not the Supreme Court will indict the President. That is a classical "straw-man" argument - which seeks to deflect the real issue into some debatable and complicated argument. It is more likely that the Justice Department (and the A.G.) will be extremely reluctant to actually apply the Constitution, not to speak of the politicians themselves.

As I have often heard muttered quietly in the background (but I listened):

"The System is corrupt."

I will go further, and state most emphatically, that any System is but a reflection of "vested interests" of any small group of people (any gang or clique), and is therefore inherently corrupt. Historically, the policy of any System always regresses, degenerates, and devolves into "authority" - in other words, to authoritarian doctrine. And this authoritarian doctrine is always - repeat “always” - reflected and exemplified in the belief in a “leader”, which is nothing more than the co-dependent (i.e. neurotic) belief that there is hope and promise that there is someone out there who will save you from whatever mess you are in. This belief is always sustained by the most vulnerable and damaged part of the population, and every politician knows that, and uses that belief for self-aggrandisement, as a justification and rationalization for their drive for "leadership". And that is why "The System is corrupt."

Please understand that as a young adult, I often saw people of my generation (here in Canada) wearing that button: "Question authority" - which originally had came out from California at that time. Unfortunately, most people do not understand what that phrase implies. But it is really interesting if one goes deeply into that phrase "Question authority".

[theoddz]

One of the SINGLEMOST important takeaways from the Cohen Congressional interview:



...and it was NEVER argued about from any of the GOP panel members during Cohen's testimony!!! They kept their silly mouths shut!!!!

~Theo~

[Martina]

Well, the state of New York is probably willing, but I doubt that they will based on the makeup of the Supreme Court. He's going to go to jail anyway, just later rather than sooner. There is no way to get him out of office other than electing a Democrat. I say concentrate on that.

Originally Posted by charley

I'm glad you are aware of that fact, but I'm not sure that many Americans understand that fact.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a world of difference between the "policy" of the Justice Department (and the A.G.) as well as that of politicians (in general) and what the Constitution actually says.

I find that policy itself betrays what it means to be American; in other words, policy itself is un-American.

So, the core issue for me is not to be concerned as to whether or not the Supreme Court will indict the President. That is a classical "straw-man" argument - which seeks to deflect the real issue into some debatable and complicated argument. It is more likely that the Justice Department (and the A.G.) will be extremely reluctant to actually apply the Constitution, not to speak of the politicians themselves.

As I have often heard muttered quietly in the background (but I listened):

"The System is corrupt."

I will go further, and state most emphatically, that any System is but a reflection of "vested interests" of any small group of people (any gang or clique), and is therefore inherently corrupt. Historically, the policy of any System always regresses, degenerates, and devolves into "authority" - in other words, to authoritarian doctrine. And this authoritarian doctrine is always - repeat “always” - reflected and exemplified in the belief in a “leader”, which is nothing more than the co-dependent (i.e. neurotic) belief that there is hope and promise that there is someone out there who will save you from whatever mess you are in. This belief is always sustained by the most vulnerable and damaged part of the population, and every politician knows that, and uses that belief for self-aggrandisement, as a justification and rationalization for their drive for "leadership". And that is why "The System is corrupt."

Please understand that as a young adult, I often saw people of my generation (here in Canada) wearing that button: "Question authority" - which originally had came out from California at that time. Unfortunately, most people do not understand what that phrase implies. But it is really interesting if one goes deeply into that phrase "Question authority".