Trump indicted over hush money payments in Stormy Daniels probe

OMG, the explanations are never ending. So I guess I have to go through the alphabet one by one.

1. You can't indict a sitting president.
2. Trump was president when this claim came up during the Mueller investigation
3. The ONLY way to hold a president accountable for crimes is to impeach him with criminal claims
4. If you have no criminal claims, you can't get a conviction in the Senate.
5. The way you get criminal claims is to have a special counsel investigate and make criminal recommendations to the Attorney General.
6. If the Attorney General agrees with the criminal recommendations, he provides his report to Congress.
7. If they decide to move forward with an impeachment and hold a Senate trial, and find the President guilty, he can be removed from office
8. The president can't pardon himself and take back the presidency once convicted.

Now that we have that cleared up.
1. Muellers FBI and CIA and lawyers looked at the evidence and claims of Trumps alleged campaign finance crimes (While looking for crimes to impeach on) and decided the evidence did not exist to make any criminal recommendations for Mueller to make to the AG.

 

So, a POTUS shoots you dead. He cannot be charged with murder and dealt with in the Courts just like every other Joe Blow?

Rubbish.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644304/trump-fifth-avenue-mazars-vance-constitution

https://www.9news.com.au/world/can-...ics-news/50a0af28-70cf-43c2-a17b-2d06a9678f22

 

Just because you can't indict a sitting president, doesn't mean you can't charge him with a crime and convict him in the Senate.

We don't Indict sitting presidents because they wouldn't get anything done. You open the door for opposing parties to continually abuse the system and indict their political enemies. Over and over. All you would have to do in convene a grand jury and make a criminal claim.

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. A president subjected to an indictment would trigger a traumatic event both politically and constitutionally. It would interfere with the president's unique official duties.

So, if a sitting president commits a crime, you assign a special counsel. If they find a crime has been committed, they make a criminal recommendation to the Attorney General.
If the AG agrees with the evidence, he informs congress of their findings.

The president is then charged with those crimes in an impeachment. The House hears the evidence and votes to impeach or not impeach. If they vote to impeach, (meaning they get enough votes) then they hold a Senate trial.

If he is convicted, he is removed from office and sentenced.

Thats the ONLY way to remove a sitting US president who has committed crimes.

 

Garbage. Just tosh, and really, who do you reckon you are convincing with this crap?

 

I am pretty convinced you're not an attorney.

Department of Justice
Office of legal counsel
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion...enability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

Impeachment in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impea...igates through,defendant has been "impeached".
Process
At the federal level, the impeachment process is typically a three-step procedure. The first phase is typically an impeachment inquiry, though this is not a required stage.[10] The two stages constitutionally required for removal are impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the United States Senate.

• First, the House investigates through an impeachment inquiry.
• Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
• Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the chief justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the president of the Senate, who is also the vice president of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires the concurrence of a two-thirds supermajority of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office and (optionally, in a separate vote) disqualification from holding any federal office in the future, which requires a concurrence of only a majority of senators present.

 

I am NOT talking about impeachment!

No-one is going to give a flying flamingo about a 23 year old opinion from just ONE former Lawyer, a mere Assistant AG who reached the lofty heights of a District Court Judge.

FFS!

 

No, they dont lol. Nothing has changed since several years ago.

 

You are if you're charging a sitting president with a crime

Right, thats why Democrats went through the slow process of an impeachment, (twice) and a Senate trial when they could have just indicted Trump in just a matter of days.

I can't wait to hear your excuse as to why you think they wasted months on an impeachment of Trump over a 23 year old opinion from just ONE former Lawyer, a mere Assistant AG who reached the lofty heights of a District Court Judge.

Is every Democrat in America that unaware of how US government works in prosecuting a president, or is it just you?

 

That’s projection. It’s the left labeling everyone as the worst thing they can think of the. Projecting hate onto them.

 

I am not a Democrat nor am I in America.

The absurd basic assertion of Moss is that to indict a POTUS is to cause disruption to the discharge of his duties as POTUS and might be politically uncomfortable.

That is so easily kicked to the curb.

As the USA is learning, no-one, including POTUS is above the Law.

Simple as that, and the opinion of one man, a pretty unsuccessful lawyer which came to silly conclusions is just gibber.

He did present it well, verbose and full of citations, lots of icing, no sponge, covering the basic flaw in his argument......no-one, not even POTUS is above the Rule of Law.

Uncomfortable it might well be, the Rule of Law is where it all starts.

You undermine that, and you might as well assert that the USA is a banana republic.

There are no tin Gods, not even a POTUS.

 

I don't really care about your opinion.
I need to hear your explanation as to why Democrats would go through the long process of impeachment and a Senate trial if you can just simply indict a sitting president and the OLC opinion means nothing.

 

You see how absurd what you post is? On the one hand, you don't care about my opinion and then, simultaneously, you ask me for one!

However, I'll have a go. I think it is a waste of my time with you, especially given no-one else has expressed any interest in you, but let's see if this gets through.

The first impeachment was political. That Humpty solicited interference from Zelensky in the 2020 election. The second was also political, about Jan 6, incitement to insurrection. The politicians have had their say on that...now, the legal system might well still have a say, and this Stormy Daniels thing is merely the first Cab off the Rank.

 

Nobody asked you about your opinion on the impeachments, Zelenski, or Stormy Daniels.
But I do love watching you dance around the question because you know you can't answer it.
So for a 3rd time Heres the same question you have continued to run from.

Why would Democrats go through the long process of impeachment and a Senate trial if they could simply indict a sitting president, since according to you, the OLC opinion means nothing.

Now you have 3 choices
You can run
You can deflect
Or you can answer the question

Lets see what you do

 

Done.

 

Hilarious You took option 1. lol
Guess you didn't know as much as you claimed you did.

 

If you've been a lawyer for 30 years, you should know about loaded questions and why they don't deserve an answer.

 

Chasing ambulances never interested me.

 

This is wrong.

 

Trump indicted over hush money payments in Stormy Daniels probe

It can't be that. It is illegal to prosecute a crime that has passed the statute of limitations. Perhaps we should wait to read the actual charges, not what you think they are.

 

Neal Katyal breaks this down plain & simple.


'How Trump's own DOJ laid out his guilt in the Stormy Daniels payoff'




https://www.rawstory.com/trump-indi...rtPos=3&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

 

That's nice. Can you invite him to PF so we can question his opinion?

 

Michael Cohen on Trump's "indicated"
Excellent interview.

 

LOL... not even close

Even the most liberal defintion of votes against would show:

2017 - 11
2021 - 272

But even that's false, because not a single state in 2017 went to a full vote in either chamber.

One massive rabbit hole failure there...

 

I don’t know how he would ever get a fair trial

 

Why? What would questioning his opinion do?
Like most people on this board if he gets a question he can't answer he'll

1. Claim that it's no longer worth his time
2. Ghost the topic
3. Actually answer the question intelligently and then get ignored by the original asker of the question.