Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 242

Thread: Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    The inability to carry out the duties of the Office of the President is pretty well covered by the 25th Amendment.
    "A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive" is called the House of Representatives (impeachment) and the Senate (trial).
    I agree with the 2nd. There's a Constitutional method for removing a criminal President, which is impeachment.

    I agree with the 1st, but if the original intent was to have the executive immune from prosecution, then the presence of the 25th doesn't matter.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  2. #62
    Patron
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I am not sure it is I that misunderstand Sir - I argued precisely that nobody is above the law in a Common Law system. I mentioned Charles l and the English Civil War - what does that history teach you? So you agreed with me in supporting the principles of Common Law within a Common Law jurisdiction - which the US is. I apologise if my view was not clear to you.
    That is the most stupid thing you ever said, especially coming from you who claimed to be part of the diplomatic service. How often do diplomats abused diplomatic immunity?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I also said I am no expert on the US version of Common Law - they also have a Constitution as well as the law unlike England or the UK. My view would be that any leader - be he/she a President or a Monarch - should be subject to the laws that any normal citizen or subject normally has no problem complying with. If the Queen murdered someone she should be tried for murder just like Joe Smith who murders his enemy. For the law to be respected it must apply equally to all. Perhaps that is not the case in the US Constitution and it requires - as you say - impeachment. You probably know more about the US Constitution than I. But my point was that if any Head of State get's different treatment than the lowest person in the country - or can openly break the law with immunity - freedom in that country is at serious risk.
    Edward VIII. Criminal Negligence if not outright Treason.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 14 Dec 17, at 18:10.

  3. #63
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,172
    z,

    as i agree with the overall sentiment that ultimately, rule of law regarding the President is ultimately shaped by a political judgment rather than a strictly legal one, i'll cover this part, which is not quite as germane to the rest of the conversation.

    Trump is too popular with the base, the GOP's hold on the House is a lot stronger than media likes to portray and its the Dems in trouble in the Senate as far as seats to defend goes.
    I think Jones (D-AL) just demonstrated the limits of the first, and there's enough evidence with the recent special elections/VA/etc to prove the second is not quite right, and now it's a toss-up on the third, even with the terrible map for Dems in '18.

    i'll be happy to do another butter cookie bet, regarding Dem control of the House. for that matter, i'll bet on the Dem control of the Senate, as I figure it'll be a wash if I lose this bet and win the House one.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  4. #64
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,282
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That is the most stupid thing you ever said, especially coming from you who claimed to be part of the diplomatic service. How often do diplomats abused diplomatic immunity?
    Rarely in my experience. Most are not spies and the protocols on the privacy of diplomatic baggage are agreed. Diplomats work on in an Embassy which is sovereign territory of the country they come from and so there they are not subject to the laws of the country in which the Embassy is based. Nor are they citizens of that country and have no right to vote or anything in it. They are therefore - and for many other reasons - given special status. I agree though it gets a bit much when they refuse to pay parking tickets etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Edward VIII. Criminal Negligence if not outright Treason.
    Actually about the Head of the English Church marry a divorced woman does not amount to treason.
    Last edited by snapper; 14 Dec 17, at 19:10.

  5. #65
    Patron
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Rarely in my experience. Most are not spies and the protocols on the privacy of diplomatic baggage are agreed. Diplomats work on in an Embassy which is sovereign territory of the country they come from and so there they are not subject to the laws of the country in which the Embassy is based. Nor are they citizens of that country and have no right to vote or anything in it. They are therefore - and for many other reasons - given special status. I agree though it gets a bit much when they refuse to pay parking tickets etc...
    So the King is not above the law but diplomats are since their own governments won't prosecute them for harming our citizens. Got it.

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/24534...matic-immunity

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Actually about the Head of the English Church marry a divorced woman does not amount to treason.
    Don't feint ignorance. Simpson gave British battleplans to the Nazis. Edward was at least criminally negligent in allowing Simpson to see those plans if not outright treasonous allowing them to goto the enemy.

    However, Edward also secretly asked the Nazis to post guards on his villas in France. Anyone else would have ended up in jail. The Duke got to sit in the sun in the Bahamas.

    Yeah, so the British punish their royals just as they do the commoners. Right. Horse Puckey!
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 14 Dec 17, at 19:45.

  6. #66
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    10,418
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    2. You can't indict a sitting president.
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    No president has ever been subject to criminal law while in office. The Constitution leaves no provision for a judicial branch judge to sit in judgement of the president personally. Instead the Constitution relies on impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. To subject the President to both prosecution and impeachment would violate the double jeopardy provision. His control of the executive, all of it is baked into the Constitution.
    Spiro Agnew was indicted while he occupied the office of the Vice President, and thereafter resigned after negotiating a plea deal.

    Aaron Burr was also indicted while he was Vice President.

    Impeachment of a President or Vice President are covered by the same provisions in the Constitution (Article II, Section 4 and Article I, Section 3). There is no difference in the Constitution regarding the two in this regard.

    I'm not going to argue Trump is going to be indicted, but it stands to reason that if a Vice President can be indicted, so can a President.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 14 Dec 17, at 21:35.

  7. #67
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,282
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Simpson gave British battleplans to the Nazis. Edward was at least criminally negligent in allowing Simpson to see those plans if not outright treasonous allowing them to goto the enemy.
    Really? Didn't know that but if true certainly she should have stood trial and if he knew her intentions when showing the plans to her him too.

  8. #68
    Patron
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Really? Didn't know that but if true certainly she should have stood trial and if he knew her intentions when showing the plans to her him too.
    He should not have shown her the plans. That is treason in itself. She was not even a British Subject with no privy to private British Government matters.

    You actually bought that Horse Puckey that Edward was forced to abadicate by the Dominions over a woman? Canada and Australia refused to allow Edward to be king precisely because of Edward's sympathies towards Hitler. It had nothing to do with Edward banging Simpson but everything to do with Simpson banging Ribbentrop, the German ambassador in London before the war.

    Your point, however, that British Common Law punishes Royals just as the same as Commoners since Charles I, is false.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 15 Dec 17, at 16:47.

  9. #69
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    10,418
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    To subject the President to both prosecution and impeachment would violate the double jeopardy provision.
    The relevant excerpt from Article V:

    nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

    The relevant portion of Article I, Section 3, which defines what impeachment is and isn't, states:

    Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 14 Dec 17, at 21:26.

  10. #70
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,542
    Got to love Trey Gowdy! He has the best BS meter on the Hill.
    http://www.theblaze.com/video/trey-g...-on-at-the-fbi
    Last edited by surfgun; 14 Dec 17, at 23:47.

  11. #71
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Spiro Agnew was indicted while he occupied the office of the Vice President, and thereafter resigned after negotiating a plea deal.

    Aaron Burr was also indicted while he was Vice President.

    Impeachment of a President or Vice President are covered by the same provisions in the Constitution (Article II, Section 4 and Article I, Section 3). There is no difference in the Constitution regarding the two in this regard.

    I'm not going to argue Trump is going to be indicted, but it stands to reason that if a Vice President can be indicted, so can a President.
    VP does not control the executive, foreign policy or the power of pardon. They are different offices.

  12. #72
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    10,418
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    VP does not control the executive, foreign policy or the power of pardon. They are different offices.
    Sure. The Constitution, however, has the same provisions regarding impeachment for both offices, and Vice-Presidents have been indicted.

  13. #73
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Sure. The Constitution, however, has the same provisions regarding impeachment for both offices, and Vice-Presidents have been indicted.
    VP's are not presidents... You gonna have Trump sitting in the pokey with the nuclear football? The magnitude of his duties likely preclude indictment if the issue ever came before the courts. Additionally, under a strict reading of the Constitution he can pardon himself.

  14. #74
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,514
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    VP's are not presidents... You gonna have Trump sitting in the pokey with the nuclear football? The magnitude of his duties likely preclude indictment if the issue ever came before the courts. Additionally, under a strict reading of the Constitution he can pardon himself.
    Congressional impeachment.
    Removal from office via Senate conviction.
    Then, and only then, indictment.

    Note that someone else is holding the Office of the President at the very moment the indictment is issued.
    Hence, the responsibilities of that office would never have been any consideration in the drafting of the indictment.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  15. #75
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    10,418
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    VP's are not presidents... You gonna have Trump sitting in the pokey with the nuclear football? The magnitude of his duties likely preclude indictment if the issue ever came before the courts. Additionally, under a strict reading of the Constitution he can pardon himself.
    The Constitution still makes no distinction between a President or Vice President in the matter of impeachment. It stands to reason that if the Constitution precluded the indictment of a President, Vice President, or Civil Officer while they occupied their offices, previous indictments that have transpired would not have occurred.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Director Comey fired
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 403
    Last Post: 31 Dec 17,, 03:24
  2. Somalia: Abdiweli Mohamed Ali appointed prime minister
    By tomkent45 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23 Jun 11,, 17:10
  3. A Chat With ISAF's Director Of Intelligence
    By S2 in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Nov 09,, 16:57
  4. Dennis Ross appointed NSC senior director
    By Ironduke in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26 Jun 09,, 17:56
  5. Nambiar appointed UN chief of staff
    By Tronic in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01 Jan 07,, 22:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •