Donald Trump

[r.soleofsalford]

Can't see at work. What nonsense is he spouting now?

Edit: Don't worry. I think I know what this refers to.

I think its something to do with Emerdale.


He`s got a gripe with the Dingells

 

[domalino]

It's definitely not the law or part of the Constitution.

It was an Office of Legal Council (OLC) opinion, which first reared its head in a 1973 memo stating "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions... ".

And worth pointing out that it is literally just a memo, an opinion, it has no legal standing whatsoever.

A Federal Judge recently slapped down an attempt to use OLC memos to shield Manfort, and ridiculed the lawyers who tried to use them.

 

[Ban-jani]

I’m very naive on the intricacies of US political processes.

Does this now go to the Upper House for a vote and if Trump wins he’s okay to maintain office and if he loses he’s removed from office?

 

[Bigga]

You stated it the way the left likes it stated. But let me ask a different question, had Biden not been a 'possible rival' will it be okay for a President to ask that another country investigate possible corruption involving members of the family of a previous administration?


And When Trump leaves office, should Tulsi (Yeah she's hopefully the next President :p) be able to ask Saudi Arabia to investigate Trump dealings? Or should she be impeached if Trump Jnr jumps in the race as a 'potential opponent'?

Like I said, don't like what he did. But I can smell a rat. And while we are on it, I do want Biden, his son and their Burissma crew investigated! Regardless of whether Trump gets removed or voted out next November.

I'm pretty sure Biden has already been 'investigated' and been exonerated.

It's just not loud enough for the GOP.

It's a bit like 'Benghazi' being investigated 3 times and still coming up with zero blame.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I'm pretty sure Biden has already been 'investigated' and been exonerated.

It's just not loud enough for the GOP.

It's a bit like 'Benghazi' being investigated 3 times and still coming up with zero blame.

The investigations are the end in themselves. Classic whataboutism. The debates are won and lost on 5~10 sec talking points. Anything that takes longer than 10 seconds to explain is just noise. Valid points can be beaten by invalid points as long as they sound credible.

 

[Bigga]

It's definitely not the law or part of the Constitution.

It was an Office of Legal Council (OLC) opinion, which first reared its head in a 1973 memo stating "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions... ".

Cheers, I thought this was the case.

This has created the loophole that should have seen Bush, Clinton (debatable) and Trump removed.

Ironically, the US use the constitution as 'the letter of the law' but, clearly, one can amend the 'living document' as what suits their needs.

Not sure why it's pretended otherwise.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I’m very naive on the intricacies of US political processes.

Does this now go to the Upper House for a vote and if Trump wins he’s okay to maintain office and if he loses he’s removed from office?

As far as I know:

House of Representatives vote to impeach.
The Senate try the case, under the auspices of Chief Justice Roberts in this case, I think. 2/3 majority needed to convict
From what I can tell, the actual process is down to the senate of the day - these are set by simple majority, and there is some belief that the Democrats will try empowering Roberts to subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney et al (Scaramucci, for whatever he's worth, said yesterday that if this happens, he thinks Trump would resign that day, rather than have Bolton in front of the senate under oath).

Yes, if guilty, he's removed.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Cheers, I thought this was the case.

This has created the loophole that should have seen Bush, Clinton (debatable) and Trump removed.

Ironically, the US use the constitution as 'the letter of the law' but, clearly, one can amend the 'living document' as what suits their needs.

Not sure why it's pretended otherwise.

It also seems to be a problem in that a crime after 6 months, and a successful re-election would see some kind of statute of limitations kick in and totally prevent legal action.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

And worth pointing out that it is literally just a memo, an opinion, it has no legal standing whatsoever.

A Federal Judge recently slapped down an attempt to use OLC memos to shield Manfort, and ridiculed the lawyers who tried to use them.

Unfortunately, Robert Muller took this memo as a restraint on his powers (possibly/probably by AG Barr and the Justice Department) when publishing his report into Russian interference into the 2016 elections. Without this memo, It is highly likely Muller would have call for the indictment of the POTUS.

 

[domalino]

Unfortunately, Robert Muller took this memo as a restraint on his powers (possibly/probably by AG Barr and the Justice Department) when publishing his report into Russian interference into the 2016 elections. Without this memo, It is highly likely Muller would have call for the indictment of the POTUS.

If you read what we have now of Muller's report, it's very obvious that he expected Trump to be impeached almost immediately. And he probably would have been if the current version was what got released immediately.

He was far too naive and professional unfortunately, he clearly didn't realise the extent to which Barr would literally edit the meaning of his report and suppress it, and he was a boring witness as well.