Crime Get me Roger Stone (for obstruction, lying, and witness tampering) (SCO thread v. 28)

[hillelslovak87]

Many legal experts agree that President should not be prosecuted for crimes during office. It does detract from his responsibilities. If they want to go after him, do so after his term.

Those legal experts likely cite the DOJ policy, which is in no way a law. The President should in no way be immune to prosecution. anyone who despises corruption would find this an obvious enough position to take.

 

[grizzard2bid]

They took the gloves off

You got that part right. It was a PR stunt.

 

[grizzard2bid]

Those legal experts likely cite the DOJ policy, which is in no way a law. The President should in no way be immune to prosecution. anyone who despises corruption would find this an obvious enough position to take.

Trump's business dealings from 5-10 years ago shouldn't be brought up during his term as President.
If he's such a bad guy, he should have had charges brought against him long time ago. Now it's nothing more than politics and establishment/deep state subversion. Take politics out of it, and try him after his term(s) end.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Trump's business dealings from 5-10 years ago shouldn't be brought up during his term as President.
If he's such a bad guy, he should have had charges brought against him long time ago. Now it's nothing more than politics and establishment/deep state subversion. Take politics out of it, and try him after his term(s) end.

i agree with this man. Only by letting Trump's crimes go unpunished can we remove any leverage criminal accomplices may try to wield over the leader of the free world. It's exactly what the founding fathers would have wanted.

Gizzard, it's a damn shame that people call you a fucking idiot. These sheep will never wake up.

 

[ocean size]

Were you hybernating during Kavanaugh hearings? Jesus Christ. That was one big issue Ds raised about BK.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2018/07/11/brett-kavanaugh-president-indicted-709641

Upon thinking about it I reckon it would be best for a sitting president to be impeached prior to being tried. I have no issue with an indictment though. The optics are still kinda odd thinking about a president gunning down a bunch of innocent civilians and BK saying he can not and should not be indicted.

 

[Darkballs]

You got that part right. It was a PR stunt.

Just because you keep leaving the threatening of witnesses out, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But I get it. You don't have an answer for that.

 

[grizzard2bid]

Upon thinking about it I reckon it would be best for a sitting president to be impeached prior to being tried. I have no issue with an indictment though. The optics are still kinda odd thinking about a president gunning down a bunch of innocent civilians and BK saying he can not and should not be indicted.

If BK thinks sitting Presidents shouldn't be tried, that's good enough for me. He was involved investigating the Whitewater, and worked with Dubya(whatever that counts for) besides being a Constitutional expert and a lawyer.

 

[Darkballs]

If BK thinks sitting Presidents shouldn't be tried, that's good enough for me. He was involved investigating the Whitewater, and worked with Dubya(whatever that counts for) besides being a Constitutional expert and a lawyer.

Why is Kavanaugh's opinion the deciding factor for you given that: 1) There are eight other justices on the Court; 2) He has completely and utterly flip-flopped on this issue depending who was in office?

 

[ocean size]

If BK thinks sitting Presidents shouldn't be tried, that's good enough for me. He was involved investigating the Whitewater, and worked with Dubya(whatever that counts for) besides being a Constitutional expert and a lawyer.

Probably worth forming your own opinion based on a broader source. Or at least understanding the reasons provided across a consensus of legal experts. BK is among the most partisan and not most well rated judge amongst his peers.

 

[grizzard2bid]

Probably worth forming your own opinion based on a broader source. Or at least understanding the reasons provided across a consensus of legal experts. BK is among the most partisan and not most well rated judge amongst his peers.

I don't care about Kavanaugh, but I'm pretty sure you're talking out of your ass regarding his credentials. He's pretty mainstream if I recall on most his decisions.

 

[grizzard2bid]

Why is Kavanaugh's opinion the deciding factor for you given that: 1) There are eight other justices on the Court; 2) He has completely and utterly flip-flopped on this issue depending who was in office?

He investigated a president, he worked for a president, he's a pretty smart constitutional originalist.
I think that should be sufficient- he basically has a vast experience in terms of that particular issue.

 

[Darkballs]

He investigated a president, he worked for a president, he's a pretty smart constitutional originalist.
I think that should be sufficient- he basically has a vast experience in terms of that particular issue.

Vast experience resulting in completely opposite opinions depending on the political party of the president.

I get it. You aren't capable of making the constitutional argument yourself, so you're just point to someone and hoping that cuts it. But why not at least pick a republican partisan who's been consistent on the issue?

 

[ocean size]

I don't care about Kavanaugh, but I'm pretty sure you're talking out of your ass regarding his credentials. He's pretty mainstream if I recall on most his decisions.

The ABA downgraded him in 2006 from Well Qualified to Qualified for a federal appointment, based on concerns for his honesty, bias, and temperment. And he is about as partisan as it gets - I don't just mean he is a textualist who's constitutional interpretation favours GOP, but he was lead author on the Starr report calling for Clinton's impeachment, then he represents Bush himself in the 2000 election lawsuit etc etc.

 

[grizzard2bid]

The ABA downgraded him in 2006 from Well Qualified to Qualified for a federal appointment, based on concerns for his honesty, bias, and temperment. And he is about as partisan as it gets - I don't just mean he is a textualist who's constitutional interpretation favours GOP, but he was lead author on the Starr report calling for Clinton's impeachment, then he represents Bush himself in the 2000 election lawsuit etc etc.

Wow, he's just "qualified". Pull the alarm.
Well, he's been a judge for 12 years since then, maybe look up his opinions since then and his rating there.

 

[grizzard2bid]

I get it. You aren't capable of making the constitutional argument yourself

Because you can make a sound constitutional argument, Erin Brokovich?

 

[Darkballs]

Because you can make a sound constitutional argument, Erin Brokovich?

Brokovich wasn't a lawyer, and she never assisted with constitutional law. Try and think your insults through a bit first.

But seriously, are you that afraid of the question?

What about Kavanaugh's argument do you find convincing? Why are you not bothered that he held the complete opposite opinion a few years ago?

 

[Darkballs]

dbl

 

[grizzard2bid]

Brokovich wasn't a lawyer, and she never assisted with constitutional law. Try and think your insults through a bit first.

But seriously, are you that afraid of the question?

What about Kavanaugh's argument do you find convincing? Why are you not bothered that he held the complete opposite opinion a few years ago?

LOL, you're mad I called you Erin Brokovich? <Lmaoo>
If you watched his hearing, he went into detail about his explanation on his changed views regarding the matter. I find it reasonable.

 

[Darkballs]

LOL, you're mad I called you Erin Brokovich?

No. It was that you looked stupid because you clearly didn't know who Brokovich was when you dropped her name in a context that didn't make sense. Is that hard to understand Dom Deluise?

If you watched his hearing, he went into detail about his explanation on his changed views regarding the matter. I find it reasonable.

I didn't think you'd have an answer.

 

[grizzard2bid]

No. It was that you looked stupid because you clearly didn't know who Brokovich was when you dropped her name in a context that didn't make sense. Is that hard to understand Dom Deluise?



I didn't think you'd have an answer.

I'm operating under assumption I'm talking to a "Google lawyer" so I think the nickname Erin Brokovich was on point. I think it was pretty clever.

Kavanaugh went into a very elaborate anecdote on how his perspective changed about president facing charges after he witnessed 9/11. You'd think a constitutional lawyer would watch a SCOTUS hearing instead of asking me to regurgitate it for you.