Crime Use it in a Sentence (special counsel thread v. 25)

[HereticBD]

History will ultimately prove me correct. The more time that passes, the more the right will look back fondly upon President Trump. During that same time, the left will continue to demonize President Trump to an increasingly cartoonish level.

I don't know about the left, once the next right wing Satan arises. I mean, I never thought I'd see the day when they looked back at GWB with fondness because they hate the new guy so much, but here we are.

If there is another war mongering Rep in office, they'll start looking back at Trump's reign as if nothing else, peaceful, and play him up like a lovable goofball, like they do with W now.

 

[Quipling]

Yeah, my understanding is that impeachment is merely a political tool, and not a criminal proceeding. I don't believe one has an effect on the other. I don't know, but considering a sitting President can't be indicted, it could actually serve the purpose to remove a President so that they can be charged. That might be part of the intention of impeachment.

Let's keep in mind the bolded is not settled law. The authority for this claim is mostly from a series of memos written by the DoJ that have not yet been tested.

I do think that the "intention of impeachment" argument carries some weight and, IIRC, the DoJ memos use that. It's not a perfect argument, though, because there are other officials subject to the impeachment process who nevertheless can and have been indicted (and convicted!) before being impeached.

 

[HereticBD]

Let's keep in mind the bolded is not settled law.

I think it's pretty much settled. Maybe not technically, but pretty much. They wouldn't be wasting their time with this impeachment nonsense, if they could just indict a President.

I do think that the "intention of impeachment" argument carries some weight and, IIRC, the DoJ memos use that. It's not a perfect argument, though, because there are other officials subject to the impeachment process who nevertheless can and have been indicted (and convicted!) before being impeached.

Yeah, but we're talking about the President. I'll stick with my "pretty much" settled position. Maybe if the President straight up murdered someone on camera, they'd float the idea around of skipping impeachment, but it'd have to be something extreme like that for it to even be considered, me thinks.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I don't know about the left, once the next right wing Satan arises. I mean, I never thought I'd see the day when they looked back at GWB with fondness because they hate the new guy so much, but here we are.

If there is another war mongering Rep in office, they'll start looking back at Trump's reign as if nothing else, peaceful, and play him up like a lovable goofball, like they do with W now.

It's funny how for the last two years, you guys have been blathering on and on, no matter what shady shit Trump does with "He didn't do anything, this is TDS." Now, you expect anyone to take you guys seriously as you've been whittled down to "Well, they'll bitch about the next guy."

Laughable.

 

[Joe]

 

[HereticBD]

It's funny how for the last two years, you guys have been blathering on and on, no matter what shady shit Trump does with "He didn't do anything, this is TDS." Now, you expect anyone to take you guys seriously as you've been whittled down to "Well, they'll bitch about the next guy."

Laughable.

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[hillelslovak87]

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[ChainFlow]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/indicting-president-not-foreclosed-complex-history

Professional analysis of the open question of indicting a sitting President.

Consider the 1973 OLC memo stating that a sitting president should not be indicted. Far from being authoritative, it was essentially repudiated within months by the Justice Department in the United States’ filing in the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If this goes to impeachment proceedings, -and let's dispense with the bullshit, in any other presidency they would already be underway- Donald Trump will find himself in a situation where his support among current lapdog Republicans in the Senate and Congress collapses as they run for the exits like a crowd in a theater fire.

At present with his approval in the low 40s, I don't think that would happen. If the economy turns down (and I'd say it's starting to look like we're getting close to a recession--maybe 50/50 in the next year and 75% in the next two years), we'd see his approval drop into the low 30s or high 20s, and then I don't think Senators would want to be sticking behind him (ideally, they'd want to avoid the issue, but an impeachment would force them to publicly say that they're OK with allowing a corrupt and incompetent president to stay on). Trump himself wouldn't go the Nixon route because he'd have way too much to lose. His hope would be that if he stays in power, he can remain above the law.

 

[xcvbn]

Don't be so sure. They maybe be whores to Trump right now, but they saw in the Midterms that will Trump support amongst the hardcore remains static, that is not enough to save their seats. If they see a similar wave coming in 2020, and far more Repub Senate seats are at risk then, they will become whores to their own self interest and survival. They will not take a bullet to save Trump at their own expense. They will only do it if they think they both survive.

I guarantee you they are watching closely their own polling data on general Repub support and not just the Trump support most pay attention to.

Could set the stage for a fractured GOP, much like what is happening in the DNC- they would just need a Republican to step up like what Bernie has done.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

It's funny how for the last two years, you guys have been blathering on and on, no matter what shady shit Trump does with "He didn't do anything, this is TDS." Now, you expect anyone to take you guys seriously as you've been whittled down to "Well, they'll bitch about the next guy."

Laughable.

You're confusing the events of the present, with an analysis of future outlooks.

I'm not really sure how you could have missed that.

Glad I could clear up your confusion for you.

 

[hillelslovak87]

You're confusing the events of the present, with an analysis of future outlooks.

I'm not really sure how you could have missed that.

Glad I could clear up your confusion for you.

And again I ask: How is Richard Nixon remembered?

 

[Andy Capp]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/indicting-president-not-foreclosed-complex-history

Professional analysis of the open question of indicting a sitting President.

Interesting,
"Perhaps the most important point that emerges from a review of all the opinions is this: only once has the United States addressed the question of whether a president can be an unindicted co-conspirator. The conclusion was an unequivocal yes. Richard Nixon was so named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. Nixon. (The Supreme Court did not resolve the question.) No department opinion or filing has ever contradicted that position. The fact that it is permissible to name a sitting president as unindicted co-conspirator, moreover, tends significantly to undermine the only argument against indicting a sitting president."

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

And again I ask: How is Richard Nixon remembered?

Richard Nixon faced impeachment.

President Trump is under no such risk. To the extent you think otherwise, is the extent you will be proven wrong.

 

[Fawlty]

Richard Nixon faced impeachment.

President Trump is under no such risk. To the extent you think otherwise, is the extent you will be proven wrong.

I think you mean "removal from office." Trump is definitely at risk of impeachment.

 

[DEN]

There is a lot of handwringing and magical thinking in this thread. The Senate will expel trump and congress will be forced to impeach. Impeachment must move forward or the rule of law in america is no more. He has been proven to have committed campaign related felonies. Collusion has also been proven.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

LOL, you want to see Republican support plummet? Turn on Trump.

The Republican party is dead. It's Trump's party. So go he, so goes the support he brings. Don't act like the midterms were some kind of anomaly that never happens to first term Presidents. It's not indicative of anything. Compared to past Presidents' records on first term midterms, Trump's losses were rather ordinary.

Actually the midterms were an anomaly. GOP lost seats tRUmp carried in 16. GOP lost Reagan Country Cali completely. GOP lost seats in Teaxs that haven't been blue in god knows how long. GOP lost 40 total seats most since Watergate .

So yes this indicates a loss of support as well as an anomaly

 

[Fawlty]

There is a lot of handwringing and magical thinking in this thread. The Senate will expel trump and congress will be forced to impeach. Impeachment must move forward or the rule of law in america is no more. He has been proven to have committed campaign related felonies. Collusion has also been proven.

I don't see why or how this particular Senate would remove him. Not just for campaign finance violation, anyway. Impeachment, definitely a strong possibility. I think this Senate would require something more serious (money laundering + quid pro quo related to the DNC break-in for example).

 

[DEN]

It's irrelevant what felonies were committed. Felonies were committed. They have no choice but to impeach and remove a president who criminally interfered with the election.

 

[Fawlty]

It's irrelevant what felonies were committed. Felonies were committed. They have no choice but to impeach and remove a president who criminally interfered with the election.

I don't think they'll see it that way. It's a political conviction and they can choose not to move forward with it, that simple. Only if they fear the party falling apart in 2020 (or 2022 if it gets to that point) will they act, imo.