Trump v Vance

[Buffalo_Gal]

26 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

...and you are being rude and projecting. If you have a case to make, then make it. 

 

 

Ummm you must be new here. Tibs does not "make a case" or back-up any of his ridiculous assertions. He's a (paid) doofus who comes on the board (almost) daily to spout Russia! Russia! RUSSIA!, #OrangeManBad, and whatever DNC/Soros talking points come out that day.

Ignore him (literally). You will be happy you did.

[The Guy In Pants]

5 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You: "We don't live in East Germany yet, but give it time. Maybe you can interrogate me in the future.?"

Me: "That's fair, I just fail to understand why you choose not to share, and why I'm East Germany for asking?"

 

Or maybe you did, and maybe it's you misrepresenting.

 

Name one other time you mistakenly thought I misrepresented you?

What does this mean???  Are you saying you should be able to be charged after you're tried and found guilty??  All I see here is Covfefe

 

No, Im saying no one is above the law. I’m saying no one is guilty unless they are investigated, prosecuted and found guilty. I’m asking what Trump has done to evade prosecution if the investigations turned up enough evidence for crimes in which he should have been tried for? 

[daz28]

14 minutes ago, The Guy In Pants said:

 

No, Im saying no one is above the law. I’m saying no one is guilty unless they are investigated, prosecuted and found guilty. I’m asking what Trump has done to evade prosecution if the investigations turned up enough evidence for crimes in which he should have been tried for? 

I didn't say he committed a crime.  I only asked if you thought he should be able to be charged with one if he did.  I don't look at it from a Trump angle, because in 10 years it might be a Democrat or a Republican.  Do you think that person should be able to be charged with a crime while acting as sitting president.  You're making this WAYYY more difficult than it needs to be

[The Guy In Pants]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

I didn't say he committed a crime.  I only asked if you thought he should be able to be charged with one if he did.  I don't look at it from a Trump angle, because in 10 years it might be a Democrat or a Republican.  Do you think that person should be able to be charged with a crime while acting as sitting president.  You're making this WAYYY more difficult than it needs to be

Well, the reason for the confusion is I have been conversing with Tiberius; not you. You had your own dialogue with Reality Check. You’ve never posed the question to me; as far as I could tell. 
 

So, if that is your question I’ll give you my non-legal student opinion. If the investigation finds a crime, then to an extent, possibly. Very fine line. There are many variables. You simply cannot play partisan politics and investigate until you find a crime just because you want to remove a president of opposite political party. 
 

In Trumps case; this is all partisan politics. Or at the very least; shown to be so with the number of “we’ve got him now” investigations.

Edited May 10, 2020 by The Guy In Pants

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

I'm not trying to make a case.  You said you read the Constitution, and I want to know if you read that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime?  Don't confuse your discussion with Tibs with mine

 

Yes. He can.

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

No, you are just playing dumb. 

Why don't you tell him what really bothers you? You're afraid he'll take your job away. That's comedy gold right there.  

[Koko78]

Gator's stupidity (and Reality Check's messing with his stupidity) aside, this is actually a pretty interesting legal question.

 

It's fairly clear from the Federalist Papers that the Founding Fathers intended impeachment/removal to be the sole remedy while someone is a sitting president. Once they're removed from office, then they can be prosecuted. It makes little sense to have the president prosecuted in federal court by the Department of Justice... which he controls. It also prevents political asshattery from rogue federal prosecutors who simply do not agree with a policy decision (sound familiar?).

 

A state charging a sitting president is a far more interesting question. With the concept of dual sovereigns, can a state charge a sitting president for committing a crime on that stat's semi-sovereign soil? Of course, if the answer is yes, then you have nakedly partisan and thoroughly corrupt asshats like Cy Vance inventing charges because the president sharted on 5th Avenue.

 

Ultimately, the answer is going to be that no, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted by a state while he is in office. Any other ruling simply creates more nakedly-partisan chaos, and renders the office (and the federal government) meaningless. No president - or congress critter - will be able to function once political opponents in the states start criminalizing and prosecuting any pretextual "crime" for policy decisions/votes they don't like.

 

 

Oh, and I made fried chicken.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Koko78

[daz28]

45 minutes ago, The Guy In Pants said:

Well, the reason for the confusion is I have been conversing with Tiberius; not you. You had your own dialogue with Reality Check. You’ve never posed the question to me; as far as I could tell. 
 

So, if that is your question I’ll give you my non-legal student opinion. If the investigation finds a crime, then to an extent, yes. There are many variables. You simply cannot play partisan politics and investigate until you find a crime just because you want to remove a president of opposite political party.

This is the problem.  In these partisan times can we trust them with that responsibility? Can we trust the DOJ to not be partisan?  The fact these are even questions is a testament to how bad things really are right now.  

40 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yes. He can.

I believe Trump, Barr, and Kavanaugh all believe that he can't.  So are you disagreeing with them?  If so, is there really any recourse other than impeachment and removal?

[The Guy In Pants]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

This is the problem.  In these partisan times can we trust them with that responsibility? Can we trust the DOJ to not be partisan?  The fact these are even questions is a testament to how bad things really are right now.  

Well, “we” trusted them for 8 years under Obama and it’s just now coming out that we may have some serious issues on our hands. The difference between Obama and Trump is Obama was able to play our emotional and soft, comforting violins; Trump says whatever he wants. I voted for Obama the first time. I also voted for Trump in 2018. I’ll be voting for him again unless everything I’ve been told existed for the last 3 years comes out as 100% true. So far; the career pols in D.C are batting 0.

 

I see your point and understand where you are coming from. How can we be sure partisan politics isn’t playing a role? I have no idea. I see partisan politics right now; but it’s not from Bill Barr that I can see.

[daz28]

1 minute ago, The Guy In Pants said:

 I see partisan politics right now; but it’s not from Bill Barr that I can see.

I'm not gonna call Barr dirty, but he's been around the center of some partisan issues for a long time, and he is not afraid to be political.  Certainly not my idea of an ideal AG

[The Guy In Pants]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I'm not gonna call Barr dirty, but he's been around the center of some partisan issues for a long time, and he is not afraid to be political.  Certainly not my idea of an ideal AG

Hard pressed to find anyone who been in D.C longer than a year who hasn’t been. Many start out with great intentions only to find themselves forced to comply with the status quo. 

[Reality Check]

All I know is that impeachment failed. Better luck next time.

[daz28]

9 minutes ago, The Guy In Pants said:

Hard pressed to find anyone who been in D.C longer than a year who hasn’t been. Many start out with great intentions only to find themselves forced to comply with the status quo. 

If message boards had been around since 1960, we'd be on the 75,638,463,9264,907 page of the 'Washington slimes us again' thread in PPP.  For all we know this has been going on since 1800, but they take short periodic breaks from sliming us.  

Edited May 10, 2020 by daz28

[Reality Check]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Ummm you must be new here. Tibs does not "make a case" or back-up any of his ridiculous assertions. He's a (paid) doofus who comes on the board (almost) daily to spout Russia! Russia! RUSSIA!, #OrangeManBad, and whatever DNC/Soros talking points come out that day.

Ignore him (literally). You will be happy you did.

I was just having some fun. He provides a little target practice. I don't know if you're a mother or not, but if you are, happy Mothers Day.

20 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If message boards had been around since 1960, we'd be on the 75,638,463,9264,907 page of the 'Washington slimes us again' thread in PPP.  For all we know this has been going on since 1800, but they take short periodic breaks from sliming us.  

You are not wrong, we have been on the receiving end of propaganda from competing foreign and domestic business interests for a couple of centuries. The BS we have been fed is a real horror show.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yes. He can.

He would need to be removed from office first.

 

There is a Constitutional mechanism for doing so.

[Wacka]

3 hours ago, The Guy In Pants said:

 

Everyone. Didn’t you know that?
 

 

I got mine already! Theres at least 1 grand more than what should be in my account!

3 hours ago, The Guy In Pants said:

 

 

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Stormy. 

You were the sunshine, baby, whenever you smiled
But I call you Stormy today
All of a sudden that ole rain's fallin' down
And my world is cloudy and gray
You've gone away
Oh Stormy, oh Stormy
Bring back that sunny day

[Orlando Buffalo]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Ummm you must be new here. Tibs does not "make a case" or back-up any of his ridiculous assertions. He's a (paid) doofus who comes on the board (almost) daily to spout Russia! Russia! RUSSIA!, #OrangeManBad, and whatever DNC/Soros talking points come out that day.

Ignore him (literally). You will be happy you did.

Actually I disagree- I think Tibs is honest with his opinions and simply does feels that narratives are more important than facts. Tibs is highly entertaining when he is try my to be serious. Lastly ask Tibs direct questions and you get hilarious replies that are not vaguely related to topic.

[B-Man]

Well, you are a good person, Tim.

 

After many years of reading his faulty logic and non-responses, I can tell you that it loses it’s amusement. 

[realtruelove]

After being cooped up in the house for 6 weeks, finally got out and drove around town.  I treated the wife for one of her favorite burgers, the Thick Burger from Hardee's.  It really hit the spot and now we both will have to pay the price with agita for the next 12 hours.

[KD in CA]

8 hours ago, Reality Check said:

All I know is that impeachment failed. Better luck next time.

Oh yeah.....impeachment.  Almost forgot.  When is that supposed to happen again?