Donald Trump Indictment: Sealed Indictment Reportedly Issued Against Trump

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: SaturnFX

To be fair, the Obama/Kenya thing was always nonsense but Trump could have easily earned this. The man is a pathological liar and just recently told the world during an interview he fired Comey because he doesn't believe the Trump/Russia thing should be investigated (yes he referred to himself in the third person).

Source?

They were unnamed high ranking officials....

a reply to: Swills

I'm pretty sure only grand juries can issue indictments. I believe that FISA courts only authorize search warrants. Plus the source is a blog. Fake News.

Who knows if this indictment is true or not?

The U.S. Constitution says "and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

There should be a Grand Jury indictment to safeguard people from being arrested based on any allegation whether false or true.

a reply to: laughingdog

He's the one who's issues you should be concerned with.
Mine are just an aggravation on your computer screen that mean nothing to you in your real life. ( I hope anyway). His issues we both have to deal with.

a reply to: Swills

Snopes is reporting 'Unproven'
Link

Whether or not an indictment has been issued against the president remains unclear, because the blog post is so vague and the sources anonymous. But as Sprigman pointed out, in terms of the investigation into accusations of collusion with the Russian government between President Trump and his associates, the country is in “terra incognita” — uncharted land.

While no one really knows for certain (or the ones who do aren’t saying anything) legal experts are unconvinced an indictment has been made against Trump, because according to precedent, a sitting president would have to be fully impeached before being charged with a crime. It seems unlikely federal prosecutors would contradict the Department of Justice. But as Sprigman noted, the current situation defies precedent in many ways:

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The difference is that the center left will reject the wingnuts more definitively than the center right.

I and i am sure pretty much everyone else have literally never seen or heard of that happening.

But the word REJECT must be accurate i guess..as in reject everything which you are TOLD too.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: laughingdog

You have some serious issues if you think President Trump is going to be impeached. You have to have a reason for impeachment.

You must have some serious issues if you can't see impeachment is inevitable. Sooner or later, he will be put under oath and do his usual job of presenting "alternative facts," and that will be that.

It is apparent the left has become more delusional than the abrahamic religions cause upon their followers ... an interesting REVELATION.

Evolution is most definitively not in charge here..you are right about that.

Impeachment -

Reason - Treason, bribery or other high c4rimes and misdemeanors. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a "legal standard" as we are familiar with it. Congress can decide, for impeachment purposes, what a high crime and misdemeanor is.

Process - 2 stages.

Stage 1 - Articles of impeachment are drafted by the House of Representatives and submitted for a vote by the entire house (435 members). A simple majority is needed to "impeach the president" (A simple majority being 218 yes votes). If the House votes to impeach we move to stage 2.

Stage 2 - A trial is held by the Senate and in the case of President the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the "trial". To "convict" a 2/3 majority is required, or 67 votes.

If the majority vote to find the President "guilty" he is removed from office. Impeachment and or removal does not bar criminal prosecution.

If a majority is not met, the President is acquitted and no punishment occurs.

I raise this point because for some reason Democrats / people who dont like Trump seem to not understand how the process works, thinking it does not require a vote by the entire house. I doubt Republicans are going to side with Democrats to remove Trump unless Democrats can actually provide, you know, evidence that supports the claims they are constantly pushing (but never supporting).

The only other way to remove a president is by using the 25th amendment. In addition to establishing the line of succession, it also spells out removal by means other than impeachment.

* - The President can sign a letter temporary removing himself from office. He then must submit a second letter in order to regain his position.
* - The Vice President and majority of cabinet can sign a letter detailing how the President is not fit to hold office. The President can defend against the letter.
* - The less known option is part 4 - Congress can appoint a body to evaluate the Presidents condition and can take action under the 25th to remove him. The president, again, can defend against it.

This is why Democrats keep pushing the 25th amendment option because I think they know full well they wont succeed using the other methods available. The issue with using the 25th, specifically section 4, is it states a manner / method as prescribed by law. I am not aware of any laws dealing with section 4, so a law would need to be drafted, passed by Congress and signed by the President.

I dont see that bill being signed if it makes it that far nor do I see the Congress overriding a veto.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Here's the bottom line: Trump did not win the popular vote and his popularity keeps dropping. It is usual for the party in opposition to the President to gain seats in the legislature during the mid-terms. This will almost certainly cause the Republicans to lose their majority. At this point, the party's only hope is to get rid of Trump before he becomes the main issue in the next election cycle. If the GOP does not get rid of him now, the incoming Democratic majority will roast him and anyone foolish enough to provide excuses for him.

a reply to: StanleyBolten

Um...

What?

"There should be a Grand Jury indictment to safeguard people from being arrested based on any allegation whether false or true" ?

Are you aware that what you just said is equal, exactly equal to saying that you want a situation to exist where a person or people cannot even be arrested over a truthful allegation?

I think you might want to figure out first, if that is really what you meant to say, and then second, figure out a different way of communicating whatever it is that is in your mind. I know you cannot be serious when you say that the guilty should not feel the long arm of the law, no matter who they are or what position they hold.

a reply to: DJW001

Ok well for starters we dont use a national popular vote to elect our president.

Secondly trump won the popular vote in all the states he won and Clinton won the popular vote in all the states she won.

3 million California voters who went for Clinton dont get to decide for the nation who the President is...

Trumps popularity does not keep dropping except among those who didnt like him to begin with.

Trump is not going anywhere and the Democrats throwing a temper tantrum while continuing to lie about Russia will cost them seats in the midterm.

a reply to: TrueBrit


I think, and I could be wrong, is an allegation does not always equal probable cause. Probable cause is required under our system for charges to be filed / arrest warrant to be issued / search warrant to be issued.

An allegation does not equal probable cause.

It must be supported by evidence equaling probable cause.

Donald Trump Indictment: Sealed Indictment Reportedly Issued Against Trump


Seriously ?

The Inquistor is the 'source' ?

What a waste of time.

My how far have Trump haters sunk now.

Tabloids is now 'real news'.

Fake, Phony, Very Fake! ~$heopleNation

a reply to: neo96

These days, CNN and the Washington Post are themselves little more than tabloids, so perhaps we should be understanding if people treat The Inquistor as their equal.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Swills

Oh boy, could this be true?

No.

Just more unhinged liberal fake news and wishful thinking.

why would you assume it's from a liberal, or, if it's even a true story?....

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: neo96

These days, CNN and the Washington Post are themselves little more than tabloids, so perhaps we should be understanding if people treat The Inquistor as their equal.

they are doing record business...so you're just continuing a lie...good for you, you get the Russian award for excellence in mindless propaganda

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: neo96

These days, CNN and the Washington Post are themselves little more than tabloids, so perhaps we should be understanding if people treat The Inquistor as their equal.

I think CNN and WaPo are more like The Onion these days.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: neo96

These days, CNN and the Washington Post are themselves little more than tabloids, so perhaps we should be understanding if people treat The Inquistor as their equal.

I think CNN and WaPo are more like The Onion these days.

Your saying so doesn't make it so.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So... you think Congress will continue to back a President who claims he has an "absolute right" to share secret intelligence with the Russians? A President so arbitrary and obsessive that he cannot find anyone willing to be the new Director of the FBI after firing one for not dropping an investigation at his request?