Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

a reply to: Dfairlite

Ya,know, its early in the morning and my brain is still a bit foggy. But that little quote you gave seems to be saying that congress doesnt have the power to criminally prosecute the president, find him guilty, and sentence him to jail. They can only remove him from office and hand the matter over to the justice system.
It says nothing about any limitation being placed on the justice dept, or state prosecutors, being able to indict, prosecute, or convict a sitting president.

I agree, congress shouldn't have the power to criminally try, convict and throw people into jail.. that would be a nightmare waiting to happen. But I disagree that if the president started to bring a gun into his rallies and opened fire on the media at everyone he went to, we would all have to wait around till for congress to gather and got through the impeachment process before anyone could take his gun away from him and take him into custody.
The only reason why that policy still stands is because most presidents have acted appropriately in office and avoided being a danger to the country at least not that blatantly.
If a policy cant stand in any and all possible situations, sooner or later it's probably gonna be laid aside when it proves to be rather insane to follow it.
So, since no one would accept a president going on a killing spree while Congress argues and performs the tradition theatrics, I would have to say that no, the president isnt immune from the justice and law enforcement system.
And, you would think that if the president was as innocent as yous all seem to think, him and his buddies in congess would be doing less obstructing and be a little more cooperative. He and the republican party would want this chapter closed as soon as possible.. if they cared about our country, they wouldn't want this to last through three years and into the election year where its gonna just muck everything up!

a reply to: dawnstar

If a policy cant stand in any and all possible situations, sooner or later it's probably gonna be laid aside when it proves to be rather insane to follow it.

Let's take your standard and apply it to another scenario:
A democrat is elected president. The republican states are pissed. The republican states find some old taxes were filed wrong and the president is arrested. Or they find out he was running a program to straw purchase guns for cartel members and arrest him.

Now we have both scenario's leading to untenable situations. In one scenario the president is not above criminal prosecution and therefore the opposing party does everything in their power to arrest him. In the other the president goes crazy and shoots up a bunch of people. Which of these situations is the more immediate threat to democracy?

See, you're ignoring a bunch of other problems with the president being subject to criminal investigation/indictment. The most glaring of which is that he his the chief executive and as such has complete control over federal investigations. The president is the man in charge of making sure laws are being enforced. That's why they made him impeachable, because they knew that no president would enforce the law against himself had he violated it (regardless of intent).

But to circle back around to the constitutional text, I bolded the key section. The party convicted of impeachment shall nevertheless be liable....

It's plain as day that to be criminally liable they must convicted in impeachment. Imagine if that weren't the case. Let's say trump opened fire like you said and he was hauled off to jail. He's still president. Until the day he is removed via impeachment he's president. He has all of those powers and responsibilities. He can still issue executive orders, he can still pardon, he cans still sign legislation, he's zero flight risk so he'll have bail and trump can afford any bail so he'll be out doing his thing in a day or two. So what good exactly, came from his being criminally liable while still in office? Let's complicate things further. Let's say cartels from mexico begin invading the US because the president is in jail, so why the hell not!?

Like it or not, heads of state, while being heads of state are above the law. The queen of england could behead everyone in parliament and there's absolutely zero anyone could do (legally speaking) to stop her. Same with the king/queen of denmark. Our president has the power to thwart justice for anyone via pardon. If he wanted your rapist to go free, he could do that.

Finally this:

you would think that if the president was as innocent as yous all seem to think, him and his buddies in congess would be doing less obstructing and be a little more cooperative

They learned from the mueller investigation, cooperation doesn't help you out in a witch hunt. You don't cooperate with the devil to prove your innocence.

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't think you understand just how corrupt the deep state is. Let's just look at george papadopoulos.

George is 24. A young buck. Two weeks after joining the trump campaign as an energy advisor he's asked to give a speech on energy at a conference by a guy named josef mifsud. Mifsud tells george he's got connections to the russian government and that the russians having hillary's emails. After george gives his speech on energy, mifsud hooks george up with alexander downer, australian ambassador, for drinks. Downer tries to get george to tell him about the russians having hillary's emails. Downer then tells the FBI that george told him about hillary's emails.

Over the next few months mifsud keeps pushing his russian connections trying to get george to arrange a meeting with trump and his russian contacts. It never goes anywhere.

During this time the FBI is trying to tell george's girlfriend to leave him. They tell her he's headed nowhere, that he's shady and probably compromised, etc.

Then later a businessman named Tawil meets up with george in in israel and gives him $10k. George isn't sure what this $10k is about so he goes to greece and leaves it with a lawyer who is friends with his wife (who is greek and also a lawyer). When george arrives back in the US, guess who's waiting for him? The FBI, they search him and all his things looking for this $10k.

Now, when you find out that mifsud is an FBI asset with no russia connections and tawil is a CIA asset, it kind of changes the story. The FBI and CIA both tried to set up george. Was the CIA trying to discredit george so when he told his story it seemed like he wasn't believable? Or were they simply trying to taint a former trump campaign staffer with "shady international dealings?"

Does it matter? The point is, they were more than willing, heck they were happy, to try to ruin a 24 year old kids life to fake russian connections with the trump campaign. That's the FBI and the CIA. That's the deep state.

a reply to: Dfairlite

The president doesnt have the power to pardon anyone..
He cant pardon anyone convicted under state laws.

If a president went on a murderous rampage in one of his rallies, more than likely he would be brought down by a few bullets. The VP would step in. If he was taken into custody, again, that's why we have a VP.
The founding fathers, at least some of them, knew all too well the power that was held by the king and queen. Washington was offered the title of king and outright refused the notion.. no, it was to be a govt by the people, for the people,
I really think that they were more concerned with that much power being concentrated into one person or a small group of people and saw that as a real threat...
And I dont think they could foresee the insanity of today's political environment.
Like it or not, no one is above the law.

I was reading and article recently about how the person who was picked to write up the final draft kind of slipped in a small alteration in the agreed wording in the clause about impeachment. The article gave a few variations of that clause. In one, being convicted of a crime was a reason for impeachment.. how can a president be convicted of a crime if he cant be indicted and charged with a crime??

a reply to: Dfairlite

Ya know, russia approached a previous prospective candidate offering to help him in a presidential run. Only, this guy didnt say, oh, it it's what you say, I love it. He went straight to the media and told them the whole story and announce he would not be running for president. The story was quickly published, probably to the dismay of russia.

a reply to: dawnstar

The president doesnt have the power to pardon anyone.. He cant pardon anyone convicted under state laws.

Correct, because he's not in charge of each state.

Like it or not, no one is above the law.

How about diplomats? Illegal aliens? Anyone pardoned by the president or a governor? Obama did a drone strike on an american citizen with no due process. Like it or not you're wrong.

I was reading and article recently about how the person who was picked to write up the final draft kind of slipped in a small alteration in the agreed wording in the clause about impeachment.

LOL you're joking right? Do you know how long it took the constitution to be passed and ratified? And you're arguing it's a typo...

a reply to: dawnstar

So it's all good that our intel agencies were trying to ruin a kids life so they could falsely tie trump to russia, because one time someone was approached by russians and decided not to run for president?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: dawnstar

So it's all good that our intel agencies were trying to ruin a kids life so they could falsely tie trump to russia, because one time someone was approached by russians and decided not to run for president?

Could I ask if this is a serious claim, or are you expressiing your opinion?

There is ZERO evidence for any of that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Typical Democratic response.

originally posted by: Turkenstein
a reply to: Gryphon66

Typical Democratic response.

My response states for those who don't seem to be able to follow the thread of discussion what the thread topic is.

I'd love to hear anything substantive pro-or-con regarding the topic from you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

As a heart attack. There's no evidence for what exactly? What I have described is in the mueller report and other reporting. The only thing I've added is that mifsud was working with the FBI and Tawil with the CIA.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

As a heart attack. There's no evidence for what exactly? What I have described is in the mueller report and other reporting. The only thing I've added is that mifsud was working with the FBI and Tawil with the CIA.

Interesting.

LOL, the "only thing you've added" is wild assertions that individuals are covert CIA and FBI. Well, that's not much, is it?


Would you mind citing the page numbers or posting a quote so that we can all share your backup?

a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL, the "only thing you've added" is wild assertions that individuals are covert CIA and FBI. Well, that's not much, is it?

Not when it's from their deposition and publicly available information.

Would you mind citing the page numbers or posting a quote so that we can all share your backup?

For which part?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Any substantive material from the Report verifying even one of your claims here would be appreciated. That would at least be a starting place.

Or you could admit this is your opinion and move on.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure page 13 and 14 (might be p.5 and 6 depending on your version) of the mueller report tells most of the story:

Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact
with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip , Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes, that's the description of the relationship between Mifsud and Papadopoulous and their roles in Russiagate.

Now, can you show us in that passage where any of these claims are documented?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: dawnstar

So it's all good that our intel agencies were trying to ruin a kids life so they could falsely tie trump to russia, because one time someone was approached by russians and decided not to run for president?

Allow me to point out your assertions here that need factual backup-

1. Our intel agencies were trying to ruin a kids life
2. Our intel agenecies were trying to falsely tie Trump to Russia

One assumes the "kid" in your story is Papadopoulos and the alleged CIA agent is Mifsud?

Also, prove that Mifsud was working for the FBI or CIA (the story varies) from available public information if you'd like.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Diplomats would be sent home and not welcomed back.. we see this international policy as quite beneficial since some country's punishments are rather by barbaric.


There are alot of illegal immigrants sitting in jails for crimes arent there.. they will serve their time and get shipped back.

And, of course you have to bring obama into it! Well, that drone strike was awhile back so I'm not sure of all the details at this point. But I assume that the drone strike wasn't in the US and the american was in an area where one would find people who we saw as waging war against us, if not waging war against us himself.
Previous presidents have dropped bombs and killed many innocent aide workers including americans. Not to mention all those friendly fire incidents.. war is hell, so maybe we should stop antagonizing the beehives of the world just to get them started.
Like it or not, we are wrong, in alot of ways... a copying that those in high office shouldn't have to submit and be held accountable to the same laws as us is just one of the many things we are wrong about.

I'm not arguing about a typo, I am saying that there is an article online that talks about how one of the founders pulled a fast one and changed the agreed on wording in the constitution... what he changed dudnt actually have anything to do with weather or not the president should be indictable, but it does give a few of the alternate versions. and one of those versions it says that the president can be impeached if he is convicted of a crime. Since that was a version that was considered, I can only assume that the idea that the president could be indicted for a crime wasn't that outrageous of an idea.

a reply to: Gryphon66

1. They tried to get his girlfriend to entrap him to me that seems like a pretty personal way to attack someone. Solid evidence of them trying to ruin his life.

2. There is so much evidence of this it's hard to know where to start. From the laundering of information from DoJ to UK back to the FBI. To the CIA leaks meant to help secure FISA warrants. To comey's testimony. To using their own people pretending to be russian assets. If you're really curious dive on down the rabbit hole.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

1. They tried to get his girlfriend to entrap him to me that seems like a pretty personal way to attack someone. Solid evidence of them trying to ruin his life.

2. There is so much evidence of this it's hard to know where to start. From the laundering of information from DoJ to UK back to the FBI. To the CIA leaks meant to help secure FISA warrants. To comey's testimony. To using their own people pretending to be russian assets. If you're really curious dive on down the rabbit hole.

Your theory is based on a compromised individual's assertion? LOL. Yeah, that's solid proof of a FBI/CIA conspiracy.

Ah, it's to be hand-waving again. I am disappointed; I thought you had scooped the DOJ and world media with actual proof.

Darn.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Is his girlfriend compromised too...? Lol it's amazing how you can dismiss everything you disagree with, with hardly even a thought.

Also, 1. Was about ruining his life. I used the doj's actions to show they were. I'm sorry you can't accept that. But I don't rally care.

Read John Solomons reporting on mifsud. Mifsud was FBI/CIA.