NationStates

Bear Stearns wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Please tell me your not serious.

Nixon had powerful enemies in the FBI and CIA.

The Democrats clearly brainwashed Nixon into putting together The Plumbers.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
So any president who commits any crime ought to be removed from office?

Yes.

Aww yeah, no more presidents.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Impeachment. If the Senate thinks crimes were committed, they should impeach the president. They swore an oath to that effect.

So any president who commits any crime ought to be removed from office?

Yes since we cite a stupid memo that a sitting President can't be indicted. The President is not above the law.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Telconi wrote:
And what's the legal recourse for these things?

Prosecution, but before that to keep him from doing more of it, impeachment.

Got some sauce on that?

Tobleste wrote:

Fahran wrote:I don't think you're too familiar with the internal politics of the GOP. Beyond that, calling the voters sheep is still a lazy cop-out that absolves candidates who lost to Trump of all responsibility for not engaging voters.

But why did trump engage them while the others didn't? The answer to that question involves saying worse things about Republican voters than sheep.

Because Trump gave them alternative beyond a Bush-tier foreign policy and Romney-tier economic policy. He failed on the latter and is currently failing on the former. There has been a strong shift in the GOP base. They're aren't the hypercapitalist Randian imperialists anymore, but the Republican leadership still is.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
So any president who commits any crime ought to be removed from office?

Yes.

I would qualify that. Any crime committed in office (using powers of the office, using confidential knowledge of office etc) but not "any crime".

If the President beats his wife, prosecution would be appropriate. Not impeachment.

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
So any president who commits any crime ought to be removed from office?

Yes since we cite a stupid memo that a sitting President can't be indicted. The President is not above the law.

He's above those laws, clearly.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Yes.

Aww yeah, no more presidents.

Sure, if they cannot do their job without committing crimes...

I, for one, have never committed a crime. I’m sure the US president can go four years without committing one.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Aww yeah, no more presidents.

Sure, if they cannot do their job without committing crimes...

I, for one, have never committed a crime. I’m sure the US president can go four years without committing one.

(X)

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Yes.

I would qualify that. Any crime committed in office (using powers of the office, using confidential knowledge of office etc) but not "any crime".

If the President beats his wife, prosecution would be appropriate. Not impeachment.

But sitting Presidents can't be indicted. So if Trump went crazy on Secret Service agents or staff and started attacking and threatening them you couldn't indict him as far as I understand it.

Telconi wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Prosecution, but before that to keep him from doing more of it, impeachment.

Got some sauce on that?

You're asking me for a sauce … that prosecution is the appropriate response to crime.

What do you want from me, the whole criminal code of the federal government and each of the states? Sheesh.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Yes.

I would qualify that. Any crime committed in office (using powers of the office, using confidential knowledge of office etc) but not "any crime".

If the President beats his wife, prosecution would be appropriate. Not impeachment.

No, don’t qualify. Any crime. If the president beats his wife, he needs to go. He can come back to politics after he served his sentence.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Got some sauce on that?

You're asking me for a sauce … that prosecution is the appropriate response to crime.

What do you want from me, the whole criminal code of the federal government and each of the states? Sheesh.

Specifically that impeachment is, and the clauses outlining the pu punishments for those two crimes would suffice, specifically if they say the word "impeachment".

San Lumen wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I would qualify that. Any crime committed in office (using powers of the office, using confidential knowledge of office etc) but not "any crime".

If the President beats his wife, prosecution would be appropriate. Not impeachment.

But sitting Presidents can't be indicted. So if Trump went crazy on Secret Service agents or staff and started attacking and threatening them you couldn't indict him as far as I understand it.

An opinion issued to that effect by the DoJ.

Not a ruling of any court.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:But sitting Presidents can't be indicted. So if Trump went crazy on Secret Service agents or staff and started attacking and threatening them you couldn't indict him as far as I understand it.

An opinion issued to that effect by the DoJ.

Not a ruling of any court.

And they adhere to it as if it is.

San Lumen wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
An opinion issued to that effect by the DoJ.

Not a ruling of any court.

And they adhere to it as if it is.

People generally adhere to their own opinions.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:But sitting Presidents can't be indicted. So if Trump went crazy on Secret Service agents or staff and started attacking and threatening them you couldn't indict him as far as I understand it.

An opinion issued to that effect by the DoJ.

Not a ruling of any court.

An opinion based on what the Courts would be most likely to decide.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Sure, if they cannot do their job without committing crimes...

I, for one, have never committed a crime. I’m sure the US president can go four years without committing one.

(X)

Hahahaha

Gonna provide anything more substantive than that?

Telconi wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
You're asking me for a sauce … that prosecution is the appropriate response to crime.

What do you want from me, the whole criminal code of the federal government and each of the states? Sheesh.

Specifically that impeachment is, and the clauses outlining the pu punishments for those two crimes would suffice, specifically if they say the word "impeachment".

Two crimes are mentioned as ground for impeachment.

The impeachment clause says the President SHALL be removed on impeachment and conviction.

But it does not say the President SHALL be impeached for the commission of a crime (presumably proven some other way) or the other things.

If it did say that, I think I'd agree that impeachment replaces regular prosecution, and maybe even grants immunity for "lesser" crimes.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
(X)

Hahahaha

Gonna provide anything more substantive than that?

Nope, don't need to.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Specifically that impeachment is, and the clauses outlining the pu punishments for those two crimes would suffice, specifically if they say the word "impeachment".

Two crimes are mentioned as ground for impeachment.

The impeachment clause says the President SHALL be removed on impeachment and conviction.

But it does not say the President SHALL be impeached for the commission of a crime (presumably proven some other way) or the other things.

If it did say that, I think I'd agree that impeachment replaces regular prosecution, and maybe even grants immunity for "lesser" crimes.

He shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction, but he hasn't been convicted.

San Lumen wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
An opinion issued to that effect by the DoJ.

Not a ruling of any court.

And they adhere to it as if it is.

Yet I heard that Clinton could have been convicted of perjury, at least after leaving office.

Not double jeopardy somehow, I'll have to look it up.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
An opinion issued to that effect by the DoJ.

Not a ruling of any court.

An opinion based on what the Courts would be most likely to decide.

Says who?

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Hahahaha

Gonna provide anything more substantive than that?

Nope, don't need to.

Oh, you do, because I am dumb and don’t understand what you are claiming. Please expound.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And they adhere to it as if it is.

Yet I heard that Clinton could have been convicted of perjury, at least after leaving office.

Not double jeopardy somehow, I'll have to look it up.

Generally we don't arrest and prosecute presidents for things they do while in office.