EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

smr wrote:We know Trump has the guts to prosecute HRC and WJC.

Then why isn't he?

I mean, I know why, but do you?

Reread my post!

The E wrote:

smr wrote:We know Trump has the guts to prosecute HRC and WJC.

Then why isn't he?

I mean, I know why, but do you?

Damn, they must be close to charging Trump, given the way that Republicans in the house are attacking Republican apointee's.

Here's an interesting though.

When any of the Trump Russiagate gets to SCOTUS, and we know something will, there will now be two judges who have to recuse themselves.

Any case that goes to the validity of the Trump election win is also going to raise questions about the validity of judges Trump has appointed.
Since that is a massive conflict, they'll have to recuse.

Not 100% sure. In our society it would be a given, but in our society the blatant appointment of a single judge based on their political affiliation would be explosive, possibly topple an elected government.
We are innocent goody two shoes compared to the US political machines.

Annachie wrote:Here's an interesting though.

When any of the Trump Russiagate gets to SCOTUS, and we know something will, there will now be two judges who have to recuse themselves.

Any case that goes to the validity of the Trump election win is also going to raise questions about the validity of judges Trump has appointed.
Since that is a massive conflict, they'll have to recuse.

Daryl wrote:Not 100% sure. In our society it would be a given, but in our society the blatant appointment of a single judge based on their political affiliation would be explosive, possibly topple an elected government.
We are innocent goody two shoes compared to the US political machines.

Annachie wrote:Here's an interesting though.

When any of the Trump Russiagate gets to SCOTUS, and we know something will, there will now be two judges who have to recuse themselves.

Any case that goes to the validity of the Trump election win is also going to raise questions about the validity of judges Trump has appointed.
Since that is a massive conflict, they'll have to recuse.

Russiagate won't get to SCOTUS. If there is enough for a trial, he gets impeached, then tried in court. The only time SCOTUS gets into this is if there is a question regarding the constitutionality of the process. The verdict is not something SCOTUS can rule on. A sitting President cannot be tried per Department of Justice finding and impeachment can happen for any reason that persuades a majority of the House to vote it out. Removal happens for any reason that persuades the Senate, even partisan politics.

So those Justices will have nothing before them to recuse themselves.

PeterZ wrote:

Daryl wrote:Not 100% sure. In our society it would be a given, but in our society the blatant appointment of a single judge based on their political affiliation would be explosive, possibly topple an elected government.
We are innocent goody two shoes compared to the US political machines.

Russiagate won't get to SCOTUS.

I see a high degree of probability it will.

The first likely triggering point being Trump's refusal to be interviewed by Mueller. Eventually it is fairly likely Mueller will simply subpoena him, unless he has so much on him that an interview is unnecessary because he already has him nailed to the wall. It would be EXTREMELY unusual he would clear him without an interview since the entire question of obstruction of justice which is one branch of the investigation comes down to intent in the actions taken around the Comey firings and such and talking to the person who took those actions is a pretty big part of establishing intent.

All signs are Trump will refuse to comply with some absurd claim that presidents are immune to subpoenas for testimony. Off to the Supreme Court we go.

PeterZ wrote:Russiagate won't get to SCOTUS.

gcomeau wrote:
I see a high degree of probability it will.

The first likely triggering point being Trump's refusal to be interviewed by Mueller. Eventually it is fairly likely Mueller will simply subpoena him, unless he has so much on him that an interview is unnecessary because he already has him nailed to the wall. It would be EXTREMELY unusual he would clear him without an interview since the entire question of obstruction of justice which is one branch of the investigation comes down to intent in the actions taken around the Comey firings and such and talking to the person who took those actions is a pretty big part of establishing intent.

All signs are Trump will refuse to comply with some absurd claim that presidents are immune to subpoenas for testimony. Off to the Supreme Court we go.

It's not absurd. The Justice Department operates under the Executive branch. How they execute their investigation and prosecution is under the direction of the President per the Constitution. He is immune from prosecution because he shouldn't be subject to nuissance motions that prohibit his doing his job.

If he is deemed unfit for any reason he can be removed from office by the co-equal Legislature. At that point he can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Prior to that he is the President who has the authority to run his administration and the bureaucracy that answers to it to execute the laws the Legislature enacts.

Determining which view is Constitutional, yours or mine, may make it to SCOTUS. I doubt constructionists will side to allow the President to be subject to such nuisances from unelected agents of government. If the President needs to be brought up by his short and curlies, impeach him and be done. If you can't impeach him at any moment, elect representatives who will. If you can't elect people who will, suck it up buttercup! That's our democratic republic.

PeterZ wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Russiagate won't get to SCOTUS.

gcomeau wrote:
I see a high degree of probability it will.

The first likely triggering point being Trump's refusal to be interviewed by Mueller. Eventually it is fairly likely Mueller will simply subpoena him, unless he has so much on him that an interview is unnecessary because he already has him nailed to the wall. It would be EXTREMELY unusual he would clear him without an interview since the entire question of obstruction of justice which is one branch of the investigation comes down to intent in the actions taken around the Comey firings and such and talking to the person who took those actions is a pretty big part of establishing intent.

All signs are Trump will refuse to comply with some absurd claim that presidents are immune to subpoenas for testimony. Off to the Supreme Court we go.

It's not absurd. The Justice Department operates under the Executive branch. How they execute their investigation and prosecution is under the direction of the President per the Constitution. He is immune from prosecution because he shouldn't be subject to nuissance motions that prohibit his doing his job.

Setting aside your apparent lack of concern over a casual declaration that a president can violate any law without fear of prosecution... we were not talking anout prosecutions. We were talking about SUBPOENAS.

The Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that the president is NOT immune to subpoenas in a criminal investigation in US v Nixon when HE tried to claim the president didn't have to comply with one and they shut him the hell down.

Because the president is not a king, he is subject to the laws of the nation. Being the chief executive of law enforcement doesn't make the laws not apply to him.

The White House appears to be trying to take the route that that only counts for subpoenas for documents but not testimony. Which is, absolutely, *absurd*. There is no difference between the two concepts involved.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:It's not absurd. The Justice Department operates under the Executive branch. How they execute their investigation and prosecution is under the direction of the President per the Constitution. He is immune from prosecution because he shouldn't be subject to nuissance motions that prohibit his doing his job.

Setting aside your apparent lack of concern over a casual declaration that a president can violate any law without fear of prosecution... we were not talking anout prosecutions. We were talking about SUBPOENAS.

The Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that the president is NOT immune to subpoenas in a criminal investigation in US v Nixon when HE tried to claim the president didn't have to comply with one and they shut him the hell down.

Because the president is not a king, he is subject to the laws of the nation. Being the chief executive of law enforcement doesn't make the laws not apply to him.

The White House appears to be trying to take the route that that only counts for subpoenas for documents but not testimony. Which is, absolutely, *absurd*. There is no difference between the two concepts involved.

SCOTUS acknowledged that there is Presidential Immunity, only that it was not absolute. Providing documents doesn't interfere with the President doing his job. Answering untold number of nuisance sobpoenas from every anti-Trump lawyer, like Avanati, is quite another matter. What is the limiting principle to this immunity? If it goes to SCOTUS, we'll find out. My gut tells me that asking for information with respect to the function of government will be viewed as an acceptable reason to subpoena.

Btw, this is the same issue Congress is having with Rosenstein. Congress asserts they have the right to see the documents in question. He as part of the executive branch asserts he does not have to show Congress those items he believes too sensative. SCOTUS shot down Nixon and they will shoot down Rosenstien if it goes that far.