According to his tweet this morning. Trump must know they have him given his recent paranoia.
According to his tweet this morning. Trump must know they have him given his recent paranoia.
He doesn't have to be pardoned. According to Rudy GiuliAlzheimers the president can not even be indicted for a crime. Looks to me like they've given up on claiming innocence. They're now preparing how to justify the president's guilt.
Trump could've swhot James Comey and not be prosecuted.
Mr. Giuliani's actual quote, from PJ Stroh's source:
"In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted. I don't know how you can indict while he's in office. No matter what it is.
If he shot James Comey, he'd be impeached the next day. Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him."
[i]i.e.[/i] Mr. Giuliani is making a legal point that a sitting President cannot be indicted. That is why the Founding Fathers included a provision in the Constitution to impeach and remove a President.
So far as poor old DonDiego knows a Presidential Impeachment has only been attempted twice in the history of the United States, . . . and it failed both times. It seems them there authors of the US Constitution were pretty smart fellas afer all, . . . and the USA has been governed generally pretty well compared to most other places.
The same article also indicates "legal experts" recognize President Trump may have the power to pardon himself. Although they advise him not to do so.
DonDiego counsels P J Stroh to relax and take a few deep breaths, . . . lest he injure himself by overexcitement.
You'll know I'm overexcited if I start posting articles from blogs and propoganda websites.
The president and his legal team have made it clear they believe the president is not able to be guilty of any crime by virtue of his office. They've said as much. That should be concerning to any thoughtful citizen of this democracy.
For the record - Trump's paid "Legal Experts" have no power to enforce or interpret Consitutional Law. They can just say things on the public record to make their client look good....like all lawyers do.
Also for the record - "impeachment" is not a trial of guilt or innocnece. It is a process by which 2/3 of Congress deems the sitting president unfit for office. There is no definition of what constitutes that conclusion.
"They can just say things on the public record to make their client look good....like all lawyers do."-- If true, sounds like a page out of the Democrat lying liberal handbook...
I simply enjoy the pure discomfort of PJ and Mark. The more they whine about this President, the more gratifying my enjoyment! Keep up the good work comrade's, I'm loving every minute of your discomfort!
great to see you, Fritz.
i look forward to reading more posts of yours on that other website where you complain about the juvenile trolls that post here
I did not know that Mark and PJ were juveniles.... figures.
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
You'll know I'm overexcited if I start posting articles from blogs and propoganda websites.
The president and his legal team have made it clear they believe the president is not able to be guilty of any crime by virtue of his office. They've said as much. That should be concerning to any thoughtful citizen of this democracy.
For the record - Trump's paid "Legal Experts" have no power to enforce or interpret Consitutional Law. They can just say things on the public record to make their client look good....like all lawyers do.
Also for the record - "impeachment" is not a trial of guilt or innocnece. It is a process by which 2/3 of Congress deems the sitting president unfit for office. There is no definition of what constitutes that conclusion.
No one on the President's legal team has said he "is not able to be guilty of any crime by virtue of his office". They have made it clear that he must be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate BEFORE he can be subpoenaed or indicted. His enemies in the media hate that fact. It appears you do too...
The theory that the president can’t be indicted has never been tested in court. I think there is a good chance it wouldn’t hold up. Especially regarding crimes not related to duties while in office. For example, if the SDNY finds evidence that Trump and Cohen engaged in some sort of money laundering scheme prior to Trump holding office, I believe he could be indicted for those crimes. Of course, the matter wouldn’t move forward until he was out of office, but the indictment itself serves an important role as it tolls the statute of limitations for any such charges and makes Congress aware that there is probable cause that the President committed a crime.
If it weren’t possible to indict him for crimes like this, Congress would have no way of knowing of any criminal activity conducted by the President outside the scope of his official functions.
There is also the possibility of sealed indictments being filed that wouldn’t be unsealed until Trump leaves office. Trump could be getting ready to get on the helicopter to leave the White House for the final time only to be met by U.S. Marshalls there to arrest him.
As to the idea that one can pardon oneself, I don’t think that holds up at all. If that were true, there would be no point having an Impeachment clause in the Constitution that specifies it applies to the President as the President could never be impeached because he could simply pardon himself or herself.
