ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , impeachment , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 31st October 2019, 08:57 AM   #41
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,827
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Does the President just get to say, "nope, sorry, that's not a valid use of Congress's impeachment authority"? If the House tries to subpoena his tailor's records, can the president tell Congress to stuff it, and tell his tailor to ignore the subpoena?
I guess Trump is testing those questions now, isn't he.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 09:12 AM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,009
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I guess Trump is testing those questions now, isn't he.
I guess he is, but I'm really hoping PW will flesh out his theory of valid vs invalid impeachments, and what remedies are actually available in the constitution for invalid impeachments.

Now, tan suit is probably too hyperbolic to admit rational discussion, but what about this scenario:

The House decides, for the good of the nation, to increase public trust in the office of the President, that the President should release his personal tax returns. Further, the House decides that failure to do so makes the president unfit for office, so they bring articles of impeachment. Is that legitimate? Can the president contest this? Ignore it? Refuse to step down if the Senate votes to remove?

My questions aren't about Trump, they're about PhantomWolf's theory of how impeachment works.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 01:14 PM   #43
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,827
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The House decides, for the good of the nation, to increase public trust in the office of the President, that the President should release his personal tax returns. Further, the House decides that failure to do so makes the president unfit for office, so they bring articles of impeachment. Is that legitimate? Can the president contest this? Ignore it? Refuse to step down if the Senate votes to remove?
I get what you're trying to set up here, but unless there is a law stating that such records must be made public, they don't really have a leg to stand on. If, however, they suspect there is foul play, there are various committees who could very legally just subpoena the documents for oversight purposes.

My point is, I don't think the House can unilaterally decide something is public information just because.

What you need is a situation where the President unilaterally decides that the House does not have a right to information. Further, the House decides that failure to provide the information to them is a restriction of their Constitutional right/obligation to executive oversight.

Is that legitimate? Can the President contest this? Ignore it? Refuse to step down if the Senate vote to remove him?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 01:27 PM   #44
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,009
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I get what you're trying to set up here,
It seems unavoidable, but I'm not trying to set it up. If there were a way to ask these questions without setting up "and therefore it's okay for Trump to do it", I'd go that way instead.

I'm assuming PW is serious when he says that some impeachments are illegitimate and beyond the proper reach of Congress. I'm genuinely interested in how that would actually work, as it's entirely at odds with how I understand the limits of impeachment, and the remedies available to a president who has been "unfairly" impeached.

If the explanation leads to "and therefore it's okay for Trump to do it", so be it. I won't be making that argument, though. I'd really just like to see what the explanation actually is.

Quote:
but unless there is a law stating that such records must be made public, they don't really have a leg to stand on. If, however, they suspect there is foul play, there are various committees who could very legally just subpoena the documents for oversight purposes.

My point is, I don't think the House can unilaterally decide something is public information just because.
And who would actually decide that? If the House passes a resolution saying that they believe the president should voluntarily release his tax records, and then votes to bring articles of impeachment if he doesn't, who resolves the dispute? The President? The Joint Chiefs? SCOTUS would almost certainly call it a political question, and leave it for the President and Congress to sort out between themselves.

I'm not saying the House can decide unilaterally that the President's tax records should be public. I'm saying, what if the House decides to argue that if the President chooses not to make them public, then he should be removed from office, and the Senate agrees with that argument? Is that a legitimate impeachment? Who decides?

Quote:
What you need is a situation where the President unilaterally decides that the House does not have a right to information. Further, the House decides that failure to provide the information to them is a restriction of their Constitutional right/obligation to executive oversight.

Is that legitimate? Can the President contest this? Ignore it? Refuse to step down if the Senate vote to remove him?
No, you're moving the goalposts. This isn't about information, it's about what is and is not a legitimate impeachment, and who gets to decide. What I need is an explanation from PW (or you, if you're up to it) about who decides what's a legitimate impeachment and what isn't, and how is that enforced.

It's not about whether the president decides not to publish information, but about who gets to decide if it's legitimate to impeach him if he doesn't.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 05:46 PM   #45
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,106
Friends don't let friends Loki's Wager.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 05:52 PM   #46
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,766
The check against "illegitimate impeachment" is the same as the check against any illegitimate government action, the voters. If a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate really want to remove a president, either that's the will of the people and as legitimate as government action gets, or those congress members get voted out next round by a people pissed that they removed a president.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 06:16 PM   #47
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,099
E mol U ments.
and requesting foreign influence in US politics.

For these 2, no interpretation is needed.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 07:32 PM   #48
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 5,834
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
E mol U ments.
and requesting foreign influence in US politics.

For these 2, no interpretation is needed.
Trump stood on the White House lawn and asked China to investigate the Bidens. One of whom, of all the people on the planet, just happened to be the favored Democratic presidential nominee at the time.

Let him or his defenders say it was was a joke or a coincidence, and see if that flies.
__________________
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 08:24 PM   #49
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How would this be enforced, though? If the House votes to bring articles of impeachment for wearing a tan suit, who could stop them? The President? If the Senate votes to remove, after hearing the House's arguments, who could stop them? The President? By what authority? Through what mechanism?

Does the President just get to say, "nope, sorry, that's not a valid use of Congress's impeachment authority"? If the House tries to subpoena his tailor's records, can the president tell Congress to stuff it, and tell his tailor to ignore the subpoena?
I think that in the end it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide if the Impeachment was Constitutional or not. Alan Dershowitz indeed argued this recently in respect to Trump's possible Impeachment from the Mueller Report, and while I would usually take his claims with a boat load of salt, Justice Byron White and Justice David Souterboth suggested that where there was a manner which seriously threatened the integrity of the results of an impeachment that judicial interference might well be appropriate.

The idea here being that neither the President, not the Congress are above the law, and so should either act in a manner that is that the SCotUS could step in. This is further supported by Marbury v. Madison which gave the the Supreme Court the power use the constitution to strike down laws and to resolve conflicts between branches of Governments.

Finally it could be noted that as the Chief Justice is the "Judge" in the Senate Trial, then should a vexatious impeachment be brought, then the President's defense lawyers could bring a motion before him asking to enforce the senatorial oath by dismissing an impeachment that violated the Constitution, though again, that he would consider it is unknown.

So there certainly are a number of things that could be attempted should Congress charge and attempt to impeach and remove a President for an entirely fabricated and plainly Unconstitutional reason such as wearing a Tan suit.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 08:29 PM   #50
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So simple crimes like murder are ones the president is protected from like his lawyers are claiming?
How do you get that from what I wrote?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 11:07 PM   #51
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,783
I will withhold my opinion until I see his most recent tax returns and the revenue sheets for his hotels.

An investigation should be able to produce those things.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 09:54 AM   #52
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,099
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How do you get that from what I wrote?
Because it is not a crime of high office, no corruption or use of the office, just a gun.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 10:27 AM   #53
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,803
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
I will withhold my opinion until I see his most recent tax returns and the revenue sheets for his hotels.

An investigation should be able to produce those things.
Just don't withhold your breath...
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 02:20 PM   #54
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Because it is not a crime of high office, no corruption or use of the office, just a gun.
I kinda disagree there, if you commit murder with the basis that you can't get indicted for it, then that in itself is an abuse of the office.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 02:21 PM   #55
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Just don't withhold your breath...
getting closer....
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:55 AM   #56
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,099
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I kinda disagree there, if you commit murder with the basis that you can't get indicted for it, then that in itself is an abuse of the office.
I was just illustrating that I don't think limiting it to crimes of office is sensible. For example then the murder happened before the election so no relation to the office. It is easy to figure out some way to get a murder totally unconnected with being president and I don't see that the president should be protected from such crimes.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:48 PM   #57
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
I was just illustrating that I don't think limiting it to crimes of office is sensible. For example then the murder happened before the election so no relation to the office. It is easy to figure out some way to get a murder totally unconnected with being president and I don't see that the president should be protected from such crimes.
I actually think that from a Constitutional point of view, if a sitting President was accused of a cold case murder committed prior to their election, and it had nothing to do with their election, then they would be unable to be indicted until they left office, and that they should not be able to be impeached for such actions because they were not committed during the campaign for the office, nor while in the Office. Once they leave the office they are fair game though.

Now having said that, Congress can attempt to impeach for pretty much anything, I just don't think that it would actually be Constitutional in this case and could be challenged as such to the SCotUS.

I do think that it would be an interesting case because it certainly would challenge a lot of assumptions that the Constitution causes to be made, and having them settled would likely benefit the country more than having to rely on a DOJ Memorandum of Understand as to the scope of the President's immunities as it does now.

ETA: To further this. Say that it is discovered that Trump committed Tax fraud and money laundering prior to 2016. These should not, IMO, become part of the Impeachment Articles because they were not done as an abuse of the office. However, once he leaves the office, either by Impeachment, or loss of Election, or, god forbid, term limitation, then he is open to any criminal charges that stem from his actions prior to his term as President, and which are not bound by statutory limits.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 5th November 2019 at 05:55 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 06:00 PM   #58
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,897
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I actually think that from a Constitutional point of view, if a sitting President was accused of a cold case murder committed prior to their election, and it had nothing to do with their election, then they would be unable to be indicted until they left office, and that they should not be able to be impeached for such actions because they were not committed during the campaign for the office, nor while in the Office. Once they leave the office they are fair game though.

Now having said that, Congress can attempt to impeach for pretty much anything, I just don't think that it would actually be Constitutional in this case and could be challenged as such to the SCotUS.

I do think that it would be an interesting case because it certainly would challenge a lot of assumptions that the Constitution causes to be made, and having them settled would likely benefit the country more than having to rely on a DOJ Memorandum of Understand as to the scope of the President's immunities as it does now.
As you noted in your final sentence, this is just a DOJ memo and no actual law. There really is no Constitutional POV on indictment. Who is to say POTUS couldn't be indicted and just have his case on the docket suspended until his Presidential service has ended?

It's a dangerous precedent to put our nation's leaders above the law.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 08:21 PM   #59
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
As you noted in your final sentence, this is just a DOJ memo and no actual law. There really is no Constitutional POV on indictment.
This is one of the reasons I feel it would be good to test it in the SCotUS.

The basis of the Memo is that Constitutionally, the only specified way of removing a President is Impeachment, and indictment and trial could be seen as the Judicial Branch usurping Congressional Power. This I feel is a far more valid argument than the one the Trump WH often uses, that the Executive Branch is unable to act against the Head of the Executive.

Quote:
Who is to say POTUS couldn't be indicted and just have his case on the docket suspended until his Presidential service has ended?
I actually have zero issue with this, nor do I with a law that suspends Statutory Limits while a person is outside of the jurisdiction of the Authorities where the crime was committed and so is unable to be indicted.

Quote:
It's a dangerous precedent to put our nation's leaders above the law.
I agree, and one would hope that the nation's leadership would be above breaking the law, however as we have seen, this is sometimes a vain hope.

I think however that in the end, the solution where a crime was committed prior to campaigning and taking office, then a short term immunity and a suspended indictment or indictment once the office is left is the better option as there does get to be legal issues with impeachment and then later trial that could allow for a guilty party to escape conviction.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 5th November 2019 at 08:22 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 09:35 PM   #60
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is one of the reasons I feel it would be good to test it in the SCotUS.

The basis of the Memo is that Constitutionally, the only specified way of removing a President is Impeachment, and indictment and trial could be seen as the Judicial Branch usurping Congressional Power. This I feel is a far more valid argument than the one the Trump WH often uses, that the Executive Branch is unable to act against the Head of the Executive.



I actually have zero issue with this, nor do I with a law that suspends Statutory Limits while a person is outside of the jurisdiction of the Authorities where the crime was committed and so is unable to be indicted.



I agree, and one would hope that the nation's leadership would be above breaking the law, however as we have seen, this is sometimes a vain hope.

I think however that in the end, the solution where a crime was committed prior to campaigning and taking office, then a short term immunity and a suspended indictment or indictment once the office is left is the better option as there does get to be legal issues with impeachment and then later trial that could allow for a guilty party to escape conviction.
If a sitting President is to be shielded from indictment for crimes, then there *must* be a suspension of the statute of limitations as long as (s)he serves.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 03:57 AM   #61
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,099
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I actually think that from a Constitutional point of view, if a sitting President was accused of a cold case murder committed prior to their election, and it had nothing to do with their election, then they would be unable to be indicted until they left office, and that they should not be able to be impeached for such actions because they were not committed during the campaign for the office, nor while in the Office. Once they leave the office they are fair game though.
Maybe maybe not. The immunity to indictment of a president is also not firmly established, the supreme court has not ruled on when and if a president may be indicted or not.

Quote:
ETA: To further this. Say that it is discovered that Trump committed Tax fraud and money laundering prior to 2016. These should not, IMO, become part of the Impeachment Articles because they were not done as an abuse of the office. However, once he leaves the office, either by Impeachment, or loss of Election, or, god forbid, term limitation, then he is open to any criminal charges that stem from his actions prior to his term as President, and which are not bound by statutory limits.
And those are constitutional issues that have not been resolved. Though this whole idea would have made the whitewater investigation pointless as it would be crimes that would be irrelevant to the impeachment process. So this seems to not be a terribly popular or common view.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 04:02 AM   #62
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,099
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is one of the reasons I feel it would be good to test it in the SCotUS.
But a test case would involve an indictment.
Quote:
The basis of the Memo is that Constitutionally, the only specified way of removing a President is Impeachment, and indictment and trial could be seen as the Judicial Branch usurping Congressional Power. This I feel is a far more valid argument than the one the Trump WH often uses, that the Executive Branch is unable to act against the Head of the Executive.
Yes, indicting the president would not remove him from office, no one is saying it would or should. Imprisonment would likely be suspended until out of office as well. But at the indictment level we simply have no case law on it, and Ken Star seemed to think a sitting president could be indicted.

And it wouldn't be the judicial anyway, it would be a state executive or DOJ bringing the charges not the courts. Outside of criminal contempt of court anyway.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 01:17 PM   #63
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Maybe maybe not. The immunity to indictment of a president is also not firmly established, the supreme court has not ruled on when and if a president may be indicted or not.
Hence why I stated multiple times that it needs to be tested by the SCotUS.

Quote:
And those are constitutional issues that have not been resolved.
All true, hence why the SCotUS needs to test it and determine the exact level of Presidential Immunity that the Constitution allows for.

Quote:
Though this whole idea would have made the whitewater investigation pointless as it would be crimes that would be irrelevant to the impeachment process. So this seems to not be a terribly popular or common view.
Whitewater was a real witch hunt and should never have happened. It also was pointless to the Impeachment, which was over something else entirely. The Republicans just wanted to get Clinton for anything at all.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 6th November 2019 at 01:18 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 01:23 PM   #64
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But a test case would involve an indictment.
This is true, and I don't see the DoJ doing so in the future either.

Quote:
Yes, indicting the president would not remove him from office, no one is saying it would or should. Imprisonment would likely be suspended until out of office as well. But at the indictment level we simply have no case law on it
I think the major argument is that it would take him away from the office, having to concentrate on the case rather then being President which would be the same as removal. Whether it is right or wrong, it's all we have until the SCotUS tests and comes to a firm decision.

Quote:
and Ken Star seemed to think a sitting president could be indicted.
Ken Star was also highly Partisan and was trying to nail Clinton on anything he could to give the Republicans a way to get rid of him.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 01:28 PM   #65
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,099
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is true, and I don't see the DoJ doing so in the future either.
A state could. For example NY absolutely could indict the president, and boy would that set off a constitutional crisis.


Quote:
I think the major argument is that it would take him away from the office, having to concentrate on the case rather then being President which would be the same as removal. Whether it is right or wrong, it's all we have until the SCotUS tests and comes to a firm decision.
And as such you agree with most of Trumps positions about him being above the law, if not his stance of being above investigation. And plenty of countries have presidents above the law, that was the whole reason Berlusconi became PM of Italy after all.


Quote:
Ken Star was also highly Partisan and was trying to nail Clinton on anything he could to give the Republicans a way to get rid of him.
Well yea. Next you will be pointing out irrelevant things like how much hypocrisy there is in the entire republican party.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 01:58 PM   #66
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
A state could. For example NY absolutely could indict the president, and boy would that set off a constitutional crisis.
I agree I think it would set off a constitutional crisis, and would have to be resolved by the SCotUS.

Quote:
And as such you agree with most of Trumps positions about him being above the law, if not his stance of being above investigation. And plenty of countries have presidents above the law, that was the whole reason Berlusconi became PM of Italy after all.
No, you are strawmanning my position. I'm saying that the President may have some immunity to indictment, while in office, and that impeachment needs to be for things done in the office. I don't agree that he is immune from investigations, nor that he can never be indicted for his actions. I'm also willing to accept it if the SCofUS says that such immunity doesn't exist. Trump's position is that he is untouchable, uninvestigatible, and even that attempts to impeach him for abusing the office and committing bribery are unconstitutional.

Quote:
Well yea. Next you will be pointing out irrelevant things like how much hypocrisy there is in the entire republican party.
You were the one that brought up Whitewater and Ken Starr.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 02:11 PM   #67
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,099
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I agree I think it would set off a constitutional crisis, and would have to be resolved by the SCotUS.



No, you are strawmanning my position. I'm saying that the President may have some total immunity to indictment, while in office, and that impeachment needs to be for things done in the office. I don't agree that he is immune from investigations, nor that he can never be indicted for his actions.
Just like Italy, Berlisconi did go to jail for his crimes, but had the total immunity you advocate while in office., If he was removed from office by say a vote of no confidence or what ever the italian version is he would then not be PM and subject to the law again just like you say the president would be after impeachment or their term expires.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 02:28 PM   #68
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Just like Italy, Berlisconi did go to jail for his crimes, but had the total immunity you advocate while in office., If he was removed from office by say a vote of no confidence or what ever the italian version is he would then not be PM and subject to the law again just like you say the president would be after impeachment or their term expires.
I'm not advocating it, I'm saying that under the current interpretation of the Constitution and Law, that is how it is, and unless it gets tested in the SCotUS, the it is how it will remain. This is the exact same stance that the likes of Mueller took, that under the current understanding, which is the DoJ's memo, a sitting President can't be indicted while in office. You may not like it, and can argue that it's wrong, sure, but the fact is that this is how the law works currently. Personally I would like to see it tested, I think that having it hang on an opinion of the legal office is silly, but until such time as someone is willing to test it it is what it is.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 05:58 AM   #69
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,099
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'm not advocating it, I'm saying that under the current interpretation of the Constitution and Law, that is how it is, and unless it gets tested in the SCotUS, the it is how it will remain. This is the exact same stance that the likes of Mueller took, that under the current understanding, which is the DoJ's memo, a sitting President can't be indicted while in office. You may not like it, and can argue that it's wrong, sure, but the fact is that this is how the law works currently. Personally I would like to see it tested, I think that having it hang on an opinion of the legal office is silly, but until such time as someone is willing to test it it is what it is.
And I was pointing out how this principle combined with the idea that to impeach a president it has to be for crimes of the office means that there are huge swaths of crimes that are totally unenforceable against a president. Because they are not right or impeachment and can not be charged. As such I think that limiting the cause for impeachment to such things is wrong.

I think being involved in cons and blatant scams before they became president is a great reason to impeach though clearly it would only ever apply to a democrat because all republicans love a con man.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 01:16 PM   #70
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,837
The mere act of even asking a foreign power to intervene in our elections is a clear Federal crime under 52USC30121.

Removal from office should be automatic and outside any politician's ability to hamper.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 01:50 PM   #71
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,473
Trump has been found to have illegally using the Trump Foundation for his own political gain:
Quote:

A New York state judge ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to a collection of nonprofit organizations in connection with a settlement with the New York state attorney general's office to resolve a civil lawsuit alleging the foundation unlawfully coordinated with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.

In her decision filed Thursday, Justice Saliann Scarpulla found that "Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation," including by "allowing his campaign to orchestrate" a televised fundraiser ostensibly for the foundation in Des Moines, Iowa, in January 2016, and allowing the campaign to direct the distribution of the money raised from that event "to further Mr. Trump's political campaign."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/polit...ork/index.html
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 01:59 PM   #72
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,009
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Trump has been found to have illegally using the Trump Foundation for his own political gain:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/polit...ork/index.html
Technically, a civil suit doesn't determine whether any laws have been broken. Further, settling a suit generally also doesn't resolve such questions.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 02:04 PM   #73
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Technically, a civil suit doesn't determine whether any laws have been broken. Further, settling a suit generally also doesn't resolve such questions.
Technically, that's true. But:
Quote:
Filed in June 2018, the lawsuit alleged that the President and his three eldest children -- Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric -- violated federal and state campaign finance laws and abused the Donald J. Trump Foundation's tax-exempt status.
Trump also proclaimed he'd never settle this suit. He settled it.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 02:05 PM   #74
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,837
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is one of the reasons I feel it would be good to test it in the SCotUS.
Only if Trump's stolen justices are barred from voting.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 02:25 PM   #75
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And I was pointing out how this principle combined with the idea that to impeach a president it has to be for crimes of the office means that there are huge swaths of crimes that are totally unenforceable against a president. Because they are not right or impeachment and can not be charged. As such I think that limiting the cause for impeachment to such things is wrong.
Again you are misunderstanding what is being said, wither because you aren't really listening, or because you are deliberately twisting what is said.

It is not "Crimes of Office" but rather "crimes against the office." It also means that some things would be unenforceable against a sitting president, but entirely enforceable once they were no longer in office. And none of those would be the case for crimes committed in office because that is a breath of the office's oath to uphold law and defend the Constitution, and thus a crime against the office.

The only cases where they would be "immune" while in office would be where they were alleged to have committed a crime prior to running for that office.

Quote:
I think being involved in cons and blatant scams before they became president is a great reason to impeach though clearly it would only ever apply to a democrat because all republicans love a con man.
Should a President who has done nothing discernibly wrong during his time in office, and has popular policies and actions that have been benefiting the Country, be impeached over alleged wrong doing 10 years before he became President?

Also another thing to consider. How would a successful Impeachment and Removal colour the Jury for a Trial? How about a failed Impeachment or Removal? Is it even possible for a fair trial to be held after an Impeachment?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 02:31 PM   #76
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,102
All voters are asked to render a verdict about a President before he can become one. The idea that there is an as-of-yet untainted jury Pool when it comes to a POTUS is laughable.
__________________
Now listen, I could just have you revoked.
K-i-l-l-e-d, revoked.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 02:43 PM   #77
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Only if Trump's stolen justices are barred from voting.
You seem to be thinking that it can only ever be tested against Trump.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 03:05 PM   #78
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
All voters are asked to render a verdict about a President before he can become one. The idea that there is an as-of-yet untainted jury Pool when it comes to a POTUS is laughable.
I think that there is a decisive difference between making a determination on if you would vote for someone or not, and having seen all of the evidence you are about to be presented in trial already having been given, debated, and voted on in the house, senate, on live TV with the media all adding their commentary about it as well.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 03:43 PM   #79
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
.

>snip<

Should a President who has done nothing discernibly wrong during his time in office, and has popular policies and actions that have been benefiting the Country, be impeached over alleged wrong doing 10 years before he became President?
I think it depends on what the alleged wrongdoing was. Cheating on his wife? No. Murdered his wife? Yes. Failed to report tips as a waiter on his tax form? No. Money laundering for a hostile foreign power? Yes.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 05:00 PM   #80
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,933
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think it depends on what the alleged wrongdoing was. Cheating on his wife? No. Murdered his wife? Yes. Failed to report tips as a waiter on his tax form? No. Money laundering for a hostile foreign power? Yes.
So if the allegations are serious enough they should be kicked out?

How about if the accusation is that he took kickbacks from a foreign Government when in business 10 years previously, but the accusers all have something to gain politically from his removal?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.