Thanks, but we never got there. Our discussion was whether or not The President can commit a crime...in this case, obstruction: Whether or not a President is above the law. That said, to your question as to whether a sitting President can be prosecuted. I never offered debate on that issue. Even so, we don't disagree that impeachment is the proper remedy for a sitting President. Now, I've responded to you--even though it wasn't about what I chose to debate. Your turn to respond to me: Do you agree with @Buy1Sell2 that a President is above the law? If so, please explain.
userque 976 Posts 362 Likes The Constitution provides the sole way to remove the President. Once his term is over or he leaves office, he can be prosecuted for crimes. Otherwise, to allow a state or federal prosecution of the president would be clearly contrary to the Constitutional scheme. We have seen the havoc that rogue district court judges have been able to do. Allowing a criminal prosecution of the president would be far worse. Both parties have generally refrained from prosecuting members of the former administration, in light of how easily it could turn into banana republic-style cycles of payback. That truce seems likely to collapse however, another causality of our decent into third world status. More... Thanks, but we never got there. Our discussion was whether or not The President can commit a crime...in this case, obstruction: Whether or not a President is above the law. That said, to your question as to whether a sitting President can be prosecuted. I never offered debate on that issue. Even so, we don't disagree that impeachment is the proper remedy for a sitting President. Now, I've responded to you--even though it wasn't about what I chose to debate. Your turn to respond to me: Do you agree with @Buy1Sell2 that a President is above the law? If so, please explain. Last edited: Today at 6:53 PM #41 Today at 6:30 PM Share Even if Trump actually obstructed, there is no way meets the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Trump wanting to fire Mueller is not obstruction or even attempted obstruction. The President normally relies on his advisors for their legal and political assessment of his decisions. Even if Trump actually fired Mueller in spite of the advice of his advisors, the most his political opponents could hope for is attempted obstruction. Giving the order for firing Mueller is not enough. It owould be likely the firing of Mueller would have to be shown to cause irreversible damage or at least excessive delay or damage to the investigation. Examples that might fall under real, rather than technical obstruction might be perjury over a substantive matter, destruction of evidence, or witness tampering. You might want to watch the movies Quicksand and 52 Pickup. The Democrats dug themselves another hole with their false accusation political strategy and may want to stop digging. The "Blowback" is coming. Real crimes, real cases, and real prosecutions. If the perpetrators continue on their present course, maybe real jail time as well. From FBI Agents, Politicians, and maybe even some in media if conspiracy charges involving them are appropriate. Trump said he would drain the swamp and drain the swamp he will.
Yes he will ------- along with Barr's help. Idiot Dems don't even understand what they created yesterday.
This is not what Trump needs to worry about, they strike down the whole ACA which seems closer today, he's in trouble.
You clearly do not understand the Constitution. Trump should have just fired Mueller before the investigation. Also, Trump should have pardoned everyone before any trial occurred just like Bush. Instead, Trump was as transparent as possible and allowed the investigation to occur. Libtards believe the snake oil salesmen. They do not like the results of the Mueller investigations. Libtards have been sold lies and a hoax. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html?mcubz=0 Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'
I do have some concerns: 1. Barr had difficulty answering some of Kamala’s loaded questions. There are probably a dozen ways to handle loaded questions, as Hillary might attest. There seems to be an intelligence or preparation gap between the Parties. The Democrat Party establishment knows they are in a battle for political survival, while some of the Republicans don’t seem to realize their continued political relevance is at stake. 2. Barr was HW Bush’s AG and he apparently is a supporter of strong Presidential power. Barr effectively shut down the Iran-Contra Affair, saving Bush and other co-conspirators. 3. Barr is playing games on whether he is going to testify before Congress again or whether he is going to allow Mueller to testify. a Mueller resignation, if necessary, Congressional protection guarentees, also if necessary, could bypass Barr’s obstruction on that issue. The optics of Barr’s “moves” above have to be poor and he is risking impeachment of himself and Trump in the public’s eye. The Democrat controlled House will not have to do much more because Trump will be politically dead, in my opinion. On the other hand, having Mueller testify locks in testimony that can be later attacked and used in a counter investigation if justified. As far as Barr testifying again, he is going to have to put on his big boy pants and act like Democracy and rule of law hangs in the balance. If Mueller’s testimony shows there is probable cause that a serious crime was committed by the Trump administration, Congress should either offer a publically announced settlement or proceed with impeachment proceedings. 4. Fox again edited recorded testimony in such a way as to mischaracterize what was being said. Those with strong positions and character do not attempt to mislead. Although Trump is publically praising Barr, Barr in my estimation is turning out to be a disaster from at least a public relations standpoint. I am beginning to wonder if Mueller’s two year investigation might have turned up something the Trump Administration is sweating.
Are you also advocating that Obama be charged with obstruction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege Obama administration[edit] On June 20, 2012, President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege in order to withhold certain Department of Justice documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious controversy ahead of a United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to produce the documents.[27][28] Later the same day, the House Committee voted 23–17 along party lines to hold Holder in contempt of Congress over not releasing the documents.[29] Executive privilege was also used in a lawsuit stemming from the 2012 implementation of the "Net Worth Sweep" against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Obama administration did not disclose roughly 11,000 documents from the plaintiffs in the discovery process as they related to the reasoning behind the 2012 actions.[citation needed]
House Democrat Mocks Absent William Barr With KFC Chicken: ‘He’s Here!’ The attorney general’s empty seat at a House Judiciary Committee hearing was occupied by a chicken figurine. A Democratic House lawmaker mocked Attorney General William Barr’s refusal to appear at a Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday with some inventive props. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) brought a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken and a ceramic chicken figurine to the hearing, which featured an empty witness chair and a name card with Barr’s name. Barr said after Wednesday’s contentious Senate hearing that he wouldn’t attend the House session.