|
Post by Bob on Jun 3, 2019 11:35:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tnthomas on Jun 3, 2019 13:34:32 GMT -5
From the article:
Yes, better late than never, although for the ( 46.1% )people who are not already aware of Trump's criminal actions, then all the re-labeling / rebranding in the world is not going to raise their consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by suds00 on Jun 3, 2019 14:26:58 GMT -5
either trump looses or trump winsbut we'll manage to survive.he can't do this forever.i heard on npr that there is a legal judgement stating that a sitting president can be indicted
|
|
|
Post by butterfly on Jun 4, 2019 1:57:47 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion that the House has a duty to impeach, if the facts support it, regardless of how it thinks the Senate trial will result. Would McConnell block it in the Senate? Can he? Impeachment would bring forth information about trump's misdeeds which may not be common knowledge. It could make a difference in the election, even if the Senate failed to convict. I don't think McConnell can refuse to have a senate trial, but he and his cronies (including the vast majority of GOP senators) would certainly just vote against conviction and that would be that. AND the fact that the house's articles of impeachment failed to get a conviction in the senate just gives the prez more opportunity to say "See, I got impeached, but there weren't grounds to convict and I am exonerated," which gives him more fodder to scream attempted coup and democrats are crazy anad witch hunt and such other crap in his run for re-election.
It would be like a prosecutor charging a person with a crime when they knew there wasn't an iceberg's chance in hell that the person would be convicted. There's no point in charging if you can't convict.
I do think the house should continue its investigations with a view toward impeachment, as I said earlier. BUT, in my view there is no point in impeachment if there is no possibility of conviction. Better for the dems to hold their fire until they know they can hit the target, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by butterfly on Jun 4, 2019 2:02:49 GMT -5
either trump looses or trump wins but we'll manage to survive.he can't do this forever.i heard on npr that there is a legal judgement stating that a sitting president can be indicted
What judgment? I've heart that in some jurists' opinions a president can be indicted, but that's only opinion. I don't think there is any court judgment or formal legal opinion rendered by a court of law that resolves that question.
|
|
|
Post by suds00 on Jun 4, 2019 10:07:09 GMT -5
the person who was being interviewed said that he was in possession of a document supporting the position that a sitting president may be indicted.it was probably an opinion.i wish that i had heard the entire interview.the speaker had written a book on the subject
|
|
|
Post by suds00 on Jun 4, 2019 10:33:29 GMT -5
the person who was being interviewed said that he was in possession of a document supporting the position that a sitting president may be indicted.it was probably an opinion.i wish that i had heard the entire interview.the speaker had written a book on the subject i looked it up.the speaker was michael wolff.he claims to be in possession of such a document,which clearly outlines how such an indictment can work.some of wolff's statements are questionable.let s just get rid of trump and return to"normalcy"
|
|