POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

Trump is safe as long as the orcs control both houses of Congress.

That's fine. He can be arrested the day he leaves office and spend the rest of his life in jail.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

That's fine. He can be arrested the day he leaves office and spend the rest of his life in jail.

And what's the charge?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

From National Review:

Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.

That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.

As I’ve tried to explain a few times now (see here and here), if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.

Interesting take in NR: Why would a prosecutor make a proven liar the lynch pin of his case? More interesting?

Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. ...

It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. ...

Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

From National Review:



Interesting take in NR: Why would a prosecutor make a proven liar the lynch pin of his case? More interesting?

National Review? Really?

And, DUH. Collusion isn't a crime.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...llusion-215366

Use better sources.

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

The piece I’m still very unclear on is what did Trump, Flynn, etc do illegally to bring the investigation on? Are people on here still of the mind they conspired with the Russians to rig the election or something else?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

The piece I’m still very unclear on is what did Trump, Flynn, etc do illegally to bring the investigation on? Are people on here still of the mind they conspired with the Russians to rig the election or something else?

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

From the article I linked below.

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

From National Review:



Interesting take in NR: Why would a prosecutor make a proven liar the lynch pin of his case? More interesting?

Possibly the stupidest post I've read on this subject all year! Kudos! I guess....

Because, when looking for cooperation, you always make people plead to the top count and accept the maximum sentence first.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

More from NR (same link):

Since there is no collusion case, we can safely assume Mueller is primarily scrutinizing President Trump with an eye toward making a case of obstructing an FBI investigation. This also makes sense in light of the pleas that have been taken. Obstruction itself is a process crime — i.e., it relates to interference in the investigation of an underlying transaction that may or may not be criminal.

Like I said, the better argument is firing Comey is the alleged obstruction. And obstruction is a process (procedural) crime.

Where Trump has a problem is the Logan Act.

For argument’s sake, let’s assume the worst: Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI (i.e., that Flynn had committed at least one felony), and he leaned on Comey to close the FBI’s probe. Even with those assumptions, there is still no obstruction case. ...

Even on Comey’s account, Trump did not order him to shut down the Flynn investigation, even though he could have. Trump could have ordered an end of the Russia counterintelligence investigation, but he did not. He could have pardoned Flynn, which would effectively have ended the FBI’s criminal investigation — beyond any possibility of review. We can stipulate that these would have been sleazy things to do, potentially damaging to national security, and still grasp that the president had the undeniable power to do them. ...

Similarly, the president had undeniable power to fire the FBI director. You can argue that his reason was corrupt, but the truth is that he didn’t need a reason at all — he could have done it because it was Tuesday and he felt like firing someone; ...

The president may not be prosecuted in a criminal judicial proceeding for exercising his discretion, however objectionably, in executive matters over which the courts have no power of review. If Mueller tried to indict him, Trump would have unfettered discretion to fire Mueller and to direct the Justice Department to drop the case. You may not like that, but that’s the way it is. It is not, however, the end of the matter.

Here's the key:

When executive powers are abused, Congress retains the constitutional authority to impeach and remove the president. Obstruction of an FBI investigation may not be realistically prosecutable in court, but there is congressional precedent — in the Nixon and Clinton situations — for obstruction to be a “high crime and misdemeanor” triggering impeachment. Undoubtedly, abuse of the pardon power would also be an impeachable offense, even though it is not reviewable by the courts.

I continue to believe that this is the real danger for President Trump: A report by the special counsel, either through the grand jury or some other vehicle, concluding (a) that the president had obstructed the FBI’s investigation of Flynn and of Trump-campaign collusion with Russia, and (b) recommending that the matter be referred to Congress for consideration of next steps, potentially including impeachment and removal.

And that's why Donald Trump is safe as long as the Rs retain at least one chamber of Congress.

[dave122793]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

From National Review:



Interesting take in NR: Why would a prosecutor make a proven liar the lynch pin of his case? More interesting?

You'll have to forgive me if the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, who has authored such fine books as "How Obama Embraces Islam's Sharia Agenda" and "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America" may not hold much weight here. Try again.

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

The piece I’m still very unclear on is what did Trump, Flynn, etc do illegally to bring the investigation on? Are people on here still of the mind they conspired with the Russians to rig the election or something else?

I believe treason is a crime. If you conspire with a foreign power and an enemy state no less to influence the national election, I don't think its too hard to make that case.

[burd]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

Head of the Justice Department serves at the pleasure of the President. Employment is at will. He/she can be fired without reason.

Just because the department head is gone doesn't remove the investigation. Plus, the head has to be confirmed by the Senate. The checks and balances y'all're demanding are already in place.

I fear for your safety when you try to express thoughts without infowars, flaggy. Don't run when you do that.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

I believe treason is a crime. If you conspire with a foreign power and an enemy state no less to influence the national election, I don't think its too hard to make that case.

Then arrest the Clintons for Uranium One.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

Then arrest the Clintons for Uranium One.

Liar.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

I fear for your safety when you try to express thoughts without infowars, flaggy. Don't run when you do that.

And who, pray tell, would go after me, seeing how you're so concerned about me having a thought?

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 46:24 - Donald Trump! Superstar!!

Then arrest the Clintons for Uranium One.

Yeah, we'll get right on that one Flaggy! I mean, if there was a crime there, Chump must be letting them slide out of the goodness of his own heart!

Regarding Sic's premise that basically Trump can commit any crime and then fire anyone looking to prosecute him provided he retains the support of the Republicans in Congress and its all legal, wouldn't he run afoul of the same problems Nixon had which is he couldn't fire Judge Sirica who was instrumental in getting the burglars to cooperate and reveal the scope of the whole criminal enterprise?