A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Biff Tannen 45687]

45 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Say, “Well, it’s really more of a guideline.”

Much like, "never get involved with a possessed person".

[hobbes2702 13033]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

What’s to stop the next Republican President from appointing a new attorney general and that AG firing the special counsel? In fact, that’s probably the likely outcome, even if Trump is indicted. 

Why go through all that when they could just pardon him

[TwiceHorn 31472]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m not sure what Mueller might have done to earn your disfavor.

I think he should’ve interviewed Trump in person, under oath, not in writing. Fuck his lawyers’ complaints that it was a “perjury trap” because Trump is a compulsive liar incapable of sticking to the truth. Give him the opportunity for his Col. Jessup moment.

Mueller should’ve looked into Trump’s businesses and his tax returns. I recall that Mueller didn’t because he thought the DoJ was and the DoJ didn’t because they thought Mueller was. As a result nobody did.

Mueller should have made a recommendation on obstruction of justice. Even Trump’s lawyers were surprised that he didn’t. Mueller was way too timid in his report and in his response to Barr’s misrepresentation of it. Saying that he couldn’t say the President didn’t commit obstruction of justice was a pretty weak way to express his findings. I don’t know what the better expression would have been but I’m sure there was one. And again, there are multiple reports that Trump’s own lawyers were surprised Mueller didn’t say more. Then they whooped it up and gave each other high fives.

Barr cheated us by lying about the report. Congress let us down by not impeaching Trump for successfully obstructing justice. And because the Senate Republicans were corrupt, impeachment, while justified, wouldn’t have resulted in a conviction anyway. I don’t know but it seems like a conclusion from Mueller like, “if it was anyone other than the President of the United States, I would recommend prosecution.” Would that have been so bad? And when Mueller was called to testify, he should’ve done more than just read from his report. He should have said out loud that Bill Barr had lied to the American people about his findings. He should’ve said go to this website, download it, and read it for yourself:

http://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Mueller had no way to force Trump to an interview.  The best he could have done is subpoena him to a grand jury, where his testimony would be secret, if not entirely the 5th/executive privilege.  And there could have been a "constitutional crisis" about that, as well, which he said in something he was disinclined to provoke.

The government has no way to compel a defendant to testify, other than before a grand jury.

That his live testimony would be a "perjury trap" was not the reason Mueller didn't pursue it, it was Trumpco's lame excuse as to why he was unwilling to give full cooperation with the investigation.  The investigation was almost wholly dependent on whatever cooperation he would provide.

The other thing is that I don't think he would have prosecuted Trump even if he could because the law is hazy on the corrupt intention, and because of the limitations on his ability to gather evidence.  So he wasn't going to say something that wasn't accurate.  He went as far as the facts and circumstances would take him.

Edited November 18, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31472]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He should’ve said go to this website, download it, and read it for yourself:

That is what he said, repeatedly.  "The report speaks for itself."

[TwiceHorn 31472]

28 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Why go through all that when they could just pardon him

Interesting to contemplate which has the worse political penalty.  None among the magats, of course, but there are others to "convince."

[hobbes2702 13033]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Interesting to contemplate which has the worse political penalty.  None among the magats, of course, but there are others to "convince."

I think getting an AG to fire the special counsel has way more consequences than a pardon. With a pardon all they need is some shit about the country needing to heal and whatever other bullshit. This country is so incredibly stupid that they will just buy it. 
If you fire the guy it looks like you’re doing a coverup 

[TwiceHorn 31472]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Mueller, you say?

“A Republican political strategist was convicted of illegally helping a Russian businessman contribute to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

Jesse Benton, 44, was pardoned by Trumpin 2020 for a different campaign finance crime, months before he was indicted again on six counts related to facilitating an illegal foreign campaign donation. He was found guilty Thursday on all six counts.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/11/17/benton-trump-russian-vasilenko-guilty/

 

IDGAF about legal analysis. If a POTUS is as dirty as was TFG, they need to be held accountable. Turn the principle into law. No more “unindicted co-conspirators.”

I mean, you realize you can't just "dispense" with a legal analysis when the mechanism by which you intend to hold him accountable is the legal system.

Basically, all of you are proposing modifying the legal system that's not set up to do what you want, and for decent reasons, just because you find a particular defendant particularly odious.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

46 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

lol at using Robert Bork as anything close to analogous to how a rogue GOP AG would be treated today.

Bork and The Midnight Massacre would be celebrated and Bork would absolutely be confirmed as a SC Justice by a GOP Senate today.

The GOP had shame and respect for Democracy and decorum back in the 70s and 80s.

Well, the Rs did nominate him for Supreme Court, and the midnight massacre was one of several reasons he didn't get the vote.

[hobbes2702 13033]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, you realize you can't just "dispense" with a legal analysis when the mechanism by which you intend to hold him accountable is the legal system.

Basically, all of you are proposing modifying the legal system that's not set up to do what you want, and for decent reasons, just because you find a particular defendant particularly odious.

Yea I don’t really fault Mueller. It’s sucks but they were effective in their coverup 

[TwiceHorn 31472]

8 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yea I don’t really fault Mueller. It’s sucks but they were effective in their coverup 

For a while there, I let myself believe that things would go the way many here hoped they would, with Mueller defying many DOJ policies and actually indicting him, or at least serving up impeachment on a platter (which he kind of did, had there been an honest Congress to impeach and convict him).

In the cold light of reflection, and subsequent developments in executive law, I think Mueller did about what he could.  To ask him to do more would have been asking him to be more partisan than he actually is or considered his "remit" to be.

Edited November 19, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 105142]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the Rs did nominate him for Supreme Court, and the midnight massacre was one of several reasons he didn't get the vote.

And doing the same thing today is why he would be a hero in the MAGA pantheon and would be confirmed in 90 seconds by a GQP senate.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

There is one law change that I think needs to be made and that is that criminal and civil statutes of limitation are tolled for the period a President holds office.   And I think that would pass constitutional muster easily.  Some other things might not.

[Willfully Horn 8017]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, you realize you can't just "dispense" with a legal analysis when the mechanism by which you intend to hold him accountable is the legal system.

Basically, all of you are proposing modifying the legal system that's not set up to do what you want, and for decent reasons, just because you find a particular defendant particularly odious.

I guess I miss how indicting (and trying)  a criminal POTUS is such a threat to our legal system. Don’t think I am talking about one defendant, though. I am making a general statement about criminality in the WH, and stating that an imperial presidency does not jibe with the intent of our founders, as I understand it. We rejected monarchs.

[chainsaw 9869]

They should give him "quick trial"

[TwiceHorn 31472]

15 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I guess I miss how indicting (and trying)  a criminal POTUS is such a threat to our legal system. Don’t think I am talking about one defendant, though. I am making a general statement about criminality in the WH, and stating that an imperial presidency does not jibe with the intent of our founders, as I understand it. We rejected monarchs.

The bigger perspective is that we have an entire system of governmental immunity that protects government officials, from dogcatchers on up from at least civil suits while in office, in most circumstances.

The more important the official, the more immunity they receive.  A big part of this is that government officials, by their nature, piss people off and sometimes commit what would otherwise be at least civilly remediable offenses, if they were mere civilians.  And, if all were allowed to pursue their grievances as they can against ordinary civilians, government would grind to a halt.

And the more power they have, the more likely they are to create enemies and the more enemies they have by virtue of politics.  And there is also the risk of purely politically motivated "prosecution" of civil and criminal grievances.  So, the more immunity from such grievances they receive under our system via, for example, the Speech and Debate Clause and the reasoned policy that a sitting President is not amenable to indictment or criminal trial.

It's not a judgment by the legal system that the official in question is above the law (although that can be the practical effect), it's that they won't suffer the consequences while in office.^^

Although it is unsatisfying in the current environment, the impeachment vehicle is available for crimes and other offenses committed in office and results in removal from office to face civil and criminal consequences.

The system worked pretty well for 250 years, even in the Nixon case.  

But it wasn't until Trump that the chinks and cracks in the system were exposed.

** And this is why I think a specific law needs to be passed that makes the statutes of limitation toll while a president holds office, to make it clear that the immunity is temporary only (the usual five-year statute of limitations on most crimes conveniently bars them after they leave office or if they hold two terms, and same with the usually shorter civil statutes.

Edited November 19, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[henrygandorf 29191]

9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

They should give him "quick trial"

followed by a first-class hanging.

[Willfully Horn 8017]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The bigger perspective is that we have an entire system of governmental immunity that protects government officials, from dogcatchers on up from at least civil suits while in office, in most circumstances.

The more important the official, the more immunity they receive.  A big part of this is that government officials, by their nature, piss people off and sometimes commit what would otherwise be at least civilly remediable offenses, if they were mere civilians.  And, if all were allowed to pursue their grievances as they can against ordinary civilians, government would grind to a halt.

And the more power they have, the more likely they are to create enemies and the more enemies they have by virtue of politics.  And there is also the risk of purely politically motivated "prosecution" of civil and criminal grievances.  So, the more immunity from such grievances they receive under our system via, for example, the Speech and Debate Clause and the reasoned policy that a sitting President is not amenable to indictment or criminal trial.

It's not a judgment by the legal system that the official in question is above the law (although that can be the practical effect), it's that they won't suffer the consequences while in office.

Although it is unsatisfying in the current environment, the impeachment vehicle is available for crimes and other offenses committed in office and results in removal from office to face civil and criminal consequences.

C’mon. There is a difference between a clause in our constitution and a reasoned analysis which creates a de facto clause, (and also between civil and criminal offenses.)

Want to become president, and remain in office? Make damn sure you can’t be charged with a crime. Otherwise, we go to the next person in the line of succession.

Impeachment is a political remedy that is not bound by our criminal code. Ceding criminality to the office of president is not acceptable.

[safe sex 11728]

The best part about the analysis is that it's from Nixon's administration.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

5 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

The best part about the analysis is that it's from Nixon's administration.

And reaffirmed and elaborated upon by the Clinton administration.  Both, of course, under threat of impeachment and criminal prosecution.

But, the fact is that it is not a crazy analysis.  And, I think it is pretty much 100% spot on as far as state criminal prosecutions go.  The other reality is that it seems pretty unlikely that a presidents' own DOJ would indict and prosecute in the first place, no matter how independent.  

[TwiceHorn 31472]

16 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Want to become president, and remain in office? Make damn sure you can’t be charged with a crime. Otherwise, we go to the next person in the line of succession.

 

Well, as we know, even conviction of a crime before running for or taking office does not prevent running for, being elected to, or taking office, so it would not result in removal.  Impeachment is the only thing that provides that remedy.

And, the potential exists for politically motivated prosecutions of non-crimes and "you can beat the rap, but not the ride" and it's the ride that the immunity policies are mostly concerned with more than the rap.

Also, hate to do it, but the Trump Ukraine thing probably was not a crime for which he could be indicted or tried.  And some of the other accusations, like firing Comey, while certainly "corrupt," were not slam dunk prosecutions by any stretch.

The real, tangible crimes that he has committed are 1/6 incitement and the Mar-A-Lago thing, and he's fully exposed on those.

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[safe sex 11728]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And reaffirmed and elaborated upon by the Clinton administration.  Both, of course, under threat of impeachment and criminal prosecution.

But, the fact is that it is not a crazy analysis.  And, I think it is pretty much 100% spot on as far as state criminal prosecutions go.  The other reality is that it seems pretty unlikely that a presidents' own DOJ would indict and prosecute in the first place, no matter how independent.  

I don't disagree that it's logical, maybe even necessary analysis, but I think it's something that needs to be modified to account for degree of alleged criminality or some other metric when deciding to indict or not, perhaps.

Edited November 19, 2022 by trauma babe

[Willfully Horn 8017]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, as we know, even conviction of a crime before running for or taking office does not prevent running for, being elected to, or taking office, so it would not result in removal.  Impeachment is the only thing that provides that remedy.

And, the potential exists for politically motivated prosecutions of non-crimes and "you can beat the rap, but not the ride" and it's the ride that the immunity policies are mostly concerned with more than the rap.

I am not ignoring your pragmatism, sir, but I am holding on to an ideal. I would trade a strong, for an honest, president in a heartbeat. 
 

Manufacturing an indictment out of whole cloth, btw, should be unthinkable, and the consequences for doing so should equal the most severe punishment meted out under the Law.
 

 

[TwiceHorn 31472]

9 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I don't disagree that it's logical, maybe even necessary analysis, but I think it's something that needs to be modified to account for degree of alleged criminality or some other metric when deciding to indict or not, perhaps.

That's fair.  But, sometimes opening those exceptions can swallow the "rule" whole.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

7 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I am not ignoring your pragmatism, sir, but I am holding on to an ideal. I would trade a strong, for an honest, president in a heartbeat. 
 

Manufacturing an indictment out of whole cloth, btw, should be unthinkable, and the consequences for doing so should equal the most severe punishment meted out under the Law.
 

 

I'm not really defending against the principle that no man is above the law, because I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm just trying to explain that the origin of these "governmental immunities," broadly speaking, is not crazy or corrupt. although it has gotten that way in certain circumstances, e.g. bad cops and qualified immunity, and this.  They are, on the whole, rational policies for the general case that break down at times in specific application.

And throwing the policies "out the window" for a particular egregious case could have lasting unintended consequences.

In a lot of ways, to me, it's like the presumption of innocence.  Better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.  Of course, lots more than 10 guilty go free and lots more than one innocent is convicted, but that to me is no reason to dispense with the rule.  We have to nibble around the edges somehow.

Edited November 19, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[henrygandorf 29191]

captain haircut weighs in, kinda. 

[Mole 4333]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

an unanswered legal question

What is one phrase that I would like stricken from my memory?

[safe sex 11728]

49 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I am not ignoring your pragmatism, sir, but I am holding on to an ideal. I would trade a strong, for an honest, president in a heartbeat. 

 

Poor Jimmy Carter.

[henrygandorf 29191]

this is a preview of what the next 2 years will be like and i am the opposite of here for it. 

[SizzleChest 8284]

 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

trump might be walker level dumb ......

 

[YGIFS 19450]

Jimmy Trusty, the RICO lawyer?  Is the fucking computer even trying anymore with the simulation?  

Was Willy McHonestly, the wire fraud lawyer, on sabbatical at University of Phoenix and therefore unavailable?  What the fuck?  

We're hearing the plan is for Jack Smith to basically just determine the contents and whether anybody that followed that fact pattern would be considered having committed espionage.  Then they turn that back to DoJ to determine all the Executive Privilege/NARA bullshit then kick it back to Jack Smith for final decision.  This is about as good as it's gonna get in terms of how the balls line up on the table.  And yes, "the table" is what I call Guilfoyle's face.

also-conspiracy theories aside...what the fuck with Trump's insane weight fluctuations?  Up in the tuxedo, he looks about 260.  At his Tuesday announcement speech, he looked closer to 300.  How the fuck is that possible? 

Edited November 19, 2022 by YGIFS

[Francisco 2.0 32393]

5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

also-conspiracy theories aside...what the fuck with Trump's insane weight fluctuations?  Up in the tuxedo, he looks about 260.  At his Tuesday announcement speech, he looked closer to 300.  How the fuck is that possible? 

 

spanx.com

 

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

He’s always been that stupid. The Media just lowered themselves to suck his dick for power

[YGIFS 19450]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

spanx.com

 

 

Yeah, but they don;'t make spanx for the face.  One minute, it's this bulbous jaba looking spillover with Boebert's outer labia for jowls.  And the next day, it's kind of vague and skeletal like a 77 year old with AIDS.  

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

14 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

trump might be walker level dumb ......

 

Double Jeopardy huh?

Well Alex, I'll take worst presidents for $1000

Edited November 19, 2022 by Grade of D as in David
Who is Donald Trump?

[safe sex 11728]

4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yeah, but they don;'t make spanx for the face.  One minute, it's this bulbous jaba looking spillover with Boebert's outer labia for jowls.  And the next day, it's kind of vague and skeletal like a 77 year old with AIDS.  

Makeup is magic. So many men truly do not understand how transformative it can be.

[Brandywine 1316]

So how many years will this special investigation take now? 

[YGIFS 19450]

5 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Makeup is magic. So many men truly do not understand how transformative it can be.

Will it 'make up' for the fact that he's the biggest shitstain on humanity since Cholera?  Literally.  

[safe sex 11728]

Tragically, no, he's doomed us all with orange foundation.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Impeachment is the only thing that provides that remedy.

Not really.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

45 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

 

Ok, cool.  So the fuck what?

[YGIFS 19450]

6 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Tragically, no, he's doomed us all with orange foundation.

Look on the bright side.  One day, maybe after you and I are gone, there'll be high schools named after Zelensky, Fauci, Liz Cheney, Schiff, and Kamala Harris.  People that helped get us through a very stark period in Western History.  And aside from a Statute modifying laws to prevent abuses of Executive Privilege known as the 'The Trump Statute'.........all he'll have named after him will be a bronzer cream in his exact color available at Hobby Lobby, Golden Corral, and other fine retailers.  

[ohchaucer 1443]

this is a preview of what the next 2 years will be like and i am the opposite of here for it. 

Well, I just want you to know I'm there for you. Of Course now I'm here for you, but when I'm not here for you, I'm there for you.

….

I tell ya, that “there for you” crap was a stroke of genius!

[TwiceHorn 31472]

35 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

trump might be walker level dumb ......

 

Might be?

[TwiceHorn 31472]

On the matter of appeals, unlike civil cases, again, there's not much in the way of "interlocutory appeals."  You generally have to wait until you are convicted before you appeal anything.

And, with the exception of Aileen Cannon, it appears that the federal judiciary is getting pretty sick of Trump's shit, so they aren't going to entertain a lot of bullshit as they may have in the past.  This includes the very Trumpy 11th Circuit and even the Supreme Court.

On the down side, obstruction of an official proceeding is not a frequently prosecuted crime, so the exact elements of it may be a little unclear, as well as how to properly instruct a jury, which might prove fertile ground for that one appeal.  On the other hand, I think some of the 1/6 defendants are going to make law on that and clear it up some.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

“Sir, you’re under arrest.”

“No thanks, I’m not going to partake. I’ll pass.”

[YGIFS 19450]

PARTAKE, OR I WILL TASER YOU!  

[Scheiss Meister 8408]

44 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Makeup is magic. So many men truly do not understand how transformative it can be.

Men who have gone to bed with a cheetah only to awaken to a wildebeest the next morning understand all too well.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]