Did Trumps lawyer really just argue in court that Trump could murder someone and not be charged?

well okay then…point out the nonsense I’ve posted.

I suspect that this will fall on deaf ears, but here goes…

The reason that the hearing are being held in private, with Dems and Republicans is that the DOJ decided not to investigate.. That means witnesses have to be deposed first, in private. Then later, they are questioned in an open setting. This places time between their original answers to questions and their responses making it easier to spot a lie. Surely you’ve seen a courtroom movie where a person gives testimony in open court and a lawyer asks a question and after an answer is given, they refer to a transcript of a deposition (in private) where they said something contradictory?

PapaD should understand why they are doing it this way and be able to explain it to you if he is being honest. That or I’m giving him too much credit for his law enforcement background. For example, If an officer catches people in the act of a crime and question them, they don’t do it in public, they don’t do it in a room with their accomplices. They get statements that “can and will be used in a court of law” (not that the people being deposed have committed a crime, just explaining an investigative technique).

The other reason for deposing witnesses in private, like in a court, is that prospective witness, if they could hear all testimony in open court, would simply change their stories to match what they’ve already heard. That’s why depositions happen in private. That is exactly what Schiff is doing now (again, because the DOJ decided not to investigate).

(Most) Republicans KNOW this, but they are counting on your ignorance and reaching for your outrage where none is necessary. Look, in fairness, I can honestly say I didn’t remember the series of events in the Benghazi hearings, but it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that Dems ran the same playbook then.

The behind closed doors wouldn’t be necessary if the intelligence committee felt like the DOJ, in an investigation, had properly deposed the witnesses.

I expect everyone that testifying in private will eventually be called to testify in public where both parties can make a shameful political spectacle of this investigation.

Now, if they don’t hold open hearing and allow questions of the people that have been deposed in an open setting, I’ll stand right beside you in outrage.

The biggest problem with this circus, Mr. Brown, is that Adam Schiff is the ringmaster. Did you hear that speech he made up and read in public before this this one-sided foolishness began? He tried to make Trump look like The Godfather. It was a total mischaracterization of the call transcript, and showed exactly how little objectivity Schiff has. He is a political hack and hatchet man. If this is “to gather evidence” as you claim, your side needs to find a committee leader with some integrity. Schiff has none.

Beyond that if this secrecy is supported to get the truth, why does Schiff or whoever keep leaking stories to the anti-Trump main stream press? If secrecy and objectivity is so important, why does he keep putting out negative stories every day?

The answer is this a political, not a fact finding exercise. It is met to put out a daily drip, drip drip of negative news about Trump in preparation for the 2020 election. As it was with the Russia story, there is no basis for impeachment here. It is simply an abuse of power.

Certainly, you’d agree this is completely new territory, right? I mean this question hasn’t been definitively answered. We are literally watching precedent unfold. This will, in all likelyhood go to the SC where they will decide the law.

That said, I am of the opinion that if a President commits a heinous act or an act of treason, sedition or compromises national security, that he can be investigated, indicted and tried. What exactly those crimes might be should be decided by people smarter than I am.

That said, I am sympathetic to the argument made (and I listened to over an hour of court proceedings between Trump’s lawyer and the States Attorney for NY to come to this opinion) that lawsuits against a sitting President could reach a point where they are intended as an as nothing more than a weapon to delegitimize, obstruct, create controversy for a sitting President.

The defense, in this case, believes that states, of which there are 50 have 50 states’ attornys some of which, if given the chance, will harass the President. The alternative is that there is something like 93 (?) federal attorneys who could bring a suit. The problem is, the President is the head of the very body that is responsible for investigating the President. The President can, without justification replace any member of the executive branch and replace that person with anyone that Congress will approve.

That said, there may be a completely different way to solve this problem, but it’s going to require fundamental changes to the way we deal with the President and potential crimes and issues of ethics. Of course, I don’t see this happening. I think both sides enjoy weaponizing government for political points in the era of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc…

That said, YOU made an absolute claim about the fact that the Constitution explicitly limits investigations and indictments of the President. I said, it does not and asked you to show where it limits these things and you could not produce it.

You of all people should know that the Constitution does not grant rights, rather it protects the rights that it is assumed we already have. It does not need to explicitly state the right to indict investigate etc.

Yes, and I thought his dramatic characterization was uncalled for.

Well, I happen to think there is some evidence that it may come out looking much that way, but again, I agree that even if it’s true, our political leaders need to refrain from drama. That said, the President your defending uses drama almost daily (like the legendary drama he spews on Twitter), so from where I sit, it seems pretty comical you getting your feathers ruffled over what Schiff did.

See, I acknowledge the fact that people, who I generally support screw up and I disagree with it, you don’t. Which is why election-time sucks because I end up voting people who I dislike less.

This is the state of politics today. I’m not saying it’s right, but the implicit nature of your comment says to me you think it’s all one-sided?

And you think the Republicans are paragons of virtue and ethics, right :roll_eyes:

I’ve already admitted that the Dems could handle themselves better, but that goes 2X for republicans from where I sit.

Well, I’m not certain of what you speak, so I can’t address your accusation, but, people that testified before the committees released very, very detailed public statements about what they knew and when, which frankly I think was a bad idea, because again, it gives potential wrongdoers the opportunity to shape their testimony around those public statements.

/cough Bengazi, /cough email, /cough Uranium One, /Cough investigating Mullers investigation…

Sorry, something stuck in my throat.

Seriously, I don’t have an issue with investigations, but I think both sides are weaponizing the process. Now that the “fairness docrin” is gone, media is built around the idea of entertainment rather than a commitment to inform people (frankly media has become about misinformation) and now we have the information age…People need to educate themselves and take a much harder look at the people they support and demand better.

Well, I’ll agree there are abuses of power here, but I doubt we’ll agree on who is experimenting most of it.

If you were sympathetic to the problem with lawsuits and impeachment used to prevent a sitting president from doing his job, you should disgusted with the conduct of the Democrats after the Mueller Report. That has been purpose of all of the lawsuit and impeachment nonsense. It has been contrived to break Trump, and yet he has continued to govern. A lesser man would failed or resigned.

The Democrats don’t care about the welfare of the country; they only care about power and money. You have complained to me about how Obama was treated during his eight years. What has been done to Trump far exceeds anything that was done to Obama.

**Give me a break! ** Do you watch the news at on TV? I watch ABC News almost every night, and if California is not on fire, the latest leak from the impeachment proceedings is the lead story, night after night. One night they spent the first 10 minutes on it which, given the commercial time, was close to half of their program.

Are you REALLY this obtuse, CSB? The President CANNOT be tried in a criminal court for ANY offense WHILE HE’S IN OFFICE. He CAN be removed from office via impeachment and THEN tried for his alleged criminal offense. What is it about that that’s so difficult for you to grasp?

The Benghazi, Uranium One and Mueller’s “investigation” being investigated in turn are NOT “political” investigations. They were trying to find out WHAT happened in each of these blots on the honor and integrity of the country. There was a definite cover-up of the Benghazi situation BY the Obama Administration from day one. Why and for what purpose except to cover up something that the administration had done wrong…hints abound of arms smuggling out of Libya into Syria VIA Benghazi, for example, and there has to be SOME reason several appeals for security assistance were summarily denied at the same time Hillary sent a contingent of Marines to “secure” our embassy in BARBADOS, wouldn’t you say? I suppose it doesn’t seem even mildly suspicious that Hillary and others in the Obama Administration approved the sale of Uranium One to a bunch of RUSSIANS at the same time her “Foundation” received almost a quarter-billion in “donations” from some of the recipients of Uranium One in Russia and her husband was given half a million dollars for a 35-minute speech to some “bank” in Moscow. Finally, Mueller and company wasted nearly $40 million dollars “investigating” a hoax supposedly about Trump-Russian “collusion,” only to find no such thing existed. Don’t you think that MERITS Congress, or at least the AG, looking into how that all got started and who was responsible for it? I certainly do.

1 Like

Benghazi showed that Hillary Clinton was incompetent. The Russian uranium deal showed that she is corrupt.

1 Like

Again, show me where that is in the Constitution?

BTW, I was not asking you to prove a negative, you affirmed something existed, specifically that the Constitution upheld your claim. It does not and your repeated failure to produce it is proof.

Why would I be disgusted? Clearly the President and people around him were, at worst breaking the law and at best acting unethically. Just about everyone was caught lying. It absolutely baffles me that you can say that the Muller report was a disgrace. it was not and I suspect as the years go on we’ll learn more and more over time.

LOL, Trump is a raging narcissist. Narcissists feed on conflict. Not only does he not dislike it, he is in his element.

See, that I really take issue with, because you’re just not being honest with yourself when you say stuff like that. Sure, there are times when I feel the same about Republicans, but I remember, they are people, just like me and I believe that they are doing the right thing. I think Republicans and those on the right want what’s best for the nation, I just think that in many cases they are wrong. To say that Dems don’t care about this country is sad and misguided to the point of being dangerous.

The truth is that Russia and its intelligence agencies spin stories in social media to get people like you all riled up. And you know who wins? No, the US. Russia gets everyth9ing it wants in a weakened America, with the right and left fighting amoung themselves.

This is a classic divide and conquer and both sides are falling for it. But you know what I don’t hear on Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow? I’ve never once heard them say in their show that the Republicans want to destroy the US, but I bet I can find that on Hannity, or Rush, or Alex Jones.

So why did the Republican Congress and President fail to uncover anything worthy of DOJ brining a SINGLE charge again Clinton? Why? Where are the whistle blowers? Nothing definitive in all the stuff stolen from Dems on Wikileaks?

You know why…Because they were which hunts, plain and simple.

You and I disagree completely about Hillary Clinton. That will never change because I have reviewed her record and seen what she and Bill did with that phony foundation that they ran. Its purpose was first and foremost to make them rich and powerful, and since she is probably finished politically, it’s fading away because it is now of no use to them.

There were too many dots that connected with the Uranium One deal to ignore. But for you that will never matter because, as a loyal party member, you will never admit it. The Russians paid millions of dollars into that foundation at the time they bought 20% of our reserves, and Bill got $500,000 for a speech he gave in Moscow. But none of that matters to you. She was your presidential candidate, who should have been elected, and that’s the end of it for you.

As for me, yes, I am a Republican, but I’m not a sheep. I can swallow hard and put up with some stuff, but I have limits. I worked hard for Mitt Romney in 2012, but I won’t vote for him now under any conditions. I am sorry that he was elected to the Senate. There are other Republicans, like Sarah Palin, about whom I feel the same.

No, it’s about broadbrushing CSBrown as a stereotypical leftist and such. I firmly disagree with him on a number of things, but the stereotyping is tiresome.

Ahem:

No, I’ll firmly disagree. The Clintons and their dirt have been well known since the Bill of Wrongs was in office. They’re slick lawyers and politicians, and what they’ve gotten away with is unprecedented in American public office.

I don’t. I gave up that crap after the 2008 election when I held my nose and wrote in McCain. In 2012 and 2016, I did write-ins. I’m less concerned with results than with voting my conscience.

2 Likes

Do you just not know the difference between a civil lawsuit and a criminal trial? Is THAT what’s behind your insistence that the Clinton/Trump situations are similar? Nobody has claimed here that the President can’t be SUED while serving as President. Good grief! There have been numerous lawsuits filed against President Trump by those hoping to bring him down. But you have to REMOVE him from office in order to charge him with a CRIME and the ONLY way to remove a sitting President is via impeachment…other than voting him out, of course. Also of course, once the President has been SUCCESSFULLY impeached, THEN he can be charged with whatever crime you think he may have committed.

How many agencies had to approve that deal beyond the State Dept?

I think you’re oversimplifying and I don’t want to drag this out. Today, UO’s supplies about 5.9% of the domestic supply of Uranium.

And here we are almost a decade later, where are all the predictions of Russia using it’s ownership stake to somehow manipulate the uranium market? In reality today the U.S. is swimming in uranium for which there is no market with the price of yellowcake at near-record-low levels of $25/lb. The economic or profitable price point for producers is $45/lb more or less. Why anyone would worry, on a technical/business basis, about Uranium One’s role in the market doesn’t understand the market.

While I know of no credible evidence of any sort of quid pro quo, I agree that this was a really bad idea either way. Even if it wasn’t part of some political arrangement, someone in the future could do the exact same thing and point to what Clinton did. One of the reasons I didn’t vote for Clinton during the primaries.

That said, Trump has proven to be 100 times worse.

Yes, but there are a few people here who seem to think I’m a Dem, therefore, I am a sheep.

It’s mildly insulting but no less than I expect from some of the people here at RO. There are others who I respect and they are a large part of why I come here to RO. Be one of those people.

But you are saying that if the President commits a criminal act (past or present), no matter what it is, no matter the consequences or the gravity of his crime, he must be impeached before he can face investigation, indictment or conviction. I’m simply saying that in some cases that States should be able to investigate crimes and, at the very least sealed indictments while a person is President.

still waiting.