Mueller's team told President's legal team they cannot indict a sitting President

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Lumenari

I thought Senate CAN convict if House impeaches.... No?

(Eta: Not from DOJ, but it’s still criminal, isn’t it? (The hypothetical I gave, if plausible.))

No, here is the order of the process.

1) The House Impeaches then,

2) The Senate can remove the President from office if they have 2/3 majority vote.

After he is a regular citizen then the person can be indicted.

If the POTUS is never removed from his seat as President, he can not be indicted while President.

Bill Clinton got impeached by the House but the Senate never acted because they knew they could never get 2/3 vote required to remove him. Impeachment that stops after the House is just a negative mark on the record, it is basically meaningless as in Bill Clinton's case.

You are correct here.

The potus if impeached can not veto that. However i think he could veto the removal by the senate.It would then have to be voted again on by the congress needing two thirds and have to be voted on again by the senate again with two thirds.

At that point the impeachment then becomes the same as an ammendment again cause it is voted on by two branches of government. At that point the potus then can veto all the votes in both house and senate.

Never having to be removed and having vetod the impeachment.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: face23785

Do you honestly think that rules, laws, guidelines, morals, values, ethics, rights, are going to stop leftists from ousting the president?

No, but the fact that they don't have enough representatives in Congress will.

Trump isn't going anywhere unless they find something major. Right now it looks like all they might get him on is some uncrossed Ts on some financial forms, the business equivalent of a parking ticket.

Which, in reality, is nothing anyway because anything found is tainted evidence from an illegal cause to even begin an investigation.

But doing something treasonous has never stopped leftists before, I imagine it won't stop them now.

a reply to: howtonhawky

the reason is because house rules are that the potus can only veto bills and amendments that have or will be voted on by the senate.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But.. I thought you said you were going to stop categorizing leftists/progressives? You mean... you lied? Gasp!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

Nixon quit before they could.
There was never a question of indictment for Clinton.
There was never any evidence of a crime.
Lying about a blowjob just wasn't the bombshell Star wanted and Whitewater was a bust.

As usual, you are grossly uninformed. I think you need to read up on the Clinton impeachment. There was, in fact, evidence of crimes. He was, in fact, impeached (indicted) by Congress. These are the two articles he was indicted on:

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
his attempts to tamper with witnesses

Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:
encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

This is a misconception of poorly informed people because of lying pundits in the media that Clinton was impeached for "lying about a blowjob". He was actually impeached for committing perjury to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice. Funny considering all the false hopes of indicting Trump for obstruction.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Lumenari

I thought Senate CAN convict if House impeaches.... No?

(Eta: Not from DOJ, but it’s still criminal, isn’t it? (The hypothetical I gave, if plausible.))

No, here is the order of the process.

1) The House Impeaches then,

2) The Senate can remove the President from office if they have 2/3 majority vote.

After he is a regular citizen then the person can be indicted.

If the POTUS is never removed from his seat as President, he can not be indicted while President.

Bill Clinton got impeached by the House but the Senate never acted because they knew they could never get 2/3 vote required to remove him. Impeachment that stops after the House is just a negative mark on the record, it is basically meaningless as in Bill Clinton's case.

You are correct here.

The potus if impeached can not veto that. However i think he could veto the removal by the senate.It would then have to be voted again on by the congress needing two thirds and have to be voted on again by the senate again with two thirds.

At that point the impeachment then becomes the same as an ammendment again cause it is voted on by two branches of government. At that point the potus then can veto all the votes in both house and senate.

Never having to be removed and having vetod the impeachment.

This is not right. It takes a 2/3rds majority to "convict" the President in the first place, so it's already veto-proof the first time it "passes". And nothing in the Constitution outlines veto power for the President in this matter. It states he can be removed from office by a 2/3rds majority of the Senate after being indicted by a simple majority in the House. That is the only requirement the Constitution outlines. The President's approval of his own removal is a non-issue.

ETA: Just to be clear, impeachment articles are neither a law nor a Constitutional Amendment. You're applying rules to them which are not applicable.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: face23785

Do you honestly think that rules, laws, guidelines, morals, values, ethics, rights, are going to stop leftists from ousting the president?

No, but the fact that they don't have enough representatives in Congress will.

Trump isn't going anywhere unless they find something major. Right now it looks like all they might get him on is some uncrossed Ts on some financial forms, the business equivalent of a parking ticket.

Which, in reality, is nothing anyway because anything found is tainted evidence from an illegal cause to even begin an investigation.

But doing something treasonous has never stopped leftists before, I imagine it won't stop them now.

I never thought it was going to stop them. Obviously they are trying to drag this out to the midterms for political purposes. I'm just saying he's not going to be removed in the end. Even The View audience was clapping when Meghan McCain said they need to wrap it up.

If The View audience is sick of this crap, Democrats are really in trouble.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Lumenari

I thought Senate CAN convict if House impeaches.... No?

(Eta: Not from DOJ, but it’s still criminal, isn’t it? (The hypothetical I gave, if plausible.))

No, here is the order of the process.

1) The House Impeaches then,

2) The Senate can remove the President from office if they have 2/3 majority vote.

After he is a regular citizen then the person can be indicted.

If the POTUS is never removed from his seat as President, he can not be indicted while President.

Bill Clinton got impeached by the House but the Senate never acted because they knew they could never get 2/3 vote required to remove him. Impeachment that stops after the House is just a negative mark on the record, it is basically meaningless as in Bill Clinton's case.

You are correct here.

The potus if impeached can not veto that. However i think he could veto the removal by the senate.It would then have to be voted again on by the congress needing two thirds and have to be voted on again by the senate again with two thirds.

At that point the impeachment then becomes the same as an ammendment again cause it is voted on by two branches of government. At that point the potus then can veto all the votes in both house and senate.

Never having to be removed and having vetod the impeachment.

This is not right. It takes a 2/3rds majority to "convict" the President in the first place, so it's already veto-proof the first time it "passes". And nothing in the Constitution outlines veto power for the President in this matter. It states he can be removed from office by a 2/3rds majority of the Senate after being indicted by a simple majority in the House. That is the only requirement the Constitution outlines. The President's approval of his own removal is a non-issue.

ETA: Just to be clear, impeachment articles are neither a law nor a Constitutional Amendment. You're applying rules to them which are not applicable.

Democrats are not going to win the majority in the Senate in November.
They may take the House, but given they will be a minority in the Senate, the chances of them getting 67 votes to impeach Trump is non-existent. Given Mueller can't indict him either, we move on to the 2020 election. Dems will keep going till then, using propaganda and smearing as much as they can to influence the public with the aid of the MSM. That is who they are and that is what they do. I expect that a backdrop of an investigation into Trump and his associates' entire lives, trying to find a crime, will continue for as long as he is in office.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

But.. I thought you said you were going to stop categorizing leftists/progressives? You mean... you lied? Gasp!

I'm not categorizing at all.

Do you deny being a leftist?

If so, I will not include you in the movement to illegally oust a sitting president.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Lumenari

I thought Senate CAN convict if House impeaches.... No?

(Eta: Not from DOJ, but it’s still criminal, isn’t it? (The hypothetical I gave, if plausible.))

No, here is the order of the process.

1) The House Impeaches then,

2) The Senate can remove the President from office if they have 2/3 majority vote.

After he is a regular citizen then the person can be indicted.

If the POTUS is never removed from his seat as President, he can not be indicted while President.

Bill Clinton got impeached by the House but the Senate never acted because they knew they could never get 2/3 vote required to remove him. Impeachment that stops after the House is just a negative mark on the record, it is basically meaningless as in Bill Clinton's case.

You are correct here.

The potus if impeached can not veto that. However i think he could veto the removal by the senate.It would then have to be voted again on by the congress needing two thirds and have to be voted on again by the senate again with two thirds.

At that point the impeachment then becomes the same as an ammendment again cause it is voted on by two branches of government. At that point the potus then can veto all the votes in both house and senate.

Never having to be removed and having vetod the impeachment.

This is not right. It takes a 2/3rds majority to "convict" the President in the first place, so it's already veto-proof the first time it "passes". And nothing in the Constitution outlines veto power for the President in this matter. It states he can be removed from office by a 2/3rds majority of the Senate after being indicted by a simple majority in the House. That is the only requirement the Constitution outlines. The President's approval of his own removal is a non-issue.

ETA: Just to be clear, impeachment articles are neither a law nor a Constitutional Amendment. You're applying rules to them which are not applicable.

Democrats are not going to win the majority in the Senate in November.
They may take the House, but given they will be a minority in the Senate, the chances of them getting 67 votes to impeach Trump is non-existent. Given Mueller can't indict him either, we move on to the 2020 election.

That was pretty much the entire point of my post on the previous page about how they don't have enough representatives in Congress. Neither party is going to have 67 Senators anytime soon.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Lumenari

I thought Senate CAN convict if House impeaches.... No?

(Eta: Not from DOJ, but it’s still criminal, isn’t it? (The hypothetical I gave, if plausible.))

No, here is the order of the process.

1) The House Impeaches then,

2) The Senate can remove the President from office if they have 2/3 majority vote.

After he is a regular citizen then the person can be indicted.

If the POTUS is never removed from his seat as President, he can not be indicted while President.

Bill Clinton got impeached by the House but the Senate never acted because they knew they could never get 2/3 vote required to remove him. Impeachment that stops after the House is just a negative mark on the record, it is basically meaningless as in Bill Clinton's case.

You are correct here.

The potus if impeached can not veto that. However i think he could veto the removal by the senate.It would then have to be voted again on by the congress needing two thirds and have to be voted on again by the senate again with two thirds.

At that point the impeachment then becomes the same as an ammendment again cause it is voted on by two branches of government. At that point the potus then can veto all the votes in both house and senate.

Never having to be removed and having vetod the impeachment.

This is not right. It takes a 2/3rds majority to "convict" the President in the first place, so it's already veto-proof the first time it "passes". And nothing in the Constitution outlines veto power for the President in this matter. It states he can be removed from office by a 2/3rds majority of the Senate after being indicted by a simple majority in the House. That is the only requirement the Constitution outlines. The President's approval of his own removal is a non-issue.

ETA: Just to be clear, impeachment articles are neither a law nor a Constitutional Amendment. You're applying rules to them which are not applicable.

false
2/3 majority to convict? house or senate? it is not veto proof

there is no such thing as veto proof

again this is not a bill

before you go off foolishly disagreeing with me try to understand that this has all been outlined before.

again

congress votes to impeach...potus can not veto because it is not something that will be voted on by the senate.

senate votes 2/3 to remove and potus can force the congress to have to vote on the removal process.

This creates a very long timeline and narrow path for removal however most would step down first as in the past.

There is no real way to remove a sitting potus....

a reply to: kaylaluv

I mistakenly do this myself. In reality, I believe most are referencing those who would seek to overthrow an otherwise lawful government.

If Trump's government became despotic or unlawful, many of this same crowd would be the loudest opposition. I would be, that is for certain.

This Russia stuff, however, is clearly untrue. It takes 50 logical leaps and "connecting dots" to even see a conspiracy. Otherwise, Trump's detractors are taking advantage of the fact that *everyone* is connected by a complex web at 4-5 iterations.

Check out Maltego Radium/Casefile for an example, and build a social web of ANY PERSON you choose. I assure you, you'll return hundreds of millions of results - and most likely some of those folks will be Russian citizens with some connection to the Russian government.

Regardless, there is zero evidence save for circumstantial and highly interpretive suspicions. Put it this way, it will take far more evidence than that to make a move on the President and Mueller knows it. He also surely knows that Trump presently has the pro-Constitution/pro-2A folks on his side. And unless something substantive is presented, that is unlikely to change

This Russia investigation is no different than the myriad of politically motivated investigations against Hillary Clinton. Yes, I believe she was guilty of a crime. No, I don't believe her investigations were the result of anything other than politics. Whether she committed a crime is irrelevant to me, as I am certain the investigations were political. Whether Trump committed a crime is also irrelevant to me at this time, as I am equally sure *this* is a political investigation. And maintaining the integrity of these institutions is far more important than any alleged violations of federal law.

a reply to: face23785

Great Thread btw

ETA: Just to be clear, impeachment articles are neither a law nor a Constitutional Amendment. You're applying rules to them which are not applicable.

i guess sometime we could have a thread about it. The senate and congress have to use existing rules to perform their duties and at the end of the day the potus has a say in the matter. Only a 2/3 vote by both the house and senate can remove a sitting potus. neither dept. works unilaterally and removal can only happen if it is ratified. Once something is voted on by the house and senate then the potus can veto.

this was all in the discussions that took place around the clinton yrs.

we have never seen it play out fully but the path is there.

short of death or stepping down a sitting potus will remain.


www.abovetopsecret.com... i been looking at this for a while now and still have not found the unmitigated power to remove a potus unwillingly.

originally posted by: introvert
Do you have some sort of precedence to show that it makes him immune from any charges whatsoever as an individual?

As a private citizen prior to being elected - no.
As President - Mississippi vs. Johnson.

US Constitution
* - The impeachment clause in the Constitution essentially states indictment and trial in a criminal proceeding to follow a successful impeachment. IE impeachment is required (removal from office) prior to any legal actions being taken against the President.


Supporting Supreme Court decisions
Mississippi vs. Johnson -

n 1867, the President was placed beyond the reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise, save perhaps for what must be a small class of powers that are purely ministerial.

** - This ruling is why the obstruction of justice avenue wont work. Termination of the FBI director is a constitutional authority granted to the President as head of the Executive branch.

US vs. Nixon

the President amenable to subpoena to produce evidence for use in a criminal case without dealing, except obliquely, with its prior opinion.

IE The President is required to comply with subpoenas for evidence only. This ruling did touch on absolute immunity. While the court rejected Nixons assertion he was immune from all judicial actions via separation of powers and executive privilege the court did in fact leave the door open to that possibility. In their ruling the rejection was based solely on the argument Nixon presented.

“neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”

If Nixons lawyers had presented more evidence / persuasive argument to support their claim of judicial immunity the possibility existed that immunity from all judicial actions while President was a possibility.

Nixon vs. Fitzgerald -

The President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties.

Clinton vs. Jones

Refined absolute civil immunity to only actions taken while in office. Acts that occur prior to being President are not covered by the Nixon ruling / sovereign immunity.

Finally I will say this -
Absolute immunity is not as absolute as some think. It would only apply while he is in office. If the Presidents actions are severe enough the legal remedy is impeachment.

The President is not above the law, even if he were to have absolute immunity from the Judicial. The people who keep repeating the above the law crap are fear mongering from a position of ignorance and nothing more.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Impeachment is a political question and not a legal one. High crimes and misdemeanors is actually defined by Congress and not the federal body of law. High crimes and misdemeanors can be interpreted in any fashion Congress chooses.

The impeachment process requires the House to submit articles of impeachment. The House then votes on those articles. If the House votes in favor (meeting constitutional threshold) of the articles the the President is impeached. If not then nothing happens.

If impeached the process is then moved to the Senate where they hold a trial which is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. However unlike an actual judicial setting the Senate will decide, by 2/3 majority vote, to find the President guilty (removed from office) or not guilty (life goes on - see Clinton's impeachment).

As for death or stepping down the 25th amendment actually allows for other means to remove a sitting president other than impeachment. A majority vote by his Cabinet with a written declaration of the Presidents inability to hold office for reasons (like mentally unfit etc) can temporarily remove him from office, handing authority of the office of the President over to the V.P.

Potus, to regain his office, sends a letter stating he is fit to resume office.

Amendment XXV
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.


Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.


Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.


Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

With all of that said Congress will use the legal definitions based on US law for the sole fact that anything less can be seen as a coup.

Removing a President because the opposition party doesnt like him is not justification for removal and an attempt to do so would be seen as a coup by thee people (myself included regardless of the R or D after their name).

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the info. As it is, my statements stand.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the info. As is is, my statements stand.

Which was?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the info. As is is, my statements stand.

Which was?

The president is not above the law.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don’t put myself in a box, because that’s how they control and manipulate us, remember? I’m just going by your advice from another thread.

a reply to: introvert

The LAW is where the problem lies my friend .... Clearly there are more recent Presidents that should be looking for a booking with SpaceX or Branson right now