It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the President immune from a criminal investigation?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Vote based on what, and by whom?

How are congress and/or citizens supposed to vote on anything with no evidence allowed due to the idea that an investigation to gather evidence is not allowed?

If Presidents are immune to investigation, then there would be nothing for anyone to base their vote on.

Maybe you prefer to vote based on complete ignorance, but I'd like to see the evidence gathered by investigations and weigh the strength or weakness of that evidence before making a decision.
edit on 10/24/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: thedigirati

So, we would leave a murderer in office, protected from any legal ramifications for up to four years?,


Sorry I was not clear

Vote for Impeachment

ya know what the democrats WONT do now

so voting for impeachment is bad



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

well and I know this maybe a stretch, Vote like they did for clinton.

funny how everyone forgets this is not "new"

I was alive when it happened before, maybe you were not

I remember, just like pepperidge farms remembers....

Vote for an impeachment, then impeach, it's not hard, even a Politician should be able to understand,

Surely a Citizen can.



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

How can anyone vote on impeachment with no evidence presented due to the notion that Presidents are immune to investigation?

If someone is going to vote on something as serious as impeachment, then they damn well better be provided some evidence of wrongdoing or innocence.

Evidence is gathered through investigation.

No investigations = nothing to base a vote of innocence or guilt on.



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I live in the real world. Neither the people nor the government wants a dictator, talking about it as if people and the government all want it is beyond stupid. Where do you people get these ideas?



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: dawnstar
Let's say a guy got into office and it turned out he was a homicidal maniac.. and he was leaving behind him a trail of bodies along with a bunch of witnesses all identifying him as the murderer across multiple states.


originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Then you impeach him. Why is that so difficult to understand?


How would you draw up any articles of impeachment without being allowed to investigate and gather evidence of Presidential wrongdoing?

Eyewitness? To bad, you're not allowed to investigate by interviewing them.

Sorry that is wrong and is NOT what the argument is. You can interview witnesses. You just can't interview the President until he is impeached.



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: thedigirati

So, we would leave a murderer in office, protected from any legal ramifications for up to four years?,

Why do you guys keep saying the same thing. At this point you are not wrong you are simply lying. It has been said over and over, IMPEACH him if he is a murderer.



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Once again, you can investigate the murder, you just can't investigate the President. That means you gather evidence just like you always would. You can't get DNA evidence or fingerprints without first investigating and getting evidence anyways. You quite simply have a lack of understanding of what the actual argument being made is. Maybe Maddow or someone else is leading someone astray, I don't know. What I do know is what you are claiming is false and is absolutely NOT the argument being made.

The idea you need DNA evidence before you can start an investigation is simply false. You go to Congress and let the witnesses testify. Then Congress impeaches the President.

What about that is hard to understand?
edit on 24-10-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

With Clinton congress had an independent counsel, Ken Starr, who performed closed door investigations on Whitewater (which turned up Lewinsky, which they used instead of Whitewater to impeach him).

Republicans got rid of The Office of Special Counsel, so now congress has to do the investigation themselves.

Funny how people forget that.



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Sorry that is wrong and is NOT what the argument is. You can interview witnesses. You just can't interview the President until he is impeached.


Sorry you are wrong. The argument is that the President is immune from investigation. No one is attempting to "interview the President". His lawyers are using this "immunity from investigation" argument in an attempt to prevent his taxes from being released by a 3rd party to the SDNY. The SDNY isn't trying to "interview the President" here.
edit on 10/24/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

well Gosh, and I seem to recall Obama had a super majority

and the Democrats did not repeal this law, nor enact a new one

How short sighted of them huh??

People seem to forget that as well, Right??

Seems it shows the Democrats are VERY short sighted..

that should not be a selling point



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Yes. Just like you can't get his DNA or fingerprints. They are welcome to get witnesses to come forward and talk about Trump's crimes to Congress. Congress can then impeach him. Then they can investigate him.

Again, you have no clue what the argument is. The whole reason for this is because Democrats want the taxes to find things to publicly use against Trump in 2020. There are no crimes. The IRS has his taxes. If anything illegal was contained in it the government would already know.

There is no crime, so they can't impeach him, so they are in a real pickle.



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: redmage
The idea you need DNA evidence before you can start an investigation is simply false.


That's not what I said at all. What I said is you get DNA evidence through investigation, not to "start" one.

Getting DNA can be a part of an investigation, not a requirement to initiate it.



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: redmage
The idea you need DNA evidence before you can start an investigation is simply false.


That's not what I said at all. What I said is you get DNA evidence through investigation, not to "start" one.

Getting DNA can be a part of an investigation, not a requirement to initiate it.


So they don't need DNA to investigate. Just like they don't need taxes to investigate.

What crime could be in taxes the IRS can't find?



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: redmage

Yes. Just like you can't get his DNA or fingerprints. They are welcome to get witnesses to come forward and talk about Trump's crimes to Congress. Congress can then impeach him. Then they can investigate him.


You're putting the cart before the horse. Witnesses coming forward to talk about Presidential crimes would constitute investigating if those witnesses were allowed to speak or be heard. Trump's lawyers are arguing, in court, that a President is immune from investigation.

Impeachment is similar to an indictment, it's simply charges being filed. You don't file charges before an investigation occurs. That's not how things work.

Again, you have no clue what the argument is.
edit on 10/24/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

atleast you admit the Democrats are short sighted

that is a step in the correct direction



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Both corrupt parties are short-sighted, and two sides of the same dirty coin.

No steps needed, I've know this for decades. Catch up.



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: redmage

Yes. Just like you can't get his DNA or fingerprints. They are welcome to get witnesses to come forward and talk about Trump's crimes to Congress. Congress can then impeach him. Then they can investigate him.


You're putting the cart before the horse. Witnesses coming forward to talk about Presidential crimes would constitute investigating if those witnesses were allowed to speak or be heard.

Impeachment is similar to an indictment, it's simply charges being filed. You don't file charges before an investigation. That's not how things work.

Again, you have no clue what the argument is.


Sorry, completely untrue. Like I said, you simply have zero understanding of what is being discussed. We have witnesses talking right now, no one is trying to stop them. I have informed you of what is actually going on, if you want to remain ignorant you can.

Again, so you can't feign ignorance, witnesses can go and talk to Congress. They can not compel anything from Trump for a criminal investigation.

Police investigate a murder. They find 10 witnesses who say Trump did it.

What they CAN do. Send those witnesses to Congress. Keep investigating in any way that is crime related, not Trump related.
What they CANT do. Make Trump talk to them. Charge him. Compel him to give evidence like DNA or prints.

So they turn over the evidence that links the crime to Trump along with witnesses to Congress, who then evaluate that evidence, impeach him, and then they get the warrants for his DNA/prints etc...



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sorry, you simply have zero understanding of what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is that Trump's lawyers are making a legal argument that the President is immune from investigation in a court case regarding the release of his tax returns.

This is entirely separate from your conflations with impeachment; however, if they win that argument above and set the legal precedent that a President truly is immune from investigation, then it could have serious ramifications on any future impeachment investigations.

As of now, you're simply confused regarding the actual case being discussed, and current notions of impeachment.
edit on 10/24/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: network dude
His lawyers are wrong. And they are proven wrong by recent history.


That's not how law works. While I agree that they're "wrong", our opinions don't mean a thing since you and I are not judges. What matters is what the courts rule, and no one has ever made the argument, in court, that a President cannot be investigated. His lawyers will only actually be wrong if the court rules against them thus setting a legal precedent.

Do you even Perry Mason?

Now we'll find out if all that partisan stacking of the courts will pay off for the Orange Man (and for all future Presidents), because if they lose this case, then they're naturally going to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court to see if they can get a decision that Presidents are truly immune to investigation.


I'm glad you brought up future presidents. Any democratic president elected, should have impeachment hearings enacted behind closed doors from Inauguration, until his first term is up, providing he/she can withstand the constant barrage of attacks. yes, precedent has indeed been set here.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join