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.

 

Deep State Supreme Court Rules Trump Tax Records Can Be Turned Over To Manhattan District Attorney

page: 18
40
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its also refreshing to see you admit you don't actually read what others have to say before responding to them. Its all knee-jerk.


Not others, just your tedious and pedantic ass.

Get your prosecutors job yet Captain Literal?




posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The real crazy part is that the two people Trump nominated for the Supreme Court ruled against him. But when you are legal defense is that the President is above the law at some point he was going lose. It wasn't a good strategy to argue in the Supreme Court.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ltheghost
The real crazy part is that the two people Trump nominated for the Supreme Court ruled against him.


The Deep State in action.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ummm... ya..
But ya know what...
It was actual court transcripts and recordings where I heard trumps lawyers arguing that trump could go on a shooting spree on 5th avenue and still be immune from any legal arrest, investigation, indictment, or prosecution till he was removed from office..
You keep saying that it's the constitution that protects him from indictment and prosecution...
It is not!! There is no law that does. It's just a justice dept policy that has its origin from the nixon era and has been twisted a tad. It was vp agnew that was arguing that he was immune from indictment and prosecution because of his position and what it originally was was that because he was basically a spare, there was no reason for such immunity to be needed..


And, he wouldnt be having his "broad powers" challenged as often if he wasnt trying to stretch them to the point where he is not abiding by current laws so often!!



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
It was actual court transcripts and recordings where I heard trumps lawyers arguing that trump could go on a shooting spree on 5th avenue and still be immune from any legal arrest, investigation, indictment, or prosecution till he was removed from office..


Well you are kind of out right lying there.

He joked during a rally that his base was so strong that he could shoot someone on 5th ave and they would still support him.
"“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, ok? It’s, like, incredible.”

You also need to hear the whole speech to get the context of it all, and that led to the comment followed by a smirk.

BTW he wasn't President yet when he said it....



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its also refreshing to see you admit you don't actually read what others have to say before responding to them. Its all knee-jerk.


Not others, just your tedious and pedantic ass.

Get your prosecutors job yet Captain Literal?


Now your just moving from knee-jerk to incoherent; its kind of sad really.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Now your just moving from knee-jerk to incoherent; its kind of sad really.


Now you think you asking if you were a prosecutor was incoherent? Welcome to my world Mr. Pedantic.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: TheRedneck

The start, middle and end of all his arguments are basically 'orange man bad'.
Reality is twisted from there.



Yep
That is what they are reduced to.
Small people.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

No I am not..

www.c-span.org.../lawyer-argues-president-trump-prosecuted-office-shoots



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I've posted the actual words in the Constitution. Feel free to verify; I'm sure they haven't changed since then.

A sitting President cannot be indicted, only impeached and removed from office. If removed, however, the impeachment and removal does not stop possible indictment of a former President.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

That is a lawyer arguing the inability to indict a sitting President, using Trump's words at a rally (which were out of context; he was describing what his opponents had said about him) as an extreme example. Donald Trump is not talking in that clip; that's one of his lawyers.

Context.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Follow the thread back...
I said it was his lawyers arguing in court...



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It's still being used as an example only, because the media has twisted it around to be a statement of fact and advertised it to high heaven.

I would imagine if any President (yes, that includes Donald Trump) were to actually gun someone down in cold blood in front of cameras, the impeachment would be done within the space of a freakin' day. All an impeachment requires is that the House vote a majority to impeach, the documents are immediately transferred to the Senate, they vote to remove, and the President is removed from office. The arrest could still happen within 24 hours, as I'm sure there would be FBI agents waiting outside the White House gates with handcuffs in hand.

The only reason the last impeachment took so long is that the Senate wasn't convinced to remove because there was no crime involved. Oh, and Pelosi held it up for a month. It can happen fast if need be. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, we declared war almost immediately... that is done by Congress as well.

That thing about "no one is above the law" is as silly as "listen to the science" while ignoring scientists. It's just a freakin' talking point, and if I hear Pelosi say it again, I think I might break another TV screen. No one is above the law, and no one is claiming that anyone is! The President, however, must first be removed from office. Why? Well, just imagine that Russia has launched nukes, and at that precise moment a bunch of state cops from New York show up and take the President into custody... there's no one there to return fire! The President is the Commander-in-Chief! Without a commander, the military cannot act as a unit and all hell breaks loose.

THAT's why the President cannot be indicted in office. THAT's why the Constitution says so. THAT's why the DoJ policy is to not even try to indict one. It's all to keep ignorant ignoramuses from trying to stop the country from functioning when they don't even know what's going on. It's a tribute to our Founding Fathers that they did it the way they did; we seem to have an excellent crop of ignorant ignoramuses today.

Please don't be one of them. Just because you don't like the President, you don't get to just do-over. No one does. Live with it.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ltheghost
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The real crazy part is that the two people Trump nominated for the Supreme Court ruled against him. But when you are legal defense is that the President is above the law at some point he was going lose. It wasn't a good strategy to argue in the Supreme Court.


whats crazy is that this is exactly what trumps lawyers wanted. Push out the issue until the election was over. Arguing that he was above the law was intentionally made to get this response.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I beleive you are referring to this:

From section 3


6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section 4


okay, it starts out giving the senate the sole power to try ALL impeachments. it goes on to say that when it's the president being tried, it wil lbe the chief justice that presides instead of the vp.
and, no person shall be convicted without 2/3 vote.

congress has the power to impeach more than just the president. for instance, they impeach federal judges also.
so, they make a special rule for the president, that the chief justice will preside... does the rest of it only pertain to the president? do they only need a 2/3 vote to remove a president and for anyone else just a simple majority will do? and when it comes to judges and such, does the restriction that congress's power only extend to removal of office not pertain to them?
I think you are saying that 7 is saying that the president can't be indicted till after impeachment, but I don't believe that it only pertains to the president but to all impeachments. and well, sorry, there are cases where judges have not only been indicted but in at least one case, indicted, tried, and sentenced before he was removed from office.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 02:40 AM
link   
As you put it, I’ll take no one being above the law. That seems like the best choice no?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


If he has broken the law, he can be impeached again.

Why wait? He didn't break any laws the first time he was impeached.


The things he was charged with, the articles of impeachment, were against the law, if they had been proven.

The White House prevented the trial phase from proceeding, by blocking the examination of evidence, and blocking testimony, and the Senate Republicans were complicit in this. A 'trial' that doesn't look at evidence or listen to testimony is the definition of prejudice and mistrial.

Since the trial phase was prevented, it does not follow that the charges were disproven, merely that the Senate did not perform its Constitutional duty. The balance of power as defined in the Constitution was not upheld and there is now precedent for mistrial at the highest level of government.


According to the Constitution, impeachment cannot extend beyond removal from office. Trump cannot be imprisoned or fined by impeachment. Once he is removed, as a private citizen, he has the right to defend himself against any allegations in court... but at that time he wouldn't be President.

TheRedneck


According to the law, getting away with a crime does not make the crime go away. If Trump wanted to be cleared, the trial phase should have been allowed to find him not guilty based upon the evidence and testimony.

edit on 11/7/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Half the people on the supreme court look mentally challenged..



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

OK, we're making progress.

The only part of that which applies directly to the President, as I read it, is the part about the Chief Justice presiding. However, there is a practical matter as well: the President is the head of the Executive Branch of the US government. The Executive Branch is the branch which tries all Federal cases. The President cannot be tried for any criminal activity by anyone other than the people who work for him, with the one exception being impeachment by the Congress.

Surely you can see that conflict of interest?

The SDNY (technically, the US Attorney for the US District Court of the Southern District of New York) works for the President. He/she receives orders from the President and can be fired by the President at any time for any reason whatsoever. There can be political fallout from such actions; the people can be all up in arms over a President acting thusly, but that does not stop the actions from being within the powers pf the Presidency. Witness the firings that happened before the Nixon resignation. The political fallout from them led to the Congress threatening impeachment (which I believe would have happened had Nixon not resigned).

That conflict of interest does not apply to Federal judges; they can be indicted while in office. However, they still enjoy freedom from prosecution. Look at the description of what happened to Judge Kent in your link: he was never convicted; he plead guilty to a plea deal while in office, and that plea deal included his retirement from the bench. It had to; he would have been unable to perform his duties while in prison. Therefore, as a part of the plea deal, he was sentenced as a retired US Judge.

Had he not plead guilty, his trial would not have continued until he was impeached or resigned. Given the nature of the charges, I can only assume he felt resignation as a part of the plea was in his best interests.

Richard Nixon, after his resignation, was also subject to conviction for violation of Federal law. That's why Gerald Ford pardoned him. Spiro Agnew as well, once resigned, was subject to Federal prosecution; that's why Nixon pardoned him.

Again, no one is saying Donald Trump the man is immune from any and all Federal prosecution. Donald Trump the President is only immune up to the point in time when he is no longer President, whether that be by resignation, term limits, or impeachment/removal (which was one of the big arguments for Presidential term limits in the first place). In this case, since there can be no indictment at this time due to his position as head of the DoJ, and no prosecution due to the requirements of the Constitution, there is no legal purpose in releasing tax returns. Until a case is made that there is a legal purpose, those tax returns are private.

All the Supreme Court was state that simply being President does not grant the President blanket protection from bona fide investigation. There is a difference between investigation, indictment, and prosecution.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


The things he was charged with, the articles of impeachment, were against the law, if they had been proven.

US Title and Code, please.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join