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: 19
40
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

But, while I agree that there might be some practicality involve with the policy, I am just pointing put that it is not in the constitution.
And, since it is just an adopted policy by the justice dept not backed by law ot the constitution, I kind of think that the practicality would be thrown out the window if a president decided to go on a shooting spree.

And while i agree that having the justice dept under the president would make things a little messy...
I think you need to read the title of the thread..
It's the manhatten district attorney, cyrus Vance jr. That is running this show and he is an elected official of New York state, not under the federal justice system. The federal justice system decided they wanted to drop the case so the state stepped in and opened their investigation into it back up.




posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob808
As you put it, I’ll take no one being above the law. That seems like the best choice no?


The obviously correct choice unless someone's lips are glued to Cheetolini's ass.



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

And, no, he did not resign before he was convicted.. think you need to read the story again...
He wanted to retire, only he wasnt old enough and the only way that was gonna happen was if he was disabled.. his first resignation wasnt till after he was sentenced and it wouldnt have taken effect for a year.. he wasnt handling any cases at the time because he was on leave, but he was on the payroll.
He was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced before he left or was removed from office!



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The Constitution indicates prosecution; indictment is a formal declaration that a case will be prosecuted. While I have not stated that the restriction is specified exactly, I have stated it is implied/indicated in the Constitution, specifically where it states that impeachment is restricted to removal from office, but does not preclude prosecution on those removed. If removal is not a requirement for prosecution, why limit the wording to those removed? By your theory, removal is not needed to prosecute a sitting President, but the Constitution says prosecution may proceed specifically against those removed.


It's the manhatten district attorney, cyrus Vance jr. That is running this show and he is an elected official of New York state, not under the federal justice system.

OK, I stand corrected. I was under the mistaken impression this was happening through the SDNY, which is Federal. Cyrus Vance, Jr. is just a county DA for New York State. We have one here in rural Alabama, too. Ours is just not insane enough to think he is legally in charge of the President of the United States (yet, anyway).

Which makes everything we discussed up to this point moot. New York has absolutely no legal authority over the United States of America or the officials thereof, and New York county, New York, certainly doesn't. Vance is completely out of his jurisdiction.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


And, no, he did not resign before he was convicted.. think you need to read the story again...


On February 23, 2009, the day on which jury selection was to begin, Kent pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice, and agreed to retire as judge, although it was unclear whether he would be permitted to retire rather than resign.
Your Source

The agreement to retire was concurrent with the guilty plea. There was no prosecution, since he plead guilty. Kent did not avail himself of the defense of Constitutionality of prosecuting sitting US officials before removal from office.

All persons under arrest in the United States have the right to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement ("you have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"). I promise you there have been many, many people who chose to not avail themselves of that right and spoke with the police. That does not mean I do not retain that right simply because someone else chose not to exercise theirs.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

And then there is judge collins who was still getting his paycheck while he was in prison till they impeached him..

www.tulanelink.com...

And, yes, NY state has the power to prosecute anyone who is found to have broken ny state laws while in their state.



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


NY state has the power to prosecute anyone who is found to have broken ny state laws while in their state.

Let's follow that train of logic:

If Alabama were to pass a state law that said it was illegal, let's make it a felony for good measure, for anyone to fly an airplane above Montgomery. OK. Now, let's say there's a flood in Montgomery and the place is devastated (wishful thinking on my part, but then again politicians would just pop up out of the water like cockroaches anyway). The President wants to fly down and inspect the damage; after all, he's about to pump several million bucks into the state for disaster aid. So he does so. In the process, Air Force One enters Montgomery air space, in violation of Alabama law!

So, you're telling me that Alabama Troopers can just walk up through the Secret Service folks, grab Trump, spin him around, lock him in handcuffs, and tote him off to jail in a cruiser to await trial? Really? Now let's say that I am a prosecutor in Alabama, and it just so happens that there's a bill coming up in Congress that I absolutely hate and that that is likely to pass. Let's call it a bill to make it a Federal crime to interfere with an abortion. I walk up to Trump and tell him, "Look, you've got two choices: either veto that bill or you're going up the river for the next 20 years."

Is that the government you want?

Or is it more sensible to say that the President, along with any other elected Federal government official, is not subject to the whims of state laws as long as they are in those positions of power?

I look forward to your answer, because I might just call my state representatives with some suggestions on how to affect Federal law...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 08:26 AM
link   
"when called upon in a criminal proceeding"
So what crime are they using?

If a diplomat can have diplomatic immunity.
why carnt the presedent?

edit on 11-7-2020 by buddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: buddha


If a diplomat can have diplomatic immunity.
why carnt the presedent?

Apparently because his name is Donald Trump.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

First, are you sure states have any jurisdiction over what can be flown over their cities? Kind of think that might be FAAs domain.
At least make it a sensible law...
And, ya, state troopers, if armed with an arrest warrant could bypass secret service and handcuff the president. It might become messy as all heck, but hey, if the pres is on 5th avenue blowing away people it would already be quite messy!

So, the insane president who went off the rails and went on a shooting spree is thrown in jail....(more than likely he'd be out on bail quite quickly).. but let's say hes arrested, tried, found guilty, and imprisoned and has managed to avoid impeachment all this time.
First, doesnt the constitution lay out a plan as to what to do if the president is unable to carry out his duties, which if he is in jail, he is unable. Congress could impeach him, or pence and the cabinet could move to make pence acting pres either permanently or temporarily, right? I mean isnt that what pence is for, a backup in case something happens to the pres.? If the pres happened to die in office, and some have, we have always had a peaceful transfer of power, why should we have to put up with a crazy murderous president while congress dicks around playing their political games? Why should state and federal officers have to wait around for them to remove him before they make a move... when the first and most necessary move would be for someone to disarm him asap and neutralize the threat he poses...

Now mind you, the crazy murderous pres I am talking about isnt necessarily trump, it could be any future pres, from any party as far as I am concerned. Only in third world dictatorships would the leader of the country be allowed that much free reign with his only barrier being having some group in the govt formally removing him from office.



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


And, ya, state troopers, if armed with an arrest warrant could bypass secret service and handcuff the president. It might become messy as all heck, but hey, if the pres is on 5th avenue blowing away people it would already be quite messy!

An arrest warrant for a sitting President? You do realize that those State Troopers would be opening themselves to a full-on military assault? Perhaps that's what you meant by "messy"... but it would be an understatement! Recall that the President is Commander-in-chief of the US military.


First, doesnt the constitution lay out a plan as to what to do if the president is unable to carry out his duties, which if he is in jail, he is unable.

I believe you are referring to Amendment 25, Section 4, which has been in the news lately:

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.
While this is indeed a part of the Constitution and therefore is now as applicable as any other part, I do think it is interesting to understand when and why it was included. Amendment 25 was included as a threat to Lyndon B. Johnson over the Vietnam War effort. Johnson was adamant about maintaining a Vietnamese presence and assistance in line with John F. Kennedy's desires before he was assassinated. There was considerable political disagreement and that led to the ability of a majority of the Cabinet members' ability to remove the President.

Before it was ratified, there was no such provision for removal of the President. That underscores the need to elect based on policies and expectations instead of cults of personality.

Other than that, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 6 controls succession of the Vice President:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
All other lines of succession are based on Congressional action allowed by the Constitution, not on the Constitution itself.

I do believe we are discussing an extreme case here, but I also point out one other applicable point: if a President (or any official) were to begin shooting up a neighborhood, the Constitution also provides for a remedy in the Second Amendment. His actions would be ultimately curtailed quite quickly if those he were firing upon were themselves armed. There is also the likelihood that anyone assigned to protect a President who was so obviously deranged would opt to stop the assault, legality notwithstanding.

The old saying of "better tried by twelve than carried by six" certainly would apply should that ever occur.


Only in third world dictatorships would the leader of the country be allowed that much free reign with his only barrier being having some group in the govt formally removing him from office.

Actually, no. In a true third-world country, there would be no legal provision for removing a leader period... the only method would be via a bloody revolution.

I find it ironic that that appears to be where we are headed, primarily due to lawlessness being carried out and condoned, in many cases celebrated, by those who identify as "far-left."

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I believe posse comitatus makes using our troops on american soil like that illegal? Also, any order they got to interfere with the execution of a lawful arrest warrant would be a. Illegal order. And, well...if all you are relying on is a justice dept policy saying the pres cant be indicted or arrested.... that is something the military would be I'll equipped to decide... it would be something for the courts to decide.

If a president has been arrested and jailed for murder... I kind of think he is unable to fulfill his duties? So the 25th ammendment would apply.

Ok, so, if a cop is around and sees him shooting up 5th avenue, he can take him out, but he cant just injure him enough to stop him and arrest him?

But... what if society has taken up an animosity toward a group of people... be that blacks, immigrants, or heck redheads... whatever.. the president opens fire on a group of them... secret service does nothing, the cops are no where to be seen, and most of the crowd goes oh... ya!!!
The videos are posted online, there is really no debate what happened.. but, like the crowd, the senate just goes... oh...ya because those in that crowd going oh ya!! Is a significant part of their base. The law is still the law and that group of people deserved the same amount of protection as everyone else. They deserve the same type of justice as anyone else.. ( dont try to link this with blm... think more of nazi germany) but, how do they get it?



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

You might as well just put that in your signature Red.



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Pose Comitatus... 18 USC § 1385:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

That's all Posse Comitatus says, that the military cannot be used in place of the domestic police (that's what posse comitatus means). That's why Trump would have been well within his rights to restore order in Seattle, as per 10 USC §§ 251–255. CHOP (or CHAZ, or whatever they were calling it) was an illegal takeover of a section of the Seattle government and the police were unable to restore order. When the police are over-run, the military can be used to quell an uprising.

In the extreme example we are talking about, the military would be defending their Commander-in-Chief, not used for police duties in lieu of police. Posse Comitatus would not apply. The military certainly can protect their officers, and I strongly suggest no one test that notion.


And, well...if all you are relying on is a justice dept policy saying the pres cant be indicted or arrested.... that is something the military would be I'll equipped to decide... it would be something for the courts to decide.

Again, I have quoted the US Constitution that says an impeached official may be prosecuted after removal from office. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.


If a president has been arrested and jailed for murder... I kind of think he is unable to fulfill his duties? So the 25th ammendment would apply.

Actually, Article II Section 1, Paragraph 6 would apply there. There is no need to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Let me tell you a little story... while I was driving a truck, a friend of mine took a military load. He was held inside his truck cab by a soldier brandishing an M-16 while he was loaded, then instructed to pull forward while another soldier closed and sealed the doors with a military seal. He was then instructed on what route to take and warned that he could not deviate from that route in the slightest without prior approval from the DoD.

During the trip, he was stopped by a local sheriff who wanted to do a DOT inspection on his truck. That is legal as long as the sheriff is DOT-certified, so no problem there. The sheriff then told my friend to open the trailer. My friend explained that this is a military load and that is a military seal and he cannot open the doors under any circumstances. So the sheriff decided to open the doors himself. As he reached for the seal, my friend heard several sounds of guns cocking around them, turned, and saw several black vehicles, all surrounding them, with armed agents (I assume they were soldiers) trained on the sheriff, and then a bullhorn.

"Step away from the vehicle NOW and place your hands in the air!"

The sheriff stopped, looked, and by that time two of the soldiers/agents had his arms behind his back and handcuffed. He was thrown into one of the cars, then the agent turned to my friend.

"Get back in that truck and get back on schedule."

My friend complied. Turns out he was carrying some sort of missile defense equipment. It's a fairly safe bet that sheriff would have been Swiss cheese before he could hit the ground had he broken that seal. Turns out he had been being shadowed by those vehicles the entire trip. That's over a piece of equipment... do you really think any local law enforcement will be able to threaten a commander? Much less the Commander-in-Chief?

The world does not work like you seem to want it to. Law enforcement is a domestic operation designed to keep ne'er-do-well individuals from harming the innocent. It takes second place to military readiness and national security... a far, far distant second place. The military is not concerned with laws; the military is there to protect the people of the United States from organized military threats, and a part of that is to also ensure their chain of command is not threatened. The scenario you are describing would certainly upset that chain of command and would place the country at the mercy of any International power that wanted to strike at that moment.


But... what if...

What if frogs could fly?

These hypothetical, fantastic potential scenarios that have never come close to occurring are as useless as they are baseless. Donald Trump is the legitimate, duly-elected President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the US military. No one is arresting him as long as he maintains that position. Period. It just don't work that way. In those third world countries you mentioned, the only way to arrest any official is by armed and bloody revolution... the difference is that it happens with some regularity. Here, we maintain law and order (or used to) to prevent armed and bloody revolution. You seem to want that armed and bloody revolution... I hope to God above you never get what you want. I happen to like living in a first-world country.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder


You might as well just put that in your signature Red.

Seems that way, don't it?

Wouldn't do any good, though. No one ever answers with an actual law.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 08:14 PM
link   
welcome back
edit on 07pm87America/Chicago3114k by magnetik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join