Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree13Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 2nd, 2018, 10:55 AM   #1
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 30,219
Letter to Mueller from the Republican President's lawyers

And this is with annotations by the reporter(s). Interesting if a bit long read.

The main argument I picked up from this letter is that his lawyers are saying no matter what horrid, evil and illegal things he did, nya-nya-nya, you can't do nothin' because he's the president.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...documents.html

Last edited by RNG; June 2nd, 2018 at 10:59 AM.
RNG is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2018, 11:07 AM   #2
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,150
And they are correct.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2018, 11:16 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 10,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And this is with annotations by the reporter(s). Interesting if a bit long read.

The main argument I picked up from this letter is that his lawyers are saying no matter what horrid, evil and illegal things he did, nya-nya-nay, you can't do nothin' because he's the president.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...documents.html


I'm LOVIN' this.....and hoping SNL will act this out. Some delightful portions:

*Trump's desire for transparency. LMAO
*Considerable burden for the president. Knee-slapping.
*Encouraging honesty and candor. Priceless.
*President is not readily AVAILABLE to be interviewed? That's rich.
*The president "ENSURED" swift justice with Michael Flynn. It only took 17 days
*Mr. Comey may or may not have misunderstood, misinterpreted or misremembered the President’s alleged comments. Didn't Comey write those down?
*Re Comey? We "respectfully" decline to allow our client to testify. SURPRISE!
*Mr. Comey was fired in disgrace? Dang. I missed that "disgrace" part.
*The President did not EVER say Comey was fired over the Russia investigation. He said. He said.
AND here's the kicker: your inquiry thus far demonstrates that no obstruction of the Flynn investigation or Russian collusion investigation appears to have occurred, and that your office has already been provided the voluminous testimony and documentation from which this conclusion is clearly drawn. Therefore, your office lacks “a focused demonstration of need” for the President’s responses, which is required by law “even when there are allegations of misconduct by high-level officials.”

If Dowd and Sekulow SAY SO........it must be true.

I need a nap.
Thanks from RNG
Clara007 is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2018, 11:25 AM   #4
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 30,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
I'm LOVIN' this.....and hoping SNL will act this out. Some delightful portions:

<snip>

If Dowd and Sekulow SAY SO........it must be true.

I need a nap.
You are right on. But of course TNV is just happy as hell his chosen hero, the Republican President is letting his acolytes blatantly admit he's scum.
Thanks from Clara007 and leekohler2
RNG is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2018, 11:30 AM   #5
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
And they are correct.
You seem to have forgotten Nixon
Thanks from Clara007
GluteusMaximus is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2018, 12:34 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 22,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by GluteusMaximus View Post
You seem to have forgotten Nixon
True. But Nixon had enough dignity and respect for America to resign, Trump does not.
Thanks from Clara007 and GluteusMaximus
Hollywood is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2018, 04:48 PM   #7
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by GluteusMaximus View Post
You seem to have forgotten Nixon
Nixon could not have been forced to testify.

You see there is a separation of powers. 3 EQUAL branches,

There is a process to bring an indictment of a president.

If anyone would read article 2 they might know this.

But it appears Canadians and Liberals apparently cannot read

A president cannot be indicted that is why the impeachment process was put in the constitution.

That is why Bill Clinton could not be tried in a Criminal Court until 1/21/01 the day he pleaded Guilty to all Crimes for which he was impeached, and the indictment was on hold until that day.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2018, 05:02 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Nixon could not have been forced to testify.

You see there is a separation of powers. 3 EQUAL branches,

There is a process to bring an indictment of a president.

If anyone would read article 2 they might know this.

But it appears Canadians and Liberals apparently cannot read

A president cannot be indicted that is why the impeachment process was put in the constitution.

That is why Bill Clinton could not be tried in a Criminal Court until 1/21/01 the day he pleaded Guilty to all Crimes for which he was impeached, and the indictment was on hold until that day.
The Heritage Foundation's summary:
Impeachment is the constitutionally specified means by which an official of the executive or judicial branch may be removed from office for misconduct. There has been considerable controversy about what constitutes an impeachable offense. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates early on voted for "mal-practice and neglect of duty" as grounds for impeachment, but the Committee of Detail narrowed the basis to treason, bribery, and corruption, then deleting the last point. George Mason, who wanted the grounds much broader and similar to the earlier formulation, suggested "maladministration," but James Madison pointed out that this would destroy the President's independence and make him dependent on the Senate. Mason then suggested "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which the Convention accepted.

Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.

The word "impeachment" is popularly used to indicate both the bringing of charges in the House and the Senate vote on removal from office. In the Constitution, however, the term refers only to the former. At the Convention, the delegates experimented with differing impeachment proceedings. As finally agreed, a majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed. The President may not pardon a person who has been impeached (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). If an official is impeached by the House and convicted by the requisite vote in the Senate, then Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, provides that the person convicted is further barred from any "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The convicted official also loses any possible federal pensions. With a few exceptions, those impeached and removed have generally faded into obscurity.

In The Federalist No. 64, John Jay argued that the threat of impeachment would encourage executive officers to perform their duties with honor, and, used as a last resort, impeachment itself would be effective to remove those who betray the interests of their country. Like the limitations on the offense of treason, the Framers placed particular grounds of impeachment in the Constitution because they wished to prevent impeachment from becoming a politicized offense, as it had been in England. Nonetheless, Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 65, also warned that during impeachment proceedings, it would be difficult for Congress to act solely in the interests of the nation and resist political pressure to remove a popular official. The Framers believed that the Senate, elected by the state legislatures, would have the requisite independence needed to try impeachments. The Framers also mandated a supermajority requirement to militate against impeachments brought by the House for purely political reasons.
Ooops, the Senate isn't the apolitical body it used to be....

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...or-impeachment
Thanks from Hollywood and Clara007
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 2nd, 2018, 05:09 PM   #9
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
The Heritage Foundation's summary:
Impeachment is the constitutionally specified means by which an official of the executive or judicial branch may be removed from office for misconduct. There has been considerable controversy about what constitutes an impeachable offense. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates early on voted for "mal-practice and neglect of duty" as grounds for impeachment, but the Committee of Detail narrowed the basis to treason, bribery, and corruption, then deleting the last point. George Mason, who wanted the grounds much broader and similar to the earlier formulation, suggested "maladministration," but James Madison pointed out that this would destroy the President's independence and make him dependent on the Senate. Mason then suggested "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which the Convention accepted.

Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.

The word "impeachment" is popularly used to indicate both the bringing of charges in the House and the Senate vote on removal from office. In the Constitution, however, the term refers only to the former. At the Convention, the delegates experimented with differing impeachment proceedings. As finally agreed, a majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed. The President may not pardon a person who has been impeached (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). If an official is impeached by the House and convicted by the requisite vote in the Senate, then Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, provides that the person convicted is further barred from any "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The convicted official also loses any possible federal pensions. With a few exceptions, those impeached and removed have generally faded into obscurity.

In The Federalist No. 64, John Jay argued that the threat of impeachment would encourage executive officers to perform their duties with honor, and, used as a last resort, impeachment itself would be effective to remove those who betray the interests of their country. Like the limitations on the offense of treason, the Framers placed particular grounds of impeachment in the Constitution because they wished to prevent impeachment from becoming a politicized offense, as it had been in England. Nonetheless, Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 65, also warned that during impeachment proceedings, it would be difficult for Congress to act solely in the interests of the nation and resist political pressure to remove a popular official. The Framers believed that the Senate, elected by the state legislatures, would have the requisite independence needed to try impeachments. The Framers also mandated a supermajority requirement to militate against impeachments brought by the House for purely political reasons.
Ooops, the Senate isn't the apolitical body it used to be....

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...or-impeachment
Because they cannot be indicted while in office, due to separation of powers.

You impeach Remove then the indictment can be served.

once the impeachement process has begun no pardons for those involved can be granted (that is why Clinton didn't pardon the McDougals.) and why Nixon Resigned.

Impeachment process involves ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT,

1. The house impeaches
2. the Trial for Removal is done by the Senate requires 2/3 vote to remove, and the Trial of Removal is prosicuted by one of the Justices of the USSC (I cannot remember if it is the Chief Justice or a justice that is appointed by the 9)
3. NOT UNTIL removal is complete can the indictment be served.

Last edited by TNVolunteer73; June 2nd, 2018 at 05:13 PM.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old June 3rd, 2018, 04:53 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 9,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Nixon could not have been forced to testify.

You see there is a separation of powers. 3 EQUAL branches,

There is a process to bring an indictment of a president.

If anyone would read article 2 they might know this.

But it appears Canadians and Liberals apparently cannot read

A president cannot be indicted that is why the impeachment process was put in the constitution.

That is why Bill Clinton could not be tried in a Criminal Court until 1/21/01 the day he pleaded Guilty to all Crimes for which he was impeached, and the indictment was on hold until that day.
You left out the fact that Clinton was compelled to testify in front of a grand jury.

You also left out the fact the impeachment articles were filed by a lame duck house.

You also left out the fact he was acquitted by the Senate, thus no impeachment.

You also left out the fact no criminal charges were ever filed.

You should also add in the fact there were two special counsels that investigated Clinton. The original investigation being about the Whitewater land deal, which after a year the first special counsel found no wrong doing based on any evidence and ended his investigation.

Of which this wasn't acceptable to house republicans who then hired a second special counsel to dig up any dirt on Clinton he possibly could, and after three more years of investigating managed to dig up an affair.

To the tune of four years of investigations at a cost to tax payers of $70 million.

So Mr. Mueller still has plenty of time, and in the face of what has been discovered, which can only be described as unprecedented corruption, certainly has the mandate to continue the investigation, and it looks like he will be the only special counsel needed.
Thanks from RNG and leekohler2
skews13 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
lawyers, letter, mueller, president, republican



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
An Open Letter To The Republican Party skews13 Americas 13 March 26th, 2016 05:30 PM
Statement by the Vice President on the March 9 Letter From Republican Senators to the The White House The White House 0 March 10th, 2015 06:20 AM
Letter from the President -- War Powers Resolution Letter Regarding Libya The White House The White House 0 July 27th, 2014 01:00 PM
Letter from the President -- War Powers Resolution Letter regarding Iraq The White House The White House 0 July 1st, 2014 05:20 AM
Letter from the President -- War Powers Resolution Letter regarding Iraq The White House The White House 0 June 26th, 2014 11:30 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.