Rob
Thoughts...
Sat Dec 8, 2018 10:05pm
199.241.186.92

do you have any links or any substantiation for any of that

  • indicted on criminal charges by several legal professionals, DEPENDING on who & where the charges are coming from. The recent Justice Department release is the first one to come out with his obvious... more
    • ...specifically how a President can be held to account for any illegal acts - Impeachment. Impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate is the ONLY mechanism by which a President can be charged.... more
      • You may believe that, but EXPERTS have multiple Sia☺giah, Tue Dec 11 6:39pm
        viewpoints on the matter, meaning that it is NOT as simple as you seem to believe it is. The Federalist papers are NOT The Constitution. They were authored by 3 of the Founding Fathers to promote the ... more
        • If there are "EXPERTS" (your emphasis) on both asides of an issue, then some of those "EXPERTS" (your emphasis) are obviously wrong. You might be cowed into silence because of "EXPERTS" (your... more
          • issues, that whatever the issue is, it is NOT cut and dried, nor spelled out with specifics that cannot be taken more than one way. Such is the constitution. Much of it is unclear and requires... more
          • Equally Plausible Reading...Amadeus, Wed Dec 12 10:10am
            The same clause could be read as delineating the process for a means of removing someone from office. This would not mean that the office provides immunity from criminal indictment or prosecution,... more
            • indicted while still in office. It simply lays out the process of impeachment, where it ends, and that an impeached POTUS can then be indicted too. It does NOT say that impeachment MUST be first.... more
            • Federalist 69: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and... more
              • having ANY legal force of law ??? They were written by THREE of the founding fathers for the purpose of convincing the STATE OF NEW YORK to ratify the constitution. They are NOT the constitution...... more
                • When the "Fathers of the Constitution" write down the reasoning behind what was put in the Constitution, it's SIGNIFICANT! When attempting to determining the intent of the Constitution, you're... more
                  • You are silly. I'm going to repeat this simple thing for you over and over until you concede the President is not immune from being prosecuted for felonies. The end.
                  • You Don't Get To Shift The Burden...Amadeus, Wed Dec 12 2:11pm
                    The president is a citizen under the law. As such, he/she is subject to the law, just like every other citizen. Unless you can prove otherwise. Hint: the law does not state anywhere that the... more
                    • things that will appear in the final draft against tRUMP are already out there in charges levied against others. He surely knows that tRUMP & company will TRY to bury the report. I read somewhere,... more
                    • When writing Number 69 of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was, in part, trying to assure people that the office of "President" would have constraints and guards against abuse of power.... more
                      • No Need For Inference...Amadeus, Wed Dec 12 4:42pm
                        The default state is that unless explicitly stated otherwise, nobody has immunity from the law. There is no need for inference. The president has no such immunity. Impeachment would allow for removal ... more
                      • Says YOU. Whooptie do dah.Sia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 4:14pm
                        Actual constitutional experts have a variety of views on it because it's NOT so simple as you insist it is.
                        • ...than "Experts have a position on that, so I don't"? Which "experts" are correct - those who think a President CAN be indicted, or those who do NOT think that a President can be indicted? I think... more
                          • I didn't say any such thing.Sia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 5:17pm
                            My earlier remarks had NOTHING to do with MY personal opinion, but with disputing the "absoluteness" of yours that NO other interpretation was reasonable. You turned it into an argument over whether... more
                            • ...is that the Constitution doesn't say that a sitting President can be indicted? So even though the Constitution specifically includes a statement that a President can be indicted AFTER being... more
                              • Nope. Read the referenced post inside for details.Sia☺giah, Thu Dec 13 7:57pm
                                http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=206964;article=700259;title=Civilized%20General%20Discussion Also, DO NOT presume to tell me what or why I believe anything.
                                • If you'll just go with "Experts say that a sitting President can be indicted", without giving your own opinion supported by facts, then good for you. I prefer to think for myself, but then...that's... more
                                  • Obviously, you did NOT read my actual response.Sia☺giah, Fri Dec 14 10:29pm
                                    I don't need to give MY personal opinion on the matter since I am NOT a legal scholar. I will accept the conclusions of both Kenneth Starr and Leon Jaworski that, YES, a sitting POTUS can be... more
                                  • You Quoted It, But...Amadeus, Fri Dec 14 4:37pm
                                    ...your interpretation of it is... what? Nonsense? Simply because the portion on impeachment explicitly mentions that impeachment does not abridge the ability to indict a president afterward does not ... more
                                • Spelled out for youSia☺giah, Thu Dec 13 8:07pm
                                  This is what Kenneth Starr put in writing regarding indicting Bill Clinton. It's been locked in the national archives for 2 decades, but was released to the NYT under the Freedom of Information Act... more
                              • You're a silly. You make dumb arguments that a child can blow holes in with ease as I just did. Answer why you believe the President is immune from the you silly troll.
                          • as an adult you would have learned how to have adult discussions. Why are you here wasting our tax dollars is a better question.
                  • the phrase SOME of the experts was written by YOUSia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 2:05pm
                    I merely pointed out that EXPERTS on the issue do NOT all agree because there is wiggle room for many viewpoints. NOTHING is so specifically written that it MUST be done the way you're claiming it... more
              • in office he is not immune from prosecution. You're really silly and really dumb as all Trump supporters are. Every single one.
      • Politically. If he murders someone...HeavyHemi, Tue Dec 11 1:07pm
        I take that to mean the 'Federalist Papers' are not controlling legal authority.
      • However, The Law...Amadeus, Tue Dec 11 11:39am
        ...does not explicitly state that the president is immune to indictment and prosecution, and the SCOTUS has established precedent in this matter (allowing presidents to face civil lawsuits). One... more
Click here to receive daily updates