Amadeus
You Don't Get To Shift The Burden...
Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:11pm
104.129.200.71 (XFF: 198.35.75.3)

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 president may not be indicted. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

While I admire you moving away from a strict, blinders-on interpretation of the Constitution to add some historical context, the Federalist Papers aren't law any more than a DoJ memo.

And, Captain Straw Man, we aren't talking about an abuse of power, willy-nilly indictment of the president. We're talking about legitimate indictments.

We've explained to you several times that Hamilton's explanation of a particular course of action does not mean that such is the only course of action. Mueller has given the Republicans every opportunity to impeach the president. When the Democrats take over the House, I believe you will see the other shoe drop. Mueller knows there is nothing else to wait for at that time. Personally, I don't think he will attempt to arrest/indict the president. His team has already indicated that it will follow DoJ norms. But those norms only apply to Mueller and his team. Mueller will complete his report and deliver it.

I believe Whitaker was put into place to bury the report.

What do you think the reaction will be if that happens?

Amadeus

  • 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 Don't Get To Shift The Burden... — Amadeus, Wed Dec 12 2:11pm
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates