Impeachment of Donald J Trump **Official Thread**

greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
dagwood45431 said:
Yet, many legal scholars are busy discussing the possibilities. I haven't heard ANY legal expert express the same degree of certitude that you do about all of this. What are your qualifications?
Click to expand...
Legal scholars like fox puts on are undoubtedly discussing it. Yet the "process" is well known. That's all I'm addressing.

The process requires judicial review, which can take years. The scotus won't take a case until it has been heard by at least one frdersal court, and usually waits until it has been heard by multiple levels. That takes time. It won't happen in less than a year to a ruling, and possibly more like 2 years. In the meantime nothing will happen.

I'm not predicting the outcome of a scotus ruling beyond just a hunch. But a trial can't happen until that process fully completes. It's something we allow all defendants. Due process. Even trump deserves it.

So legal scholars can say whatever they like about the outcome. Most of them are being paid huge sums to state a specific point of view. But even the ones that are right won't know it for 2 or more years.

So lets assume everything goes against him and the court rules he can't pardon himself and a trial can move forward. That still isn't grounds to remove a president. Even if convicted while in office, that isn't grounds to remove him from office. He can continue to function even while under house arrest.

So do watch all the talking heads. Round and round they will go. Some will be right, but which ones are irrelevant. He will be president until his term ends if he chooses to. And all that takes is reading and a basic knowledge of process.

In reality he would probably decide to take a Nixon-esque deal. But only after he was convicted. He would turn over the presidency only on the terms he would receive a full pardon.

Now if he is charged under FL law, that is a different case. But does anyone expect a trial to go anywhere in FL? Or a pardon not to be granted by the FL gov?

Still, charges for rape of underage girls might move congress. Might. Might not, but it has the best chance. They are unlikely to be moved by a criminal complaint about taxes or collusion or not reporting as a foreign agent.

So the only thing I am saying with certitude is that the solution to trump will be political, not legal.
 
dagwood45431

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
Legal scholars like fox puts on are undoubtedly discussing it. Yet the "process" is well known. That's all I'm addressing.

The process requires judicial review, which can take years. The scotus won't take a case until it has been heard by at least one frdersal court, and usually waits until it has been heard by multiple levels. That takes time. It won't happen in less than a year to a ruling, and possibly more like 2 years. In the meantime nothing will happen.

I'm not predicting the outcome of a scotus ruling beyond just a hunch. But a trial can't happen until that process fully completes. It's something we allow all defendants. Due process. Even trump deserves it.

So legal scholars can say whatever they like about the outcome. Most of them are being paid huge sums to state a specific point of view. But even the ones that are right won't know it for 2 or more years.

So lets assume everything goes against him and the court rules he can't pardon himself and a trial can move forward. That still isn't grounds to remove a president. Even if convicted while in office, that isn't grounds to remove him from office. He can continue to function even while under house arrest.

So do watch all the talking heads. Round and round they will go. Some will be right, but which ones are irrelevant. He will be president until his term ends if he chooses to. And all that takes is reading and a basic knowledge of process.

In reality he would probably decide to take a Nixon-esque deal. But only after he was convicted. He would turn over the presidency only on the terms he would receive a full pardon.

Now if he is charged under FL law, that is a different case. But does anyone expect a trial to go anywhere in FL? Or a pardon not to be granted by the FL gov?

Still, charges for rape of underage girls might move congress. Might. Might not, but it has the best chance. They are unlikely to be moved by a criminal complaint about taxes or collusion or not reporting as a foreign agent.
Click to expand...
I'm as likely to watch a "legal expert" on Fox as I am to slice one of my gonads off.

greg nr said:
So legal scholars can say whatever they like about the outcome. Most of them are being paid huge sums to state a specific point of view.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
 
captainmorgan

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
Legal scholars like fox puts on are undoubtedly discussing it. Yet the "process" is well known. That's all I'm addressing.

The process requires judicial review, which can take years. The scotus won't take a case until it has been heard by at least one frdersal court, and usually waits until it has been heard by multiple levels. That takes time. It won't happen in less than a year to a ruling, and possibly more like 2 years. In the meantime nothing will happen.

I'm not predicting the outcome of a scotus ruling beyond just a hunch. But a trial can't happen until that process fully completes. It's something we allow all defendants. Due process. Even trump deserves it.

So legal scholars can say whatever they like about the outcome. Most of them are being paid huge sums to state a specific point of view. But even the ones that are right won't know it for 2 or more years.

So lets assume everything goes against him and the court rules he can't pardon himself and a trial can move forward. That still isn't grounds to remove a president. Even if convicted while in office, that isn't grounds to remove him from office. He can continue to function even while under house arrest.

So do watch all the talking heads. Round and round they will go. Some will be right, but which ones are irrelevant. He will be president until his term ends if he chooses to. And all that takes is reading and a basic knowledge of process.

In reality he would probably decide to take a Nixon-esque deal. But only after he was convicted. He would turn over the presidency only on the terms he would receive a full pardon.

Now if he is charged under FL law, that is a different case. But does anyone expect a trial to go anywhere in FL? Or a pardon not to be granted by the FL gov?

Still, charges for rape of underage girls might move congress. Might. Might not, but it has the best chance. They are unlikely to be moved by a criminal complaint about taxes or collusion or not reporting as a foreign agent.
Click to expand...

They are going after him in State courts, 3 that I know of.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
captainmorgan said:
They are going after him in State courts, 3 that I know of.
Click to expand...
Cool.

That is the murkiest path however. Legal pundits seem divided over whether a state suit could proceed against a pres in office. But knowing he could get locked up after office is very uplifting.

Seperate question. What would the risks be of a former (or current) POTUS fleeing the country and taking up residence in a no-extradite country? Or even Russia. With laptops full of data.

Imagine air force one landing in moscow and trump announcing he would be staying. Now that would be a shitestorm.
 
captainmorgan

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
Cool.

That is the murkiest path however. Legal pundits seem divided over whether a state suit could proceed against a pres in office. But knowing he could get locked up after office is very uplifting.

Seperate question. What would the risks be of a former (or current) POTUS fleeing the country and taking up residence in a no-extradite country? Or even Russia. With laptops full of data.

Imagine air force one landing in moscow and trump announcing he would be staying. Now that would be a shitestorm.
Click to expand...
Yes and charges include human trafficing,RICO,money laundering just to name a few.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
dagwood45431 said:
So, you, and only you, know which legal pundits are expressing their true opinions and not just saying what they're paid to say? Interesting. You need to work on that consistency thing.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they weren't paid to express an opinion. But like all pundits, they cover all sides of a question. In this case though, there is some legal precedent they can use as a basis. When Bill Clinton was sued under civil law for example, the judge allowed discovery to proceed, but left open the question of whether a trial could occur. So even a federal judge was unsure how to rule. That is a little more than a pundits opinion.

But again, the process would slow any progress towards a trial. You can easily predict that this would drag on in federal court and end up with a scotus ruling. All of that without touching on the legal merits.

I want to see him out office, disgraced, and broke. Jail would be a big plus. But it will take years to grind through the courts. In the end, 12 citizens and a few alternates would decide. But that could be 5-10 years away, and he is already feeble and old.. Justice is not a quick process.
 
StonerCol

StonerCol

Well-Known Member
Trump just seems to have a complete lack of respect for the position of POTUS. How can he realistically expect people to have any respect for him? People might say he doesn't care but I think he really does care a lot about respect. I think that he thinks he has respect because of his "big" policies like the wall.
Being a Brit it doesn't really matter to me - unless he starts firing off nukes - but it is pitiful to see the so-called Leader of the Free World acting like a complete asshole/child/moron. Not to mention the way he gets his family involved who clearly have no idea - and I mean idea, not experience - about how to act in a position of national responsibility.
I hope the US doesn't face a real challenge from some catastrophe because Trump and his clan just won't have a clue how to handle it.

I'm convinced though that there is a plan in place to remove Trump immediately if some kind of national emergency occurs, where a sensible, focused and intelligent response is required.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
captainmorgan said:
Best part of RICO and money laundering charges are Asset Forfeiture, you know the thing Sessions likes. They will seize all his property including Trump Tower lol and leave him and his horrible family broke.
Click to expand...
Is that asset forfeiture or asset seizure? But hopefully it could be invoked on conviction.
 
dagwood45431

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
I didn't say they weren't paid to express an opinion. But like all pundits, they cover all sides of a question. In this case though, there is some legal precedent they can use as a basis. When Bill Clinton was sued under civil law for example, the judge allowed discovery to proceed, but left open the question of whether a trial could occur. So even a federal judge was unsure how to rule. That is a little more than a pundits opinion.

But again, the process would slow any progress towards a trial. You can easily predict that this would drag on in federal court and end up with a scotus ruling. All of that without touching on the legal merits.

I want to see him out office, disgraced, and broke. Jail would be a big plus. But it will take years to grind through the courts. In the end, 12 citizens and a few alternates would decide. But that could be 5-10 years away, and he is already feeble and old.. Justice is not a quick process.
Click to expand...
I was simply trying to square this:

greg nr said:
So legal scholars can say whatever they like about the outcome. Most of them are being paid huge sums to state a specific point of view.
Click to expand...
...with this:

greg nr said:
Legal pundits seem divided over whether a state suit could proceed against a pres in office.
Click to expand...
My use of "legal pundits" was dismissed and then a few moments later, you're using them to try to bolster your point. Do you not see the problem there?
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
dagwood45431 said:
I was simply trying to square this:



...with this:



My use of "legal pundits" was dismissed and then a few moments later, you're using them to try to bolster your point. Do you not see the problem there?
Click to expand...

Are you russian? You read things that aren't there. You infer too much.

The only way trump won't serve out his term is if the congress removes him. They won't unless the sex stories prove too embarrassing to them. I do admit rape and pimping are two things the republicans could be afraid of ignoring. Russia and tax crimes, not so much.

But there won't be a legal cure while he is in office, it would have to be a political one. And the pundits can (and do) kiss their own asses.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
dagwood45431 said:
Are you fucking stupid? Tit for tat, asshole. Try substance this time in addressing your clearly demonstrated inconsistency. It's right there for all to see. Maybe just acknowledge it and move on? Or, you can call me a Russian, you fucking imbecile.
Click to expand...
There is no inconsistency. Other than the one between your ears. Keep trying though comrade.

You haven't offered one credible reason why you think trump can be prosecuted while in office. You haven't offered one credible reason why him pardoning himself wouldn't stop any movement cold until the scotus rules.

You just cut and paste out of context and argue stupid points not related to anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top