There was no link in the post I was replying to and I was not confident which topic you were commenting on in that post.
If you say, “I hate George!”
And I reply, “If you mean George Butler, in accounting, then…”
I don’t believe that a follow up of, “Man, why don’t you just look at his file!”, is very on the point.
In theory? Really?
Have you every been indicted? I haven’t. I had hoped that we wouldn’t elect a criminal to the highest office in the land, but that’s where we are now.
But there was a link in the post that that post was responding to. It’s pretty conventional to assume that posts respond to the ones immediately preceding them. (E.g. my post #1885 - the one you responded to - was responding to post #1884 which preceded it, and was not just hanging out there in mid-air. Similarly, post #1886 was not some random comment that should confuse you, but was addressed to my post #1885.)
Even leaving aside the above, this is off-point. Because I specified Mueller, and you turned around and suggested maybe it was really about Strzok.
So it’s more like if I say “I hate George!”
And you reply "if you really mean Bob, then you’re confused, because George and Bob are two different people …
Are you the subject of vociferous political opposition from millions of people, some number of whom are DAs? If you are, and you still haven’t been indicted, then your experience would be relevant.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20742919&postcount=1885
You do not quote a post in this thread and the link is after you’ve moved on to another topic.
If my guess about the subject was wrong, it would have been easier to simply say as much. Which post were you replying to?
Mueller is not asking Trump to testify.
Wha–? That was the only fun thing to look forward to in this mess!
Oh, well. Maybe he’ll testify at the tax evasion hearings.
Oh shit that would be a never ending disaster.
OK, so Mueller tells Trump’s handlers that he’s just going to ask about the obstruction charge. Then he sits down in the room with Trump and asks him about the other stuff. Why wouldn’t he? He’s tasked with investigating that, so he’s investigating it. What’s preventing him? Investigations wouldn’t ever go anywhere if the investigators could be restricted on what questions they’re going to ask before-hand and had to tip off their interviewees.
As for Presidents being indicted, it’s inherent in the nature of our system that they can’t be indicted for federal crimes. Note my word choice, there: I said “can not”, not “may not”. That’s why we have an entirely separate procedure for impeachment, because it’s the only way to touch the President for federal crimes. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping state authorities from indicting him: As far as the states are concerned, he’s just another guy.
That story was popular among Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, as a way to justify and vindicate their actions. But it just ain’t so. Impeachment has nothing whatever to do with the criminal justice system, and there is no constraint other than custom against charging a President.
I think the notion that presidents can’t be indicted is by no means certain.
If this article is correct, and I don’t think there’s a factual answer, then Mueller cannot indict but a grand jury can.
Apparently, the FBI interviewed Flynn only a few days after the inauguration. The fun part of the story is that they did it in the White House and without anyone knowing about it. Flynn didn’t have a lawyer present because, essentially, the FBI just put a meeting on his calendar and he accepted it without knowing what it was about.
The best people.
OK, enough of this silliness.
I assume you’re splitting some semantic hair, in which Trump answering questions from Mueller does not amount to testifying. Whatever.
As I suggested earlier, it’s in Mueller’s interest to have Trump cooperate with him. Provoking Trump into refusing to answer his questions by lying to Trump about the subject of the interview is not going to be helpful. It would only give Trump ammunition in the public eye for defying him.
I would be shocked if Mueller double-crosses Trump in this manner.
I believe you have it backwards here. Whether a president can be federally indicted is debatable. Whether he can be indicted by a state is more dubious, due to the Supremacy Clause.
Once he’s out of office, he’s of course fair game for states to prosecute. Donald in Rikers Island would be oh so wonderful to behold.
Of course. And he has certainly painted a huge target on his back.
That said, there tends to be a sense that once a guy is out of office it’s overkill to go after him. Similar to prosecuting HCR after she lost the election. So I don’t know how it would be received by the public once he’s out of office, and if it doesn’t look like a popular move it’s less likely to happen.
Of course, there could be any number of state DAs with some sort of jurisdiction, and all it takes is one. So you never know.
The difference being there’s nothing to prosecute her for.
Of course 1) Hillary didn’t do anything criminal and 2) Republicans still fantasize about prosecuting her.
Your two points contradict each other. Because while you think she didn’t do anything criminal, many Republicans disagree with you. And yet, she’s unlikely to be prosecuted (despite occasional Trump temper tantrums) and public sentiment would not support it even among Republicans. Because you move on.
I hope this isn’t too off-topic here, but I was saddened to read the following. The Obama Administration was unwilling to condemn Russian interference before the election because Piece-of-Shit McConnell had, in effect, made clear that he’d attack any such condemnation as a partisan ploy.
I guess the GOP’s desire to have Piece-of-Shit Trump in power was so great that it didn’t matter if Putin came along as a puppet-master.
Who gives a flying fuck? The only ones that matter are the ones who can recommend and/or bring charges. *They *said she didn’t do anything criminal.