If Biden wins, should he aggressively prosecute the previous administration...including Trump?

Other than the fact that I don’t know about bringing in foriengers to inveistate our governemtn is a great idea, I don’t disagree with most.

I do have a couple of other quibbles though. Whoever is makig this determination should have clearance to see everything, or else things may be hidden behind national security.

I also do not agree that you cannot find a journalist that is not committed to one side or the other.

OTOH, I am pretty sure that anyone who found that Trump was corrupt would immediately be dismissed as being a partisan with an ax to grind, no matter who you found or where you found them. Just look at all the hate that Mueller gets. Apparently, he’s a partisan with an ax to grind, even though he did everything he could to couch the information that he gathered to be as unincriminating towards the sitting president as possible. Did anyone think that Mueller was a liberal partisan hack before the Mueller report?

Sorry, but I’m having trouble figuring out which posts we’re debating. I’m agreeing that you’ve answered my second post in this thread which was a question on if there was a legitimate corruption case that Trump should answer for. I’m not agreeing that Trump is guilty, especially when it is based on the assessment of a partisan Democratic congressional committee, but I do agree that there’s probable cause for an independent assessment.

However, if you’re saying that that partisan congressional assessment provides sufficient evidence for a clear judicial ruling, then I disagree. Every president has taken actions that were to his political advantage. The House of Representatives believed he crossed the line. The Senate disagreed. I don’t know if this particular alleged infraction will ever go to trial, but I think the supposition that a clearly contentious and debatable judicial premise has an obvious answer is inaccurate.

Sure. Yes. That’s an easy answer. If there’s an actual smoking gun that Trump withheld appropriations payments to Ukraine to benefit Russia, or performed other actions as a response to a request from Russia, then he deserves to be prosecuted. My question to you is if there is any credible evidence of this actual smoking gun?

Why would you ask me? I haven’t seen inside of the server.

I am saying the articles of impeachment allege crimes, spell out in excruciating detail what those crimes mean and how the laws are applied in normal courts and then lay out their evidence that Trump broke those laws.

Granted it is one sided (Trump did not provide any defense by his own choosing) but you need not worry about it all being only partisan mudslinging. Real crimes are alleged, real evidence is given.

You can say you do not find that persuasive but I doubt you will find anything more thorough than that right now.

Kavanaugh has already responded to a threat from the Democratic party and decided to risk non-confirmation. The idea that he would resign rather than face what is currently known about his alleged indiscretions, versus facing impeachment and conviction hearings is almost ludicrous. Kavanaugh, based on what is currently known, faces nearly zero risk of Senatorial conviction. Keep in mind that the allegations against Kavanaugh have been investigated by the US press corps who have found no compelling evidence for impeachment. I disagree that he would find resignation a more honourable alternative then a failed impeachment/conviction process.

The first quoted statement is my answer to the question posed in the second quoted statement.

Really? Emoluments is right there in the Constitution, and he clearly never had any intention of adhering to the Emoluments clause. That fact renders his taking of the oath of office an act of perjury.

Not that I disagree, but it seems that Deuteronomy 20:16-18 might be a more appropriate custom title for you.

Yeah…really. I do not think there is a chance in hell you can get him on perjury for this. As for breaking the emoluments clause there is no penalty for it. It should be an impeachable offense but with the senate we have, nothing is sufficient to get Trump out via impeachment.

So, even if Trump said to a judge that he totally violated the emoluments clause, 100% admits to it…then what?

Then nothing is what. The judge would rule that he is guilty and then wish him a safe trip home.

If I can figure out how to change my Custom Title, I will make the swap! Thank you!

If a law violates the Constitution, what is the remedy there? Will a judge just shrug and agree that it does and wish it a safe trip home?

If a person violates the Constitution, is there really no remedy?

I struggle to figure out why the FF’s even put that in there, if they didn’t actually mean for it to ever be followed or enforced.

I agree you’ve answered my question that there’s a legal basis for accusing Trump of an actual crime. Again, thank you for answering my question.

I disagree, at least until I’m better informed, that Trump is guilty of the alleged crime. I think Trump exploited his political power as president to try to force parties that he was engaged with to agree with his agenda. That’s a practice that every American president that who had at least a one year term has engaged in. It’s disturbing that Trump used his political power to try to engage the Ukraine government in an anti-Biden activity. I don’t believe that Trump’s activities were apolitical. But there is no standard that expects an American president’s actions to be apolitical. The uniqueness of Trump’s “crime” is that it actually involved a political opponent. I’m curious if this “uniqueness” is real, or if there’s precedent for it. Likewise, I want to know if there’s precedent for any relevant associated abuses of executive power that would have judicial consideations.

Well, there is impeachment.

Also, I see no reason why a court could not order Trump to divest himself of assets that are violating the emoluments clause.

But then people argue that you can’t sue the president, the cases take a long time and Trump refuses to turn over documents and no one seems willing to make him. So the case languishes in court and, if it ever comes to a resolution, chances are the whole thing is moot at that point.

Hell, today the Supreme Court voted to hear a case regarding allowing the House Judiciary Committee to see grand jury testimony. This has effectively postponed getting that evidence until late this year (read after the election). When you have the senate and the supreme court running interference for you good luck with your case.

Great!

Let him go to court and defend his innocence like everyone else.

I think it’s a mistake to keep focusing so much on Trump. You can’t go at this head-strong and scorched earth. That won’t work because it has the appearance of partisanship.

No, the better way to do this is to go all-in on ethics. Regulate the ever-loving-bajeezus out of ethics. Adopt the “Drain The Swamp” rhetoric. The Biden administration should be all about restoring faith in our government. We all agree the government as it is now is broken. So let’s fix the damn thing, not destroy it. Invest in the future.

To do that we’re going to need independent investigations and a false-wall between the White House and DOJ. Republicans like law and order, right? Fine. You want to play? Let’s play law and order. We aren’t going after anyone because of politics, we’re restoring the American voter’s confidence in the propriety of our government. You know, actually making America great again.

And I’m pretty sure that’s what BLM wants too, right? We should all be treated the same, regardless of race, creed, color, financial affluence, or political affiliation for that matter. Everyone plays by the same rules, no exceptions. I’m sure that sounds bad to some people and good to other people, but hey, fair is fair and all we’re asking for is to play fair.

Extend this basic policy to all departments, all bureaus, all offices, all branches of the Executive. But you can’t stop there. Congresspeople must be subject to the same ethical standards as everyone else. Likewise in the Judicial branch. Judges appointed to federal benches must adhere to ethical regulations, not just norms and standards. Because as we have seen, norms are just a promise to color within the lines, not a binding agreement. And standards are just recommendations unless they have the bite of statutory regulation. There need to be consequences.

Because that’s the only way to clean this damn mess up. Implement consequences. Regulations need to have teeth to be effective. And, at least in my humble opinion, we’re reaching a critical mass of fuckedupitude in this country and there are precious few distractions from it. The common American is getting their nose rubbed in it thanks to everything 2020 has thrown at us. So, oddly enough, it sounds like time something could actually be done.

But that would require two things. First, it would take Biden to not already be bought-and-paid-for by the oligarch billionaire class. And second, it would take the average American to have an attention span longer than an incontinent gnat. So I’m not holding my breath.

And that is why I see that as being an impeachable offense, as that is the only remedy.

Though I do kinda like the other remedy you mention. I hadn’t thought of that. The court could force him to divest, if it were not as doubtful a process as you illustrate.

Either stop being president, or lose all your holdings. I wonder which he would go for. Little late in the game now, but should he somehow pull out a second term, maybe worth looking into.

How about rehiring Mueller and asking him to investigate the Ukraine bribery charges against Trump and the related corruption occurring in the Ukraine, and determining if there was merit for an investigation of Hunter Biden, and by association Joe Biden?

Is this just rhetoric, or do you actually believe that statement?

I think a couple of things about this -

I very much Trump came up with the idea to extort Ukraine on his own. He consistently demonstrates that he hasn’t a clue what is going on in the world.

I doubt anyone in his administration put that bug in his ear. So who did?

That he may get/create dirt on Biden, or at least take a little of the spotlight off himself was what the main goal here. That it also could help Russian aggression was a bonus for a dictator that he thinks is his friend. Or may have so much compromont on Trump that he will do whatever he says.

When the writing is on the wall, it’s best to at least read it.