So while you predict that any impeachment will fail unless it includes an actual statutory violation, you must be unhappy with this state of affairs, given Sec. 2 above.
(I presume you also stand on the principle that those words mean what they meant when they were written.)
…
My position is that this is a thread about assholes who continue to carry water for Donald Trump and here you are, front and center, soaked in a suspiciously rank fluid.
I’m certainly very unhappy with this situation, because Trump is a clown.
But I’m not unhappy for the specific reason you’re asking, because I would not want Sec 2 to only apply in certain situations. That’s why I (jokingly) proposed it as part of a Constitutional amendment. So in the present circumstance, I would not want Sec 2’s command obeyed here and ignored elsewhere. Sec 2 is a holistic cure.
Not trying to be difficult, and I apologize if it seems I am being obtuse, but this is in fact a bit confusing to me. I appreciate your patience, even if it is tempered by frustration.
But it wouldn’t be under the Emolument’s clause. I suppose nuking L.A. may be illegal in it’s own right, but I fail to see exactly what criminal statute he would be breaking by taking that action.
To be fair, nuking L.A. is a bit extreme, but I also don’t see any law that he would break by doing so.
We already know that giving away secrets is fine too, what if he didn’t nuke L.A. himself, but sold the codes to a third party who then launched them?
That’s a double weakness of the impeachment process, as if there were evidence of your crimes against my neighbor, then it would not be a political action to prosecute you. It would not be up to your local city council on whether or not to prosecute you.
If the president does the same thing, then it would be a political process to prosecute him, and if his party was in power, they could let him get away with it in a way that a prosecutor would not.
The only thing a prosecutor should ask when charging someone is whether they have enough evidence to convince a jury. In this case, the jury is already picked, and the prosecutor has to decide if the accused has friends on the jury that would vote against conviction in light of any evidence.
Sure, that’s another insult. I’m asking you if you ever let yourself think about why only one of us has only insults, and not factual debate, to support the ideas they’re advancing.
Do you?
Well, the murder of anyone immolated in the blast, for a start.
Conspiracy to commit murder, and murder for hire.
It would be up to another (usually) elected official: the prosecutor.
Not sure where you are, but in Virginia, the Commonwealth Prosecutor for each county is an elected office.
“Not exactly doing anything illegal”. Yep-that is precisely what I’m looking for in a President.
Maybe because this is The BBQ Pit, where pissed-off people go to be pissed-off, Not Great Debates, where facts rule over emotions?
edited to add: When you were practicing law, did you act the same way before the Bar as you did at a bar?
Mockery is what people use to try to stay/keep pace in a debate, when they have no logic/reason to offer.
In this instance, and while there are those who are pro-trump defenders, I see bricker’s contribution being more along the lines of strengthening our argument against trump (or at least pointing out lines that fail the legal test), not actually outright defending him. It’s not a service that is pleasant to receive, I suppose, but it is actually more productive.
Trump’s an ass and is bad for our country, and if we could wish him dragged away by a stampede of ponies (pretty pink princess ponies) then we would.
Unfortunately, there are both legal and political realities that need to be addressed before the clod stomping may commence.
You know perfectly well how to check my post history, if you’re interested in my more citation-based work. You’re not, of course, you’re just trying to provide cover for all the assholes carrying water for Donald. But I guess disingenuous motherfuckers gotta disingenuate.
Oh yeah, his doing it from the bottom of his water-logged heart.
No, he’s doing it to show off how much smarter he is.
Doesn’t make him wrong.
Doesn’t make his posts useless.
I’d still like to know whether the President can simply order the FBI to drop an investigation into whomever or whatever, on the grounds that he is the boss of them, without it being obstruction of justice. No ‘threats or force’, just “drop it.”
Surely a variation of this happens all the time, for a variety of reasons both nefarious and benign. Maybe the new boss wants to focus on terrorism investigations rather than drug crimes. Maybe this year’s budget won’t stretch to cover all ongoing investigations. Maybe everyone involved is on the take. Whatever. Absent ‘threat or force’, is there ever obstruction of justice?
The President’s motive matters.
For example, let’s say the FBI is investigating a case of espionage. Joe Knucklehead has been passing secrets to the Chinese. The President could decide to let the Chinese have Joe in exchange for their release of Bruce Braveheart, our guy the Chinese arrested. But public revelation of the deal would cause the Chinese to shoot Bruce and bill his family for the bullet.
If the President judges that the FBI investigation needs to stop for that reason, then it’s not obstruction of justice.
Doesn’t make him any less the exact sort of asshole who’s being pitted in this thread.
What about this case, where the President is a part of the case being investigated?
But the thread that’s under discussion is here.
I’m sure you have dozens of threads in which you’ve made arguments, but which of those are the ones you want to refer to now?
I’m sure you can see that if I ask you for factual debate and your response is, “I have done it in other places; look it up,” it doesn’t begin to address the specific things in play in this thread.
But I did do a quick search on your posts. I didn’t see anything that was a case law or statute cite on the emoluments issue. Perhaps you could link the posts you feel serve that purpose?
Even then, the President’s motive matters – for the same reason as my prior example. My prior example showed a President whose permissible motive was obvious, but the point of the example was: the mere act of stopping an investigation, if that happened, is not tantamount of obstruction of justice.
What would be necessary is to show a corrupt motive animating the order.