Is it your contention that there is some overwhelming consensus among constitution al scholars on this point? If so, a cite would be in order. Or, perhaps you can point to precedent of a sitting president being arrested by a state, and the Secret Service standing down so that the matter is clear as glass, as you seem to see it.
This is nonsense, and has no basis in the constitution or law.
*This *shit again, John? Really now. :rolleyes:
You can look up the oath yourself for its wording, and you can also cite the “disagreement among constitutional scholars” you claim exists. You can also note which view the *dearth *of cases of LEO’s going rogue that you note is actually supported by that observation.
Or you can keep handwaving. The breeze is freshening.
Tell us what happens when the President tries to stop an investigation, then.
Michael Flynn was texting people 11 minutes into the Trump administration, during the speech, that joint US/Russia efforts at building nuclear reactors in the middle east could proceed because Russian sanctions would be “ripped up” under Trump. Curious to know how Flynn could possibly be that confident about that if he had gone rogue and all.
NBC News confirms: A mysterious email was sent to then-candidate Trump and Trump Jr. in September 2016 offering access to hacked WikiLeaks documents, according to two sources with direct knowledge.
And a few hours later, Trump Jr. sent this tweet out, promoting Wikileaks:
“WIKILEAKS: Hillary Clinton Sent THOUSANDS of Classified Cables Marked “(C)” for Confidential WIKILEAKS: Hillary Clinton Sent THOUSANDS of Classified Cables Marked "(C)" for Confidential | The Gateway Pundit via gatewaypundit”
I’ve been cautious in saying that while the Trumps have violated the ethics they haven’t necessarily violated the law. But those emails may change things a bit, as we’re now getting closer to the charge of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States (election laws). These emails, if proven authentic, would clearly show Donald Jr’s (and perhaps others) intent to work with foreign nationals who are expressly prohibited from engaging in willful conduct that could influence elections. It’s not just a conversation that went nowhere; it’s now an organized effort to peddle influence, and it’s not necessary to show whether he receive something of value. He conspired to work with people not allowed to influence campaign, and I’m guessing the extent to which he did this is part of Mueller’s focus, and probably another reason to review the Deutsch Bank records.
Obstruction is a crime. Nothing in the Constitution says that the law applies to everyone except the president. The president can, like anyone else, commit crimes while in office; it’s just not clear that he can be prosecuted while in office (I argue that he cannot, for practical purposes). But he can be prosecuted once he’s out of office.
So again, would you say that hiring Richard Steele to gather info about Trump fits that same description?
That’s not the claim I was responding to.
You mean Christopher Steele?
Receiving the information is not a crime. No one knows what information may turn up when doing opposition research. It’s using the information that makes it a crime, if it is received from a foreign government.
It is not handwaving to note that soldiers and law enforcement officers are, and have always be, extremely likely to continue following orders in defiance of such nebulous concepts as “law” and “Constitution.”
Probably. One of the Steeles out there.
You’re responding on behalf of asahi, who doesn’t appear to be saying the same thing as you.
LOL, I’m responding with what I know to be true. asahi is perfectly capable of responding for him(?)self.
Perhaps you can explain why my understanding on the matter is flawed.
Orders from whom? People who are also sworn to the nation and its laws, not a person. If your claim is that some democracies have slid into fascism, that’s true, but a discussion of how that became possible in those cases and how it applies or not to us would be appropriate.
Anyway, that wasn’t John’s point; he was claiming there’s some matter there of great controversy by constitutional scholars. I’m no longer waiting for him to say what the hell he means by that, but you’re welcome to take up the cudgel if you like.
Just checking in to see if there is a correction yet about the untrue accusations aired today in both the MSM and on here. None as yet that I can see.
Which ones?
The letter seems to have been sent on the 14th, not the 4th. Junior’s tweet happened 10 days earlier than the letter.
I will say that CNN is a group of dumbasses.
Yeah, this is much less of a thing then. The only thing that made this particularly interesting was the timing of Trump’s tweet. Otherwise, it could just be a story about some random person emailing the campaign.
I have to admit, whenever I see something that reads “CNN Exclusive” I am increasingly skeptical. It’s obvious their team is trying to develop their investigative journalism skills on the fly having been a bunch of morning pop tarts for the better part of 15 years, but they keep flubbing bigly. They used to be representative of the standard in broadcast journalism and investigative reporting - going back to the late 1980s and early 1990s. But they’re just not good at this stuff and I’d rather they just leave it to the Washington Post or New York Times or some other entity that really has an apparatus in place.