Can Biden order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump?

[Deephaven]

5 minutes ago, $poorsledder$ said:

I just find it weird that this guy is leading polls to win the presidency which to me means it's a majority but we have the rest (minority) fighting to keep him off the ballot.  I wonder why a very large group are supporting him?

If you think Biden or Kamala or Michelle or Oprah or witch ever highly qualified Dem candidate will beat him with ease then why all the worry?  I must be missing something...

  

The Dems aren't trying to keep him off the ballot, they are trying to make sure enough dipshits come out to vote for him in the primary so they can put up anybody and win.  

[Kivalo]

4 hours ago, ckf said:

Impeachment is a joke. The votes are always split down party lines.

Agreed!

[DriftBusta]

2 hours ago, Deephaven said:

The Dems aren't trying to keep him off the ballot, they are trying to make sure enough dipshits come out to vote for him in the primary so they can put up anybody and win.  

Thats some pretty dyslexic logic you got going on there BOM5 guy.

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, DriftBusta said:

Thats some pretty dyslexic logic you got going on there BOM5 guy.

I think I'm gonna start calling him Wilie Ethelbert Coyote Super Genuis from now on.

[Steve753]

15 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

I think I'm gonna start calling him Wilie Ethelbert Coyote Super Genuis from now on.

Ethelbert! Is that like Ogelthorpe?

[toslow]

1 hour ago, DriftBusta said:

Thats some pretty dyslexic logic you got going on there BOM5 guy.

Nobody ever blamed deepshit for being intelligent 😂👍

[Highmark]

There are very valid reasons why a President should have significant immunity while in office.  Trump's side is right on this.

For example.....should Obama be able to be prosecuted for calling for the murder of 2 American citizens?

How many Presidents have ordered strikes that knew civilians would be killed?   Could they be charged with war crimes?

There isn't a Presidential term in US history that somebody couldn't bring up some criminal charges against a POTUS.  

Right or wrong we don't allow civil lawsuits against Presidents for things they done while in office.   How is criminal liability any different?

This very well could open a Pandora's box down the road and should be carefully, carefully thought through.  

Edited January 10 by Highmark

[akvanden]

3 hours ago, Highmark said:

There are very valid reasons why a President should have significant immunity while in office.  Trump's side is right on this.

For example.....should Obama be able to be prosecuted for calling for the murder of 2 American citizens?

How many Presidents have ordered strikes that knew civilians would be killed?   Could they be charged with war crimes?

There isn't a Presidential term in US history that somebody couldn't bring up some criminal charges against a POTUS.  

Right or wrong we don't allow civil lawsuits against Presidents for things they done while in office.   How is criminal liability any different?

This very well could open a Pandora's box down the road and should be carefully, carefully thought through.  

Nixon received a pardon, Clinton had to admit he lied underoath to avoid prosecution. Apparently they never needed to? Why didn't that open pandora's box?

 

[Highmark]

2 hours ago, akvanden said:

Nixon received a pardon, Clinton had to admit he lied underoath to avoid prosecution. Apparently they never needed to? Why didn't that open pandora's box?

 

Because Nixon was not really charged.  The grand jury return an unindicted co-conspirator verdict.   I'm sure you knew that.  These same legal questions came up but then Ford simply went ahead and gave him a blanket pardon.  Clinton while lying under oath as President it was about a case prior to him becoming one.   Was Clinton ever charged outside of congress?   Could or should he have been considering what he done lying under oath, trying to get 2 people to give false affidavits (a felony)?  

I want to be clear...I'm not saying that Presidential immunity is completely fair or correct....I'm just saying you can easily see the reasoning as to why it needs to be at least considered.  It can lead to constant indictments of political figures especially the President.   Like the old saying goes a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.  

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167662256/past-presidents-while-never-indicted-have-faced-legal-woes-of-their-own

We have had one president who was named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" by a federal grand jury in a breathtakingly wide conspiracy case that sent some of Washington's biggest names to jail.

That happened in 1974 and the president was Republican Richard Nixon, the centerpiece figure in the scandal known as Watergate. Nixon was also the one president who felt it necessary to tell a televised news conference: "I am not a crook."

Watergate involved burglaries, illegal wiretaps and other crimes committed by operatives for Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign. There had been months of concerted White House efforts to cover up those crimes.

Forty federal officials were indicted or jailed in the case, including Nixon's chief of staff, White House attorney, chief domestic adviser and attorney general. All had carried out orders that, directly or indirectly, originated with Nixon himself.

Nixon's shield becomes Trump's

But why did that grand jury name Nixon an "unindicted co-conspirator"? Because an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 had said a sitting president could not not be indicted.

Some, including former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, have argued that the OLC prohibition on indicting the president dealt "mainly with the question of whether a president can be put on trial." Dellinger was head of the OLC from 1993 to 1996.

Nonetheless, the 1973 OLC opinion was treated as policy in the Justice Department in 2019, when independent counsel Robert Mueller was reporting on links between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russian interference in that year's election.

Mueller did not find such links, but his report did cite several instances of what some legal authorities considered obstruction of justice. That idea was flatly dismissed by William Barr, who was the Trump's attorney general at the time, who treated the Mueller report as an exoneration (over Mueller's objections).

Some Democrats in the House read Mueller's report as a "road map" to impeachment. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not support calls for impeachment at that time.

The Clinton case: impeachment but no arrest

Clinton was accused of giving false testimony to a grand jury, which amounts to perjury, and obstruction of justice. It happened in 1998, as Clinton dealt with the fallout from his affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/grounds/g1.htm

 

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States

 

Edited January 10 by Highmark

[1jkw]

50 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Because Nixon was not really charged.  The grand jury return an unindicted co-conspirator verdict.   I'm sure you knew that.  These same legal questions came up but then Ford simply went ahead and gave him a blanket pardon.  Clinton while lying under oath as President it was about a case prior to him becoming one.   Was Clinton ever charged outside of congress?   Could or should he have been considering what he done lying under oath, trying to get 2 people to give false affidavits (a felony)?  

I want to be clear...I'm not saying that Presidential immunity is completely fair or correct....I'm just saying you can easily see the reasoning as to why it needs to be at least considered.  It can lead to constant indictments of political figures especially the President.   Like the old saying goes a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.  

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167662256/past-presidents-while-never-indicted-have-faced-legal-woes-of-their-own

We have had one president who was named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" by a federal grand jury in a breathtakingly wide conspiracy case that sent some of Washington's biggest names to jail.

That happened in 1974 and the president was Republican Richard Nixon, the centerpiece figure in the scandal known as Watergate. Nixon was also the one president who felt it necessary to tell a televised news conference: "I am not a crook."

Watergate involved burglaries, illegal wiretaps and other crimes committed by operatives for Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign. There had been months of concerted White House efforts to cover up those crimes.

Forty federal officials were indicted or jailed in the case, including Nixon's chief of staff, White House attorney, chief domestic adviser and attorney general. All had carried out orders that, directly or indirectly, originated with Nixon himself.

Nixon's shield becomes Trump's

But why did that grand jury name Nixon an "unindicted co-conspirator"? Because an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 had said a sitting president could not not be indicted.

Some, including former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, have argued that the OLC prohibition on indicting the president dealt "mainly with the question of whether a president can be put on trial." Dellinger was head of the OLC from 1993 to 1996.

Nonetheless, the 1973 OLC opinion was treated as policy in the Justice Department in 2019, when independent counsel Robert Mueller was reporting on links between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russian interference in that year's election.

Mueller did not find such links, but his report did cite several instances of what some legal authorities considered obstruction of justice. That idea was flatly dismissed by William Barr, who was the Trump's attorney general at the time, who treated the Mueller report as an exoneration (over Mueller's objections).

Some Democrats in the House read Mueller's report as a "road map" to impeachment. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not support calls for impeachment at that time.

The Clinton case: impeachment but no arrest

Clinton was accused of giving false testimony to a grand jury, which amounts to perjury, and obstruction of justice. It happened in 1998, as Clinton dealt with the fallout from his affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/grounds/g1.htm

 

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States

 

I don't think you can claim immunity in every case, certainly not in Trump's case, wait and see what the USSC says, I bet Thomas will be the only judge if any that feels he has immunity.

[Crnr2Crnr]

sometimes there's funny shit on facebook...

[Crnr2Crnr]

bump...

[Crnr2Crnr]

what say you @ArcticCrusher? 

[SnowRider]

Joe’s gonna have full immunity to take out his political opponent 

[Skidooski]

Joe doesn't even know his full name

[Highmark]

34 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Joe’s gonna have full immunity to take out his political opponent 

His DOJ is already trying to do that.   Obama's did in 2016 as well. 

Edited February 29 by Highmark

[Skidooski]

At this point the real question should be can Biden order himself to go to a nursing home full time? 

[Deephaven]

6 hours ago, Skidooski said:

At this point the real question should be can Biden order himself to go to a nursing home full time? 

That be a rather long sentence for him to remember it all.

[Crnr2Crnr]

16 hours ago, SnowRider said:

Joe’s gonna have full immunity to take out his political opponent 

IDK why the DNC doesn't just use the CIA to beat him again?

There's some batshit crazy stuff posted here...

[Deephaven]

Same CIA now so same result this time.  

[Steve753]

17 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Same CIA now so same result this time.  

It will be different this time!

[EvilBird]

Biden should push Trump out a window like Vlad ....

dEmOcRacY iZ oN dA bAlLoT 

derp derp derp. 

[Crnr2Crnr]

1 hour ago, Deephaven said:

Same CIA now so same result this time.  

at times I wonder if the Republicans are backing Trump so when he loses he'll get convicted and go the fuck away?  but the goofy bastard would probably just announce his 2028 candidacy twenty four hours after claiming it was stolen again. 

CIA 

[akvanden]

Did we ever figure out the answer to the OP question? I don't understand why it's being left alone by supporters.