Cavagnaw

[Que]

it's a shame that a sitting president who is under investigation is allowed to appoint someone who could have a hand in the outcome of said investigation.

So you are saying that Ginsberg and Brennan were illegitimate appointments?

 

[phrodeau]

The US legal system is not based on "Judeo-Christian ethos". Whatever the fuck that 1940s/1950s bit of sophistry was meant to imply.

Aw, but that was Bellisarius's only point. He sure didn't disagree that WASPs ran the country.

 

[thehaircutgirl]

So you are saying that Ginsberg and Brennan were illegitimate appointments?

was there an active investigation into the sitting president when either was picked?

 

[Que]

was there an active investigation into the sitting president when either was picked?

Several.

 

[thehaircutgirl]

Several.

then you know the answer to the question that you asked me.

 

[Rightguide]

OK, where can I find this gem where Kavanaugh believes "a President should be completely immune from investigation."

Senator "Indian" Warren believes a President has no right to free speech and commits obstruction of justice when exercising his Art II authority.

 

[phrodeau]

Senator "Indian" Warren believes a President has no right to free speech and commits obstruction of justice when exercising his Art II authority.

Sounds like a Republican. Who the fuck are you talking about?

 

[RobDownSouth]

well played

Literally wrote the Starr Report; then once he was working in a Republican White House, said he now believed a President should be completely immune from investigation.

That's intellectual dishonesty on a level rarely seen outside of Planet AJ.

I LOLed.

Literally.

I laughed out loud.

People heard me laughing.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Several.

Your time line is seriously off, but nice try.

 

[contrifan32]

why would you quote me and then write something that has nothing to do with my quote?

What makes it a "shame"

 

[cowslinger64]

Senator "Indian" Warren believes a President has no right to free speech and commits obstruction of justice when exercising his Art II authority.

Why was that only a problem with the last president?

 

[Aglaopheme]

It's an interesting discussion:

What if the President pulled out a gun and blew the brains out of someone... Would he (or she) have to be impeached before being arrested, charged and convicted?

On the other hand, political opponents could keep a President busy responding to nonsensical lawsuits of he (or she) were subject to legal process while sitting

Which will most likely wind up before SCOTUS. Do you think Kavanaugh should recuse himself if and when it does should he be seated?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Which will most likely wind up before SCOTUS. Do you think Kavanaugh should recuse himself if and when it does should he be seated?

It's a non-issue because Trump will never be indicted. At most, a referral will be made to the House, where it will die.

Unless you were talking about the gun part of my post. I doubt the Supreme Court would take up an appeal of such a matter.

 

[Aglaopheme]

It's a non-issue because Trump will never be indicted. At most, a referral will be made to the House, where it will die.

Unless you were talking about the gun part of my post. I doubt the Supreme Court would take up an appeal of such a matter.

You maybe right. The same can be said for impeachment if the House doesn’t flip.

Let’s just go with Trump being subpoenaed. What then?

 

[JohnnySavage]

You maybe right. The same can be said for impeachment if the House doesn’t flip.

Let’s just go with Trump being subpoenaed. What then?

Well... Clinton was subpoenaed and forced to give a deposition.

And I don't think a Justice should recuse themselves just because they have expressed a general legal position. Justices have recused themselves because of cases that came up that they had worked on in the lower courts, but I'm not aware of any canon that says a judge or justice isn't allowed to express a legal philosophy prior to appointment.

I think a sitting President can be subject to legal process, but there would be a reasonableness factor applied by a judge that wouldn't be afforded to a normal citizen.

WRT the Supreme Court hearing a case involving whether or not a sitting President had to comply with a subpoena - that would take years and years to get there and once Trump was no longer President, the issue would be moot. Further, like the War Powers Act; neither side really wants a ruling on the matter.

In my world, everyone is equal under the law and the President could be sued and indicted just like anyone else. The Constitution provides for a method of removal from office, but is silent as to judicial punishment. I'm not locked into my position though and could be swayed in either direction.

 

[Rightguide]

It's a non-issue because Trump will never be indicted. At most, a referral will be made to the House, where it will die.

Unless you were talking about the gun part of my post. I doubt the Supreme Court would take up an appeal of such a matter.

Mueller has no constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment investigation or make an impeachment referral to the House. None whatsoever. Impeachment is a function of the House and the House has not charged him with any such authority. It's a liberal fantasy.

 

[Wrong Element]

Well... Clinton was subpoenaed and forced to give a deposition.

And I don't think a Justice should recuse themselves just because they have expressed a general legal position. Justices have recused themselves because of cases that came up that they had worked on in the lower courts, but I'm not aware of any canon that says a judge or justice isn't allowed to express a legal philosophy prior to appointment.

I think the question re Kavanaugh is concern that his appointment was contingent on a promise to Trump that he would rule his way on anything having to do with investigating his conduct in office.

I would hope no one here is so naive as to think such a request would be beyond Trump. After Comey, it must be assumed such a promise was solicited.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Mueller has no constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment investigation or make an impeachment referral to the House. None whatsoever. Impeachment is a function of the House and the House has not charged him with any such authority. It's a liberal fantasy.

His report will go to the House. That's the same thing as a referral for them to do with as they please. Perhaps my language wasn't precise.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Well... Clinton was subpoenaed and forced to give a deposition.

And I don't think a Justice should recuse themselves just because they have expressed a general legal position. Justices have recused themselves because of cases that came up that they had worked on in the lower courts, but I'm not aware of any canon that says a judge or justice isn't allowed to express a legal philosophy prior to appointment.

I think a sitting President can be subject to legal process, but there would be a reasonableness factor applied by a judge that wouldn't be afforded to a normal citizen.

WRT the Supreme Court hearing a case involving whether or not a sitting President had to comply with a subpoena - that would take years and years to get there and once Trump was no longer President, the issue would be moot. Further, like the War Powers Act; neither side really wants a ruling on the matter.

In my world, everyone is equal under the law and the President could be sued and indicted just like anyone else. The Constitution provides for a method of removal from office, but is silent as to judicial punishment. I'm not locked into my position though and could be swayed in either direction.

Well said. “Reasonableness” seems to be lacking now days, but I think it all depends on what is in that referral.

Mueller has no constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment investigation or make an impeachment referral to the House. None whatsoever. Impeachment is a function of the House and the House has not charged him with any such authority. It's a liberal fantasy.

Is that what he said?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Several.

Your time line is seriously off, but nice try.

Care to tell us which ones?

 

[Que]

Care to tell us which ones?

How is "my" timeline off?

Clinton nominated both Ginsberg and Breuer. About 93 and 94.

The timeline is what the timeline is; it isn't my construction. It actually happened during the Clinton presidency. Look it up.

The Clinton presidency started with scandal on day one when they stole confidential FBI files on the outgoing Bush Administration. That took years to untangle when Hillary finally found them accidentally in the back of a coat closet.

 

[Aglaopheme]

How is "my" timeline off?

Clinton nominated both Ginsberg and Breuer. About 93 and 94.

The timeline is what the timeline is; it isn't my construction. It actually happened during the Clinton presidency. Look it up.

The Clinton presidency started with scandal on day one when they stole confidential FBI files on the outgoing Bush Administration. That took years to untangle when Hillary finally found them accidentally in the back of a coat closet.

What investigation were on going? You said that several were.

 

[Que]

What investigation were on going? You said that several were.

How old are you? Were you alive for the Clinto trainwreck?

Recurring complaint of the Clinton White House was that they were constantly under investigation for something. You're unfamiliar with the vast White Ring conspiracy quote from Hillary Clinton whining about it?

Bill and (co-President) Hillary Clinton investigations including the ones that are still on going to this day are interminable because they are experts at deflecting denying and obstructing.

Some like the Vince Foster investigation probably had even less Merit than the Trump collusion investigation.

Whitewater and ties to Mena predated him even winning the first term. Mena seemed a little thin, but it's curious since the Scandal reaches all the way back to the George Herbert Walker Bush administration's CIA it's kind of curious that Clinton didn't open that up on his own once he got into office.

Monica was the absolute least of it. The only reason that he got busted lying about that was because the clintons usually united front and careful messaging fractured because Clinton was busy thinking with his dick and Hillary was being defensive.

 

[toeskr]

it's a shame that a sitting president who is under investigation is allowed to appoint someone who could have a hand in the outcome of said investigation.

Yeah, I was sad when ol bill was under investigation. Then his wife. When will the inhumanity ever end?

 

[toeskr]

And all this time I thought there were 9 Supremes.

When will Rory be here to call Kavanaugh a deplorable?

Well, he did get a final warning.

As his dependable friends, how can we keep him from going over the precipice?

It might be too late.