• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office

HumblePi said:
It's truly sickening and disgusting how people will argue to their last breath to defend criminals. You make Manafort sound as though he robbed a candy store. JHC
Click to expand...

The man's crimes have nothing to do with a conspiracy involving the2016 election. He was not Trumps bagman for Putin. The guy worked as a rep for the Ukraine for petes sake, not Russia.
That is the simple fact of the matter.

And there are no secret indictments on him in a DC courtroom. Mueller is finished with him.

And the reality is that Manafort is of general interest because of his supposed link to collusion and the whole story that Trump & Co. conspired with Russia. Think anyone would spend months talking about some random guy charged with tax fraud? Nobody cares.
 
joko104 said:
Schiff should be indicted for being a Russian spy, sexual assault and child pornography on the same level of evidence Trump should be indicted for violating campaign laws and bank fraud.
Click to expand...
Fascinating slander you have printed here.
Any facts to back up this litany of felonies that you have accused here?
We'll wait for your copious list of evidence.
Do be quick about it - it must be a fascinating read for us all!!
 
GDViking said:
Well he is responsible for more deaths than Dahlmer...
Click to expand...
He is? Exactly how many people did Paul Manafort kill because I must have missed it? That's just nuts. Manafort is a tax cheating scumbag but not a cannibalizing psychopathic murder.
 
roguenuke said:
The law allows a potential criminal to remain in office when it comes to the office of the President. It is simply part of how our government works. If the President commits a minor crime, they cannot be charged with that minor crime.

This is much more about recognizing reality, practicality. Especially when so many conservatives are defending this President, including when they disagree with what he is doing, due to party politics. It is just as important to be cognizant of what it takes to get a person impeached, who can do it, and the likelihood of being able to actually get that President impeached (which would be required before any charges could be filed). Out of 45 Presidents, none have been through an impeachment that resulted in their being removed from office. Barring some serious evidence, far beyond any question of doubt, it isn't likely since the impeachment trial itself would take place in the Senate, not the House. There is some high bias for the President in the Senate. It would be stupid to ignore partisanship that could ignore any sort of evidence that might exist against the President. It is happening now.
Click to expand...

By "bias for the President" you mean unwilling to convict a man of a crime based upon "evidence that might exist" but not yet discovered. Thats a good bias.
 
Lutherf said:
So this is an admission that the Democrats are merely making political hay out of the whole thing? I mean, if the crime isn't serious enough to kick the guy out of office then why is it serious enough to prosecute him with when he gets out?
Click to expand...

Because the President is held to a different standard, while in office. That isn't that hard to figure out.

Lying under oath is a good example. Obstruction of justice. Clinton was proven to have lied under oath, something that many people, even in office, have been convicted of. Half of the Senate said that Clinton was guilty of obstruction of justice. However, it was determined even under that impeachment hearing that these were not crimes serious enough to put the President out of office and putting him on trial twice for the same crime could violate double jeopardy.

There has to be some practical considerations even when it comes to prosecuting someone like the President, and some of those considerations are how much justice would there be in rushing a trial to get him out of office that could easily be obstructing for party politics in the Senate, something we absolutely have seen happen from Senate Republicans. We have Senators who have said flat out that they don't like at all what the President is doing with the National Emergency to build the wall and that he shouldn't do it, looking for ways to stop other Presidents in the future from doing the exact same thing, and that the only reason they voted against the resolution to stop the Emergency declaration was solidarity to the President rather than what is good for the country. Why should anyone believe that they wouldn't base any impeachment decision on Party politics rather than actually based on what evidence is presented?
 
dixon01767 said:
By "bias for the President" you mean unwilling to convict a man of a crime based upon "evidence that might exist" but not yet discovered. Thats a good bias.
Click to expand...

The Republicans in the Senate have shown already that they would vote with the President even when they think what he is doing is wrong. I am very proud of those who voted for the Resolution yesterday, but many others showed that Party politics is very important to them, regardless of evidence or what is good for the country.
 
Mycroft said:
Schiffty still trying to influence public opinion with unsupported nonsense.

Oh...wait...it IS supported nonsense. Supported by Cohen. LOL!!
Click to expand...

Its not "unsupported non-sense", he is already named (as Individual One)as an unindicted co-conspirator in an existing criminal matter before the court. Though not specifically charged, to have been so named likely rises to the FEDS indictment standard that conviction is reasonably assured. The POTUS already is in trouble legally with the FEDS.
 
roguenuke said:
The Republicans in the Senate have shown already that they would vote with the President even when they think what he is doing is wrong. I am very proud of those who voted for the Resolution yesterday, but many others showed that Party politics is very important to them, regardless of evidence or what is good for the country.
Click to expand...

Who voted against the resolution even though they thought it was wrong. AND believing it is "wrong" isnt a belief that it is illegal.
 
upsideguy said:
Its not "unsupported non-sense", he is already named (as Individual One)as an unindicted co-conspirator in an existing criminal matter before the court. Though not specifically charged, to have been so named likely rises to the FEDS indictment standard that conviction is reasonably assured. The POTUS already is in trouble legally with the FEDS.
Click to expand...

???? uh, no he is not. It only states he “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”
 
JacksinPA said:
Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office | TheHill

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that President Trump should probably be indicted once he leaves the White House for his alleged role in campaign finance law violations and bank fraud.

Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last year to multiple crimes he says he carried out at Trump's behest, though most legal experts agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
==================================
If he gets reelected, he may be able to avoid this via the statute of limitations But if he loses next year, all bets are off.
Click to expand...
So should Hilarity, but you saw how that worked out....
 
dixon01767 said:
Who voted against the resolution even though they thought it was wrong. AND believing it is "wrong" isnt a belief that it is illegal.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be illegal to vote that it should not be in place.

My own Senator, Thom Tilllis. He said that he felt it was wrong what the President did, yet voted against the resolution to end the National Emergency. I am absolutely disappointed.

Thom Tillis votes to support Trump on national emergency | Raleigh News & Observer

What changed was party politics, talks with certain Republicans that basically had him scared of party rebuke rather than any actual change in what was going on.

Guess who won't be getting my vote.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Its not "unsupported non-sense", he is already named (as Individual One)as an unindicted co-conspirator in an existing criminal matter before the court. Though not specifically charged, to have been so named likely rises to the FEDS indictment standard that conviction is reasonably assured. The POTUS already is in trouble legally with the FEDS.
Click to expand...

At the word of Cohen. LOL!!

So...let's get some federal DA with a humongous set of balls to indict him. Then we can see that DA ruin their career.
 
upsideguy said:
Its not "unsupported non-sense", he is already named (as Individual One)as an unindicted co-conspirator in an existing criminal matter before the court. Though not specifically charged, to have been so named likely rises to the FEDS indictment standard that conviction is reasonably assured. The POTUS already is in trouble legally with the FEDS.
Click to expand...

Trump is definitely in legal jeopardy as Individual 1.

However--- to say there is reasonable conviction in his future isn't valid. Cohen never contested the election law allegation he pled to. And Trump has a very good argument to make about such an allegation from his end.
 
SLC said:
:lol: FYI I was never a birther. Nice try but no Kewpie doll Vern. :lol: And no one is angry I'm just amused. I notice you didn't offer evidence that I was wrong you just resorted to a ridiculous ad hominem attack. Just shows how desperate you are.
Click to expand...

Just so you know every conservative at this forum deny they were a birther (except Marke, he still is). Its hard to believe you not only because I’ve proven two at this forum were lying but also because about half of conservatives were birthers. So there is a 50 50 chance you’re were. But that’s fine you claim you weren’t. But how funny is it you're insulted that I accused you of believing an official lying conservative narrative. Why aren't you mad at the conservative media for lying and the 50% of conservatives who were gullible fools?

Anyhoo, I don’t have to “disprove” your ramblings. Its a debate forum. You make a point and back it up. And fyi, I did correct your false narrative about the senate. They only said “no direct evidence”. There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. Like Trump changing the republican platform on Ukraine as predicted by the Steele Dossier. Just remember, half of conservatives were birthers based on no evidence.
 
JacksinPA said:
Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office | TheHill

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that President Trump should probably be indicted once he leaves the White House for his alleged role in campaign finance law violations and bank fraud.

Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last year to multiple crimes he says he carried out at Trump's behest, though most legal experts agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
==================================
If he gets reelected, he may be able to avoid this via the statute of limitations But if he loses next year, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

First, Schiff is a partisan hack. Second, even Schiff says "probably". This is all the left has ever had, a bunch of ifs, buts, maybes, could haves, might haves, may haves, and probablies.
 
Vern said:
Just so you know every conservative at this forum deny they were a birther (except Marke, he still is). Its hard to believe you not only because I’ve proven two at this forum were lying but also because about half of conservatives were birthers. So there is a 50 50 chance you’re were. But that’s fine you claim you weren’t. But how funny is it you're insulted that I accused you of believing an official lying conservative narrative. Why aren't you mad at the conservative media for lying and the 50% of conservatives who were gullible fools?

Anyhoo, I don’t have to “disprove” your ramblings. Its a debate forum. You make a point and back it up. And fyi, I did correct your false narrative about the senate. They only said “no direct evidence”. There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. Like Trump changing the republican platform on Ukraine as predicted by the Steele Dossier. Just remember, half of conservatives were birthers based on no evidence.
Click to expand...

The birther issue began from a blurb on Barack Obama's autobiography- reasonable people sort of assume the accuracy of autobiographies.

The publisher quickly confessed that the error was his.
It percolated for a while as Obama refused to release his birth certificate. It died down a bit when his birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers was shown. Subsequently, Obama released his birth certificate.
And that was it. It vanished as an issue.
Trump made a splash around 2010 making certain claims about which we never heard about again.

It should be pointed out that McCain also faced his own "birthed" controversy as well.
 
Vern said:
Just so you know every conservative at this forum deny they were a birther (except Marke, he still is). Its hard to believe you not only because I’ve proven two at this forum were lying but also because about half of conservatives were birthers. So there is a 50 50 chance you’re were. But that’s fine you claim you weren’t. But how funny is it you're insulted that I accused you of believing an official lying conservative narrative. Why aren't you mad at the conservative media for lying and the 50% of conservatives who were gullible fools?

Anyhoo, I don’t have to “disprove” your ramblings. Its a debate forum. You make a point and back it up. And fyi, I did correct your false narrative about the senate. They only said “no direct evidence”. There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. Like Trump changing the republican platform on Ukraine as predicted by the Steele Dossier. Just remember, half of conservatives were birthers based on no evidence.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that I’m lying to you?
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't have to be illegal to vote that it should not be in place.

My own Senator, Thom Tilllis. He said that he felt it was wrong what the President did, yet voted against the resolution to end the National Emergency. I am absolutely disappointed.

Thom Tillis votes to support Trump on national emergency | Raleigh News & Observer

What changed was party politics, talks with certain Republicans that basically had him scared of party rebuke rather than any actual change in what was going on.

Guess who won't be getting my vote.
Click to expand...

He doesnt say it was "wrong" in the article.
 
dixon01767 said:
???? uh, no he is not. It only states he “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself (as you appear to be doing_ If you "....acted in coordination with and at the direction of.....", you are involved, by definition, in a conspiracy and the parties involved co-conspirators... If you commit a crime at the direction of another, that other is culpable.

Lieu: Trump is ‘essentially an unindicted co-conspirator’ in Cohen case | TheHill


Did Trump Just Move a Step Closer to Unindicted Co-conspirator? - POLITICO Magazine

From Politico article:

The conclusion reached by Judge Pauley, federal prosecutors and U.S. Probation was based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning that they concluded it is more likely than not that Trump directed Cohen to commit a crime. That is well below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal trial.


".....The conclusion reached by Judge Pauley, federal prosecutors and U.S. Probation was based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning that they concluded it is more likely than not that Trump directed Cohen to commit a crime. That is well below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal trial...."

Mycroft said:
At the word of Cohen. LOL!!

So...let's get some federal DA with a humongous set of balls to indict him. Then we can see that DA ruin their career.
Click to expand...

The word of Cohen has nothing to do with it. Do you not get that Cohen only provides the thread to pull the evidence together. Anything he says is independently verified.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Don't kid yourself (as you appear to be doing_ If you "....acted in coordination with and at the direction of.....", you are involved, by definition, in a conspiracy and the parties involved co-conspirators... If you commit a crime at the direction of another, that other is culpable.

Lieu: Trump is ‘essentially an unindicted co-conspirator’ in Cohen case | TheHill


Did Trump Just Move a Step Closer to Unindicted Co-conspirator? - POLITICO Magazine

From Politico article:

The conclusion reached by Judge Pauley, federal prosecutors and U.S. Probation was based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning that they concluded it is more likely than not that Trump directed Cohen to commit a crime. That is well below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal trial.


".....The conclusion reached by Judge Pauley, federal prosecutors and U.S. Probation was based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning that they concluded it is more likely than not that Trump directed Cohen to commit a crime. That is well below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal trial...."



The word of Cohen has nothing to do with it. Do you not get that Cohen only provides the thread to pull the evidence together. Anything he says is independently verified.
Click to expand...

Well, the first hurdle to jump would be whether Cohen was directed by Trump. Which would seem plausible on the face of it-- why would Cohen give his own money to the girls and why would he be paid back?

The second hurdle would be whether such payments were in fact illegal. There is a pretty strong argument that they were not.

The third hurdle is if in fact it was illegal, whether Trump knew it was illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom