• 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!

Trump claims he has 'legal right' to intervene in criminal cases

How many criminal federal cases did Holder get involved in? Advancing Obama's policies has nothing to do with meddling in criminal prosecution. Apples and oranges.

A tweet is not getting involved. Both Barr and Trump have never discussed the case, although he could have.

What did Holder mean about being Obama's wing man? What happened in the Fast and Furious case?

PLEASE, I beg you..STOP listening to MSNBC
 
Asking as a President is the same as ordering..

Sent from my Honor 8X

No, it isn't. Asking your people to look into something is in no way the same as telling them to take a specific action. Something like "I think Roger Stone is being treated unfairly and I'd like you to look into the sentencing recommendation" means Barr could come back with "The recommendation is appropriate because of A, B and C" or "I looked at the recommendation and it does seem to be excessive for the following reasons".
 
A tweet is not getting involved. Both Barr and Trump have never discussed the case, although he could have.

What did Holder mean about being Obama's wing man? What happened in the Fast and Furious case?

PLEASE, I beg you..STOP listening to MSNBC

Of course it's getting involved. Don't you understand how much influence your president exerts-especially in a case involving a personal associate? He needs to stay well away from the judiciary and, as Barr said in no uncertain terms, allow him to get on with his job without interference.
 
Of course it's getting involved. Don't you understand how much influence your president exerts-especially in a case involving a personal associate? He needs to stay well away from the judiciary and, as Barr said in no uncertain terms, allow him to get on with his job without interference.

Barr is not one to be influenced, unlike "wing man" Holder
 
Barr is not one to be influenced, unlike "wing man" Holder

Really? So why was he hand-picked by Trump instead of by a wholly independent committee as we have in England? No, your judges are appointed because they are perceived as politically sympathetic to whoever is in power. That is fundamentally wrong.
 
Really? So why was he hand-picked by Trump instead of by a wholly independent committee as we have in England? No, your judges are appointed because they are perceived as politically sympathetic to whoever is in power. That is fundamentally wrong.

I suppose Obama only appointed people he was philosophically opposed to.
 
I suppose Obama only appointed people he was philosophically opposed to.

I have no idea. Do you? Whatever, the system is tainted and is in no way independent-as it should be. NO judiciary, anywhere, should operate at the behest of politicians.
 
I have no idea. Do you? Whatever, the system is tainted and is in no way independent-as it should be. NO judiciary, anywhere, should operate at the behest of politicians.

It does. Why do you think liberal states search for the most liberal judges to over rule Trump?
 
A tweet is not getting involved. Both Barr and Trump have never discussed the case, although he could have.

What did Holder mean about being Obama's wing man? What happened in the Fast and Furious case?

PLEASE, I beg you..STOP listening to MSNBC

Trump has NO credibility in telling the truth and Barr is quickly catching up to him. And you need to stop listening to Fox News. There is a reason more Americans watch NBC News than any other news organization in the world. Because their trusted certainly more than Fox.

People used to ask me which beer is the best beer in the world. The answer is simple. Budweiser sells more beer worldwide that all other beer makers combined. Case closed.
 
Trump claims he has 'legal right' to intervene in criminal cases | US news | The Guardian

President reasserts his right to tweet on judicial issues following William Barr’s warning the posts ‘make it impossible for me to do my job’

Donald Trump has ignored a plea from his attorney general, William Barr, to not tweet about ongoing legal cases, by using his Twitter account to say he has a “legal right” to do so.

Barr delivered a remarkable public rebuke of the president just hours earlier, saying that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job” and that he would not be “bullied or influenced” over justice department decisions.
==========================================================
I wonder how many hours Barr has left before he is shown the door.

Trump has never read the Constitution. That's obvious. For him to claim total executive power over all branches of the Government is a lot more than an overreach. It's him thinking he is a king.

The right wing is all for that, over our Constitution.
 
It's wrong. Period.

We do not live in some idealistic utopian world. We live in a real world and not one of some imagination of an idealist of how heaven would be. We must deal with reality. Not theory and conjecture. A socialist thinks that the world would be a much better place if everyone were equal and everyone worked for the good of their neighbors and no one was ever hungry or in need. They don't think it through that it would be pure hell if such a reality existed.

We listened to three constitutional scholars in the impeachment hearings. Do you think that the team who wanted to destroy Trump and still does picked two of those scholars" because they were independent? No, they picked them because they interviewed them extensively and KNEW going in that they would say that even though there was no crime, Trump could still be impeached.

Now, you would say you agree with them and because you agree with their ideology, that they must be correct in their opinions. Ask yourself what sort of judges YOU would pick if you were the leader of the United States. If you were Obama, you would pick VERY liberal federal judges and of course, supreme court justices. Even at that, you would assert that they would rule on cases based on what the aw or constitution says. If you were Trump, you would say they very same thing. But you and I know this is a lie. They pick judges who they know based on their previous history would likely vote the way they want them to.

When attorneys have major injury cases, they search for doctors and experts that will side with them. The same facts and yet two experts, one on each side, drawing different conclusions.

This is the way America works. Want "utopia"? How about professional jurors instead of average citizens. How do you know how those jurors would rule? What if they thought the most minor crime should be jail time? Contrarily, what if they thought even a murderer should get a second chance and just serve probation?

There will NEVER be equal justice, equality or fairness. It cannot be legislated. It only comes from the heart.
 
We do not live in some idealistic utopian world. We live in a real world and not one of some imagination of an idealist of how heaven would be. We must deal with reality. Not theory and conjecture. A socialist thinks that the world would be a much better place if everyone were equal and everyone worked for the good of their neighbors and no one was ever hungry or in need. They don't think it through that it would be pure hell if such a reality existed.

We listened to three constitutional scholars in the impeachment hearings. Do you think that the team who wanted to destroy Trump and still does picked two of those scholars" because they were independent? No, they picked them because they interviewed them extensively and KNEW going in that they would say that even though there was no crime, Trump could still be impeached.

Now, you would say you agree with them and because you agree with their ideology, that they must be correct in their opinions. Ask yourself what sort of judges YOU would pick if you were the leader of the United States. If you were Obama, you would pick VERY liberal federal judges and of course, supreme court justices. Even at that, you would assert that they would rule on cases based on what the aw or constitution says. If you were Trump, you would say they very same thing. But you and I know this is a lie. They pick judges who they know based on their previous history would likely vote the way they want them to.

When attorneys have major injury cases, they search for doctors and experts that will side with them. The same facts and yet two experts, one on each side, drawing different conclusions.

This is the way America works. Want "utopia"? How about professional jurors instead of average citizens. How do you know how those jurors would rule? What if they thought the most minor crime should be jail time? Contrarily, what if they thought even a murderer should get a second chance and just serve probation?

There will NEVER be equal justice, equality or fairness. It cannot be legislated. It only comes from the heart.

I wouldn't "pick" judges, so there's that. An independent committee made up of his peers should do the 'picking', not some short-term politician who has the power to appoint a judge for life. How is that ever fair? Justice is blind. Why do you think she wears a symbolic blindfold?
 
I wouldn't "pick" judges, so there's that. An independent committee made up of his peers should do the 'picking', not some short-term politician who has the power to appoint a judge for life. How is that ever fair? Justice is blind. Why do you think she wears a symbolic blindfold?

What happens when the "independent committee" becomes partisan and picks primarily conservative candidates? Do you think that just because they have status and recognition, that they would be impartial?

Would you have a committee to review the committee. Perhaps like the FISA court ruling on going after Trump when the committee (FBI agents) bring them bogus information?
 
What happens when the "independent committee" becomes partisan and picks primarily conservative candidates? Do you think that just because they have status and recognition, that they would be impartial?

Would you have a committee to review the committee. Perhaps like the FISA court ruling on going after Trump when the committee (FBI agents) bring them bogus information?

I don't deal in strawmen or 'what if?'
 
I don't deal in strawmen or 'what if?'

So, you don't like facts that are based on reality and not theory. This is the way it is with liberals. They live in a dreamland' not a real one.

I have already proven that humans pick those people who mesh with their ideology. Any committee would have to be picked. Who does the picking?
 
Both Bar and Senator McConnell have told Trump to stop the tweeting.
 
So, you don't like facts that are based on reality and not theory. This is the way it is with liberals. They live in a dreamland' not a real one.

I have already proven that humans pick those people who mesh with their ideology. Any committee would have to be picked. Who does the picking?

You presented me with an "if". That is the epitome of "dreamland". Not reality. In England the committee self-selects and presents its recommendation to Parliament for approval. There is no one person doing the picking and appointing. That is what we call 'impartiality'. You may have heard of it.
 
You presented me with an "if". That is the epitome of "dreamland". Not reality. In England the committee self-selects and presents its recommendation to Parliament for approval. There is no one person doing the picking and appointing. That is what we call 'impartiality'. You may have heard of it.

You mean like the Senate Democrats who all voted to enact a coup on Trump? That sort of a fair "Parliament"?
 
Of course he has a right to comment on any case he chooses.

"A remarkable public rebuke"? :lamo

Your commentary is as lame as it is wrong.


But, has any AG or judge will tell you, when the president does that he runs the risk of tainting the jury, giving defendent's council the legitimate position of demanding a mistrial.

Just because it's legal for the president to do it, doesn't mean it's wise.

It just isn't. But, when it comes to wisdom, with Trump, it seems to be in short supply.
 
The headline is not supported by the facts presented in the article.

Trump does have a right to free expression. Just because he is allowed to express himself, such expression in and of itself does not equate to a Presidential "order." There is no "intervention" just because he tweets an opinion.

I don't know why people think that just because one holds office, they lose all rights to free expression.

In fact, I prefer they express themselves as freely as they wish, much like I prefer that hate groups of any stripe continue expressing themselves openly.

I want to KNOW what such people think. How else to make an informed decision about how to respond and/or react to them?

from another comment I made:

... when the president does that [commenting on ongoing cases ] he runs the risk of tainting the jury, giving defendant's council the legitimate position of demanding a mistrial.

Just because it's legal for the president to do it, doesn't mean it's wise.
 
You mean like the Senate Democrats who all voted to enact a coup on Trump? That sort of a fair "Parliament"?

You can't ask a question with a false premise, even a rhetorical one.


Even if the president were removed via impeachment, Pence would assume the presidency, and repubs will therefore still control the executive branch and the senate. Therefore, it cannot be even remotely equated with "coup', which is a violent take over by opposition.

Therefore, your premise is 100% false.
 
You need to learn the concept of 2 very important words. Judicial independence.

The DOJ is part of the executive branch.
 
Back
Top Bottom