• 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

Lutherf said:
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".
Click to expand...

LOL how naive can you be? You think ANYONE working for The Don will ever contradict him? HAHAHAHAH. When the Don asks/suggests something, then it is and always has been an order.
 
OscarLevant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pence is no Trump and they know it. So do you , so quit the BS.

That is OT anyway. you have unwittingly proved my point and made a solid case against your position. You want professional jurors and we already have that with judges. You suggest a professional jury selected by humans and don't understand that is what we have in congress and the senate. ALL of the Democrats and all except one RINO voted for acquittal. If we can't get impartiality in the highest offices in the land, how aree we going to get it with your "impartial" professional jurists.

We supposedly had a check on a rogue CiA and FBI conducting illegal investigations, so they had to go to FISA court. Some liberal FISA judges there rubber stamped these "professionals" warrants
 
snakestretcher said:
No, he should never comment or interfere in any way with legal proceedings; especially with a judiciary which is supposed to be impartial and immune from politically or personally-motivated interference. That isn't his job; and tweeting leads, quite rightly, to accusations of coercion and/or corruption.
Click to expand...

The problem with "never" is that the president is constitutionally enumerated to "take care" that laws are enforced.
So a president does have an obligation if, in his judgement, to interfere if such is not happening.
Its a tough balancing act.
But clearly he shouldn't be tweeting about it.
 
snakestretcher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Barr isn't a judge. He is the attorney-general, appointed by the president, with the consent of the Senate to assist the president in executing his constitutional responsibilities to take care that the laws are enforced.
The corresponding position in the UK is probably held by an MP who was picked by the PM
 
Paradoxical said:
Pence is no Trump and they know it. So do you , so quit the BS.

That is OT anyway. you have unwittingly proved my point and made a solid case against your position. You want professional jurors and we already have that with judges. You suggest a professional jury selected by humans and don't understand that is what we have in congress and the senate. ALL of the Democrats and all except one RINO voted for acquittal. If we can't get impartiality in the highest offices in the land, how aree we going to get it with your "impartial" professional jurists.

We supposedly had a check on a rogue CiA and FBI conducting illegal investigations, so they had to go to FISA court. Some liberal FISA judges there rubber stamped these "professionals" warrants
Click to expand...

LOL! The IG report came out in December. There were no illegal investigations and the origins of the investigations were proven legit. The CIA and the FBI were not found to be 'rogue'.

Always happy to help.
 
AmNat said:
The DOJ is part of the executive branch.
Click to expand...

If you read the supplied text that doesn't mean that the POTUS is constitutionally permitted to put his fingers on the scale of justice in a way that influences the outcome. He is to stay out of the workings of the courts. The AG is not not to be acting as the POTUS personal lawyer in the manner that Barr has been doing.
 
Many people in this thread either don’t know or actively want authoritarianism.

Pretenders that believe in “rights” and “the constitution”.

All of them.
 
Lisa said:
If you read the supplied text that doesn't mean that the POTUS is constitutionally permitted to put his fingers on the scale of justice in a way that influences the outcome. He is to stay out of the workings of the courts. The AG is not not to be acting as the POTUS personal lawyer in the manner that Barr has been doing.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure Trump will give it all the consideration it warrants.
 
AmNat said:
Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure Trump will give it all the consideration it warrants.
Click to expand...

That is from the Federalist Papers and constitutional law precedent. This is why Obama didn't do it because he knew that it wasn't permitted due to the fact that he taught Con'law.

Federalist Papers - Federalist, No. 78, And The Power Of The Judiciary - Hamilton, Constitution, People, and Government
- JRank Articles

Donald Trump doesn't know from Shinola and his followers are more uninformed on the US Constitution than he is so they go along with his nonsense.
 
Lutherf said:
From the article linked in the OP -



Trump is right. He can ask Barr to intervene. He can not, lawfully, order Barr to intervene.
Click to expand...

Sooo,when exactly did "lawfully" mean **** to trump?!?
 
Paradoxical said:
Pence is no Trump and they know it. So do you , so quit the BS.

That is OT anyway. you have unwittingly proved my point and made a solid case against your position. You want professional jurors and we already have that with judges. You suggest a professional jury selected by humans and don't understand that is what we have in congress and the senate. ALL of the Democrats and all except one RINO voted for acquittal. If we can't get impartiality in the highest offices in the land, how aree we going to get it with your "impartial" professional jurists.

We supposedly had a check on a rogue CiA and FBI conducting illegal investigations, so they had to go to FISA court. Some liberal FISA judges there rubber stamped these "professionals" warrants
Click to expand...


Liberal fisa nudges:lamo:lamo:lamo

Liberal judges squash warrant if they appear weak...
 
GDViking said:
He let off McCabe because try and try again be could not make a case and that was just about to become public...
Click to expand...

Lying 4 times if you hate Trump is cool.
 
Lisa said:
That is from the Federalist Papers and constitutional law precedent. This is why Obama didn't do it because he knew that it wasn't permitted due to the fact that he taught Con'law.

Federalist Papers - Federalist, No. 78, And The Power Of The Judiciary - Hamilton, Constitution, People, and Government
- JRank Articles

Donald Trump doesn't know from Shinola and his followers are more uninformed on the US Constitution than he is so they go along with his nonsense.
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, the DOJ is not part of the judicial branch.

Your ignorance of civics does not reflect on Donald Trump or his supporters.

GDViking said:
Supposedly "independent" branch...
Click to expand...

There is no statute or constitutional provision which immunizes the DOJ from the authority of the President.
 
Paradoxical said:
You mean like the Senate Democrats who all voted to enact a coup on Trump? That sort of a fair "Parliament"?
Click to expand...

Do you know what a coup d'etat is? Clearly not. Here, allow me to help you out:

Coup d'etat - Wikipedia

There was nothing violent, illegal, un-democratic or unconstitutional about the impeachment process. It was all done following well-established protocols. Of course do feel free to point out any of the above if you believe I'm mistaken.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
Do you know what a coup d'etat is? Clearly not. Here, allow me to help you out:

Coup d'etat - Wikipedia

There was nothing violent, illegal, un-democratic or unconstitutional about the impeachment process. It was all done following well-established protocols. Of course do feel free to point out any of the above if you believe I'm mistaken.
Click to expand...

An attempted overthrow of a duly elected president through nefarious means (we've gone over this before) is a coup. I don't want to have to retype about Vindman knowing Ciaramelli, Mark Zaid and Adam Schiff,ALL of whom vowed back in 2017 to destroy (impeach) Trump.
 
Paradoxical said:
An attempted overthrow of a duly elected president through nefarious means (we've gone over this before) is a coup. I don't want to have to retype about Vindman knowing Ciaramelli, Mark Zaid and Adam Schiff,ALL of whom vowed back in 2017 to destroy (impeach) Trump.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't anything like a coup if democratic and constitutional procedures are observed, as they were. You can argue as long as you want, but it won't change the facts. Who cares who said what to whom and when; that has no bearing whatsoever on a process which was carried out legally and constitutionally. You know this. And in any case why the hell do you care? Your precious Donald was cleared, right?
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
No, it isn't anything like a coup if democratic and constitutional procedures are observed, as they were. You can argue as long as you want, but it won't change the facts. Who cares who said what to whom and when; that has no bearing whatsoever on a process which was carried out legally and constitutionally. You know this. And in any case why the hell do you care? Your precious Donald was cleared, right?
Click to expand...

It cost us tax dollars and evil people like Schiff and Mark Zaid need to be slapped down
 
Paradoxical said:
An attempted overthrow of a duly elected president through nefarious means (we've gone over this before) is a coup. I don't want to have to retype about Vindman knowing Ciaramelli, Mark Zaid and Adam Schiff,ALL of whom vowed back in 2017 to destroy (impeach) Trump.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The House has the sole Power of Impeachment. The right wing has nothing but bigotry for foreign policy. We know what the Senate has voted to be socially acceptable behavior for the chief magistrate of the Union and that high Office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom