• 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!

Will Mueller test the theory that a sitting president can not be indicated?

Will Mueller test the theory that a sitting president can not be indicated?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 23 74.2%
  • Other.

    Votes: 4 12.9%

  • Total voters
    31
Whatever way you choose to spin it, Mr Dershowitz is not privy to the facts, and pleadings in this case. Only the prosecutors are.

And he has been clear that his opinion is based on known facts...and the law.

But thank you for dropping your contention that he's a Trump supporter.
 
And he has been clear that his opinion is based on known facts...and the law.

But thank you for dropping your contention that he's a Trump supporter.

I guess you didn't bother to read the Politico article I posted.
 
So...this is the latest nonsense spin being bandied about, eh? Lots of Dem Congresscritters say it...lots of multimedia talking potato heads saying it. You know, "unindicted co-conspirator".

Fact is, he's not.

https://www.mediaite.com/donald-tru...-an-unindicted-co-conspirator-are-just-wrong/

Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis thinks he is...

"...Under federal law, expenditures to protect a candidate's political fortunes can be construed to be campaign contributions, subject to federal laws that bar donations from corporations and set limits on how much can be given.

"If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?" Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, tweeted...."​


What else would you call a co-conspirator to a crime who hasn't been indicted?


"...The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has held that a president cannot be indicted while in office. Trump's lawyers have said that Mueller plans to adhere to that guidance, though Mueller's office has never confirmed that. There would presumably be no bar against charging a president after he leaves the White House...."

https://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Judge-puts-Michael-Cohen-case-firmly-in-13171333.php
 
Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis thinks he is...

"...Under federal law, expenditures to protect a candidate's political fortunes can be construed to be campaign contributions, subject to federal laws that bar donations from corporations and set limits on how much can be given.

"If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?" Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, tweeted...."​


What else would you call a co-conspirator to a crime who hasn't been indicted?


"...The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has held that a president cannot be indicted while in office. Trump's lawyers have said that Mueller plans to adhere to that guidance, though Mueller's office has never confirmed that. There would presumably be no bar against charging a president after he leaves the White House...."

https://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Judge-puts-Michael-Cohen-case-firmly-in-13171333.php

What Trump did wasn't a crime. Heck, if you believe Cohen then what HE did wasn't a crime, either. But if you don't believe Cohen, Trump STILL hasn't committed a crime.

So no...Trump is not a co-conspirator to a crime.
 
What Trump did wasn't a crime. Heck, if you believe Cohen then what HE did wasn't a crime, either. But if you don't believe Cohen, Trump STILL hasn't committed a crime.

So no...Trump is not a co-conspirator to a crime.

One problem with your defense, Cohen has it on tape.
 
Yes or no, will Mueller make a president

I'll say what I've always said on this matter. It's unlikely that Mueller will indict a sitting President and nobody should be holding their breath waiting for it.

That said...it really comes down to Mueller's own frame of mind on this point, something he's hidden from us very, very well. If he's of the frame of mind that his job is solely to compile a report and deliver it to Rosenstein, who will subsequently deliver it to Congress, then no, he will not indict. If, however, his priority is justice, and knowing that a successful removal of the President through impeachment will never happen, then he will believe that it is incumbent on him to indict the President.

But Mueller doesn't keep an online journal, so we'll only know his frame of mind when he ultimately chooses to deliver a report or indict the President (which, I can't emphasize enough, nobody should be holding their breath for).

But here's an important point: There is no outcome in which we get to watch Trump being marched from the White House in handcuffs. That's not only unlikely; it will not happen. But the function of an indictment is that it would prevent Trump from running out the statute of limitations. In that light, indictment may be unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible.
 
Last edited:
Trump conspiring with Cohen to illegally influence the election.

And we have no idea what his other recorded conversations will reveal.
 
Trump conspiring with Cohen to illegally influence the election.

That was over a week ago. In news time in this administration, that happened last decade.
 
If anything really big is revealed the DOJ, et al, the courts may have no choice but to indict.
 
Maybe. Unlikely, unless the situation grows significantly grave.

At the end of the day, if we keep coming back to "the President can do it, but if anyone else does it, it's a crime," on multiple or several cases, that's a significant hole in the U.S. Constitutional order.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

At a certain point, you* have to address just how far the "you-can't-indict-a-sitting-President" argument can be taken once a crime is egregious and obvious enough.

Let's "go there." He shoots a man on live television, takes his wallet and proceeds to laugh maniacally straight into the camera (it need not be said that there is a light shining from below his chin at this point). How sympathetic is the country going to be toward the universal axiom that a sitting President can't be indicted (trump supporters notwithstanding, of course)?


*the rhetorical you
 
How is anything Trump did illegal?



Yesterday, Cohen pled guilty to two counts of campaign finance fraud and he directly implicated Trump both in his testimony and with his secret tape about the hush money.


Like Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis said..."If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?"
 
I'll say what I've always said on this matter. It's unlikely that Mueller will indict a sitting President and nobody should be holding their breath waiting for it.

That said...it really comes down to Mueller's own frame of mind on this point, something he's hidden from us very, very well. If he's of the frame of mind that his job is solely to compile a report and deliver it to Rosenstein, who will subsequently deliver it to Congress, then no, he will not indict. If, however, his priority is justice, and knowing that a successful removal of the President through impeachment will never happen, then he will believe that it is incumbent on him to indict the President.

But Mueller doesn't keep an online journal, so we'll only know his frame of mind when he ultimately chooses to deliver a report or indict the President (which, I can't emphasize enough, nobody should be holding their breath for).

But here's an important point: There is no outcome in which we get to watch Trump being marched from the White House in handcuffs. That's not only unlikely; it will not happen. But the function of an indictment is that it would prevent Trump from running out the statute of limitations. In that light, indictment may be unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible.

Well stated with one caveat, I can see a perp walk the day he relinquishes power.
 
At a certain point, you* have to address just how far the "you-can't-indict-a-sitting-President" argument can be taken once a crime is egregious and obvious enough.

Let's "go there." He shoots a man on live television, takes his wallet and proceeds to laugh maniacally straight into the camera (it need not be said that there is a light shining from below his chin at this point). How sympathetic is the country going to be toward the universal axiom that a sitting President can't be indicted (trump supporters notwithstanding, of course)?


*the rhetorical you

My point exactly, if Mueller is convinced that trump gained office by committing crimes and possibly treason to do so, I am of the opinion that it would be time to clarify the law...
 
Well stated with one caveat, I can see a perp walk the day he relinquishes power.

Hopefully when he walks to the helicopter to leave DC on Jan. 20, 2021.
 
How is anything Trump did illegal?

Why do cult trumpists insist on asking questions that have been clearly answered over and over again?

Is that their last and final straw, asking dumb questions that they already know the answer to???
 
Back
Top Bottom