Ken Starr: "The President can be Indicted"

[Jonathan]

According to Ken Starr...everyone...is under the law.

And he's correct imo, the President should not be
above the law. I'm sure the Trumpians here would
disagree.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>According to Ken Starr...everyone...is under the law.
>

He's not a judge, either.

>
>And he's correct imo, the President should not be
>above the law. I'm sure the Trumpians here would
>disagree.
>

I'm sure you're wrong. And it would be the wrong order of things in
any event. So you indict the sitting President. He's still President
even if you find him guilty, since the only way to remove him is via
the impeachment process. So after you convict him you start the
impeachment process. Meanwhile, he pardons himself for whatever he
was convicted of before you can remove him from office.

That's why you need to impeach first. And of course first you need to
find a crime.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[Andrew Swallow]

"The President ... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of
Impeachment."

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

[Jonathan]

On 10/7/2017 4:03 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> According to Ken Starr...everyone...is under the law.
>>
>
> He's not a judge, either.
>
>>
>> And he's correct imo, the President should not be
>> above the law. I'm sure the Trumpians here would
>> disagree.
>>
>
> I'm sure you're wrong. And it would be the wrong order of things in
> any event. So you indict the sitting President. He's still President
> even if you find him guilty, since the only way to remove him is via
> the impeachment process. So after you convict him you start the
> impeachment process. Meanwhile, he pardons himself for whatever he
> was convicted of before you can remove him from office.
>

I seriously doubt it would get beyond indictment, I can't
see a trial taking place, but once an indictment exists
it would put great pressure on Congress to impeach.

And given the rapidly deteriorating relationship between
Trump and the republicans, they may wish to cut ties
to save the next election.


Trumps anti-republican tweets today alone
are below, he sounds like a spoiled child at best.
This is the guy with his finger on the button and
hinting war is just around the corner.


Corker is a republican btw who voted....against the
Iran deal, I'm not sure Trump knows that.




Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
More
Senator Bob Corker "begged" me to endorse him for re-election in
Tennessee. I said "NO" and he dropped out (said he could not win without...



Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 9h9 hours ago
More
..my endorsement). He also wanted to be Secretary of State, I said "NO
THANKS." He is also largely responsible for the horrendous Iran Deal!



Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 9h9 hours ago
More
...Hence, I would fully expect Corker to be a negative voice and stand
in the way of our great agenda. Didn't have the guts to run!



Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
More
Bob Corker gave us the Iran Deal, & that's about it. We need HealthCare,
we need Tax Cuts/Reform, we need people that can get the job done!





And the other day he wooed the dems...




Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump Oct 7
More
I called Chuck Schumer yesterday to see if the Dems want to do a great
HealthCare Bill. ObamaCare is badly broken, big premiums. Who knows!

> That's why you need to impeach first. And of course first you need to
> find a crime.
>

Don't worry about that, rumors are he's been money laundering
for Putin's oligarchs, and his German bank only gave his
empire loans since Russia guaranteed the loans.

Hence Trump's unending loyalty to Putin.

And Manifort is going down hard, he can't count on a pardon
since a pardon only protects him from federal crimes and
a couple dozen states could be lining up charges too.

And did you hear about how Trump bought his way out of
open and shut felony fraud charges against Ivanka
and Donald jr?

If Ivanka is dirty you can bet Trump is times ten.

Remember the last step in the investigation is
for Trump to be called to testify under oath
as Clinton was. And the investigations aren't
even close to that point. At least another year
or so before we know if charges are coming.




IVANKA AND DONALD TRUMP JR. WERE INVESTIGATED FOR FELONY FRAUD
Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s former lead counsel on the Russia investigation,
helped to get them off.

As The New York Times reported last year, the two Trump siblings had
been quoted in 2008 and 2009 as saying that about 6 in 10 units had been
sold, when the true percentage was about a third of that figure—one of
several misleading statements that led a group of unhappy buyers to sue
in 2010. The following year, Donald Trump settled the civil case, with
defendants returning 90 percent of buyers’ deposits in exchange for an
agreement not to cooperate with a parallel criminal investigation being
pursued by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Without any
witnesses, District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. ultimately dropped the
criminal case.

In one email, according to four people who have seen it, the Trumps
discussed how to coordinate false information they had given to
prospective buyers. In another, according to a person who read the
emails, they worried that a reporter might be onto them. In yet another,
Donald Jr. spoke reassuringly to a broker who was concerned about the
false statements, saying that nobody would ever find out, because only
people on the email chain or in the Trump Organization knew about the
deception, according to a person who saw the email.

What wasn’t made public at the time, was how close prosecutors were to
bringing felony fraud charges against Ivanka and Donald Jr. According to
a new report by ProPublica, the two Trump children were under
investigation by the Major Economic Crimes Bureau for misleading
investors who bought property at the Trump SoHo. “They knew it was
wrong,” said one person who saw e-mails in which Ivanka and Donny
discussed inflating sales figures.

Prosecutors were considering convening a grand jury, which defense
lawyers feared would lead to a criminal indictment. Enter longtime Trump
lawyer Marc Kasowitz, who recently represented the president in special
counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe before leaving the White House
legal team in July. Unbeknownst to the prosecution team at the time was
the fact that Kasowitz, according to ProPublica, had made a $25,000
donation to (District Att) Vance’s re-election campaign, one of the
largest donations at the time.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/ivanka-and-donald-trump-jr-were-investigated-for-felony-fraud














>

[Jonathan]

Trump can only pardon federal crimes, and many states especially
Trump's home state of NY are going to be charging too, and
Trump can't pardon himself.

I've read Trump can't pardon witnesses against him or
potential co-conspirators to keep them silent.
That would be abuse of power.

He may pardon his staff that are charged, but that pardon
would go straight to the Supreme Court to determine
it's legality.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/7/2017 4:03 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> According to Ken Starr...everyone...is under the law.
>>>
>>
>> He's not a judge, either.
>>
>>>
>>> And he's correct imo, the President should not be
>>> above the law. I'm sure the Trumpians here would
>>> disagree.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure you're wrong. And it would be the wrong order of things in
>> any event. So you indict the sitting President. He's still President
>> even if you find him guilty, since the only way to remove him is via
>> the impeachment process. So after you convict him you start the
>> impeachment process. Meanwhile, he pardons himself for whatever he
>> was convicted of before you can remove him from office.
>>
>
>I seriously doubt it would get beyond indictment, I can't
>see a trial taking place, but once an indictment exists
>it would put great pressure on Congress to impeach.
>

So they'd indict and then DO NOTHING? Unlikely. And it doesn't put
pressure on anyone to impeach, Jonathan. You're just having another
unthinking "but ... but ... TRUMP!" moment.

>
>And given the rapidly deteriorating relationship between
>Trump and the republicans, they may wish to cut ties
>to save the next election.
>

Except that would probably cost them the election. You do understand
that most of the people who voted for him would STILL vote for him,
don't you? You can be sure that they do.

<snip spew>

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/7/2017 11:20 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 07/10/2017 14:13, Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> According to Ken Starr...everyone...is under the law.
>>>
>>> And he's correct imo, the President should not be
>>> above the law. I'm sure the Trumpians here would
>>> disagree.
>>
>> "The President ... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
>> Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of
>> Impeachment."
>>
>> "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
>> States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
>> of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "
>>
>
>Trump can only pardon federal crimes, and many states especially
>Trump's home state of NY are going to be charging too, and
>Trump can't pardon himself.
>

You playing with your crystal balls again, are you? It may make you
feel good, but it has apparently led to you getting myopia.

>
>I've read Trump can't pardon witnesses against him or
>potential co-conspirators to keep them silent.
>That would be abuse of power.
>

I don't know where you read that, but it's wrong. The President can
pardon anyone once a crime has been committed. He doesn't even need
to wait until they're actually charged or convicted.

>
>He may pardon his staff that are charged, but that pardon
>would go straight to the Supreme Court to determine
>it's legality.
>

Unlikely. In those few cases where the Presidential pardon power has
gone before the Court, they have held that that power is pretty much
unlimited and absolute. I doubt the Court would even agree to hear
such a challenge. And he doesn't need to wait until anyone is charged
to pardon them. He can pardon them at any time after a crime is
committed, which would prevent people from even being charged.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Peter Stickney]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:03:02 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>According to Ken Starr...everyone...is under the law.
>>
>>
> He's not a judge, either.
>
>
>>And he's correct imo, the President should not be above the law. I'm
>>sure the Trumpians here would disagree.
>>
>>
> I'm sure you're wrong. And it would be the wrong order of things in any
> event. So you indict the sitting President. He's still President even
> if you find him guilty, since the only way to remove him is via the
> impeachment process. So after you convict him you start the impeachment
> process. Meanwhile, he pardons himself for whatever he was convicted of
> before you can remove him from office.
>
> That's why you need to impeach first. And of course first you need to
> find a crime.

In our particular system, impeachment _is_ the indictment. The trial
takes place in the Senate. Note that while impeached and undergoing a
Senate trial, the President continues to be President, retaining all of
the powers and functions of the office.
--
Pete Stickney
“A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures.” ― Daniel Webster

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Stickney <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:03:02 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>According to Ken Starr...everyone...is under the law.
>>>
>>>
>> He's not a judge, either.
>>
>>
>>>And he's correct imo, the President should not be above the law. I'm
>>>sure the Trumpians here would disagree.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm sure you're wrong. And it would be the wrong order of things in any
>> event. So you indict the sitting President. He's still President even
>> if you find him guilty, since the only way to remove him is via the
>> impeachment process. So after you convict him you start the impeachment
>> process. Meanwhile, he pardons himself for whatever he was convicted of
>> before you can remove him from office.
>>
>> That's why you need to impeach first. And of course first you need to
>> find a crime.
>
>In our particular system, impeachment _is_ the indictment. The trial
>takes place in the Senate. Note that while impeached and undergoing a
>Senate trial, the President continues to be President, retaining all of
>the powers and functions of the office.
>

You've lost the bubble here, Peter. What's being discussed is a
CRIMINAL indictment in a regular court.

[Peter Stickney]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 18:01:15 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Peter Stickney <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:03:02 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>According to Ken Starr...everyone...is under the law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> He's not a judge, either.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And he's correct imo, the President should not be above the law. I'm
>>>>sure the Trumpians here would disagree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm sure you're wrong. And it would be the wrong order of things in
>>> any event. So you indict the sitting President. He's still President
>>> even if you find him guilty, since the only way to remove him is via
>>> the impeachment process. So after you convict him you start the
>>> impeachment process. Meanwhile, he pardons himself for whatever he
>>> was convicted of before you can remove him from office.
>>>
>>> That's why you need to impeach first. And of course first you need to
>>> find a crime.
>>
>>In our particular system, impeachment _is_ the indictment. The trial
>>takes place in the Senate. Note that while impeached and undergoing a
>>Senate trial, the President continues to be President, retaining all of
>>the powers and functions of the office.
>>
>>
> You've lost the bubble here, Peter. What's being discussed is a
> CRIMINAL indictment in a regular court.

Yes, I understand that well. (Note that the President can be impeached
for "High Crimes (Felonies) and Misdemeanors" which are, after all,
criminal acts. And it is possible to indict anyone - however, I don't
think that any Prosecutor is going to try that - it's either going to get
quashed out of hand, or the Prosecutor's Political Masters are going to
fear the results when that precedent gets turned on their own side.
There's a reason Nixon was named as an "Unindicted Co-Conspirator", after
all.

(But then again, this is coming out of jonathan-land, and he's been
demonstrating that he's just visiting this planet for years.)

[Jonathan]

You guys need to listen to someone other than Rush and
watch news other than Fox once in a while.

When Trump goes down, I'll be here to say 'I told you so'.
Looks to me the investigation has another 6 - 12 months
before any results are made public.

And as the walls close in around Trump, expect his lunacy
to continue to spiral out of control.

I mean calling the republican chairman of the foreign relations
committee 'too short' to be Sec or State? Calling him 'liddle'?

That's just bonkers, Trump is steadily slipping into insanity.

Never in US history has such a prominent Senator openly
questioned the sanity of a sitting president as Sen Corker
just did.

And did anyone notice NOT A SINGLE republican came to Trump's
defense when Sen Corker said that.

NOT ONE! That's incredible, you'd expect a torrent of
push back for something like that.


That silence speaks volumes.

[Jonathan]

Trump can only pardon federal crimes, not state crimes.
And NY state is probably going to mirror the Special Council.

And he can't pardon himself, and it's doubtful he can
pardon co-conspirators as that would essentially be
pardoning himself.

But never in US history has a pardon been given to people
that could implicate the president in crimes, that would
have to be decided by the Supreme Court.



s

[Fred J. McCall]

And you need to pull your head out of your ass. I would bet that
you've seen more Rush and Fox News than I have.

>
>When Trump goes down, I'll be here to say 'I told you so'.
>Looks to me the investigation has another 6 - 12 months
>before any results are made public.
>

So you've gone from "any week now", which was your line months ago, to
"another 6 - 12 months before any results are made public". I think
your timeframe there is probably right, but what's 'made public' will
be for purposes of influencing the midterm elections rather than any
actual charges.

>
>And as the walls close in around Trump, expect his lunacy
>to continue to spiral out of control.
>

Stop looking in the mirror. The only one suffering from "spiraling
lunacy" looks to be you.

>
>I mean calling the republican chairman of the foreign relations
>committee 'too short' to be Sec or State? Calling him 'liddle'?
>
>That's just bonkers, Trump is steadily slipping into insanity.
>
>Never in US history has such a prominent Senator openly
>questioned the sanity of a sitting president as Sen Corker
>just did.
>
>And did anyone notice NOT A SINGLE republican came to Trump's
>defense when Sen Corker said that.
>
>NOT ONE! That's incredible, you'd expect a torrent of
>push back for something like that.
>
>That silence speaks volumes.
>

Why would anyone even dignify that with a response?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

[Fred J. McCall]

Thanks for demonstrating that this isn't an investigation, but rather
a conspiracy. The things that they're SUPPOSED to be investigating
aren't state crimes.

>
>And he can't pardon himself, and it's doubtful he can
>pardon co-conspirators as that would essentially be
>pardoning himself.
>

Where does it say he can't pardon himself. Which part of "unlimited"
is it that you're finding confusing. The only limit called out on the
President's power to pardon is in cases of impeachment. That's why
you impeach and remove from office first and then level criminal
charges rather than the other way around.

>
>But never in US history has a pardon been given to people
>that could implicate the president in crimes, that would
>have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
>

Don't hold your breath waiting for that. Note that people were
pardoned who were involved in Iran Contra, some before trial. Also
note that Nixon was pardoned before he was ever charged. He didn't
pardon himself, but that was his own decision rather than because of
any inherent limit on the pardon power itself. Legal opinion at the
time was split because the charges were involved in the impeachment
process.