Double Jeopardy?

[mossback50cal]

So, dems are saying they arent gonna stop. They want to continue to try to impeach Trump for the ukraine stuff. My question, isn't that considered double jeopardy?! Isnt the president allowed the same rights as every citizen? The only way to stop them at this point is to vote them out. They have gotten way over their heads with their abuse of power. Maybe they need charges brought up against them. Distracting from the horrible shape their districts are in.

 

[Boskee]

There's no double jeopardy for impeachment because it's not conducted in a court of law and it's a political process. So they can keep coming back again and again and since it's done at their own peril with the voter having recourse in elective process to vote them out. I could be wrong on this but it clearly doesn't make it right but you can bet the farm on the dems being able to exploit it, can and will against Trump since they're obsessed with ruining the man by any means possible. Since they have the veil of political protection they can lie their damn fool heads off and continue to misrepresent anything they want so look out America the next sham is being cooked up during every hour until they fulfill their mission to get the man.

 

[grizzly]

Boskee is correct, there's no Double Jeopardy. They can also indict Trump after he leaves office if they so choose. There could already be sealed indictments waiting for him to leave office as well.

Even if his supporters think he's innocent, they probably acknowledge that many people don't and it only takes one of them to file charges.

 

[eelgrass]

Abuse of power is right. Enough is enough.

 

[Boskee]

Grizz the one thing every damn one of us on this forum can agree to is innocence isn't a quality most politicians possess let alone revere.

 

[mossback50cal]

Indictment? There has to be a provable crime for that. Hearsay is not admissable in a real court....

 

[Homer]

The Ukraine story is about to blow up.....but not in the direction the democrats and the last administration want....gonna get interesting

 

[Boskee]

RUTROH

 

[eelgrass]

 

[eelgrass]

 

[roadrunner]

Boskee is correct, there's no Double Jeopardy. They can also indict Trump after he leaves office if they so choose. There could already be sealed indictments waiting for him to leave office as well.

Even if his supporters think he's innocent, they probably acknowledge that many people don't and it only takes one of them to file charges.

Nope, nope, nope, and nope. These charges are not indictable since they are merely political and not a written statute. It is what the House FEELS are reasons to remove. No treason, no insurrection, no nothing.

Try to keep up...

 

[mossback50cal]

And now Manchin states he wanted more evidence to acquit. Isn't that backwards? Lol

 

[grizzly]

Nope, nope, nope, and nope. These charges are not indictable since they are merely political and not a written statute. It is what the House FEELS are reasons to remove. No treason, no insurrection, no nothing.

Try to keep up...

Obstruction of Justice and Obstruction of Congress are both crimes, each punishable by up to five years in prison.

There are also various other investigations of Trump ongoing, relating from everything such as election violations to tax violations to bank fraud. Any one of those could result in an indictment. It only takes one prosecutor somewhere to file, and the Chosen One will be making the perp walk.

I'm not even saying he's guilty, but there's definitely the chance he'll be charged.

 

[Homer]

...he could be selling cocaine too

 

[grizzly]

...he could be selling cocaine too

Is there an investigation of that, or are you just so scared of the Trumpkin in chains that you're changing the subject?

Prosecutors had enough evidence to get signed warrants in the other investigations. Like it or not, they're ongoing.

 

[Homer]

lol...

 

[grizzly]

lol...

Trump doesn't think they're funny, he's appealed all the way to the SCOTUS trying to stop prosecutors from getting the documents they've subpoenaed.

SCOTUS is hearing three cases in March, all of which were decided in the lower courts against Trump.

 

[junior]

The circus just gets bigger and bigger !

 

[Homer]

any bet you want to make on the SCOTUS decisions??

 

[Boskee]

Grizz the odds are Trump will slip the noose again...... They keep trying to bury the guy with the largest political investigation in the nations history clearing him the only thing they didn't look at required a proctologist. He's been audited many times by the IRS and he's not in jail.......... He makes the dems crazy and you're smart enough to realize what politics is..........if the dems don't control both houses there's 0% chance they remove him from office so for gods sake you're starting to look like one of those damn fool idiots on TV throwing CHIT against the wall........just sayin You're starting to look like Joy Behar.........LOL


The chief justice of the supreme court rendered the verdict it's over he was acquitted it's over..........

 

[grizzly]

any bet you want to make on the SCOTUS decisions??

Nope. We don't know enough about the new justices yet. Any bet that if it's in Trump's favor, it would have been different 3 years ago?

 

[grizzly]

Grizz the odds are Trump will slip the noose again......

Possibly. I've never said otherwise.

I've also never defended the actions of any of the Dems. Y'all can't wrap your head around the idea that somebody doesn't like Trump but also would never vote for Warren or Sanders. Y'all think everybody has to fit cleanly in one of two boxes, but it just ain't so.

 

[RELH]

Grizzy is trying to say that obstruction of Congress by Trump is a crime that is punishable up to 5 years.
_________________________________________________________________________

In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States. ... The Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that the President of the United States is protected from contempt by executive privilege.
____________________________________________________________________

That is how our separation of powers is supposed to function — in a state far closer to animosity than to geniality. Which is precisely why House Democrats alleging “obstruction of Congress” as an article of impeachment makes no sense.

If the president disagrees with what Congress is doing, then he should lawfully impede or obstruct its efforts. And the proper way for Congress to push back on a frustrative president is not to resort to the extreme and uniquely anti-democratic remedy of impeachment but to simply defund his legislative priorities or perhaps force a government shutdown.

Fact is, it is wholly improper — and counter to the spirit embodied in our constitutional framework — for Congress to attempt to impeach the president for obstructing its congressional responsibilities. To pout over purported “obstruction of Congress” is to moan that the president is reasserting the truism that he is, in fact, a separate branch of government and capable of pushing back on the other branches.

By attempting to impeach the president because he wields presidential power, House Democrats reveal that it is they themselves who are the ones abusing power.

 

[grizzly]

Currently, Presidents are exempt from all criminal prosecutions, which is why I said in post 3 "They can also indict Trump after he leaves office if they so choose."

Annotated code for your review...

18 U.S. Code§ 1505.Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any departmentor agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

_______________

My argument isn't whether it's right or wrong, just that there is a real possibility somebody will try it.

 

[Boskee]

RELH for the game winning goal...............

 

[Homer]

Annotated code for your review...

18 U.S. Code§ 1505.Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any departmentor agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

_______________

My argument isn't whether it's right or wrong, just that there is a real possibility somebody will try it.

so....claiming privilege and asking a court to decide is subject to that??

 

[Boskee]

Grizz we enjoyed the debate and I think you're probably a nice guy that we'd probably laugh about this mess over a campfire......

It's just politics and right now this is the craziest I've ever seen it in my lifetime. This divisional crap has to end at some point and we have to get back to reconciliation and the country's business.

 

[Homer]

I'm dug in in the right.....I'm not giving an inch to those dug in in the wrong.....

 

[grizzly]

I'm dug in in the right.....I'm not giving an inch to those dug in in the wrong.....

Just like when somebody asked if you'd quit being a jerk for even one day. Your response was apropos...

"Believe me...I don't miss a minute...."

 

[grizzly]

RELH for the game winning goal...............

So, I've got to know Boskee and RELH... Do you guys now have so much faith in the Dems that you believe one of them somewhere won't try and indict Trump when he leaves office? I honestly thought you guys would expect them to try it, but now it appears you're arguing they won't even make the attempt.

 

[Homer]

the congress can indict a private citizen??.....really?

or...the congress can indict anyone?

 

[grizzly]

the congress can indict a private citizen??.....really?

or...the congress can indict anyone?

Congress can subpoena anybody (read Wilkinson v USA). In #13, I clearly responded to roadrunner when he said those charges were political and "not written in statute" by showing they were codified criminal acts. I then listed at least three cases of which there are criminal investigations of Trump that are ongoing. Some of which have already reached the SCOTUS.

Do you believe there is zero chance there is a prosecuter somewhere that wants a go at Trump when he's out of office and no longer protected by the Office of Legal Counsels opinion regarding immunity while in office?

Burying your head in the sand won't help anything, that's the true definition of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Even Trump knows they're coming after him, that's why he's fighting the investigations all the way to the top.

 

[roadrunner]

Obstruction of Justice and Obstruction of Congress are both crimes, each punishable by up to five years in prison.

There are also various other investigations of Trump ongoing, relating from everything such as election violations to tax violations to bank fraud. Any one of those could result in an indictment. It only takes one prosecutor somewhere to file, and the Chosen One will be making the perp walk.

I'm not even saying he's guilty, but there's definitely the chance he'll be charged.

Good luck with that. When the Shrill Queen HRC goes down, I'll believe it when I see it.

Just because that demonrat pelosi said it was doesn't mean it really was. She is so damn dumb it's pathetic.

 

[RELH]

Grizzy I do not think even Schiff, Nader or Pelosi will try to indict Trump when he leaves office. Trump will no longer be a threat to them and their agenda once he is out of office. He is a threat now while President and they do not like the way he is cleaning the swamp and taking away their power.
If they had him on a solid criminal charge, they would go after him now. They do not have that solid criminal charge and that is what will stop them from going after him when he is out of office.
Another thing is that once out of office, he is no longer a public figure and will have the right to use his millions and lawyers to go after them in a civil lawsuit if they try to falsify evidence as they did in the impeachment process. Carter page is now using that civil process and stands to collect millions from the agents and agencies who violated his rights. RELH

 

[grizzly]

RELH, I agree one of those three won't indict. I don't think they even can if they want.

The threat is from some prosecutor somewhere, such as those in New York that Trump is taking to SCOTUS to keep from getting documents that several Appeals Courts have already ruled they can have.

 

[Butts]

Look at the USA in a total unit the last four Years...

It’s sickens me to see the media driven by dems. And their sickening agenda. Dems want Americans to sincerely “ eat, drink, sh$t, sleep and die, in their power”.

My god, trump can be whatever, but he is not enabling America to be weak and dependent on the government!!

 

[mossback50cal]

Congress, as a whole, can subpoena. Not a small group conducting a witch hunt from a basement. Has to be voted on, and passed through congress. A congress member, or groups of them, cannot subpoena anyone. So, since the impeachment was not voted on by full congress, that obstruction charge goes bye bye. Nice try though...... and, if you're paying attention to the news, not CNN, you'll see that congress has no rights to demand his tax returns.... so, again, nice try. Democrats little plots have holes all through them.

 

[grizzly]

Congress, as a whole, can subpoena. Not a small group conducting a witch hunt from a basement. Has to be voted on, and passed through congress. A congress member, or groups of them, cannot subpoena anyone.

^^^Fake News

I have given you guys Wilkinson v US multiple times, which you obviously haven't read. But you still spew right-wing lies of ignorance.

Here's the wiki version since you obviously won't read the actual ruling...

Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.

Congress allows Committee Chairmen to alone issue subpoenas, hence Schiff (Intelligence) and Nadler (Judiciary) can issue subpoenas independently if they wish.

 

[Alwayshunting]

Where's DW?

 

[Homer]

Since that court case was a decision about a witch hunt....it is a great example in this case

 

[Boskee]

Grizz, You seem to be under the assumption the dems hail mary legal actions are based on legal precedence........ Based on the fact they haven't prevailed yet, but might at some point, that should be key, coupled with the fact the lower court agrees to take the case and the higher appellate rejects it or overrules it should open your eyes. The dems are court shopping and losing in the higher courts. Hmmm didn't the Supreme court just rule they had to stop trying to override federal law in the lower courts too.......Hmm see a pattern here...It's not a pattern of winning Seems Trump is winning on legal issues in the senate and the appellate courts........Hmmmm Just sayin You do understand Trump has a basis for going after them for malicious prosecution and abuse of process if they keep this up.

 

[grizzly]

Boskee, no question there are some Hail Mary attempts by Dems. However, there are also three cases going to the Supreme Court next month, all of which were won by the Dems in the Appeals Courts that are immediately one step below the Supreme Court. Certainly you can admit they must have at least some merit since different courts have all ruled the same, against Trump, which forced Trump to seek Supreme Court intervention.

Unless the Supreme Court overturns all three cases, which they could, Trump loses and the documents he's trying to block are released.

 

[Boskee]

GRIZZ, Hey none of us think Trump is a god if he breaks the law he should be held accountable. He's lost in court before so it won't be new. Trouble is you and I both know others didn't manage to be held to the same standard and we need to fix that. He's been under more legal scrutiny than any person in this country and he's still free and we know the dems and frivolous legal actions are legion. Look at how many activist groups they've funded to restrict hunting and gun rights and the wolf lobby. How many millions have the states had to spend that could have been better spent funding wildlife causes. Sure they get some federal money now but the wolf lobby didn't fund wildlife the sportsmen did.

The dems have been court shopping on many things and the feds are aware of it and ruled against them doing it. Lest not we forget they choose not to go to the courts in the that little impeachment scam! WHY? We'll see but the fact is the pendulum is swinging the other way. I think the courts have had enough of the crap too. The dems have been wrong more than they've been right in what they've done to him, so he's probably going to keep winning for a while until the dems accept the fact they lost the election and cut the crap. What the hell are we going to face as a country if he wins the upcoming election? It's time the bullchit stops and they accept the will of the voters. Even you have to admit it's gone way overboard.

So why do you support the party that wants to open our borders and allow free immigration? Why do you support the party that wants to take our guns? why do you support the party that wants to give the vote to illegals? Why do you support the party that opposes federal enforcement of our immigration laws?

See I realize you want Trump held accountable but abusing the courts to try to get him makes most of us wonder why you support the actions of those whose actions cost us far more than Trump actions ever will. Most of us look at the big picture and think law enforcement should do their jobs not partisan political actions waged to damage a political opponent as the dems are doing to Trump based on hatred. We're kind of a big picture kind group and that's what we've been seeing since the day he was elected and the party you support is waging the war. The party of the double standard and the party that wants to transform our country to socialism and globalism.

If Trumps guilty he'll have to pay the price but why given what we know they've done to him are you supporting their actions? See it's bigger than a few court cases to us and I respect your right to dislike Trump and pick your party it's just that we'd like to know why you're supporting the party where the double standard is the norm but wanting Trump held to the letter of the law.

I guess our point lies in the fact you keep supporting the party that's lied and misrepresented everything about the President over the last 3+ years and even broke the law to persecute him and yet you support & condone the actions of those who have used illegal means against the president but want to hold him accountable to a different standard is what we find troubling. Can you see our point?

 

[grizzly]

On another thread somebody asked who I'd support for President, not a single one of them is a Democrat. I've never even voted for a Democrat for President. Yet you assigned me a dozen times as "your party" being that of a Democrat. I've said this a hundred times but it's in one ear and out another with you guys due to your unwavering loyalty to someone I see as a buffoon. Just because I dislike Trump doesn't mean I support Warren or Sanders. There's room in the middle for those not suckered in by Trump's antics.

You can have Trump's Republican Party of Rush and Hannity. I'll take the one of George HW Bush, John McCain, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and George Will... all of which are conservative lions that want the old GOP back from Trump's hateful fear-mongering grasp.