Pelosi wants criminal prosecution rather than impeachment

[critter]

Interesting maneuver.


The story (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/5/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-want-donald-trump-impeached-i-/)




“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Mrs. Pelosi said, Politico reported, citing “multiple Democratic sources familiar with the meeting.”



"cited multiple sources familiar with the meeting."

Well, perhaps hearsay but this is actually the best strategy for the Dems.. "Lock him up!" Impeachment will most likely result in an unprecedented turnout in the upcoming election -- voting for Trump -- considering it will play right into the witch hunt narrative -- IMO. I think she's simply backtracking on the impeachment and the harsh words are meant to play to the radical "stop Trump by any means necessary" base.

"Lock her up!" appealed in the same fashion, and may work well, but I think the main thrust for such commentary is simply to back off impeachment thus avoiding the potential political catastrophe.

[LittleLebowski]

Go for it. Mueller could not do it with two years, $35 million, and forty FBI agents, but maybe #BotoxGrandma (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=BotoxGrandma) can.

[TGS]

Well, you need to impeach and then remove from office a sitting president before you can criminally prosecute same, so....

[Stephanie B]

Go for it. Mueller could not do it with two years, $35 million, and forty FBI agents, but maybe #BotoxGrandma (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=BotoxGrandma) can.
Nice snark, but it completely ignores the point was that the reason Mueller said he couldn't charge Trump is because DoJ policy forbits a federal indictment of a sitting president.

So as long as the statute of limitations hasn't run when Trump leaves office, he could then be prosecuted in Federal court. There might be an argument that the statute of limitations is tolled while Trump is in office, in the same way that it can be tolled when someone flees to avoid prosecution.

(Note that I'm not suggesting that there is or is not enough there to get an indictment.)

[Bart Carter]

I don't have a problem with prosecution for a crime because it isn't just political voting as impeachment is. When do they think that Trump will commit a crime? Are they planning some sort of entrapment? If so, it is pretty stupid to announce their plans beforehand.

[Zincwarrior]

Go for it. Mueller could not do it with two years, $35 million, and forty FBI agents, but maybe #BotoxGrandma (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=BotoxGrandma) can.
I believe the AG for the Southern District of NY is working on that.

[critter]

I don't have a problem with prosecution for a crime because it isn't just political voting as impeachment is. When do they think that Trump will commit a crime? Are they planning some sort of entrapment? If so, it is pretty stupid to announce their plans beforehand.

She's talking about whatever Dem candidate winning the 2020 election and then go after him with criminal prosecution -- which seems to me as her way of attempting to distance from Impeachment while also not appearing as a sellout to her base.

Impeachment, or constant threat of impeachment, could wind up with the Dems losing more than the presidency if it were to motivate another shift in congressional elections. I think that populist uprising in the voting booths is what she's attempting to assuage with her position.

[TGS]

I believe the AG for the Southern District of NY is working on that.

SDNY does not have an AG.

[RoyGBiv]

SDNY does not have an AG.

I didn't hit a NYT paywall.. but.. you might.

New York Attorney General Opens Investigation of Trump Projects (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/nyregion/deutsche-bank-trump.html)



The new inquiry, by the office of the attorney general, Letitia James, was prompted by the congressional testimony last month of Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, the person briefed on the subpoenas said. Mr. Cohen testified under oath that Mr. Trump had inflated his assets in financial statements, and Mr. Cohen provided copies of statements he said had been submitted to Deutsche Bank.
The inquiry by Ms. James’s office is a civil investigation, not a criminal one, although its focus and scope were unclear.

[jetfire]

Well, you need to impeach and then remove from office a sitting president before you can criminally prosecute same, so....

You shush with your facts

[Stephanie B]

Well, you need to impeach and then remove from office a sitting president before you can criminally prosecute same, so....
Or defeat and remove.

I don't know what happens with a presidential pension and SS protection if a president would be removed by an impeachment conviction or if he's criminally convicted. Would an imprisoned former president receive SS protection while in stir?

[TGS]

Would an imprisoned former president receive SS protection while in stir?

Not if they're removed from office.

If they finish their term but later go to jail, that's a fun question! As far as I know, legally, yes.

"Congrats, Agent B. You're the best America has, and we're glad to see you make the jump from BOP to the Service. Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is...prisoner watch. At the same federal penitentiary you used to work at; you see, you were hand picked for this assignment."

Life can often have a strange way of fucking with people, like every USSS and DSS agent who jumps ship to HSI for a more stable homelife only to find themselves TDY'd to the USSS for 9 months straight during the campaign trail. This would be god trolling people on an epic level, no doubt.

[Stephanie B]

If they finish their term but later go to jail, that's a fun question! As far as I know, legally, yes.

"Congrats, Agent B. You're the best America has, and we're glad to see you make the jump from BOP to the Service. Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is...prisoner watch. At the same federal penitentiary you used to work at; you see, you were hand picked for this assignment."

"And oh, by the way, no weapons. You have the night shift, outside of his cell."


Life can often have a strange way of fucking with people, like every USSS and DSS agent who jumps ship to HSI for a more stable homelife only to find themselves TDY'd to the USSS for 9 months straight during the campaign trail. This would be god trolling people on an epic level, no doubt.

Or longer......

[TGS]

I didn't hit a NYT paywall.. but.. you might.

New York Attorney General Opens Investigation of Trump Projects (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/nyregion/deutsche-bank-trump.html)

That would be the New York AG (as in the State of New York), not the Southern District of New York (a federal court district reporting to the US Attorney General).

[LittleLebowski]

I believe the AG for the Southern District of NY is working on that.

I don’t think they will get anywhere.

[farscott]

I think we need to look at this practically.

As long as the Senate is controlled by the GOP, the President is not going to be convicted if impeached. Speaker Pelosi knows this, so she will not waste valuable time and political capital chasing impeachment. She actually gets more mileage if the President is not impeached. Just like President Obama sold guns, President Trump helps Speaker Pelosi get her base excited and engaged.

Once President Trump is out of office, no one is going to want to indict a former President as there is little to gain politically, and no President wants to set a precedent where any President could be indicted after leaving office. Not just on domestic issues, but "crimes against humanity", etc.

[critter]

I think we need to look at this practically.

As long as the Senate is controlled by the GOP, the President is not going to be convicted if impeached. Speaker Pelosi knows this, so she will not waste valuable time and political capital chasing impeachment. She actually gets more mileage if the President is not impeached. Just like President Obama sold guns, President Trump helps Speaker Pelosi get her base excited and engaged.

Once President Trump is out of office, no one is going to want to indict a former President as there is little to gain politically, and no President wants to set a precedent where any President could be indicted after leaving office. Not just on domestic issues, but "crimes against humanity", etc.

I agree. Neither Trump nor Clinton will ever be indicted for anything much less see a single minute inside a prison. Seriously, if destroying devices and sanitizing hard drives with Bleachbit all of which were purportedly under subpoena (I don't think "It warn't me, it was the one armed tech company!" could be a defense), are not considered indictable obstruction of justice I can't fathom how a POTUS utilizing explicitly granted authority could possibly be. But... who knows..

[FNFAN]

I don't know how you would make the argument that a DOJ "policy" should stop the clock on the statute of limitations. I mean, it'll be 8 years after the crimes allegedly occurred!

[blues]

I don't know how you would make the argument that a DOJ "policy" should stop the clock on the statute of limitations. I mean, it'll be 8 years after the crimes allegedly occurred!

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/06/06-casket.w710.h473.2x.jpg

"They never made their case. No collusion. No obstruction. But somehow the damn Dems made McCain the gatekeeper."

[TGS]

Not just on domestic issues, but "crimes against humanity", etc.

For real, case in point:

Trump's Botched Fashion Choices (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trumps-botched-fashion-choices-for-his-england-visit-are-not-just-about-the-clothes/2019/06/05/f86d19e8-87a7-11e9-a491-25df61c78dc4_story.html?utm_term=.63d0c94caf10)

[ralph]

Nice snark, but it completely ignores the point was that the reason Mueller said he couldn't charge Trump is because DoJ policy forbits a federal indictment of a sitting president.

So as long as the statute of limitations hasn't run when Trump leaves office, he could then be prosecuted in Federal court. There might be an argument that the statute of limitations is tolled while Trump is in office, in the same way that it can be tolled when someone flees to avoid prosecution.

(Note that I'm not suggesting that there is or is not enough there to get an indictment.)

Just remember, that's an axe that cuts both ways...like when Harry Reid used the "nuclear option", that worked out well, did'nt it? What I, and probably 90% for the people in this country would like to see, is congress actually do it's job, and quit investigating each other, bringing each other before grand jurys etc, I'm sick and tired of it. We have plenty of problems in this country and none of them are getting the attention they deserve because congress is too busy stabbing each other in the back, basically shirking it's responsibiltys to presidential runarounds, and lower court rulings. And, if it continues, we're not going to have a country to worry about.. What's even worse, BOTH partys are to blame.. If "we the people" don't start talking to each other, and soon, there ain't gonna be no "we the people", it's gonna be "we the mob" and when it gets to that point, things are gonna get real sporty...

[BillSWPA]

Nice snark, but it completely ignores the point was that the reason Mueller said he couldn't charge Trump is because DoJ policy forbits a federal indictment of a sitting president.

So as long as the statute of limitations hasn't run when Trump leaves office, he could then be prosecuted in Federal court. There might be an argument that the statute of limitations is tolled while Trump is in office, in the same way that it can be tolled when someone flees to avoid prosecution.

(Note that I'm not suggesting that there is or is not enough there to get an indictment.)

Mueller had every ability to say that Trump committed a crime if he had committed one. In fact, that was his job.

Trump cannot he charged with obstruction of justice for the simple reason that every act that was alleged to be possible obstruction was something he had every right to do as head of the executive branch, as pointed out by liberal former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

Ironic to see Dershowitz become a darling of the right lately.

[BillSWPA]

Ironic to see Dershowitz become a darling of the right lately.

Yes, it is very ironic. I disagree with several of his political viewpoints, but his legal analysis of this whole investigation has been by far the best I have seen. When a guy who voted for Hillary comes to Trump's defense by simply stating the truth of what the law says, it reflects a level of integrity that is orders of magnitude above that possessed by the entirety of the Democratic Party.

Let's not forget that this investigation was run by people who were texting about a "contingency plan" in case Trump got elected, and was initiated based on political opposition research that everyone already knew was false. What the left did to Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing is proof that they are willing to destroy anyone with fabricated allegations of criminal conduct if it suits their purpose, and the so-called "investigation" of Trump is no different.

Even those who, for whatever misguided "reason," happen to support the planks of the Democratic platform need to seriously consider whether this is who they want in charge.

[blues]

Great post, Bill. My only quibble is that I find a huge lack of integrity on both sides, otherwise we are in accord. I refuse to laud one side by showing that the other side is equally or more reprehensible.

[BillSWPA]

Great post, Bill. My only quibble is that I find a huge lack of integrity on both sides, otherwise we are in accord. I refuse to laud one side by showing that the other side is equally or more reprehensible.

Integrity counts, period. No exceptions. If someone on my side does not have it, I am not going to defend their dishonesty.

[BillSWPA]

Just remember, that's an axe that cuts both ways...like when Harry Reid used the "nuclear option", that worked out well, did'nt it? What I, and probably 90% for the people in this country would like to see, is congress actually do it's job, and quit investigating each other, bringing each other before grand jurys etc, I'm sick and tired of it. We have plenty of problems in this country and none of them are getting the attention they deserve because congress is too busy stabbing each other in the back, basically shirking it's responsibiltys to presidential runarounds, and lower court rulings. And, if it continues, we're not going to have a country to worry about.. What's even worse, BOTH partys are to blame.. If "we the people" don't start talking to each other, and soon, there ain't gonna be no "we the people", it's gonna be "we the mob" and when it gets to that point, things are gonna get real sporty...

Overall, nice post. I would not, however, place equal blame on both parties.

Some people and institutions should be investigated - specifically those who have abused investigative power to harass political opponents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sensei]

While I still see no evidence that Trump committed a crime that warrants impeachment or indictment once he leaves office, I also see no evidence that he has a shred of class or dignity. That he would conduct an interview at a national shrine and ridicule Pelosi and Mueller in front of American headstones...on the 75th Anniversary of D-Day reconfirms that America made a horrible mistake.

The fact FNC thought it would be a good idea to host the Ingram Angle at the Normandy Cemetery using American headstones as a backdrop while she proceeds to carry on and make jokes about her political opponents is a sure sign that the so called “political right” has seriously lost its way.

38795

[ralph]

Overall, nice post. I would not, however, place equal blame on both parties.

Some people and institutions should be investigated - specifically those who have abused investigative power to harass political opponents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But what good does that do, especially when nobody is ever charged with anything? Has Clinton been charged with anything? No. Comey? No.Strock? No. Obama? No. The ĺist goes on and on, all are probably guilty, yet no one gets charged, despite the mountian of evidence against them.. With the mountian of dirt they supposedly have on these people, it should'nt take years to get them into court and try them. The only reason it's being dragged out, is to provide polictical ammo for the upcoming election.. IMO, that's a crime in itself..

[BillSWPA]

But what good does that do, especially when nobody is ever charged with anything? Has Clinton been charged with anything? No. Comey? No.Strock? No. Obama? No. The ĺist goes on and on, all are probably guilty, yet no one gets charged, despite the mountian of evidence against them.. With the mountian of dirt they supposedly have on these people, it should'nt take years to get them into court and try them. The only reason it's being dragged out, is to provide polictical ammo for the upcoming election.. IMO, that's a crime in itself..

Valid point about the difference between what should happen and what does happen.

If these people were actually tried and convicted by a jury, it would provide far more ammo for an election than anything else.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ralph]

Valid point about the difference between what should happen and what does happen.

If these people were actually tried and convicted by a jury, it would provide far more ammo for an election than anything else.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And, the only reason they haven't tried them yet, IMO, is because they're not entirely sure how it'd pan out..You'd have to literally get 12 people from Mars, in order to get a fair and imparcial jury.. and nobody on either side wants to take the chance that the jury might not side with them, with the country as deeply divided as it is now. It's easier and much safer to drag people through the mud in order to gain a poltical talking point, especially before an election. Short story is, it's all theater in order to distract the populace from other more important things.. Unchecked illegal immigration. Like a possible outbreak of deadly disease in LA, The fact the economy is starting to tank, and that one bank teetering on collaspe right now, could be the lynch pin that causes a worldwide depression..Little things like that..

[BillSWPA]

And, the only reason they haven't tried them yet, IMO, is because they're not entirely sure how it'd pan out..You'd have to literally get 12 people from Mars, in order to get a fair and imparcial jury.. and nobody on either side wants to take the chance that the jury might not side with them, with the country as deeply divided as it is now. It's easier and much safer to drag people through the mud in order to gain a poltical talking point, especially before an election. Short story is, it's all theater in order to distract the populace from other more important things.. Unchecked illegal immigration. Like a possible outbreak of deadly disease in LA, The fact the economy is starting to tank, and that one bank teetering on collaspe right now, could be the lynch pin that causes a worldwide depression..Little things like that..

Paul Manafort was convicted by a jury that fully realized that he would never have been prosecuted but for political reasons, and was therefore skeptical, but still found proof beyond reasonable doubt.

When we take people out of their normal echo chambers and show them both sides making their best case, the truth tends to come out.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GardoneVT]

But what good does that do, especially when nobody is ever charged with anything? Has Clinton been charged with anything? No. Comey? No.Strock? No. Obama? No. The ĺist goes on and on, all are probably guilty, yet no one gets charged

The only commonality between the Ds & Rs is they’re corrupt to the bone. That tends to reduce their furvor for “justice”. What we need is a truly viable third or even fourth party.

[ralph]

Paul Manafort was convicted by a jury that fully realized that he would never have been prosecuted but for political reasons, and was therefore skeptical, but still found proof beyond reasonable doubt.

When we take people out of their normal echo chambers and show them both sides making their best case, the truth tends to come out.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Manafort was IMO, low hanging fruit, Trump's not stupid, he knew he was a crook. Problem is every high ranking politican in our country has a attorney like Manafort on their staff, they know they're crooked, they know they're weasels, they also know that they keep them out of embarassing situations..like jail, that's their job. They're also expendable.. I hate to say it, but our goverment is beyond saving, they ALL need replaced, as I said in another post, If some bad actor in the world nuked DC when everyone was there, they'd actually be doing the rest of us a big favor..

If Trump gets reelected in 2020 (and I expect he will) I actually look for the left to get really violent this time, I mean trying to start a civil war violent. They attemped a soft coup and it failed, and because there have'nt been any reprecussions from that, this time around, I expect them to go all in on a revolt, and start shooting.. Sad state of affairs? Yes. But this is what happens when one side abandons rational thought in exchange for rhetoric based almost entirely on emotion, with some socialist communisn sprinkled in..

The worse thing that could happen to either party is if people on either side of the fence so to speak, were to go behind the barn, and start comparing notes..That's something that scares the shit out of the Democrat and Republican parties..

[BillSWPA]

Manafort was IMO, low hanging fruit, Trump's not stupid, he knew he was a crook. Problem is every high ranking politican in our country has a attorney like Manafort on their staff, they know they're crooked, they know they're weasels, they also know that they keep them out of embarassing situations..like jail, that's their job. They're also expendable.. I hate to say it, but our goverment is beyond saving, they ALL need replaced, as I said in another post, If some bad actor in the world nuked DC when everyone was there, they'd actually be doing the rest of us a big favor..

If Trump gets reelected in 2020 (and I expect he will) I actually look for the left to get really violent this time, I mean trying to start a civil war violent. They attemped a soft coup and it failed, and because there have'nt been any reprecussions from that, this time around, I expect them to go all in on a revolt, and start shooting.. Sad state of affairs? Yes. But this is what happens when one side abandons rational thought in exchange for rhetoric based almost entirely on emotion, with some socialist communisn sprinkled in..

The worse thing that could happen to either party is if people on either side of the fence so to speak, were to go behind the barn, and start comparing notes..That's something that scares the shit out of the Democrat and Republican parties..

I think you may have confused Manafort with Cohen. Manafort was the campaign manager who was convicted of things that happened long before he had anything to do with Trump.

Cohen's crookedness did not keep Trump out of any embarrassing situations. It got him into an embarrassing situation. Had Cohen simply told Trump he needed the $150,000 in advance, and used that for the hush money, everything would have been 100% legal. Obtaining the loan by lying on the loan application is what led to the investigation of everything else.

[cheby]

Ironic to see Dershowitz become a darling of the right lately.

That should give you an idea of what happened to the American left in the last 20 years. Dershowitz is still the same liberal who believes that the law should be applied fairly even to someone you hate. The American left on the other hand no longer believes in this idea. Leftism and liberalism are not the same things these days in America.

[LittleLebowski]

That should give you an idea of what happened to the American left in the last 20 years. Dershowitz is still the same liberal who believes that the law should be applied fairly even to someone you hate. The American left on the other hand no longer believes in this idea. Leftism and liberalism are not the same things these days in America.

JFK would absolutely be a Republican today given his beliefs.

38806

38807

[ralph]

I think you may have confused Manafort with Cohen. Manafort was the campaign manager who was convicted of things that happened long before he had anything to do with Trump.

Cohen's crookedness did not keep Trump out of any embarrassing situations. It got him into an embarrassing situation. Had Cohen simply told Trump he needed the $150,000 in advance, and used that for the hush money, everything would have been 100% legal. Obtaining the loan by lying on the loan application is what led to the investigation of everything else.

You're right I got a little confused, (it's hard to keep all the names straight without a program) but really it dosen't matter, both sides have their Manaforts, and Cohens and they're a large part of the problem.. The only answer I have is to replace them all, by force if nessesary, and start over.. When you think about it, we have 535 crooks (536 counting the president) screwing over 300 million people..what's up with that? Why do we stand for it? Is this the goverment we deserve?

[blues]

That should give you an idea of what happened to the American left in the last 20 years. Dershowitz is still the same liberal who believes that the law should be applied fairly even to someone you hate. The American left on the other hand no longer believes in this idea. Leftism and liberalism are not the same things these days in America.

We are speaking in broad swaths and generalities. I believe that among "the people" that very notion still holds true.

Among many of the very vocal Dems getting lots of airtime, perhaps not so much.

I understand that it's very difficult to account for portions of a population, but I'm reluctant to wield such a broad brush when I cannot support the conclusion with facts.

That said, I take your point and I lament the fact that by my lights that very bias appears to be prevalent on both sides. I have no use for any who hold with it, regardless of their politics.

[BillSWPA]

You're right I got a little confused, (it's hard to keep all the names straight without a program) but really it dosen't matter, both sides have their Manaforts, and Cohens and they're a large part of the problem.. The only answer I have is to replace them all, by force if nessesary, and start over.. When you think about it, we have 535 crooks (536 counting the president) screwing over 300 million people..what's up with that? Why do we stand for it? Is this the goverment we deserve?

I am having a hard time understanding this . . .

The last set of tax reforms is the first government action I have seen in a long time that truly helped small business owners rather than screwing them. Trump is donating his salary.

I am highly cynical but do not believe that 100% are dishonest.

[GardoneVT]

I am having a hard time understanding this . . .

The last set of tax reforms is the first government action I have seen in a long time that truly helped small business owners rather than screwing them. Trump is donating his salary.

I am highly cynical but do not believe that 100% are dishonest.

Most of the good ideas we see politicians like Trump and Pelosi take credit for came from smarter, lesser known and lesser paid associates.

[wvincent]

The only commonality between the Ds & Rs is they’re corrupt to the bone. That tends to reduce their furvor for “justice”. What we need is a truly viable third or even fourth party.

And this third and fourth party, exactly how long do we expect them hold onto their virginity? 10, 20 years until they are as corrupt as the two parties we have now? Then what? create a fifth and sixth party? Just keep repeating the cycle?

The first line of treatment for the "Potomac Fever" that the entrenched bureaucracy seems to be afflicted with is term limits. Congress was never meant to be a career. No lobbying after leaving Congress. Ever.

Can't believe I actually found common ground on an issue with AOC.

[BillSWPA]

Most of the good ideas we see politicians like Trump and Pelosi take credit for came from smarter, lesser known and lesser paid associates.

No human being can possibly be an expert in everything the president needs to understand. Perhaps the ability to put together such a team and listen to their advice are necessary qualities of a good politician.

[BillSWPA]

And this third and fourth party, exactly how long do we expect them hold onto their virginity? 10, 20 years until they are as corrupt as the two parties we have now? Then what? create a fifth and sixth party? Just keep repeating the cycle?

The first line of treatment for the "Potomac Fever" that the entrenched bureaucracy seems to be afflicted with is term limits. Congress was never meant to be a career. No lobbying after leaving Congress. Ever.

Can't believe I actually found common ground on an issue with AOC.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[wvincent]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Thanks. Oh, wait just a damn minute........:confused:

[BillSWPA]

Thanks. Oh, wait just a damn minute........:confused:

The "broken clock" is Alexandria "Occasional Cortex." (Not you).

[Spartan1980]

JFK would absolutely be a Republican today given his beliefs.


I’ve been saying EXACTLY this for 15 years now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ralph]

I am having a hard time understanding this . . .

The last set of tax reforms is the first government action I have seen in a long time that truly helped small business owners rather than screwing them. Trump is donating his salary.

I am highly cynical but do not believe that 100% are dishonest.


Tax reforms are one thing..and they really helped me and my wife, as we have a small business. For example, last year I wrote out a check to the IRS for over $4k, this year I wrote out a check to the IRS for $1800 Yes, the tax reform helped, but that's one issue, but when it comes to other things like our constitutional rights, especially the second admendment, most in congress get squishy, quick. After this last shooting, in which the shooter supposedly used a suppressor, Trump in a interview said the dosen't like suppressors and was going to have the BATF look in to them....(I don't know if the supposed suppressor was legally bought, or homemade) So, is he going to do with them like he did with bump stocks?? This sets a dangerous precedent, one which will be used by a dem president, as a endaround to congress. This is the same man who told us gun owners two years ago, while running for president, we don't have anything to worry about.. I'm begining to worry..

[GardoneVT]

And this third and fourth party, exactly how long do we expect them hold onto their virginity?

For the same reason which propels our way of life- incentives.

Politicians take from the till because there’s no incentive not to. What’s the worst that happens if a sitting politician gets caught ? Essentially nothing. In fact being investigated or fired/ impeached might HELP a politicians career in some circumstances. This is why Pelosi never seriously considered impeachment proceedings against Trump. Even she knows it would be a campaign gift from the heavens for him.

Consider the absurdity of that. Being charged and investigated for corruption as a GOOD thing? I rather doubt the impeachment articles were written for marketing purposes, but here we are. If the SEC had no power and the civil court system had no bearing on commercial transactions, how badly do you think CEOs would behave?

The incentives need to change. Getting a third party in a position of authority would shake up the status quo , and allow an opportunity for incentives against government misbehavior to be enforced. So long as the corrupt left covers the rear of the corrupt right and vice versa, nothing will change.

[LittleLebowski]

Trump in a interview said the dosen't like suppressors and was going to have the BATF look in to them...

I don’t think so, can you cite a source?

38818

[ralph]

I don’t think so, can you cite a source?

38818

Actually, that's the article I was thinking of..while Trump did'nt say outright that he'd ban suppressors (my bad, and I'm sorry for any confusion)) ask yourself this...If Trump would ban something as useless as a bump stock, what makes you think he would'nt try to ban suppressors? The bump stock ban set a dangerous precedent, and one I'm sure will be abused by the next dem president, although Trump's doing a pretty good job by himself. And then look at the nominee for the job of running the ATF,( Chuck Canterbury) From what I've read about him, he's not exactly our friend..

It remains to be seen what will come down, but just remember, when the bump stock ban came around the ATF had no real way to find out who bought what, and where they were at. There were no serial numbers on them.Suppressors are a different story, they know exactly where every single one is, making rounding them up(if it came to that) very easy, and if given the choice of handing it over, or spending some time in the pen, plus a fine, what are you going to do? As I said this is dangerous, Trump is going to do what benefits Trump..If he was smart, he'd drop the whole issue.. pissing off your support base, isn't a way to get reelected...

Does anybody know if this last shooter had a legally purchased suppressor, or was it homemade or was the whole suppressor angle B.S.?

[BillSWPA]

Actually, that's the article I was thinking of..while Trump did'nt say outright that he'd ban suppressors (my bad, and I'm sorry for any confusion)) ask yourself this...If Trump would ban something as useless as a bump stock, what makes you think he would'nt try to ban suppressors? The bump stock ban set a dangerous precedent, and one I'm sure will be abused by the next dem president, although Trump's doing a pretty good job by himself. And then look at the nominee for the job of running the ATF,( Chuck Canterbury) From what I've read about him, he's not exactly our friend..

It remains to be seen what will come down, but just remember, when the bump stock ban came around the ATF had no real way to find out who bought what, and where they were at. There were no serial numbers on them.Suppressors are a different story, they know exactly where every single one is, making rounding them up(if it came to that) very easy, and if given the choice of handing it over, or spending some time in the pen, plus a fine, what are you going to do? As I said this is dangerous, Trump is going to do what benefits Trump..If he was smart, he'd drop the whole issue.. pissing off your support base, isn't a way to get reelected...

Does anybody know if this last shooter had a legally purchased suppressor, or was it homemade or was the whole suppressor angle B.S.?

As you said, bump stocks are useless. As I have written ad nauseum in other threads, we have far more to lose by getting exited about bump stock bans than we do through the ban.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ralph]

As you said, bump stocks are useless. As I have written ad nauseum in other threads, we have far more to lose by getting exited about bump stock bans than we do through the ban.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you misunderstand..I know bump stocks are useless, but that's not the point here.. The point is, how the ban came about, It was done via The Regulatory Process, rather than going through congress, In short, a federal agency was allowed to make law.. And, that IS the issue. All it took was..A A willing president. B A willing ATF. C A willing acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. D About a years time.
The bigger question here is whether or not Trump will pull a simular stunt with suppressors..

[BillSWPA]

I think you misunderstand..I know bump stocks are useless, but that's not the point here.. The point is, how the ban came about, It was done via The Regulatory Process, rather than going through congress, In short, a federal agency was allowed to make law.. And, that IS the issue.
The bigger question here is whether or not Trump will pull a simular stunt with suppressors..

Agency regulatory authority exists within a statutory framework. That framework exists for defining what is and is not a fully automatic weapon. The same framework does not exist for taking something that is specifically permitted (if a bunch of very cumbersome procedures are followed) by the NFA and simply prohibiting it.

[ralph]

Agency regulatory authority exists within a statutory framework. That framework exists for defining what is and is not a fully automatic weapon. The same framework does not exist for taking something that is specifically permitted (if a bunch of very cumbersome procedures are followed) by the NFA and simply prohibiting it.

In the case of bump stocks they, (the ATF) did'nt just prohibit it, they went through their review process. But as I said, what's to stop them from going through their review process again, and come up with a very different view of suppressors? Not trying to be arguementive, but, I'm honestly trying to see how this isn't a federal agency that's trying to make law.. What stops them?

[BillSWPA]

In the case of bump stocks they, (the ATF) did'nt just prohibit it, they went through their review process. But as I said, what's to stop them from going through their review process again, and come up with a very different view of suppressors? Not trying to be arguementive, but, I'm honestly trying to see how this isn't a federal agency that's trying to make law.. What stops them?

Going through the appropriate rulemaking process (notice and comment) is only one requirement for a regulation. The administrative agency must also have the statutory authority to make that regulation. In the case of bump stocks, they have the statutory authority to define what is and is not an automatic weapon. There is simply no statutory basis for administratively banning suppressors.

[ralph]

Going through the appropriate rulemaking process (notice and comment) is only one requirement for a regulation. The administrative agency must also have the statutory authority to make that regulation. In the case of bump stocks, they have the statutory authority to define what is and is not an automatic weapon. There is simply no statutory basis for administratively banning suppressors.

Ok, that explains things a little more clearly, still I don't have alot of faith or trust in goverment agencys like the ATF..While there may not be any statutory basis for banning suppressors, now.. I've no doubt that someone at the ATF is looking in to it. Ok, let me run this by you, if the ATF can't ban them, what about adding stiffer regulations on them, say by raising the $200 tax up to say, $1000, or $2000.. Do they have that authority?

[BillSWPA]

Ok, that explains things a little more clearly, still I don't have alot of faith or trust in goverment agencys like the ATF..While there may not be any statutory basis for banning suppressors, now.. I've no doubt that someone at the ATF is looking in to it. Ok, let me run this by you, if the ATF can't ban them, what about adding stiffer regulations on them, say by raising the $200 tax up to say, $1000, or $2000.. Do they have that authority?

I will need to review the National Firearms Act of 1934 which I do not have time to do right now, but if I recall correctly the $200 amount is part of the statute. However, there is no shortage of ways they could make it more difficult and/or cumbersone to obtain an NFA item. One way might be to simply drag their feet going through the approval process.

[ralph]

I will need to review the National Firearms Act of 1934 which I do not have time to do right now, but if I recall correctly the $200 amount is part of the statute. However, there is no shortage of ways they could make it more difficult and/or cumbersone to obtain an NFA item. One way might be to simply drag their feet going through the approval process.

I thought of that as well, they could drag things out for years..If Canterbury gets the ATF job, that could happen..

[RoyGBiv]

WTF!

What's the goal here? Honestly, it can't be she actually thinks he can be removed via the 25th.... What's the distraction for?

Is Durham/Barr planning to bring charges imminently? Or something?
Pelosi questions Trump's health, says ‘we’re going to be talking about the 25th Amendment’ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-trump-talking-25th-amendment)

[RJ]

WTF!

What's the goal here? Honestly, it can't be she actually thinks he can be removed via the 25th.... What's the distraction for?

Is Durham/Barr planning to bring charges imminently? Or something?
Pelosi questions Trump's health, says ‘we’re going to be talking about the 25th Amendment’ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-trump-talking-25th-amendment)

We’ll see tomorrow, I guess. No clue what she’s talking about.

Not sure how this is helpful to Biden or the D Party; the nation will vote in less than 30 days. We should have an answer then (or a short period of days afterward, hopefully). Why can’t she just wait?

[blues]

We’ll see tomorrow, I guess. No clue what she’s talking about.

Not sure how this is helpful to Biden or the D Party; the nation will vote in less than 30 days. We should have an answer then (or a short period of days afterward, hopefully). Why can’t she just wait?

She's a senile old bat. She should just get out of the way...

[CleverNickname]

WTF!

What's the goal here? Honestly, it can't be she actually thinks he can be removed via the 25th.... What's the distraction for?

Is Durham/Barr planning to bring charges imminently? Or something?
Pelosi questions Trump's health, says ‘we’re going to be talking about the 25th Amendment’ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-trump-talking-25th-amendment)

I don't think that she's necessarily thinking only about Trump. She's also probably trying to find a way to give Congress more control over the 25th amendment process in the case that Biden wins. Then she has the power over whether Biden get's 25th'd out of office or not in favor of Harris.

[critter]

We’ll see tomorrow, I guess. No clue what she’s talking about.

...

Neither does she.

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

WTF!

What's the goal here? Honestly, it can't be she actually thinks he can be removed via the 25th.... What's the distraction for?

Is Durham/Barr planning to bring charges imminently? Or something?
Pelosi questions Trump's health, says ‘we’re going to be talking about the 25th Amendment’ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-trump-talking-25th-amendment)

A Constitutional crisis would be very on-brand for 2020.

[Caballoflaco]

We’ll see tomorrow, I guess. No clue what she’s talking about.

Not sure how this is helpful to Biden or the D Party; the nation will vote in less than 30 days. We should have an answer then (or a short period of days afterward, hopefully). Why can’t she just wait?

I think that’s optimistic. I’m thinking sometime in December at the earliest. Anything else just wouldn’t be 2020....

[RJ]

I think that’s optimistic. I’m thinking sometime in December at the earliest. Anything else just wouldn’t be 2020....

Lol...could be.

[Wondering Beard]

Seems to be more about Biden than Trump:


1314571967253680128


I'm not at all sure of the constitutionality of this.

[SiriusBlunder]

I'm not at all sure of the constitutionality of this.

See the 25th Ammendment, Section 4 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv):

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
===
My opinion:

Don't like her politics, but she's a shrewd politician. This is just theater since it's probably not going to pass the Senate and definitely not getting signed by the President/veto overridden, but it keeps Trump's health/fitness in the minds of undecided voters (if there really are any by this point), and it may force Trump to say something outrageous.

[TAZ]

So let’s see. The nuclear option on judges has come back to haunt folks. The filibuster rule change to senate has come back to haunt folks. The simple majority fir confirmation has come back to haunt folks. Instead of stopping and thinking she proposes to set up the equivalent of a central committee to review the fitness level of a president. Like that won’t ever come back to haunt anyone. Don’t like Obama, who cares about the elections. The central committee has decided he’s unfit. Yaaaaay. Not going to be a political shut show of epic proportions. Nahhh.

I hope the Senate passes legislation demanding a committee to investigate members of the House for general fitness before being sworn in.

[Wondering Beard]

See the 25th Ammendment, Section 4 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv):

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

From this article: Pelosi introduces bill under 25th Amendment for commission to evaluate fitness of future presidents (https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-25th-amendment-legislation-trump-covid-raskin-162259179.html)
"The bipartisan commission would consist of 17 “top former elected officials and medical experts” with the authority to request a medical exam of the president."

That part seems to violate the separation of powers.

[blues]

From this article: Pelosi introduces bill under 25th Amendment for commission to evaluate fitness of future presidents (https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-25th-amendment-legislation-trump-covid-raskin-162259179.html)
"The bipartisan commission would consist of 17 “top former elected officials and medical experts” with the authority to request a medical exam of the president."

That part seems to violate the separation of powers.

If anyone needs a checkup, it's that dingbat.

[Totem Polar]

The people saying this is about Biden are right. Of course, it’s about Trump, too. If he wins, Pelosi’s sick game makes sense.

But about Biden...

Fact: Hillary was not the democratic party voter’s choice, but there she was anyways, to the horror of all but the party elite and true believers.
Fact: Kamala Harris was not the favored choice either—hell, she was pretty much out of the race before Bloomberg was even in—people can go back and look up the time frames. Yet, there she still sits, directly down ticket from a ticking clock.

In each case, there is a force atop the democratic party that wants what it wants, and F everyone else. Bernie, Tulsi... and, where is Tulsi’s career at now? I don’t think bitch-slapping Harris in the debates did Gabbard’s own trajectory any favors.

But I digress. Some people like the idea of a Harris-like figure, and they are determined to shove her down people’s throats. A Biden win just means that he earns the right to another fight to be president.

JMO. But what do I know. I’m just outside in the cold with the rest of the voters, watching the well-lit feast through the window.
:)

[SiriusBlunder]

The people saying this is about Biden are right. Of course, it’s about Trump, too. If he wins, Pelosi’s sick game makes sense.

But about Biden...

Fact: Hillary was not the democratic party voter’s choice, but there she was anyways, to the horror of all but the party elite and true believers.
Fact: Kamala Harris was not the favored choice either—hell, she was pretty much out of the race before Bloomberg was even in—people can go back and look up the time frames. Yet, there she still sits, directly down ticket from a ticking clock.

In each case, there is a force atop the democratic party that wants what it wants, and F everyone else. Bernie, Tulsi... and, where is Tulsi’s career at now? I don’t think bitch-slapping Harris in the debates did Gabbard’s own trajectory any favors.

But I digress. Some people like the idea of a Harris-like figure, and they are determined to shove her down people’s throats. A Biden win just means that he earns the right to another fight to be president.

JMO. But what do I know. I’m just outside in the cold with the rest of the voters, watching the well-lit feast through the window.
:)

I still don't see how it's about Biden. The rest of section 4 says that the President can say "No, I'm fine" and if the VP and a majority of the cabinet/body still say "No", it goes to Congress to decide and you need 2/3 vote in each house for the VP to remain acting president.

If they had Biden's buy-in, he could just resign and not have the stigma attached with being declared unfit. If they didn't have Biden's buy-in and had 2/3 of the votes, they could just impeach/convict. Maybe invoking the 25th Amendment might be better PR than removal via impeachment/conviction, but seems like a stretch to me.

Either way, I can't see 16 or so Republican Senators agreeing to President Harris.

[Totem Polar]

I still don't see how it's about Biden. The rest of section 4 says that the President can say "No, I'm fine" and if the VP and a majority of the cabinet/body still say "No", it goes to Congress to decide and you need 2/3 vote in each house for the VP to remain acting president.

If they had Biden's buy-in, he could just resign and not have the stigma attached with being declared unfit. If they didn't have Biden's buy-in and had 2/3 of the votes, they could just impeach/convict. Maybe invoking the 25th Amendment might be better PR than removal via impeachment/conviction, but seems like a stretch to me.

Either way, I can't see 16 or so Republican Senators agreeing to President Harris.

Biden would have to do something seriously, very worthy of impeachment for impeachment/conviction to happen though.

Say that the powers that be know that Biden is slowing down, but it was clear that he’s the only guy in the field who can beat Trump (sounding familiar, at this point), the only way to protect themselves and the party is to get out ahead of a Biden win with a contingency narrative enabling removal.

Otherwise, they (along with everybody) is stuck with him if he doesn’t want to step down.

I agree about the republican Senators—At that point they’d be a lot more likely to prop Biden up with a tomato stake to both avoid Harris, and stick it to the dems by making sure he deteriorates on their watch.

But again, I’m no 3D chess player. That admitted, there’s got to be *some* reason that Pelosi brought it up, and it isn’t altruism.
JMO.

As an aside, can y’all imagine if Biden won, inaugurated, and then stepped down at any point before the end of his term? The perceived bait-and-switch stink would do more to stoke division in the country than any fires in Minneapolis or Portland, that’s for sure.

[SiriusBlunder]

Biden would have to do something seriously, very worthy of impeachment for impeachment/conviction to happen though.

I think it was Ford when he was Speaker who said something like ""high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress says they are." Since it's a political process, if they have support, I'm sure they could drum up some charge(s) and impeach. Still need 2/3 Senators to convict, though.


But again, I’m no 3D chess player. That admitted, there’s got to be *some* reason that Pelosi brought it up, and it isn’t altruism.
JMO..

Sure definitely not altruistic. But keeping it simple and based on the timing right before the election, all the while knowing it's not going anywhere in the Senate, I think it's to keep Trump's health/fitness in the undecided voters mind and secondarily hope to have Trump say something outrageous to push some undecideds to vote D. JMO, too.

There have been attempts to create this commission in the past and they have failed. As long as the President can say "I'm fine" it's really hard to remove him involuntarily so folks are making a big deal out of this attempt and by keeping it in the news, playing into Pelosi's theater. (JMO).


As an aside, can y’all imagine if Biden won, inaugurated, and then stepped down at any point before the end of his term? The perceived bait-and-switch stink would do more to stoke division in the country than any fires in Minneapolis or Portland, that’s for sure.

Yeah, could be ugly. If Biden's in on it, he could resign a little over 2 years into his term and Harris could serve 10 years, IIRC.

[Totem Polar]

But keeping it simple and based on the timing right before the election, all the while knowing it's not going anywhere in the Senate, I think it's to keep Trump's health/fitness in the undecided voters mind and secondarily hope to have Trump say something outrageous to push some undecideds to vote D. JMO, too.


As plausible as anything.

There is one clear upside, at least: the fact that you and I are both having trouble getting into her headspace.
:D
:D :D

[Zincwarrior]

As plausible as anything.

There is one clear upside, at least: the fact that you and I are both having trouble getting into her headspace.
:D
:D :D

Probably because Trump keeps demanding the DOJ prosecute his political opponents like he did today.

[Bart Carter]

Probably because Trump keeps demanding the DOJ prosecute his political opponents like he did today.

Only those political opponents that have committed crimes. Why do we keep letting these swamp creatures off the hook? I know the Clinton's are untouchable, even with everything that has come out.

[Zincwarrior]

Be careful what you wish for. Trump could be thrown under the Whitehouse.

Also what are these supposed crimes again?

[GyroF-16]

Yeah, could be ugly. If Biden's in on it, he could resign a little over 2 years into his term and Harris could serve 10 years, IIRC.

Ugh- I hadn’t thought of that. Certainly a good reason for the Dems to prop him up and carry him in office for the first two years.