Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53

Thread: Brush up, this case is still controlling!

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,662
    Thanks
    9,767
    Thanked 33,622 Times in 21,485 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default Brush up, this case is still controlling!

    I wonder is Rump’s attorneys have read this?

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZO.html
    4,487

    18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
    44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.


    LOCK HIM UP!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Jarod For This Post:

    christiefan915 (05-27-2018)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,662
    Thanks
    9,767
    Thanked 33,622 Times in 21,485 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    “With respect to acts taken in his "public character"-- that is official acts--the President may be disciplined principally by impeachment, not by private lawsuits for damages. But he is otherwise subject to the laws for his purely private acts.“

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Jarod For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (05-26-2018)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5,383
    Thanks
    422
    Thanked 1,573 Times in 1,260 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 79 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    I wonder is Rump’s attorneys have read this?

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZO.html
    So what do you think a civil case has to do with a special counsel?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to ptif219 For This Post:

    anatta (05-26-2018)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    civil case.. what does this have to do with Trump?

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,662
    Thanks
    9,767
    Thanked 33,622 Times in 21,485 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    civil case.. what does this have to do with Trump?
    In what way does the fact that it’s a civil case make the analysis different visa-vi a court issued subpoena?

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    In what way does the fact that it’s a civil case make the analysis different visa-vi a court issued subpoena?
    in terms of the fact a POTUS cannot be indicted..only impeached.

    So a civil case would not fall under the same standing,and could be heard.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    ptif219 (05-26-2018)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    constitutionally, don't they have to wait until he's out of office before they can prosecute for private crimes?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    it's all a grey area.
    But basically the stress and time to defend a criminal case would be detrimental to the POTUS ability to perform his duties. Facing jail concentrates the mind elsewhere.

    A civil case still allows resolution, in that the penalties are not so drastic.
    Least it how I read it all

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    Darth Omar (05-26-2018)

  14. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,662
    Thanks
    9,767
    Thanked 33,622 Times in 21,485 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    in terms of the fact a POTUS cannot be indicted..only impeached.

    So a civil case would not fall under the same standing,and could be heard.
    That makes no difference with regards to a subpoena issued by the Court.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Jarod For This Post:

    Rune (05-27-2018)

  16. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,662
    Thanks
    9,767
    Thanked 33,622 Times in 21,485 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    constitutionally, don't they have to wait until he's out of office before they can prosecute for private crimes?
    What’s a private crime?

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jarod For This Post:

    christiefan915 (05-27-2018), Rune (05-27-2018)

  18. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,662
    Thanks
    9,767
    Thanked 33,622 Times in 21,485 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    it's all a grey area.
    But basically the stress and time to defend a criminal case would be detrimental to the POTUS ability to perform his duties. Facing jail concentrates the mind elsewhere.

    A civil case still allows resolution, in that the penalties are not so drastic.
    Least it how I read it all
    Silly, a president must be able to focus.

  19. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    19,400
    Thanks
    1,745
    Thanked 6,394 Times in 5,099 Posts
    Groans
    1,397
    Groaned 908 Times in 849 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Jarod ain't no lawyer

  20. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    That makes no difference with regards to a subpoena issued by the Court.
    for documents? of course not. Testimony is a different animal

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/dont-sub...mony-president
    While Trump might not be in the best position to defend a claim that presidents should not be compelled by courts to testify, the case that the judiciary possesses such an authority is hardly an easy one. Presidents have in the past avoided testing the issue by voluntarily agreeing to testify when necessary. After much delay, Bill Clinton eventually consented to giving testimony to independent counsel Kenneth Starr under carefully negotiated conditions. Other presidents have likewise chosen to cooperate when asked to testify.

    Previous Supreme Court cases have stopped well short of asserting a judicial power to subpoena presidential testimony in a criminal case.

  21. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    Silly, a president must be able to focus.
    the courts have an interest in seeing jurisprudence is carried out in a timely basis to accomplish justice.

    However the competing interest of facing a conviction is weighed against that.
    I ASSUME ( and it's just my opinion) the courts look at the difference of civil satisfaction as not being anywhere near as weighty a matter as a criminal penalty

  22. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    Jarod ain't no lawyer
    Yes, he is.

Similar Threads

  1. The case for impeachment
    By tinfoil in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 01-31-2017, 11:06 AM
  2. Is there a case for doing nothing?
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-22-2012, 09:09 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 06:40 PM
  4. A Case For Carter
    By cancel2 2022 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-04-2011, 04:31 AM
  5. Obama needs to brush up on ME history
    By TuTu Monroe in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2009, 12:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •