Hello Dale,

>   DS> You need to examine that quote in the context and circumstances in
> which
>   DS> it was made.
>
>   GD> It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
> for
>   GD> this to be spoken in any context.
>
> Why not -- it is a perfectly conservative and practical approach to the
> situation.
>
>   GD> How can there be any impeachment or any indictment when there was no
>   GD> crime? To spite whatever back door Robert Mueller wants to leave
> open.
>
> Once again, you are proving that you have not bothered to read the
> Mueller report and are accepting the word of Barr.  The Mueller report
> outlines multiple occasions which would give rise to a charge and
> probable conviction of anyone other than the sitting president.

Over a thousand former federal prosecutors, without rebuttal,
have said that.

>   GD> The investigation is completed and so is the opportunity for an
>   GD> encore.
>
> Not an encore -- things are still going on.

Mueller's written report is finished.  However, several individuals
who have been indicted have yet to be tried in court.

>GD>There is no possibility of prison when there is no crime.
>
>That is not for you to say.  It is for the courts to say.  And multiple
>legal experts have publically stated that there are ten cases of
>obstruction of justice which will be prosecutable if Trump is not
>reelected.

That is an opinion, not based on precedent.  AG Elliot Richardson
had threatened to indict VP Spiro Agnew, and was prepared to do so.
After thinking it over, Agnew decided to resign from office rather
than fight a battle in court, as Richardson had the goods on him.

After the Starr Report was made public, the doj issued an opinion
that a sitting president could not be indicted.  That is based on
a prior opinion of the doj after the Agnew fiasco.

Since there is no precedent, the question as whether a sitting
president/vice president can or cannot be indicted remains open.

Should it be doj policy to indict a sitting president or vice
president?  Or should it be left up to the Congress to decide how
to deal with a president/vice president who has broken the law?

The House can choose to act as prosecutor and jury, without
sending the issue to the Senate for removal from office.  IOW,
the House can, in effect, try the president or vice president
for crime(s) committed, vote to condemn (guilty verdict), then
send him on his merry way - without removal from office.

This would deny the Senate from exonerating the guilty.

>GD>As for his chances on being re-elected, I would say the following,
>GD>they are dam good, the country is doing much better then when Obama was
>GD>re-elected for a second term.
>
>GD>However, what is it from your perspective that the President is guilty
>GD>of? I really want you to think about that. First let me enlighten you
>GD>on what it can't be. The firing of James Comey, The FBI Director
>GD>serves at the word of the
>GD>President of which is (or was in this case) his boss.
>GD>Which means there was no crime committed with his firing.
>
>There is a crime if the firing was done with criminal intent, e.g. to
>twart the investigation into his wrong doings.  That is just one of the
>ten documented examples of obstruction in the Mueller report.  Read it.

What is the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
The news media had asked Vice President Ford that very question
when he assumed office, as President Nixon was being threatened
with impeachment by the House.  President Ford gave the best
answer that could possibly be given - "Whatever the Congress
says it is."

--Lee

-- 
Stop Workin', Start Jerkin'

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)