General Discussion

nocalflea

(1,387 posts)

55. You're not seriously suggesting that corruption did not exist at that time ?

Mon Feb 5, 2018, 05:39 PM

Feb 2018

Foreign influence$ was well known to the framers of the constitution.

These people lived in a much darker world. How many democracys existed back then ? Corruption and foreign intrigue were par for the course.

Remember the part the Hessians played in the war ? $$$

One of the largest threats to the newly minted nation was foreign influence.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

55 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Russia probe lawyers think Mueller could indict Trump [View all] honest.abe Feb 2018 OP

K & R SunSeeker Feb 2018 #1

but WHY is he obstructing justice? Skittles Feb 2018 #2

I read the article and my head is spinning. BigmanPigman Feb 2018 #3

Love to see Muellar try. nocalflea Feb 2018 #4

Their remedy was to have congress impeach and remove such a POTUS ehrnst Feb 2018 #6

Or that those congress persons would have gotten themselves elected with foreign aid. Volaris Feb 2018 #9

You're not seriously suggesting that corruption did not exist at that time ? nocalflea Feb 2018 #55

That about says it all. triron Feb 2018 #27

I believe the keyword here is "enough". nocalflea Feb 2018 #54

The actual Clauses in the Constitution, and my take: lagomorph777 Feb 2018 #53

DOJ legal opinion says they cant indict sitting President Cicada Feb 2018 #5

A DoJ legal opinion is not law DeminPennswoods Feb 2018 #7

My suspicion would be that the courts would defer to the electorate... Volaris Feb 2018 #11

That's the ideal solution DeminPennswoods Feb 2018 #13

There's a better solution PJMcK Feb 2018 #51

I agree but if Mueller follows DOJ rule it will never get to a court Cicada Feb 2018 #26

But will Mueller defer to DOJ procedures? I would think he would Cicada Feb 2018 #25

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits prosecution LiberalFighter Feb 2018 #40

The SCOTUS would likely decide in favor of Trump. It gives Exec Branch wide latitude, IMO. Honeycombe8 Feb 2018 #8

You mean Justice Illegitimate Gorsuch. Or Justice* G sharedvalues Feb 2018 #14

I think Roberts goes against Trump honest.abe Feb 2018 #15

I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts voted against Trump, but I think he could go either way. Nitram Feb 2018 #17

Roberts is no friend of Trump and not a lock vote for Republican issues. honest.abe Feb 2018 #20

If he does, then Kennedy does, too, I think. Can't say for sure about Roberts. Honeycombe8 Feb 2018 #18

yes, agreed. honest.abe Feb 2018 #21

Yup, yup, yup Farmer-Rick Feb 2018 #19

so going by your list bdamomma Feb 2018 #32

They should indict bucolic_frolic Feb 2018 #10

No one is above the law. Vinca Feb 2018 #12

Yes, that is the basic simple rule that SCOTUS will probably use. honest.abe Feb 2018 #16

makes sense to me bdamomma Feb 2018 #30

Agreed LiberalFighter Feb 2018 #41

Not BigOleDummy Feb 2018 #22

Indictment of a sitting President is not prohibited Progressive dog Feb 2018 #23

The US can indicate the president but probably can't try him until he is Farmer-Rick Feb 2018 #24

K&R bdamomma Feb 2018 #28

I hope so EthanBlue Feb 2018 #29

I agree 100% H2O Man Feb 2018 #31

I would expect Mueller to wait until he can unleash a salvo PatentlyDemocratic Feb 2018 #33

Speculation at this point until m3n0z Feb 2018 #34

Maybe so It's looking more and more like Gates Flipped TNLib Feb 2018 #35

I want to believe Clarity2 Feb 2018 #36

Where's the gas can, so I can add fuel to this story? ffr Feb 2018 #37

This is the time to do it. Trump is certainly the person. rockfordfile Feb 2018 #38

There is legal precedent for a POTUS being arrested and fined Mr.Bill Feb 2018 #39

Can someone please explain how nobody is above the law, yet if a Prez commits crimes he Kirk Lover Feb 2018 #42

I don't see anything under Article II that exempts DT from prosecution. LiberalFighter Feb 2018 #43

I keep reading opinions that a sitting president cannot be indicted? LuckyCharms Feb 2018 #44

Sometimes people are stick in the muds and can't get the mud out of their eyes. LiberalFighter Feb 2018 #45

OK, thanks. n/t LuckyCharms Feb 2018 #46

Just to be clear I didn't mean you. LiberalFighter Feb 2018 #47

Than what is all this 'you can't indict a sitting President' stuff? n/t Kirk Lover Feb 2018 #49

kick for visibility triron Feb 2018 #48

If the President shot someone in cold blood, rolypolychloe Feb 2018 #50

That should highlight how ridiculous their case against indictment is. missingm Feb 2018 #52