- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
16 Sep 19
@no1marauder saidA plea bargain is what saved him. Yes a sitting president was charged, only semantics at play.
Again you make an untrue accusation.
Bill Clinton was not criminally charged while in office.
"On the day before leaving office in January 2001, President Clinton in what amounted to a plea bargain agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and to pay a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with the independent counsel Robert Ray to end his investigation without filing any criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice.[33][34] Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar as a result of his law license suspension. However, as is customary, he was allowed 40 days to appeal an otherwise-automatic disbarment. The former President resigned from the Supreme Court bar during the 40-day appeals period.'
@mott-the-hoople saidThe article you cited supports my point and refutes yours. Clinton was not charged while in office. Ray could have only filed charges AFTER he left office.
A plea bargain is what saved him. Yes a sitting president was charged, only semantics at play.
"On the day before leaving office in January 2001, President Clinton in what amounted to a plea bargain agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and to pay a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with the independent counsel Robert Ray to end his in ...[text shortened]... barment. The former President resigned from the Supreme Court bar during the 40-day appeals period.'
@no1marauder saidAs long as they didn't do that *only* for Bill Clinton, I have no problem with it. And that surely is the case.
The article you cited supports my point and refutes yours. Clinton was not charged while in office. Ray could have only filed charges AFTER he left office.
16 Sep 19
@earl-of-trumps saidIf any of you had actually read any of the Mueller Report, you'd know that the DOJ filed a memorandum opinion in 1973 stating the President couldn't be criminally charged while in office and that that has remained its binding policy since.
As long as they didn't do that *only* for Bill Clinton, I have no problem with it. And that surely is the case.
16 Sep 19
@no1marauder
I thought it wasn't actually binding in a legal sense, only custom and if someone had the balls to do it they could but political pressure keeps that from happening.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
16 Sep 19
@no1marauder saidwas not charged because of guilty plea.
The article you cited supports my point and refutes yours. Clinton was not charged while in office. Ray could have only filed charges AFTER he left office.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
16 Sep 19
@sonhouse saidit is not...policy is not law. just marerider reaching.
@no1marauder
I thought it wasn't actually binding in a legal sense, only custom and if someone had the balls to do it they could but political pressure keeps that from happening.
16 Sep 19
@sonhouse saidIt's binding policy on DOJ employees and you can be fired for violating such policies. Andrew McCabe was fired for violating policy for example.
@no1marauder
I thought it wasn't actually binding in a legal sense, only custom and if someone had the balls to do it they could but political pressure keeps that from happening.
What would happen if a US Attorney went rogue and filed a criminal indictment against a sitting President anyway? That is unclear; the DOJ policy is based on a belief that such an act would be unconstitutional. Obviously no courts have yet ruled on such a matter.
16 Sep 19
@no1marauder saidSo what am I to conclude when they don't do so?
After the witnesses are examined and the evidence presented In public hearings, yes IMO.
So you agree with me? They should either use the pot or get off!
Otherwise, they are useless and hypocritical.
16 Sep 19
@no1marauder saidNot criminally charging someone like the Clintons is not all that impressive considering how corrupt and connected they are.
Again you make an untrue accusation.
Bill Clinton was not criminally charged while in office.
Do you agree Bill Perjured himself and what should have been done about it if so?
16 Sep 19
@whodey saidI'd say he could have been charged with perjury. I'd say Richard Nixon could have been charged with far more serious crimes. Neither were for various reasons.
Not criminally charging someone like the Clintons is not all that impressive considering how corrupt and connected they are.
Do you agree Bill Perjured himself and what should have been done about it if so?
I'd also say that right wingers are obsessed with the Clintons.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
17 Sep 19
@no1marauder saidAndrew Mc Cabe was fired for lying! damn you cant tell the truth about anything.
It's binding policy on DOJ employees and you can be fired for violating such policies. Andrew McCabe was fired for violating policy for example.
What would happen if a US Attorney went rogue and filed a criminal indictment against a sitting President anyway? That is unclear; the DOJ policy is based on a belief that such an act would be unconstitutional. Obviously no courts have yet ruled on such a matter.
17 Sep 19
@no1marauder saidI'd say that there are no longer checks and balances at that high level of power.
I'd say he could have been charged with perjury. I'd say Richard Nixon could have been charged with far more serious crimes. Neither were for various reasons.
I'd also say that right wingers are obsessed with the Clintons.
But that makes Progressives, who love the centralized control with impunity, cry cuz they like it that way.