• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mueller investigation

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Seeing how Mueller investigation is closed and that Mueller himself said No more indictments to bring forward.

That means there was never a collusion between Trump and Russia from the beginning.

All were false hoods from liberal Democrats, And the Fake News Media from the beginning.

So guess what that means, Trump will now go after all those who tried bring him down over false allegations from the fake news media and liberal Democrats.

And their all are going to get what they all deserve
Stay Tune.
It's not over yet until Trump gets his day in court with the Fake News Media and the Liberal Democrats who conspired against him.

In knowing how Trump is, And Trump being a New Yorker from Manhattan Trump will definitely go after all of them, as people haven't seen nothing yet, but soon will.

As back in 1991,Newspapers in New York City accounts in 1991 reporting that he had once confronted a baseball-bat-wielding mugger on the streets of New York City:

Stay Tune People
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
The Southern District of NY is not done with POTUS - just sayin'

As it is, The ball is now in Trump's court.

As there is nothing that the Southern District of NYC can do to Trump, At the moment Mueller announce there is no more indictment coming, cleared Trump of having anything to do with the Russian collusion.
Therefore the Southern District of NYC has noting to go on no more.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
The Southern District of NY is not done with POTUS - just sayin'
The Southern District of NY has no jurisdiction over a sitting President.
From: Indicting and Prosecuting a Sitting President
There are ... incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it. Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office ...

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, § 1563 (1833)
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
The Southern District of NY has no jurisdiction over a sitting President.
From: Indicting and Prosecuting a Sitting President
There are ... incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it. Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office ...

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, § 1563 (1833)

Your absolutely right, Now watch the Democrats run like heck. They all know the balls in Trump's court now.
And Trump will go after them all.

Thank you for your bit of information.
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
The Southern District of NY has no jurisdiction over a sitting President.
From: Indicting and Prosecuting a Sitting President
There are ... incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it. Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office ...

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, § 1563 (1833)


Did you even take the time to read through the entire thing?

Some commentators have concluded that any constitutional rule that would prevent the indictment of a sitting president would have to permit exceptions, citing the hypothetical of the president who shoots and kills someone in plain view. In his Lawfare reply, Professor Tribe even asserts that, “nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of ‘no-indictment-of-a-sitting president’ to that kind of case.”
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
As Mueller said himself yesterday, there will be no more indictments, So that means Trump is cleared.
No, it really doesn't. All it means is that Mueller chose not to indict.

At this point, we have no idea whether this was because Mueller found that Trump was not guilty of a crime, or:

- because he's recommended impeachment instead,
- because there was evidence of probable guilt, but not enough to warrant an indictment, or
- because he clearly established wrongdoing, but for things that aren't of a criminal nature.

You're nowhere near being able to justify a claim that Trump is innocent.

...and even if Trump were innocent criminally, the sheer number of his underlings who have been indicted - or already convicted - would indictate a level of incompetence in overseeing staff that it would be reasonable to call his incompetence "wrongdoing."
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Did you even take the time to read through the entire thing?

Some commentators have concluded that any constitutional rule that would prevent the indictment of a sitting president would have to permit exceptions, citing the hypothetical of the president who shoots and kills someone in plain view. In his Lawfare reply, Professor Tribe even asserts that, “nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of ‘no-indictment-of-a-sitting president’ to that kind of case.”
Yes I read it, but I didn't think that anyone would use that example in trying to justify ones obsession. But, I guess I'm wrong since you are using a hypothetical possibility to attempt to justify your below comment.
The Southern District of NY is not done with POTUS - just sayin'
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
Yes I read it, but I didn't think that anyone would use that example in trying to justify ones obsession. But, I guess I'm wrong since you are using a hypothetical possibility to attempt to justify your below comment.

And just to be clear about it - that is not settled law nor is it in the Constitution - it is the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) which has generally always been followed but again no mandate
 

esmith

Veteran Member
And just to be clear about it - that is not settled law nor is it in the Constitution - it is the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) which has generally always been followed but again no mandate
whatever floats your boat
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Some ideas for new possible investigations:
Trump probably has at some point in his life:
-Jay walked
-Spit on the sidewalk
- Tore a tag off a mattress or pillow
INVESTIGATE INVESTIGATE
(in Dalek voice)
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Some ideas for new possible investigations:
Trump probably has at some point in his life:
-Jay walked
-Spit on the sidewalk
- Tore a tag off a mattress or pillow
INVESTIGATE INVESTIGATE
(in Dalek voice)
-Tax fraud
- Bank fraud
- Money laundering
- Election finance violations
- Obstruction of Justice
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
-Tax fraud
- Bank fraud
- Money laundering
- Election finance violations
- Obstruction of Justice

I'll tax Tax fraud for $100

Surely Trump had a very well paid tax preparer take care of this for him.

Wonder why the IRS doesn't seem too concerned

could it be because what he did was completely legal?
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
So the President actually is above the law. Is that what you believe?

That is partially correct - there is an opinion of the Office of the Legal counsel and indeed an opinion piece by Judge Kavanaugh to that effect. However, as per my understanding of the nuanced matter it is not an absolute protection. The example provided is that if a sitting chief executive were to commit murder for which an ordinary person would be charged then the CE would as well - I would imagine that also extends to treason if such can be proven
 
Top