Unless the guy has a some kinda surprise in the closet?
He’s a lock….
The party with Senate votes gets this …..
“Democrats have all but acknowledged that they are unable to stop the Senate from confirming Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court this fall,” the Washington Post reports.
“Moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins of Maine, the most closely watched GOP swing vote, are sending strong signals that they will back Kavanaugh. Several Democrats facing difficult reelections this year have indicated they are open to voting for the judge. And leaders of the resistance are already delivering post-mortem assessments and blaming fellow Democrats for a looming failure.”
Updated at 4:19 p.m. | The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a three- or four- day confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh starting Sept. 4, Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, announced on Friday….
Roll Call…
Troubling….
“On Christmas Eve 1998, five days after the House impeached President Bill Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh urged his boss — Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel — not to pursue a criminal indictment of Mr. Clinton until after he left office,” the New York Times reports.
“Judge Kavanaugh, now President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, delivered the advice in a private memorandum made public on Friday by the National Archives in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.”
Politicalwire….
because clearly Democrats would be happy with Kavanaugh had he been pushing for Clinton to be indicted while President…
No….
This goes to the heart of Kavanaugh feeling that American President’s should be immune to ANY criminal liability while in office…
Is this what you find “troubling?”
There is a great deal of legal and scholarly debate on this subject. Cavanaughs view is held by a lot of legal scholars .Its not out of the mainstream , even if you disagree with it.
Yes I DO find it troubling….
And I have agreement from a LOT of legal scholars ….
They Damn sure agree with me that Kavanaugh is WRONG in his view….
There are just as many who think differently.
My point is that his view “ troubles” you because you don’t agree with it.
As far as being disqualifying in any way .as being outside the mainstream of legal discourse ?It’s not.
Of course his view is based the bogus thought that a President is too high and mighty to be bothered about following the law like the rest of mere regular citizens….
Nixon and Clinton had to answer for their actions….
Nixon quit….
Clinton went on to a second term…
Kavanaugh’s reasoning STILL is wrong….
Main stream can encompass just about anything you can get a few eggheads to embrace including sending everone with brown eyes out of the country….There is NO LAW that prohibits an American President from being charged with a crime while IN office…Republican’s mainly stand on a ‘opinion ‘ from the Office of Independent Council a branch of the Justice Dept. during the Nixon and reaffirmed several others times with one decent which NO ONE talks about…The advisement for DOJ people was originally done by lawyers from a Republican President that quit….
The guy is WRONG….
There is NO LAW against charging a sitting President with a crime…
Not on a Federal level ….
Not on a State level…
I don’t think james understands the differences between a criminal indictment and the impeachment process.
No,he doesn’t.
Then again, there are lots of things he doesn’t understand.
just briefly…
Nixon and Clinton both faced impeachment proceedings in their second term, not their first. Both had already been reelected.
They faced political consequences, not legal ones. Neither Nixon nor Clinton were ever charged with a crime while in office (or after) and when they were President, nobody really assumed they would be.
This is no difference with Trump who may or may not face impeachment proceedings. There is nothing that Kavanaugh has ever said or written that would have any effect on that. It’s up to Congress. We know from the ’90s, that Kavanaugh believed in impeachment.
Ok….
The second part….
Nixon quit….
Clinton beat the charges….
My point exactly on the political vs criminal charges…
As Jack points out….
I do NOT agree with that things should NEVER go criminal…
No….
It’s NOT up to Congress….
The executive branch has given a decision that is mentioned but NOT universally agreed on…….
In Trump’s case?
His party’s lawyers have made the rules and he’s gonna try to get over on them…..
A court challenge would have Kavanaugh’s view in the decision…
Sure do….
The Constitution provides for the “REMOVAL’ of a President from office as a political process….
I’m talking about CHARGING a President with a presentable CRIME.…
There is NOTHING in codified law that prohibits the charging of a President with a chargeable crime…
This is about protecting the “office’ of the Presidency …
In fact numerous countries around the world HAVE had President removed from office for crimes they have committed….
Example…
Mueller has a Grand Jury consider that Donald J. Trump received money from a Foreign Government on a quid-pro- basis for influence…
And IT IS STILL going on?
That IS a Federal crime…In Progress
What does he do?
Just raise his hands and say there is nothing I can do?
What if the Grand Jury chooses to indict?
What if Donald Trump assaulted someone in plain view?
And his agent pulled him off the person?
Give me YOUR view CG?
i KNOW my law….
then your analogy to Nixon and Clinton makes no sense whatsoever.
of course they do….
they where party to the memo’s…
ya gotta do better then this….
…. The debates during the framing and ratification of the Constitution suggest that the president is subject to laws like any citizen, but never discuss prosecution in office. During the trials of Aaron Burr, Chief Justice John Marshall had insisted that Thomas Jefferson was subject to subpoena—but also that as president he could refuse to attend court in person, and could withhold some evidence.
Left with no clear sources, the Justice Department lawyers asked what answer would best serve the nation. An indictment in office would besmirch the “symbolic head of the nation.” In addition, “only the president can receive and continuously discharge the popular mandate expressed quadrennially in the presidential election,” making an indictment or trial “politically and constitutionally a traumatic event.” Impeachment is the first line of defense against presidential misconduct, the author noted. “This would suggest strongly that … criminal proceedings against a President in office should not go beyond a point” that they would effectively remove a president, and thus become a short-cut for impeachment.
In other words, an indictment of a serving president wouldn’t be a good idea.
The Bork memo, issued just 11 days later, assumes that those arguments are valid, and shows that they do not apply to the vice president. On a number of occasions, Bork noted, “the nation lacked a Vice President, and yet suffered no ill consequences.” Indeed, the third vice president, Aaron Burr of evil fame, served the last year of his term under indictment by two states, New York and New Jersey. The president has “complete power over the execution of the laws,” making a prosecution of himself by himself absurd, Bork argued; a “Vice President, of course, has no power either to control prosecutions or to grant pardons.”
Twenty-seven years later, OLC reexamined the question. By this time, there had been major Court decisions, all indicating that the president was not immune to the reach of the justice system….
More…
….this is the same for Nixon, Clinton and Trump….
Not the law about someone DID commit a crime…
But about the office of the President….
Crooked President should NOT be above the law ….Not even when they are in office….
I don’t how bad Trump’s case is…
But if Mueller finds some serious wrong doing and the Republicans are interested in politics NOT the law?
Trump is NOT quitting or being charged with have screwed his country for his own personal gain…
The other’s lied about things that do NOT approach the size and outreach of this case…
With this diatribe out of the way,the issue of a President being subjected to a criminal indictment while in office is one fraught with many questions:
1.) If he can be indicted, is he subject to trial during his service as President or should such Trial wait until his service is complete?
2.) Is he subject to just federal indictments or to state indictments too?
3.)If He is subject to federal indictment, can he pardon himself at any stage of the proceedings?
4.) If he is subject to indictment and Trial, must he temporarily step down as President until the matter be resolved?
5.)Who would make the decision on the federal level to indict him, a special counsel?And does he possess such power over the official under whom he theoretically functions?
These are just a few of the matters that such an action would involve.
It surely is a blurry area and one where reasonable people can disagree.
I can’t resist this one…
James just sees things in black and white.
He just can’t see the “greys.”
Seems like I’ve heard this somewhere before,about somebody else.
However,
It is surely a good thing that
(He)”knows my law.”
I’m about to go somewhere, but again, you do not seem to understand the difference.
Was Nixon charged criminally?
Was Clinton charged criminally?
Plenty of people believed that there was no precedent or ability to charge either of them criminally while serving as President. The views that Kavanaugh might have expressed on this matter are consistent, whether people want to agree or not. Yours are completely inconsistent and completely nonsensical.
and nobody has ever suggested that a President be immune from criminal prosecution for *life*. This issue simply is what happen to them while they are President.
If there is a reason to charge a President with a crime immediately, then there is also a reason to remove them quickly from the Presidency first under Constitutional methods.
I agree CG…
Mueller has a YUGE decision to make I believe
Just working hard to make point and get my view across with pretty smart guys here…
I try to give openings sometimes Jack…
Told ya so!