HEM: Semi-Regular Observations
-
Kcmatt7 said:
@DoubleDD sources? Stats that can be checked? Where is your basis for that statement coming from?
This isn’t what you’re looking for but I though it was a decent read.
-
@DoubleDD The IRS cares about whether you are paying your taxes. I don’t think they care about much else, and yes, I think we can assume that Donald Trump pays his taxes. The purpose of providing your tax returns as a candidate pertains more to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution which states:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
And it has been standard behavior for presidential candidates to provide their tax returns.
When was the last time you heard of a President’s citizenship being questioned? Yes, I do think by the time a candidate is running for office his citizenship has been pretty well vetted.
-
When has the last time you heard of Impeachment when the president hasn’t done anything?
The Emolument Clause maybe be the standard but it’s not the law. There is no law that says a person has to show their tax returns to serve in the government.
-
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
- the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- his attempts to tamper with witnesses
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]
- encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
- encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
- concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
- attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
- permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
- making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
(other articles were dropped)
-
approxinfinity said:
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
- the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- his attempts to tamper with witnesses
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]
- encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
- encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
- concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
- attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
- permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
- making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
(other articles were dropped)
Come on he lied about having sexual relationships with an intern in the White House. Even if he didn’t lie he still had a sexual relationship with an intern in the White House.
And for the record I liked Old Bill. Still do. Even though some stories have come out that he has been a bit too aggressive with the opposite sex.
-
@DoubleDD He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Had he not done those things, he wouldn’t have been impeached.
Do you think obstruction of justice should be an impeachable offense? And, why do you think Trump’s lawyers are trying to avoid having him testify?
-
@justanotherfan Of course, Trump promised to provide his tax returns, so that was a lie. It also took our current President a few years before he acknowledged that Obama’s birth certificate was genuine–and then only after repeated pressure during the campaign. A few years during which he continued to claim that he had “people in Hawaii” who had investigated and had discovered amazing evidence about Obama’s BCert that Trump promised he would reveal.
The man can’t help lying, even when he has no reason to!
-
@DoubleDD The prohibition against emoluments indeed is the law. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It is not, perhaps, separately spelled out in federal statutes. But do not say it is not the law!
-
Well you are a judge even though retired. I’ll take your word for it.
-
I think your reaching a bit. Why should Trump talk to Mueller? Mueller has no reason or right to demand such a meeting. Trump hasn’t done anything wrong. Mueller is just trying to find some wrong doing. Which I understand what your saying.
Yet it’s common knowledge when a person is picked up by police not to say anything until a lawyer is present. Why is that? That is street cred, and basic survival in this world of litigation.
Look I get you loath Trump. Yet he would be stupid to engage in such a conversation. Especially when there is no reason for such a conversation.
Basic street knowledge.
-
@DoubleDD My point is that Trump firing people due to the Russia investigation, as well as his tweets demanding the investigation to cease, etc could be construed as obstruction of justice, and as @mayjay mentioned, Trump is a habitual liar, and if he were to take the stand, he’d almost certainly get himself a perjury charge as well.
So, your original question was “when was a President impeached for nothing?” and my point was, Trump’s actions are not much different than Clinton’s. So if you think Trump has done nothing, then Clinton is the comp you seek.
-
You do know how to tell when a Politician is lying? When their lips are moving. Lmao.
-
@approxinfinity to go to bed don’t bother yourself with me. I’m just stirring the pot.
-
@DoubleDD Actually, Mueller could just subpoena Trump and make him testify at the grand jury where he would not have the right to an attorney. But Mueller is trying to get a meeting instead in order to avoid a confrontation and possible constitutional crisis.
Trump would have to appear and testify (or plead the 5th, but he could not then make any statements at all–can you imagine?), but only if the lapdog rightwing judges and justices follow the legal precedent sought by the rabid attackers of Bill Clinton. Now that their Darling Donald is in the crosshairs, I have no doubt they will decide Clinton should not have had to appear.
-
@DoubleDD those fluctuations happen all of the time. When the country had almost no Welfare, the country damn near collapsed…
I’m not saying that I want a ton of people dependent on Welfare. There are a lot of things we waste tax payer money on. But, we are not replacing 12.5M low wage workers with Americans. The effect would largely be something we don’t want to see happen.
It has been a long-time consensus from economists that an unemployment rate from 2.5% to 4% is a great place for an economy to be. Higher than 4% and wages get stagnant. Lower than 2.5% and inflation could take off into a theorized uncontrollable cycle of wage increases followed by price increases. So, at 3.9% in the U.S. right now, we are right where we want to be. It makes for an economy that is predictable and reliable. It is one of the main reasons why Wall Street continues to climb to all-time highs.
So, getting rid of 12M low income workers and replacing them with 12M middle-income workers and dropping the unemployment rate down near that dangerous 2.5% is something I would not be very interested in. It would disrupt 695M Americans (and millions world-wide quite frankly) far more than it would benefit the 6M who are currently unemployed (if you could theoretically swap out people who are unemployed with illegal immigrants).
Our economy is in a good place right now. The growth of the Market helps hundreds of millions of people. Part of that successful economy is having a truly low-wage workforce in our own backyards.
-
Plain ol’ lying during a political campaign is not against the law, if it were, all politicians would be in jail… joining all cheating spouses, car salesmen, preachers, school kids and most members of society who at one time or another lie…some more than others, of course. Lying becomes a crime when it raises to the level of perjury, fraud or obstruction of justice and likely other circumstances such as when it causes hardship to someone else.
-
in my Economics class I was taught that economists consider 4% as being full employment or no unemployment since that 4% includes people in between jobs, people taking sabbatical leave or going back to school or just time off, people retiring early, discouraged workers not actively seeking work and so on. Of course I have seen different number as low as 2% but 3% to 4% appears to be the more commonly cited figures.
-
Um no you’re wrong on that one. If he tried without any real evidence? OBG. He would ruin everything he’s ever done.
He has no evidence and has no leg to stand on. He can’t subpoena the president with evidence why he is issuing the subpoena. He’s screwed if he tries to do it. You know it and so do I. Muller has nothing he’s just trying to find something.
-
Don’t worry I love crap out of you. You’re a fair poster. No problems.
-
DoubleDD said:
Um no you’re wrong on that one. If he tried without any real evidence? OBG. He would ruin everything he’s ever done.
He has no evidence and has no leg to stand on. He can’t subpoena the president with evidence why he is issuing the subpoena. He’s screwed if he tries to do it. You know it and so do I. Muller has nothing he’s just trying to find something.
He is charged by law to investigate. Questioning witnesses is part of that. So, yes, he can subpoena the president.
-
Yes, he can subpoena the president provided he can show relevance to the case; he cannot just go on a fishing expedition and expect a judge to sign off on it particularly if the subject is not just a witness but also a target and the fourth and fifth amendment would likely kick in and the subpoena quashed. This article has some good information with citations to actual court decisions.
-
@JayHawkFanToo If that were a bar exam question, I am afraid you would not have passed. There is nothing in the article that supports your argument. The rights of a party to subpoena a witness has to do with trial. As your article’s commenters pointed out, a grand jury is different. And, incidentally, Mueller has previously said Trump is not the target, so that is out.
-
"Rather than a warrant to arrest or search the property of a suspect, a subpoena is an order to a witness to produce documents or provide testimony. Subpoenas are available in civil as well as criminal proceedings, and can be obtained by any party. Normally a party who requires the disclosure of documents under subpoena before trial must show that (1) the documents are evidentiary and relevant, (2) they cannot otherwise be procured with due diligence, (3) they are needed for trial preparation, and (4) the application is made in good faith and is not a ‘fishing expedition’: United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), pp 699–700."
As I recall, Nixon was at the time the sitting president…
and…
"I originally stated that a subpoena is directed at a witness rather than a suspect. As pointed out in the comments below, a suspect can be a witness as well. But at common law, a subpoena could not be issued to a defendant in a criminal case because of the privilege against self-incrimination: R v Purnell (1748) 1 Wils 239, p 243. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), pp 634–635, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination reflected this part of the common law."
Now, if you believe Trump is not the ultimate target, then I have some waterfront property in Florida you might be interested…you cant’t possibly be that naive.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Being a target is a technical term. The Nixon case was talking about a “party”. This shows you are not the lawyer you aspire to be. The grand jury ain’t a party. And Nixon was forced to comply, incidentally.
-
Because in the Nixon case there was plenty of evidence of collusion. So far Muller has not shown any evidence of collusion with Russia and the only case he has brought up so far, supposedly his strongest, is about tax evasion that happened much before Trump was even a candidate and has nothing to do with Trump or collusion with Russia or even his original charter.
Looks like Mueller should be investigating Hillary instead.
By the way, I am not a lawyer and never wanted to be one. I followed the same advise that Téa Leoni’s father gave her when she thought she wanted to be an archeologist…don’t do what you are good at, do what you are passionate about and become good at it.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Incidentally, Nixon involved a subpoena for documents and tapes sought for use in a pending criminal proceeding against 7 indicted defendants. Nixon was a third-party, and was trying to quash on a claim of executive privilege (essentially, the need for confidentiality of presidential conversations and communications).
Was there any doubt in Nixon in 1974 who the ultimate target might have been? Nixon resigned 3 weeks after the decision after his support in Congress dissolved when the produced tapes proved he actively sought to illegally impede the Watergate investigation.
In addition, the Court in Nixon expressly approved a prior Court precedent applicable here:
Only recently the Court restated the ancient proposition of law, albeit in the context of a grand jury inquiry rather than a trial,
"that `the public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence,’ except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege, United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. [323, 331 (1950)]; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 438 (1932) . . . ." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972).
That reference seems to indicate the principle applies more in a grand jury subpoena!
-
@JayHawkFanToo Tea Leoni should have been a pro golfer.
