TrumPutinGate

#22,404
#22,404
volinbham said:
does the law see it this way? the charge is suborning perjury.

Your thoughts on Clinton? Perjury = impeachment and conviction? I don't even think he should have been impeached for it and glad he wasn't convicted and removed from office for it.
Click to expand...

I don't know, other than creating multiple cimes in the process. As far as a president is concerned, apparently it matters most what Congress thinks, rather than the courts.

I'm over my head already, but two crimes are worse than one, me thinks.
 
#22,405
#22,405
Stew Cook said:
I don't know, other than creating multiple cimes in the process. As far as a president is concerned, apparently it matters most what Congress thinks, rather than the courts.

I'm over my head already, but two crimes are worse than one, me thinks.
Click to expand...

It is a political matter more than a legal matter for sure. Not sure what the 2 crimes are though. If Clinton asked someone to lie about his relationship with Lewinski he'd have been suborning perjury but there's not a second crime. If Trump indeed did tell Cohen to lie he suborned perjury but working on a deal in Russia is not a crime.

So when EL asks is this sufficient for impeachment and conviction I think the most natural answer is to say if perjury itself is not sufficient then why would suborning of perjury be. For some reason no one will answer if they think Clinton should have been impeached and convicted for perjury.
 
#22,406
#22,406
volinbham said:
Can't commit on whether Clinton should have been impeached and convicted for perjury?
Click to expand...

Really, I would need to look at it in more detail. I think what you're asking though is the conceptual question of whether a finding by the senate that the crime was committed necessitates removal or whether other, non-legal considerations should be brought to bear on removal question. I probably lean towards the second view.
 
#22,407
#22,407
volinbham said:
It is a political matter more than a legal matter for sure. Not sure what the 2 crimes are though. If Clinton asked someone to lie about his relationship with Lewinski he'd have been suborning perjury but there's not a second crime. If Trump indeed did tell Cohen to lie he suborned perjury but working on a deal in Russia is not a crime.

So when EL asks is this sufficient for impeachment and conviction I think the most natural answer is to say if perjury itself is not sufficient then why would suborning of perjury be. For some reason no one will answer if they think Clinton should have been impeached and convicted for perjury.
Click to expand...

It creates a conspiracy which is another crime, or maybe I'm wrong on that. There's always the lying about sex is "different" argument, and zero chance Trump would be impeached for perjuring himself for that. He can thank Bill for that gift.
 
#22,408
#22,408
evillawyer said:
Really, I would need to look at it in more detail. I think what you're asking though is the conceptual question of whether a finding by the senate that the crime was committed necessitates removal or whether other, non-legal considerations should be brought to bear on removal question. I probably lean towards the second view.
Click to expand...

Not really - you specifically asked if it was found Trump suborned perjury that would be sufficient for impeachment and conviction.

Since you asked others state their view and since we have a real live case (not a hypothetical at this point) of a POTUS committing perjury if that would be sufficient for impeachment and conviction.

If you felt your question was straightforward and easily answered then mine should be at least as straightforward and easily answer; particularly since it is not a hypothetical AND perjury is at least as severe a crime as suborning of perjury.

No one however seems to be willing to state an answer (other than me). Should you expect anyone to answer your question if you won't answer one like it?
 
#22,409
#22,409
Stew Cook said:
It creates a conspiracy which is another crime, or maybe I'm wrong on that. There's always the lying about sex is "different" argument, and zero chance Trump would be impeached for perjuring himself for that. He can thank Bill for that gift.
Click to expand...

So you are arguing that legally suborning is worse because it defacto creates a conspiracy. I doubt that is the case.
 
#22,411
#22,411
Stew Cook said:
I couldn't tell you, but it'll be debated daily for a while on the TV.
Click to expand...

It will and mostly by partisan stooges from both sides that don't know what they are talking about.

We have a live case study to examine where a POTUS committed perjury; was impeached and not convicted. I'd argue that general consensus leans toward even the impeachment was not merited. There is precedent here.

All the "but the context" is noise meaningless unless additional charges are produced to link this alleged action to other actions.

EL's question was is this particular hypothetical was sufficient - I'd say precedent says no.
 
#22,412
#22,412
volinbham said:
Not really - you specifically asked if it was found Trump suborned perjury that would be sufficient for impeachment and conviction.

Since you asked others state their view and since we have a real live case (not a hypothetical at this point) of a POTUS committing perjury if that would be sufficient for impeachment and conviction.

If you felt your question was straightforward and easily answered then mine should be at least as straightforward and easily answer; particularly since it is not a hypothetical AND perjury is at least as severe a crime as suborning of perjury.

No one however seems to be willing to state an answer (other than me). Should you expect anyone to answer your question if you won't answer one like it?
Click to expand...

The Constitution provides that upon conviction for a high crime or misdemeanor the president shall be removed. So in that respect, I think the answer is easy. Numerous judges have been removed for perjury, so perjury is clearly a sufficient crime for removal and a conviction for perjury by the senate necessitates removal. Does anybody in reality treat this an absolute though? No (see Clinton). Perjury has more weight when you're dealing with a judge than a political figure and the consequences of removing a judge are far less drastic socially. Additionally, Clinton's perjury concerned what many felt was a purely private matter unrelated to what the special counsel was investigating and he was on his way out anyway. Are these valid considerations under the Constitution? Probably not. But when the options are simply to convict or acquit, these will be smuggled in to the conviction determination.
 
#22,413
#22,413
volinbham said:
It will and mostly by partisan stooges from both sides that don't know what they are talking about.

We have a live case study to examine where a POTUS committed perjury; was impeached and not convicted. I'd argue that general consensus leans toward even the impeachment was not merited. There is precedent here.

All the "but the context" is noise meaningless unless additional charges are produced to link this alleged action to other actions.

EL's question was is this particular hypothetical was sufficient - I'd say precedent says no.
Click to expand...


It's easy to see why someone would say "I didn't have sex", but seems a bit more complicated when someone allegedly conspired to lie about dealing with sanctioned foreign entities.

I'll add anything I can think of that seems relevant, but taking into account the circumstances of the deception is important.
 
#22,415
#22,415
evillawyer said:
The Constitution provides that upon conviction for a high crime or misdemeanor the president shall be removed. So in that respect, I think the answer is easy. Numerous judges have been removed for perjury, so perjury is clearly a sufficient crime for removal and a conviction for perjury by the senate necessitates removal. Does anybody in reality treat this an absolute though? No (see Clinton). Perjury has more weight when you're dealing with a judge than a political figure and the consequences of removing a judge are far less drastic socially. Additionally, Clinton's perjury concerned what many felt was a purely private matter unrelated to what the special counsel was investigating and he was on his way out anyway. Are these valid considerations under the Constitution? Probably not. But when the options are simply to convict or acquit, these will be smuggled in to the conviction determination.
Click to expand...

Tell me your position not some theoretical view. You asked others to take a stance.

Mine: if the Cohen story is true and there's no collusion - not sufficient; Clinton, not sufficient.
 
#22,418
#22,418
Stew Cook said:
It's easy to see why someone would say "I didn't have sex", but seems a bit more complicated when someone allegedly conspired to lie about dealing with sanctioned foreign entities.

I'll add anything I can think of that seems relevant, but taking into account the circumstances of the deception is important.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but in the end isn't each an attempt to protect a reputation? Clinton's was to avoid liability in a lawsuit and not be embarrassed. I remember just a few short months ago when some here were calling for impeachment because Trump paid a porn star to keep quiet.

In the absence of other crimes both men are protecting themselves and one actually lied while the other asked someone to lie.
 
#22,420
#22,420
volinbham said:
Tell me your position not some theoretical view. You asked others to take a stance.

Mine: if the Cohen story is true and there's no collusion - not sufficient; Clinton, not sufficient.
Click to expand...

Lying about getting a hummer in the oval office is light years away from a real estate deal in Arkansas that took place 20 years earlier. Directing others to lie about a real estate deal that was being negotiated during the campaign and which would require the approval of the government you're being investigated for colluding with seems pretty central to the investigation, as it would bear on the motive for any collusion. So this is much closer to the heart of the investigation.
 
#22,422
#22,422
I'll try a different tact EL.

Answer your own question - if the BF story is true do you advocate the impeachment and conviction of Trump for suborning perjury?
 
#22,423
#22,423
evillawyer said:
Lying about getting a hummer in the oval office is light years away from a real estate deal in Arkansas that took place 20 years earlier. Directing others to lie about a real estate deal that was being negotiated during the campaign and which would require the approval of the government you're being investigated for colluding with seems pretty central to the investigation, as it would bear on the motive for any collusion. So this is much closer to the heart of the investigation.
Click to expand...

and another non answer.

why is this so hard?
 
#22,424
#22,424
volinbham said:
Perhaps but in the end isn't each an attempt to protect a reputation? Clinton's was to avoid liability in a lawsuit.

In the absence of other crimes both men are protecting themselves and one actually lied while the other asked someone to lie.
Click to expand...

This latest thing alone would not be enough for a successful impeachment. But it would never be initiated if that's all there was to present.
 
#22,425
#22,425
volinbham said:
and another non answer.

why is this so hard?
Click to expand...

If Trump directed Cohen to lie in his congressional testimony, yes, sufficient for conviction by senate, because this goes to the heart of the special counsel's investigation (establishing contacts with Russia, possible motives for collusion, and investigating election interference).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top