Ask Me Help Desk - Under present US law, if a president STEALS his election, does he get to keep it?

Hello:

What? If he can't get indicted he gets away with it??

excon

There is no law that says you cannot indict a president for cause, though there is a justice department policy against indicting a sitting president. Even that can be challenged by a attorney general with balls though, and some solid evidence. Everybody thinks that impeaching a president is the only way to go, but with 53 sycophants and suck ups, that's not likely to happen.

You never know Ex, maybe a few repub senators would join the dems and get the dufus kicked out, assuming of course that's who you mean, but I have heard the AG can have a sealed indictment ready for when ever we get him out of office, or maybe America will get this lying cheater out by the vote, but a guy who can BS his way to high office might be able to BS his way to reelection.

Naw, I don't think he will get away with his BS completely, for sure the ones around him are being caught and made to pay, so one way or another so will he. That crook Nixon got reelected, but he didn't last much longer in office, did he? Why do you think Pence is keeping his nose clean and his mouth shut pretty much?

the answer is that the results of the election was certified by a joint session of Congress as the Congress stipulates . The ONLY course to remove him from office is a conviction by the Senate of charges of impeachment .Mueller has already indicated that he will follow Justice Dept long standing opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

the answer is that the results of the election was certified by a joint session of Congress as the Congress stipulates . The ONLY course to remove him from office is a conviction by the Senate of charges of impeachment .Mueller has already indicated that he will follow Justice Dept long standing opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted .

Congress cannot certify an invalid election if that election is subsequently deemed to be fraudulent. The certification becomes null and void. The 2016 election is not yet proven to be fraudulent, but it's looks that way more each day. The evidence is overwhelming that Russia had a substantial influence supporting Trump during the election, but whether that influence tipped the scales remains to be seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

the answer is that the results of the election was certified by a joint session of Congress as the Congress stipulates . The ONLY course to remove him from office is a conviction by the Senate of charges of impeachment .Mueller has already indicated that he will follow Justice Dept long standing opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted .

None of that stops states from pulling the Dufus's draws down in public like was done by NY in a CIVIL suit!

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://elections.ap.org/content/trump-foundation-reaches-deal-dissolve-amid-lawsuit

As I said before there is NO LAW stopping the Justice Dept. from indicting a sitting president. While Mueller has said he will abide by the guidelines, opinions can change.
[/FONT]

Quote:

Congress cannot certify an invalid election if that election is subsequently deemed to be fraudulent. The certification becomes null and void. The 2016 election is not yet proven to be fraudulent, but it's looks that way more each day. The evidence is overwhelming that Russia had a substantial influence supporting Trump during the election, but whether that influence tipped the scales remains to be seen.

Assuming that was true (and that is a huge assumption that I don't buy into );what law was broken ? There is no federal law that criminalizes collusion between a political campaign and foreign government. Even though “colluding” with a foreign government, may be inappropriate or politically damaging, it’s not illegal. There may be some campaign finance laws that were violated . But that has happened in almost every campaign since such laws were created . Mueller has tried to use the word ""conspiracy to defraud the US" to make his case against actors like Manafort . He will have to accumulate overwhelming evidence to even proceed down that path. That Trump Jr and others met one time with a Russian plant to get dirt on Evita does not constitute a conspiracy . In fact that act was nothing close to the DNC using foreign nationals like Chris Steele and MI6 and Aussie diplomats to get dirt on the Trump campaign.Or using that unverified dossier (by Comey's own admission) to obtain FISA warrants to spy on a political opponent in a Presidential campaign .It is even debatable that interfering in an election is a crime. ( United States v. Gradwell, SCOTUS ruled that a conspiracy to influence a congressional election by bribing voters was not a "conspiracy to defraud” the United States.Promoting or disseminating false information about a political candidate is political speech protected by the First Amendment .So even if he lied about Evita the whole campaign that would not be a crime.
No all they have is process crimes and allegations about his business practices ;none of which makes the election results fraudulent .

Nope the only way he can be removed from office is impeachment conviction.

Tal Aaron Burr was VP while a murder charge was hanging over him .Ultimately he was never charged but the duel with Hamilton ruined his political career. NY may have filed sealed charges against him and Mueller may even do so (as the saying goes ;prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich) .Or he may be an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in other prosecutions . But until I see Mueller attempt it ;and SCOTUS confirm the indictment valid ;then I don't believe it . The Constitution is very clear and unambiguous .

Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

The impeachment has to come first .

Well impeachment shouldn't take long at all if senate repubs do their jobs, and the house has the evidence, but personally I would love the challenge of indicting the dufus and creating a legal ruckus that SCOTUS may have to rule on. Back in the day repubs told Nixon in private they would impeach him, and he resigned.

That may not be as dramatic for the dufus, as far as I'm concerned, but it would serve the purpose of removing him and even if Pence pardons him for federal charges, a few states would still be able to keep him from pulling his pants back up. If you get the feeling complete public humiliation and jail is my preferred justice, you would be absolutely correct. Either way the country wins even if the righties heads explode.

I have no doubt repubs would have already tried to do that to Hillary had she won. So on with the show.

Why not go the Chris Matthews route ? Threaten his family if he doesn't resign. That's why Flynn is playing along with Mueller's charade. That's what drove Agnew from office.

He just needs to do what Hilary does, kill anyone that may testify and destroy any evidence. Since most of the evidence is merely talk and assumptions, there is no real concern that anything will happen except Trump will be elected for a 2nd term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Why not go the Chris Matthews route ? Threaten his family if he doesn't resign. That's why Flynn is playing along with Mueller's charade. That's what drove Agnew from office.

Agnew was a crook, like his boss Nixon, that's why they were forced from office. Just like the dufus and his kids, and the people who the dufus picks to work for him, MANY already have faced justice and more to come. That's why they are being investigated on every front.

The law has filled prisons with criminals using these tactics so why cry now when they do it to white collar criminals and corrupt government officials? I know sour grapes over Hillary getting away with murder for decades. Just cannot understand why your guy isn't allowed to do the same thing. Could it be your methods were LOUD but without enough evidence?

You sure have had enough investigations though.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/168/16864/1686457.gif

Quote:

Could it be your methods were LOUD but without enough evidence?

You sure have had enough investigations though.

no because POTUS Emperor O was a co-conspirator allied with the Justice Dept officials who protected her and set out to destroy the Trump Presidency. Investigations by law makers means squat if the Executive turns a blind eye to it . As You know ,the only power the Congressional Committees have are to request investigations and special prosecutors be appointed by the AG .