Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

FP, one interesting idea is that the constitution may allow the president to be indicted by a grand jury...but not prosecuted until he steps down from the presidency.

that would fix the inevitable problem - the statute of limitations is generally five years, so a presidency can get a criminal past the statute of limitations, which doesn't seem fair.

So indict, and then have the trial after he steps down.

Seems to make sense to me.

agip wrote:

FP, one interesting idea is that the constitution may allow the president to be indicted by a grand jury...but not prosecuted until he steps down from the presidency.

that would fix the inevitable problem - the statute of limitations is generally five years, so a presidency can get a criminal past the statute of limitations, which doesn't seem fair.

So indict, and then have the trial after he steps down.

Seems to make sense to me.

The statute of limitations does not apply for tax evasion.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I voted for Trump as a lesser of two evils. Last politician I supported heartily was George McGovern in 1972.

Igy

From McGovern to Trump. Hmmmm.... you're different, that's for sure.

But the question remains: did u know your link was mocking trump?

statute of limitations wrote:

agip wrote:

FP, one interesting idea is that the constitution may allow the president to be indicted by a grand jury...but not prosecuted until he steps down from the presidency.

that would fix the inevitable problem - the statute of limitations is generally five years, so a presidency can get a criminal past the statute of limitations, which doesn't seem fair.

So indict, and then have the trial after he steps down.

Seems to make sense to me.

The statute of limitations does not apply for tax evasion.

you sure? I'm no expert, but 10 seconds with the IRS website suggests otherwise. But maybe there is a wrinkle I don't understand. IRS vs. prosecutors = different standard? I dunno.

Generally, the statute of limitations for the IRS to assess taxes on a taxpayer expires three (3) years from the due date of the return or the date on which it was filed, whichever is later. A return is considered to be filed on the due date of the return if it was filed on or before its due date. An assessment occurs when an IRS officer signs a certificate of assessment stating the amount owed by the taxpayer. Additionally, the IRS statute of limitations gets extended for an even longer time when there is a substantial omission (more than 25 percent) of gross income on the return. In these circumstances, the time limit for the IRS to make its assessment gets stretched out to six (6) years from the date the return is filed or deemed filed, whichever is later.

The IRS statute of limitations period for collection of taxes -- the IRS filing suit against the taxpayer to collect previously assessed taxes -- is generally ten (10) years. Thus, once an assessment occurs, the IRS has 10 years to pursue legal action and collect on tax debt using the considerable resources at its disposal, which include levies and wage garnishments.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Sure. That is just a far fetched statement. Of course your opinion, but it was my ballot.

Igy

Yes, it was indeed. And you are a Trumpette. A moron. And Lying Gary's somewhat quieter alter ego (if you are not in fact one and the same).

ok never mind - you are right:

"False, Fraudulent, or Missing Returns: No IRS Statute of Limitations

It is also important to note that no deadline applies where the IRS can establish that a taxpayer has: 1) filed a false or fraudulent return; 2) willfully attempted to evade tax; or 3) failed to file a return. Unlike the circumstances above where tax returns are filed (even with errors), these are cases in which a taxpayer is willfully or intentionally not filing taxes or is filing fraudulent return(s). Not only will there be no time limit on IRS action against such taxpayers, but heightened interest fees and penalties will apply."

I agree with you in theory, and I do submit that this is a tricky situation. The problem is that because he is the President, the DOJ won't indict him. So, the House and then the Senate get to go through the impeachment process, and even though it is a political process, it is called a "conviction" if the Senate votes as such. So, when a President (see Nixon) sees that the votes are in place, he can just resign to avoid the conviction.

It's really just semantics. If the Senate convicts him, then he is guilty of those things. If he resigns, he gets to avoid the official conviction. If he is indicted and is found guilty, then he is legally guilty and will face legal punishment.

What if the Mueller report lists all the things I mentioned and then the House votes to impeach and the Senate has the votes so they tell Trump that (as they did with Nixon), and Trump resigns? Is he then "guilty"?

Technically not.

Did those charges lead him to resign because the Senate was going to convict him? Yes.

If you want to argue that in that case technically he won't be "guilty", then I will accept that. I have long said he will likely avoid prison and likely will not be indicted, so it is clear that when I said he will be found "guilty" I didn't mean for sure legally.

If he holds out, and doesn't resign, the Senate will find him guilty and he will be removed from office.

What is he in the court of public opinion though if the report is details and scathing as I believe it will be? "Guilty".

Nixon's famous line was "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook." Well?

Just as Manafort was nabbed for tax crimes going back 12 years, Trump can be nabbed as far back as the IRS is capable, and willing, to go. My guess is Trump has been cheating on his taxes since Daddy Trump got him into the business. Trump must be coming up his Golden Anniversary (50 years) for not being truthful on his taxes.

Trollminator wrote:

Answering wrote:

There isn’t any. The real question is how did law enforcement not previously catch these vicious criminals, Cohen and manafort?

The answer is they were lowlives and operating under the radar, until one of their affiliates became POTUS, then a big fvcking spot light beamed on them. That’s how it works for many criminals, they get away with it initially then take more risks for bigger rewards and eventually they get too close to the sun.

CORRECT! Every criminal eventually caught got away with it...until they didn't.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I voted for Trump as a lesser of two evils.

Igy

Fair stance. Would you vote for Trump again if he runs in 2020? Do you STILL think he's the lesser of two evils?

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

I want to take a solemn break with the news that John McCain is stopping his cancer treatment.

Politics aside, even though I did not vote for him, a great American is a great American.

Amen. We need more legislators like him on both sides of the aisle.

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I just don't understand the urge to pretend that John McCain was some venerable force for good in American politics among centrists and Democrats. I wish McCain well in his final days, but I'm not about heap praise on the guy. With a few exceptions (his ACA repeal vote, his position on torture, and his unwillingness to call Obama an "Arab" in 2008), I don't see how he's significantly different than your average Republican.

He was one of the Iraq war's primary cheerleaders and was consistently a supporter of military force whenever the possibility arose somewhere else around the world. He was stridently anti-abortion (even stated his support for a constitutional amendment banning it). He was a big supporter of funding the Contras in Nicaragua back in the day. He did as much as anyone to pave the way for Trump by bringing Queen Dumdum aboard a truly nasty campaign which accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", among other things. Before the 2016 elections, he explicitly stated that any Supreme Court nominee put forward by a President Hillary Clinton would blocked. He was a classic pro-corporate shill and had nothing to say about the completely unorthodox route the Republicans took to pass the TCJA, despite recently demanding Congress return to "normal order". The only Trump nominee McCain opposed was Mulvaney, whom he didn't like because of his desire to cut military spending. Again, with only one noteworthy exception (and voting against that atrocity of a healthcare bill really shouldn't have been a tough decision) he spoke out against Trump only to fall in line when it actually mattered. We need less of that, not more.

Flagpole wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

The answer is they were lowlives and operating under the radar, until one of their affiliates became POTUS, then a big fvcking spot light beamed on them. That’s how it works for many criminals, they get away with it initially then take more risks for bigger rewards and eventually they get too close to the sun.

CORRECT! Every criminal eventually caught got away with it...until they didn't.

The public spotlight Trump desperately needed to focus on himself is what is taking down everyone around him. That is why people are flipping on Trump. They never expected to get caught because they played under the radar. The moran Trump decided the radar needed to focus on him. Trump's CFO has now flipped on him. Melania takes trips without Trump . . . she is keeping her distance and waiting for her way out.

agip wrote:

FP, one interesting idea is that the constitution may allow the president to be indicted by a grand jury...but not prosecuted until he steps down from the presidency.

that would fix the inevitable problem - the statute of limitations is generally five years, so a presidency can get a criminal past the statute of limitations, which doesn't seem fair.

So indict, and then have the trial after he steps down.

Seems to make sense to me.

This seems like a fair thing to me. I imagine anything like that will be challenged and end up in the Supreme Court, but I honestly haven't done enough research on that yet to know for sure.

I imagine a Pence pardon would be forthcoming for any federal charges...we have precedent for that with Ford/Nixon.

BREAKING: Trump says Pompeo won't go to North Korea, criticizes negotiations

RIP Trump's Nobel Peace Prize.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics/trump-pompeo-north-korea/index.html

Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

FP, one interesting idea is that the constitution may allow the president to be indicted by a grand jury...but not prosecuted until he steps down from the presidency.

that would fix the inevitable problem - the statute of limitations is generally five years, so a presidency can get a criminal past the statute of limitations, which doesn't seem fair.

So indict, and then have the trial after he steps down.

Seems to make sense to me.

This seems like a fair thing to me. I imagine anything like that will be challenged and end up in the Supreme Court, but I honestly haven't done enough research on that yet to know for sure.

I imagine a Pence pardon would be forthcoming for any federal charges...we have precedent for that with Ford/Nixon.

Tax violations are civil charges, not federal. There is no stature of limitations.

Flagpole wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I voted for Trump as a lesser of two evils.

Igy

Fair stance. Would you vote for Trump again if he runs in 2020? Do you STILL think he's the lesser of two evils?

Depends who he runs against, opposition could actually be worse.

Here is all you need to know:

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I voted for Trump as a lesser of two evils. Last politician I supported heartily was George McGovern in 1972.

Igy

From McGovern to Trump. Hmmmm.... you're different, that's for sure.

But the question remains: did u know your link was mocking trump?

Yes, that is why I posted it. In addition to Trump’s market comment yesterday, Hussman is saying that equity valuations are extreme.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Fair stance. Would you vote for Trump again if he runs in 2020? Do you STILL think he's the lesser of two evils?

Depends who he runs against, opposition could actually be worse.

Ummm, no. Only worse to frightened old white males. But RepubliCONs are planning on going after Social Security and Medicare to help pay for their tax cut for corporations and the rich that has spectacularly failed to bring in the reviews the Republicans maths guessed it would.