The Omnibus P01135809 Criminal Investigation Thread

I would not be surprised if there is a school of thought that the only proper avenue for prosecuting a president for at least some offenses in office would be impeachment/removal/DQ. I also would not be surprised if there were an argument that the statute of limitations for presidential crimes isn't tolled by the philosophy of not prosecuting a sitting president, creating a weird situation where waiting them to leave office also makes it too late to prosecute.

Fucking rich, coming from the guy who delayed the trial until Trump was out of office and then voted to acquit because Trump was out of office.

There is such a school of thought, which is why I made the comment I made.

Mitch McConnell disagrees!

Please explain to us, what exactly is the thought process in not prosecuting a president after leaving office with impeachment. What other avenue would the American people take in order to ensure that person never runs for office again?

Do you know of anyone who holds that even after a president has left office the president cannot be prosecuted?

"This sounds like a job for ... uh ... somebody else!"

Not that I believe any of the following, but it is not unreasonable:

1. The Founders meant impeachment and removal/DQ from office to be the sole way to address a president's crimes committed while in office

2. The Founders meant removal and DQ to be bound together as consequences. Thus, when someone has already left office, the Constitution does not allow a trial for impeachment

3. The American people have opting not to vote for a bad president as an option.

There are many misconceptions and arguments about what the Founders meant. Thus putting us in the position in which we currently are. So, If the Founders meant impeachment can't happen after a president leaves office, how do we ensure he doesn't run again in the future?

And, how to ensure we don't get into a circular argument with assholes that would vote for him again.

3 is not reasonable when high crimes and misdemeanors are committed after an election. Indeed, notes from the Constitutional Convention show they were specifically (but not exclusively) concerned with the period between election and inauguration of a new President.

An argument would be that there is precious little conduct that would be serious enough to result in impeachment and removal/DQ that could be taken so lightly by the electorate that such a politician would be a threat to win office again.

That argument puts too much faith in voters.

This is addressing only the question of how to prevent someone who has left office from running again if not for impeachment. The answer is at least hypothetically we don't have to bar someone from running again. Someone who has committed bad acts worthy of impeachment is theoretically at a huge disadvantage running for office that we don't have to worry about them.

Maybe you don't, at least through impeachment and especially when you have a half-assed case and are virtually guaranteed to not get a conviction. So if I were the Democratic leadership I would try another tactic. Here's a example of a novel approach: instead of calling half the voting public assholes, try to prove to them that your candidate is the better choice and thus deserves their vote. Easy in theory I know, but how to apply said theory? Perhaps focusing on doing the very best job you can with improving, defending and inspiring the country and overcoming the inevitable obstacles along the way. Instead of wasting time trying to get rid of your perceived competition, why not improve your own abilities and performance?

Yep, that's democracy for your ass. Damn voters get in the way every time, don't they?

You are out of ideas already? If impeachment is a dead end (in this case) then focus on getting Trump put behind bars if he's the criminal mastermind the left claims he is.
Failing that (and most likely already underway) is silencing/weakening all political opposition to ensure victory. The Democratic party has a lot of tricks up their sleeve. They have demographics on their side in pretty much all levels of government going forward but of course they aren't taking their foot off the gas nor do I expect them to.

I don't know why you are replying to this post at all, let alone this way.

But criminally investigating Trump for his actions is something that likely is going on and will go on.

It seems to me that the same institutions that spent countless hours investigating Benghazi and Hillary's e-mails should look into every aspect about how a frenzied mob sought to capture and kill the Vice President and members of Congress to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, including any complicity by any in Congress or the White House.

Who says they aren't investigating? Criminal investigators don't give daily press briefings as you well know. The Biden regime is doing one tangible thing to (I guess) stop or limit any future uprisings by mandating a push on the military to weed out white supremacy, since some of the Capitol rioters were former military. Spoiler alert the military has been doing this for decades already, and the new Secretary Of Defense is well aware of this. The military is knee-deep in booting out anybody who shows even a hint of white supremacy. All they can do is lower the bar even more for what is deemed "white supremacy/seditious thought or intentions" and I fully expect that to happen. So what will this actually accomplish? It will drive the actual white supremacists underground now that Biden has tipped his hand that within the next 60 days the military will ramp up their surveillance of social media and other public platforms. Spoiler alert II - the military very often doesn't want to accomplish anything political, they just want to present the illusion of accomplishment for CYA purposes. More than anything they just want to be left alone to "do their thing" which is not political in nature, just military as in training for and defending the nation. 99 percent of the time everybody (black, brown, white, muslim, atheist, etc) gets along just fine. The SOD is well aware of this because he was in the modern military for decades and will "stay in his lane" and do his job as directed.

Remind me, who's gotten the most votes in seven out of the last eight presidential elections?

Literally no one is saying they aren't investigating.

Literally in the post you quoted I said they likely are criminally investigating Trump.

I don't really know what the rest of your post has to do with anything I said.

And so it begins...

Rep. Bennie Thompson files civil lawsuit against Trump for Jan. 6 riot

I look forward to learning what talking points from the right will be used to focus on just about anything but whether or not Trump did what he is being accused of here.

They can probably recycle the "It's time for healing/this is so divisive" ones from the impeachment.

Will they lean into the "It's all free speech" one?

I am guessing that oldie but a goodie "It's a witch hunt" and/or "hoax' may be employed.

There will quite probably be some statement of Thompson's that supported BLM that will be dragged up to equate the insurrectionists with them, or better than them.

I'm guessing some personal attacks on Thompson and the NAACP, some dog-whistley, some not.

But there will also probably be some stuff that's hot and fresh out the kitchen.

ding ding ding! "None of the above" special, side order of no-spin ready for pick up!
No Raul, it's not time for healing, and it's not divisive enough IMHO. That side it is nutty , pointless, and doomed to failure. It's not Nancy Pelosi impeachment level stupid, but it
is damn creative I'll give him that. According to the very optimistic left, take a number if you want to sue or bring up criminal charges against Trump, because now that he's out of office he's prison bound for sure. But being a law & order guy if Trump has broken any laws then yes indeed, he needs to be criminally charged and due process followed.
Not saying he will be or won't be sued or charged, or whether these attempts will be successful. Anything can happen.

Side note Trump has a habit of stiffing people, so you'll never get that rent he owes you from living in your head - sorry to break it to you.

Is that why you voted for him?

The Georgia Legislature is trying to change the state constitution to keep Atlanta's black, female State's Attorney (AKA "Trump's Worst Nightmare") from presenting his blatant election tampering to a Fulton County Grand Jury and instead turn it over to a statewide grand jury that would only deal with election law violations. I'm sure OF will disapprove of such tampering, but will still support the Republicans, because...you know...reasons....

or maybe I don't give a shit because these kind of things are part & parcel of politics in Georgia - it's constant.

Like I said...

Not that it would ever actually happen, but doesn't doing this action potentially put them in accomplice territory for the crime?

I guess it does not matter since @oldfella1962 and voters like him have no standards and will vote for any old criminal as long as they try to own the libs.

FIFY

owning the libs is in there.

Requires 2/3rds majority, so ain't gonna happen.

Which will make it all the more delicious when they convene in Fulton.