HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I have been repeatedly su...

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:28 PM

I have been repeatedly surprised by the conservative mind-set of many here.

It has been said that one of the core principles of conservatism is: "Nothing should ever be done for the first time". In other words, conservatives always prefer to play it safe. They want things done the way they have "always" been done even when dealing with totally unprecedented problems. Their fallback position is always "follow the rules", even when the issue being addressed was either totally unheard of when the "rule" was written or was just not considered by those who wrote the rules.

These folks argue simply that, " If it ain't in the Constitution, you can't do it. You've got to follow the rules!"

There is one rule that says a sitting president* cannot be indicted.

There is another rule, called the Statute of Limitations, that most federal crimes---like, say, obstruction of justice---must be filed within five years of commission or they are barred.

"By the rules", Trump could be re-elected by the electoral college despite again losing the popular vote.

So, when Trump finishes his second term and, by the rules, could be indicted, most everything he's done up till now and within the next 10 months or so will be barred by the 5 year Statute of Limitations. How does that unlikely but possible scenario strike you? No "rules" would be broken.

The Constitution says nothing about cell phones or fully automatic rifles or TV advertising, yet laws regulating them are not deemed unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted or "construed" in new ways so as to accommodate new situations and technology and issues not dreamed of by the Foundng Fathers. I don't believe that the possibility of a traitorous criminal POTUS being shielded by a complicit partisan Senate was anything anyone dreamed might happen.

I do not say that we should ignore the law. I am simply suggesting that we USE the law in unprecedented ways to remedy unprecedented wrongs.

This is not the time to play it safe or say that we need a guarantee of success before we do battle. Let's be open to pursuing anything that can fit WITHIN our constitution even if it's "never been done before".




24 replies, 902 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply I have been repeatedly surprised by the conservative mind-set of many here. (Original post)
Atticus Wednesday OP
no_hypocrisy Wednesday #1
Timewas Wednesday #2
TwilightZone Wednesday #3
Timewas Wednesday #5
TwilightZone Wednesday #7
Timewas Wednesday #9
CatWoman Wednesday #4
Atticus Wednesday #6
jberryhill Wednesday #10
DetroitLegalBeagle Wednesday #13
CatWoman Wednesday #14
Atticus Wednesday #24
jberryhill Wednesday #8
Atticus Wednesday #18
pbmus Wednesday #11
CatWoman Wednesday #15
pbmus Wednesday #16
GulfCoast66 Wednesday #12
Atticus Wednesday #17
Codeine Wednesday #19
Atticus Wednesday #21
Codeine Wednesday #22
Atticus Wednesday #23
treestar Wednesday #20

Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:31 PM

1. Conceivably the statute of limitations could be tolled until after Trump leaves the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:38 PM

2. No rule

Nothing in the constitution says a sitting president cannot be indicted, it is only an idea that has been set by the justice department based on the premise that it would infringe on potus not being able to do his job as president if under indictment but that is all it is,and since that is a fallacy (especially with t-rump)there is no real reason that it cannot be done..since this one is not doing anything anyways

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:38 PM

3. So, what are you suggesting?

The vague insults to some DUers notwithstanding, your post doesn't seem to provide any solutions.

I'm all for using the law in whatever means necessary to hold Trump accountable. Since you seem to have some insight, what are you proposing we do?

The "no president can be indicted" rule isn't really a rule. It's based on a memo from the Justice Department. I think it's likely that Mueller or one of the states will end up testing its constitutionality. Many legal experts believe that POTUS can be indicted.

As far as the statute of limitations is concerned, the only sure-fire way to ensure it never comes in to play is to ensure that Trump is voted out in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:42 PM

5. Statute of limitations

Only applies if no charges are brought,once charges have been brought and an indictment is handed down they stop and the trial can be anytime within the "right to a speedy trial concept".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Timewas (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:44 PM

7. I'm also pretty sure that Mueller and the others know what they're doing.

I'm guessing they know how the statute of limitations works in their various jurisdictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:47 PM

9. The reason I posted that

Was because there seemed to be some question about it. I am also pretty sure Mueller knows what he is doing..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:40 PM

4. this whinefest has lasted what,

three days now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:44 PM

6. If the shoe fits----nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:47 PM

10. Longer


Depending on the particular whine fest.

And I was hoping for another annulment thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:57 PM

13. Those are always fun n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:57 PM

14. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:45 PM

8. Statutes of limitation don't work that way


Unfortunately, your principal issue is not with “conservatives” but with people who have a better grasp of law.

The time periods of statutes of limitations can be “tolled” or paused under a variety of circumstances. That the proposed defendant was temporarily immune from prosecution would be a reason that is consistent with general tolling principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:24 PM

18. You will, no doubt, be able to cite some specific authority that provides for tolling the Statute of

Limitations due to the prosecution choosing to abide by a non-binding DOC policy. Or, you could explain your theory as to why else Trump is "temporarily immune from prosecution."

But, please, no more of that squishy "consistent with general tolling principles".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:52 PM

11. 3 coulds in one short paragraph....

Got me thinking...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:59 PM

15. this one is more soulful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:00 PM

16. Well hell yea....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:56 PM

12. So the way I read your OP; you post unrealistic and illegal ideas.

When people tell you reasons those ideas are unrealistic, they are now, de facto, conservatives?

Uh, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:10 PM

17. Did you even READ the OP? Please list all of the "unrealistic and illegal ideas" in it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:25 PM

19. What's the statute of limitations

on you posting the same nonsense over and over again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:29 PM

21. Probably about as long as your posting snark because you have nothing else. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:33 PM

22. Your OP didn't really rise to the level of actual conversation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:35 PM

23. I suppose that means something to someone. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:28 PM

20. It is an open legal question whether he could be indicted

It has not been justiciable - a president would have to be indicted and then object that it is unconstitutional and then take that through the appeals process.

One thing discouraging to see it "getting rid of the Electoral College will take a Constitutional Amendment which is impossible." But it has been amended before. It takes a long time. Susan B. Anthony didn't even live to see what she started, but she didn't just proclaim it impossible because it wouldn't happen right away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread