(July 9, 2020 at 1:08 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(July 8, 2020 at 11:07 am)onlinebiker Wrote: We should not only give out free birth control - we should PAY people to be sterilized.
One thing there is no shortage of - people.(July 9, 2020 at 12:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I know that, once it is passed to a regular jury the evidence can be presented to that jury. But the scary part is that if he wins, he can pass the statute of limitations. This to me makes congressional oversight that more important. My understanding is that with what he has been accused of while running could run past the limitations if he gets a second term.
Why is requiring anyone running for president to disclose their financials "stupid"? There is a reason the emoluments clause exists too. It is to prevent foreign governments from having any criminal leverage over our President and to prevent the President from using the office for criminal gain.
Trump's history is clear even if he had not run. He's gotten away with ripping people off all his life. That is bad enough in the private sector. I would want my President to be held to a higher standard.
Let’s say Trump is four years into the statute of limitations of seven years. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops at four years. If Trump is re-elected and leaves office in 2025 and the indictment is unsealed, Trump is still, for legal purposes, at four years and can be prosecuted. Why? Because he was indicted before the statute of limitations had been reached. Just because the indictment is sealed doesn’t mean he wasn’t indicted.
I didn’t say that requiring financial disclosure was stupid. I said calling for a constitutional amendment to do so was stupid. You might as well call for Tinkerbelle to wave her wand and make it happen.
Boru
I get it, but even if the limitations are as long as you say, that is 4 more years of damage and propaganda.
I think we need to be real here. The best case scenario is that he loses in November. He certainly doesn't have the morals to do what Nixion did.
But if he wins, the "burden" argument stays in play, and that is still 4 more years of damage he can and will do, even if one wants to argue that he can still be held responsible after his second term.
Um no, I don't find requiring anyone running for that office requiring their financials for 10 years stupid.
Even outside government, those applying to be bank loan officers or even mere tellers have their asses crawled up before getting that job.
If you want your bank to be honest, and you expect them to protect your money you intrust them when you deposit it, how the fuck should a President be held to less scrutiny?
