I am sure the American super rich have more than enough, without the help of the upper middle class, to make sure that no American is poor. (Worldwide might be a different story). But I was talking about an anticapitalistic ideology that more and more liberals pretend to embrace. That's why I mentioned the idea that few people deserve to make that much more (after taxes) than others. If that was instituted (except maybe for certain jobs) 250 K take home earners would be a rarity.

Alrighty. This doesn't seem to have much to do with the part of the conversation I was responding to, so I'll let someone else deal with that. I was simply pointing out that the study cited didn't support that lots of medical diagnoses were influenced by politics, and, if anything, supported the idea that conservative leaning doctors were more susceptible to falling for misinformation (thus making non-conservative doctors more attractive).

youre leaving out that this misinformation is political in nature.

Because it's not relevant. Very few doctors are falling for misinformation. The claim was that lots of diagnoses were influenced by politics. The study only concluded that conservatives were influenced by misinformation about 5 times more often than non. That is a relative measurement, not an absolute one. For instance, 0.00005% is 5 times more likely than 0.00001%. This could not, by any stretch, be described as "lots of diagnoses...influenced by politics."

Yeah because there's no evidence Trump or his admin colluded with Russia. Nobody is exempt from the law.
Again your actual standard for evidence is ridiculous, so I can't take you seriously. There's a $hit ton of things you could very legitimately call Trump out on. This isn't one of them. But again believe what you want. You will anyway.

Why did Manafort take internal polling data to the Russian government and lie about it again?

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. In the US, anything the president does is legal.

I'd like to see the citation on that.

I believe it’s called the unitary executive theory. President has absolute power over congress. Anything he does during a time of war is legal.

https://markrozell.gmu.edu/wp-conten...apter_2013.pdf


Basically you can’t prosecute sitting presidents cause it interferes with their duties. And additionally since the president has absolute power during war, anything he does is direction under that power.

Thanks bush! Thanks Obama!


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...193348183.html

It's you who doesn't know what you're talking about. Either that or you're being deliberately disingenuous. Mueller said he couldn't indict Trump for obstruction, not collusion. Again there's no evidence of collusion with Russia. Even if Trump talking to Putin is good enough for you.

And no, a sitting President can't be indicted, according to the OLC. Trump isn't president. Had evidence existed of collusion, again you can bet your ass he'd be indicted.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1QF1D3

This isn't remotely accurate. No court has ever held that a president can commit crimes while in office, and then be immune from prosecution after he leaves office.

The unitary executive theory is simply a theory of executive power. I am unaware of any proponent of the theory who has argued that the president has carte blanche to commit any type of crime while in office and immunity from prosecution for those crimes after he leaves office.

No. And no.

It wasn't Manafort it was a business associate,Konstantin Kilimnik.

Furthermore:
AP NEWSEmail:Get AP News stories every morningGoU.S. NewsWorld NewsPoliticsSports


I'm not interested in your suspicions, which is good enough for you. Yet again Mueller found no evidence of collusion with the Russians. Nobody is saying they didn't interfere and I've already stated my belief why they interfered. But again as I said to PW, believe what you like.

Why would a court rule on it? The executive branch has made this their policy since Nixon. They will never go to court over it cause you can’t indict the president.
Yes. And yes. Go learn some things


https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution

Good thing for prosecutors that Trump wasn't the president when he stole the classified docs, then.

Yea I agree.

If you believe that a president has carte blanche to commit crimes while in office and is legally entitled to immunity from prosecution for those crimes after he leaves office, you are simply wrong.

That isn't the law. That has never been the law.

There is a huge difference between saying that you can't indict a sitting president (which is true), and saying that you can't ever prosecute a president for crimes he committed while in office (which is most definitely not true).

Made it easy for you

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1We believe that the conclu* sion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) prepared a comprehensive memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not, whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973) (“OLC Memo”). The OLC memorandum con* cluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew. In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury pro* ceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indict* ment and criminal prosecution. See Memorandum for the United States Con* cerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972:

Would like to know why you added extra to what I said. I never said former presidents couldn’t be prosecuted. There is only one “the president” , the sitting one.

Not indicting someone doesn't make what they did legal.

I didn't add anything. You said:

That is wrong. If Joe Biden robs a liquor store tomorrow, his behavior is not "legal" by virtue of him being president. He can't be prosecuted for the crime while he is still in office, but that is very different than saying that his behavior is "legal."

Seems like a distinction without a difference.

I believe all that says is a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office, not that they couldn't be indicted while they are out of office.

Obviously correct.

It's a distinction with a huge difference. It's the difference between immunity for so long as you are in office and absolute immunity.