Did E. Jean Carroll get any penny from CFDT?

[Lux Interior]

gabester wrote:
[quote=Lux Interior]
She'll be in Gitmo by Jan 21st.

I am sure you're being sarcastic or humorous, but with the rhetoric emanating from the right, it doesn't seem impossible the way it once ought to have.
Well, I would like to be.

She'll probably just die from gravity poisoning.

[special]

PeterB wrote:
Here's the thing that gets me. If the precedent is that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime, then what if the President commits a truly obvious, verifiable crime while in office? Does he just get away with it scot free? (I'm assuming he doesn't have the sense to resign, which at least Nixon did.)

If so, then this guy could truly shoot someone on 5th Ave and not only would people still vote for him, but he'd be the one person in the country immune to prosecution for murder.

One set of rules for thee, but not for me, indeed.

As long as the Senate does not find him guilty in an impeachment trial, he will be free.

[DeusxMac]

PeterB wrote:
Here's the thing that gets me. If the precedent is that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime, then what if the President commits a truly obvious, verifiable crime while in office? Does he just get away with it scot free? (I'm assuming he doesn't have the sense to resign, which at least Nixon did.)

If so, then this guy could truly shoot someone on 5th Ave and not only would people still vote for him, but he'd be the one person in the country immune to prosecution for murder.

One set of rules for thee, but not for me, indeed.

[Ombligo]

Melania better be careful , he wouldn't be the first King to avoid the prenupt.

[PeterB]

special wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
Here's the thing that gets me. If the precedent is that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime, then what if the President commits a truly obvious, verifiable crime while in office? Does he just get away with it scot free? (I'm assuming he doesn't have the sense to resign, which at least Nixon did.)

If so, then this guy could truly shoot someone on 5th Ave and not only would people still vote for him, but he'd be the one person in the country immune to prosecution for murder.

One set of rules for thee, but not for me, indeed.

As long as the Senate does not find him guilty in an impeachment trial, he will be free.
And the chances of the Senate finding him guilty in an impeachment trial = less than zero.

[special]

PeterB wrote:
[quote=special]
[quote=PeterB]
Here's the thing that gets me. If the precedent is that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime, then what if the President commits a truly obvious, verifiable crime while in office? Does he just get away with it scot free? (I'm assuming he doesn't have the sense to resign, which at least Nixon did.)

If so, then this guy could truly shoot someone on 5th Ave and not only would people still vote for him, but he'd be the one person in the country immune to prosecution for murder.

One set of rules for thee, but not for me, indeed.

As long as the Senate does not find him guilty in an impeachment trial, he will be free.
And the chances of the Senate finding him guilty in an impeachment trial = less than zero.
TRUE. he is the only person in the USA who can kill someone in plain view and get away with it.

[gabester]

special wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
As long as the Senate does not find him guilty in an impeachment trial, he will be free.

And the chances of the Senate finding him guilty in an impeachment trial = less than zero.
TRUE. he is the only person in the USA who can kill someone in plain view and get away with it.
... and be acquitted of it by a jury of his peers - a group of wealthy oligarchs who ensure there is indeed a two tiered system of justice benefitting those with wealth.

An acquittal doesn't mean he didn't do it or that he isn't guilty of the crime, just that the prosecution did not adequately prove its case. We all know OJ was guilty, even if the glove didn't fit.

[pdq]

Ombligo wrote:
It is still on appeal, he has posted a $90 million bond but that is held until the appeals court rules. Since this is an appeal, the case should move forward. What could derail it is if the court orders a new trial. Then everything would likely wait until he is out of office.

When did that change? When the Paula Jones civil suit was initiated against a sitting president (Bill Clinton), the SCOTUS decided (unanimously!) that the president had plenty of free time to defend himself against civil suits, and that no one was above the law, even when it was a civil suit funded by the Scaifes and other political enemies of the president.

As we probably all remember, the case (involving an allegation of a very clumsy but brief exposure of genitalia in a hotel room - no contact) was ultimately settled for $850K only after it was dismissed in court for lacking legal merit, as the Federal judge ruled that Jones did not prove damages. even if the event had occurred as alleged.

But honest-to-God sexual assault, as adjudicated by a jury? The current president can’t be bothered by that now?