When the USA meddled in foreign elections. Should these nations issue subpoenas? (suspect, deported)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, if the "something" you're about to do is stupid, pointless, and in no way contributes to solving or even alleviating the problem, you should not do that "something".
Maybe think of another "something" to do.
Well you have a point -- this administration wouldn't know how to handle something like this in the right way.
They would do something stupid.
I get it.
But what's the purpose of meeting with Putin right now -- and in private -- off record?
Rule 10 absolutely applies. And yet again, you’ve ignored the fact thatsomeone can be extradited on indictment alone.. Problem solved.
I already explained why rule 10 does not apply. If you can't understand the explanation that is your problem.
And sure you can be extradited on indictment alone. Good luck with that. I'd like to make a bet that not one of the people indicted will ever see the inside of a courtroom for the trial on this indictment. How much would you like to bet?
Well you have a point -- this administration wouldn't know how to handle something like this in the right way.
They would do something stupid.
The indictment is the stupid, pointless, and completely unproductive "something" that was done. And it was not done by the administration.
Quote:
But what's the purpose of meeting with Putin right now -- and in private -- off record?
I don't know. It's off the record. Neither do you.
Do you know (or have the right to know) everything that goes on in Presidential talks with other world leaders?
How about this: do you remember this famous incident:
"As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” — until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term."
Obama very much wanted this to be off the record. It became on the record by accident. Do you think he had the right to communicate off the record with Medvedev?
I already explained why rule 10 does not apply. If you can't understand the explanation that is your problem.
And sure you can be extradited on indictment alone. Good luck with that. I'd like to make a bet that not one of the people indicted will ever see the inside of a courtroom for the trial on this indictment. How much would you like to bet?
You opined on rule 10 without any substance. Arraignment is the first stage of what ultimately leads to a trial. If indictment satisfies the requirement for the “defendants presence”, at arraignment, then Rule 43 (c) (1) (A) applies:
(c) Waiving Continued Presence.
(1) In General. A defendant who was initially present at trial, or who had pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, waives the right to be present under the following circumstances:
(A) when the defendant is voluntarily absent after the trial has begun, regardless of whether the court has informed the defendant of an obligation to remain during trial;
Bet on what? That these Russians are going to be stuck vacationing in countries without US extradition agreements?
The indictment is the stupid, pointless, and completely unproductive "something" that was done. And it was not done by the administration.
I don't know. It's off the record. Neither do you.
Do you know (or have the right to know) everything that goes on in Presidential talks with other world leaders?
How about this: do you remember this famous incident:
"As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” — until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term."
Obama very much wanted this to be off the record. It became on the record by accident. Do you think he had the right to communicate off the record with Medvedev?
YES WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW -- and yes I'm yelling.
He is representing US -- me you -- the people who live in this country. Whatever he says and does in that meeting directly impacts us. This is not a private company where the CEO gets to do whatever the !@#$ he wants.
You opined on rule 10 without any substance. Arraignment is the first stage of what ultimately leads to a trial. If indictment satisfies the requirement for the “defendants presence”, at arraignment, then Rule 43 (c) (1) (A) applies:
(c) Waiving Continued Presence.
(1) In General. A defendant who was initially present at trial, or who had pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, waives the right to be present under the following circumstances:
(A) when the defendant is voluntarily absent after the trial has begun, regardless of whether the court has informed the defendant of an obligation to remain during trial;
Bet on what? That these Russians are going to be stuck vacationing in countries without US extradition agreements?
I repeat, with emphasis:
US Supreme Court ruled that you cannot have a trial of a defendant who is absent at the beginning of trial.
Having an arraignment without the defendant doesn't mean that the defendant was present at the beginning of the trial.
If you think that there is a simple workaround for this Supreme Court decision in those rules, you're mistaken. Any such argument would be laughed out of court. Since most (all) trials start with an indictment your "logic" would make that Supreme Court decision meaningless. I assure you it isn't.
Let me rephrase that -- you are correct -- technically there is no formal right -- but we elect the
President to represent us. He is not there for his personal gain - -he is there for us. He should be transparent about what the issues are, what his views are.
Trump is playing pretend with all this 'meeting' heads of states. He spouts off on the first thing that sticks in his head and that's a big meeting with a World Leader.
He has done NOTHING to improve relations with other countries or make life more secure or better for Americans with this international travel and diplomacy.
Let me rephrase that -- you are correct -- technically there is no formal right -- but we elect the President to represent us. He is not there for his personal gain - -he is there for us. He should be transparent about what the issues are, what his views are.
Maybe. But "transparency" has a limit, necessarily. Unfortunately, even big public agreements that US signs up to (like Obama's deal with Iran) have secret portions that you or I (and the rest of the public) have no access to.
Quote:
Trump is playing pretend with all this 'meeting' heads of states. He spouts off on the first thing that sticks in his head and that's a big meeting with a World Leader.
Yes, I know, I know, you hate Trump, he's an idiot (although the luckiest "idiot" in history, who managed to luck into $Billions, great kids, beautiful wife (or three), a hugely successful entertainment career and being elected to the highest office in the land, on his first try to run for any office, beating out 16 life-long politicians in his own party and the "most qualified ever" politician from the other party who was projected to win by a landslide all the way up to the election day. That idiot).
But nevertheless, you're not entitled, or have the right to know exactly what goes on in all his meetings or all his conversations with foreign leaders.
US Supreme Court ruled that you cannot have a trial of a defendant who is absent at the beginning of trial.
Having an arraignment without the defendant doesn't mean that the defendant was present at the beginning of the trial.
If you think that there is a simple workaround for this Supreme Court decision in those rules, you're mistaken. Any such argument would be laughed out of court. Since most (all) trials start with an indictment your "logic" would make that Supreme Court decision meaningless. I assure you it isn't.
Those exceptions exist for a reason and you’re conveniently hand waving them away because it suits your narrative.
Mis-representing a statement as fact from Wikipedia does not prove your point, even if you bold it. The right is not absolute.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
