“Why did he stick with Kavanaugh?” Schumer said at a press conference outside the supreme court on Tuesday. “Because he’s worried that Mr Mueller will go to the court and ask that the president be subpoenaed and ask to do other things necessary to move the investigation forward and President Trump knows that Kavanaugh will be a barrier to preventing that investigation from going there.”
Duh
Chucky is stupid.
Truth is scary.
Its scary stupid. Kavanaugh cant act as a barrier. If Trump broke a law, he can be impeached. Nothing the court can do about it. Nothing the court can do to stop the investigation. In short, either Chucky is extremely stupid or he is just playing political theater.
It’s not about impeachment. It is about if he can be subpoenaed to appear in front of a grand jury.
What did Bill Clinton do when he was subpoenaed?
Is Shchumer capable of scaring the sheeple? This thread will answer that.
Relevant:
"As you can see, the basis for this belief is a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article where Kavanaugh argues, based in part on his own experience working with Ken Starr as he investigated President Clinton, that “the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.”
And what’s his proposed remedy? He suggested not that judges block investigations of the president but instead that Congress “consider a law exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation.” He makes this proposal in the same law-review article, by the way, where he also suggests that Congress should assert greater authority over war powers, and he floats the idea of a single, six-year term for the president (an interesting idea, by the way.)
In other words, he was brainstorming policy proposals, not suggesting future legal rulings."
"Some Democrats and advocacy groups are saying President Donald Trump picked Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court because of Kavanaugh’s view that a president shouldn’t be indicted while in office. It’s important that not become the narrative of the Democrats’ opposition, because it can easily be refuted.
Properly understood, Kavanaugh’s expressed views actually support the opposite conclusion: that the president can be investigated and maybe even indicted unless Congress passes a law saying he can’t — which Congress has not done."
He agreed and they withdrew the subpoena. The issue here is Trump fighting the subpoena through court. Did you miss that somehow?
Of the four being bandied about, Kavanaugh was one of the ones that made the most sense to me.
He SHOULD be acceptable to libs and cons alike, in my mind (just like Merrick Garland should have been).
That there is automatic war over him just shows where we are in our political discourse.
Even if he did say you can’t prosecute a sitting President, that is the mainstream legal view and has been DOJ policy, starting in 200, through recent Republican and Democratic Presidents.
Sorry, 2000 not 200.
But would the Constitution allow Mr. Mueller to indict Mr. Trump if he finds evidence of criminal conduct?
The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office.
“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” said Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale.
I agree.
But as pointed out, he didn’t say that he would use judicial rulings to make sure that didn’t happen.
He said Congress ought to pass a law to make it not happen.
I agree…because impeachment is still there as an alternative if a President gets out of hand…and if he gets out of hand enough, I believe even in this fractious age, people of all stripes would come together to make sure Congress did its job.
I think it was always going to happen with this pick, given who he’s replacing.
But yeah, it’s a pretty vanilla pick. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are quite likely the exact two picks that Bush or Cruz et al might have made.
Have to throw all that out the window because, Trump. I wonder what our resident liberals view would have been on a criminal indictment of Obama coming out of Maricopa county.
The only real answer is that it’s never been tested.
I wasn’t even that all that worried had Trump picked someone who wanted to overturn Roe v Wade because I know Chief Justice Roberts would simply turn into a swing vote and block it.
Of course, that then becomes an issue because Ginsberg is 85 and Breyer 79.
At least he didn’t go with a Justice Jeanine type 
.
The world wouldn’t end with the repeal of Roe V Wade. But politically it would probably be a real cluster ■■■■■
I don’t think pro-lifers have quite anticipated the ramifications there but shrug.
…and you wonder why we cling to our Second Amendment…
