Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDonald Trump's New Lawyer Once Argued Presidents Can Be Indicted
http://time.com/5206281/joseph-digenova-donald-trump-president-indicted/
<snip>
But his prior comments during investigations into President Bill Clinton in a 1997 editorial in the Wall Street Journal also drew attention.
Nobody should underestimate the upheaval that a prosecution of the president would cause, he wrote in a March 6, 1997 piece published when independent counsel Kenneth Starr was only investigating financial irregularities in the Whitewater scandal and Clintons affair with a White House intern had not yet come to light. But we went through it once before, in Watergate, and survived. The nation, in fact, could conceivably benefit from the indictment of a president. It would teach the valuable civics lesson that no one is above the law.
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Donald Trump's New Lawyer Once Argued Presidents Can Be Indicted (Original Post)
kentuck
Mar 2018
OP
katmondoo
(6,498 posts)1. I hated Degenova and his wife during the Clinton investigations.
I am waiting for his hateful wife to appear and "help" She is also an attorney.
kentuck
(112,948 posts)2. "It would teach the valuable civics lesson that no one is above the law.
I think everytime he comes on the TV to defend Donald Trump, he should be asked about this quote.
exboyfil
(18,025 posts)3. You wonder if he had been fully vetted
I got to think his time on the team may be limited.
angrychair
(9,887 posts)4. Nothing is sweeter
Than playing someone oiwn words back at them when its not longer convenient to their narrative.
Boomerproud
(8,465 posts)5. He would jusy say that Clinton is guilty of everything
And 45 is innocent and being railroaded. Dear wife Victoria would be sitting by him nodding her head.
rock
(13,218 posts)6. " Nobody should underestimate the upheaval that a prosecution of the president would cause "
Then maybe we should be a little more careful and a little less cavalier in choosing the president.
fescuerescue
(4,469 posts)7. A good lawyer can argue either side
Now that I think of it, a bad lawyer can too.
NewJeffCT
(56,840 posts)8. Silly DUers
Don't you know that the rules are different when a president has a (D) after his name versus one that has an (R) after it.
Gothmog
(155,396 posts)9. It is time to test this theory