Sure. As long as you can’t prove your friend knew the money was illegally gotten. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
So if I rob a bank and buy my friend a house, and then I get caught, he can keep the house?
Cool.
Sure. As long as you can’t prove your friend knew the money was illegally gotten. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
The law doesn't see it that way.
When I rob a bank, I'm going to use the money to buy jewel encrusted solid gold butt plugs. Go ahead, you can have them back...
I'm for the record absolutely not a Ryan super fan. But to answer your question, if it's proved that the Russians interfered and were asked to interfere by the Trump team, then Pence should take the oath of office, then resign after naming a vice president that would then take over as president. That vice president could be anybody so long as the American public could feel like that person was impartial. Republicans would have to feel like they weren't getting screwed out of the presidency and Democrats would have to feel like the new guy wasn't also bought and paid for by Russia.
Pence would be forever tarnished as being elected along with Trump in an election that was rigged by a foreign power, and would thus have zero moral authority. If he cared about the country more than he cared about his party or himself, he would do the above. Vice Presidents are elected as insurance in case the President dies, or in one case when they resigned due to criminal activity. But if that criminal activity is rigging the election then the Vice might not be implicated or convicted but should resign.
I'm not arguing for it to happen just because i hate Trump etc. I'm saying if Trump and friends are found guilty of that crime then that's what should happen.
But it won't. Because that's not how politics works these days.
What if the house wasn't stolen, but acquired on the cheap because the competing bidder was incompetent and never visited Wisconsin?
This is where your scenario falls apart. I can't think of any such person. Even a universally loved celebrity like Tom Hanks is partial. As for politicians? Forget it.
The closest I could think of would be James Mattis, and even he would be deemed unacceptable by a chunk of the population--the chunk that believes that any sort of military background equals Literal Hitler.
Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis
I was thinking about that yesterday. Does visiting a state really matter? I've only ever been to rallies for candidates I've already decided I'm voting for. People at rallies are the choir. Nobody chooses a rally as their exploratory, "let's see what this Bernard Sanders is all about" medium. The in-the-trenches part of campaigning, knocking on doors, registration drives, etc., I absolutely accept as influential. But would HRC appearing in WI have changed literally a single vote?
Bookmarks