Their legal arguments are hilarious. Trump is still the king of reality entertainment.
I was having a conversation about this last night and I am of the opinion that the Trump team is correct in their legal opinion.
Let’s begin by admitting that the Office of the Presidency is the absolute most important position in American Government. This is because he is not only a politician but Commander in Chief. And as being such, he is responsible to safeguard this country from all threats, foreign and domestic.
The reason why a President cannot be prosecuted criminally is because it would/could seriously hamper his ability to govern. Suppose this ruling concedes that President must be criminally prosecuted if cause is brought to a prosecutor…. The democrats, who hate Trump, would find a million ways to keep bringing up criminal charges in an effort to remove him from office or to hamper and interfere with his duties. This presents a danger to the country.
So the founders, in their wisdom, devised a separate trial for the President. It’s called impeachment. The senate brings the charges and hear the case. They remove or acquit. If they remove him THEN AND ONLY THEN can criminal charges be brought if applicable and merited.
Because impeachment substitutes for criminal trial, there is a remedy for the government and the people to take action if they believe the president did something wrong.
And this process of impeachment, while certainly can be a distraction from office, is local (DC), public, and has appropriate authority.
The appeals court may not think so but I’ll bet everyone in here my last penny the SCOTUS agrees.
Even the Dems do when it’s their president in office.
THEY ARE ARGUING THAT IF TRUMP CAN BE PROSECUTED SO CAN OBAMA, BUSH, CLINTON ETC……
THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND TRUMP’S CASE WILL EVENTUALLY BE DROPPED AFTER SETTING PRECEDENT….
ALL THESE CASES ARE TO EXPOSE THEM AND SET PRECEDENT….
Nah - too complicated storm. And too dangerous.
I don’t this any dem president should skip impeachment and go to trial. I think the process as is is the right way.
IF GEORGE W BUSH WAS PART OF 9/11 SHOULD HE BE PROSECUTED?
IF THE ANSWER IS YES YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER……
WHEN YOU LEARN WHAT BUSH SR, CLINTON, BUSH AND OBAMA HAVE DONE YOU WILL CHANGE YOUR STANCE…
After impeachment, yes.
You can impeach a former president.
Otherwise know.
There is a process. It exists for a reason. We need to respect it or we have to face the unintended consequences of it.
THIS IS TECHNICALLY FOR “FORMER PRESIDENTS” OUT OF OFFICE….
Of course you are.
But they weren’t wise enough to codify your theory into law?
Sounds suspicious if you ask me…
Nothing says a sitting President cannot be tried. It’s not in the Constitution. This came from an internal memo during the crooked Nixon years. Also, impeachment isn’t a “substitute” for a criminal trial and at no point in the the Constitution is it called a “substitute.” Impeachment doesn’t carry legal penalties and therefore isn’t a substitute for anything. It’s a way to remove said person from their position and bar them from assuming it again.
GSC has a penchant for dictators, always has. It’s in the blood I suppose
They did- in the constitution. You’re saying the constitution isn’t law? WTF.
If the framers intended for Presidents to be tried as normal citizens for crimes why did they prescribe impeachment?
Why not just leave impeachment out and allow the normal justice system to work?
BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT REPLACES THE NORMAL PROSECUTION SYSTEM.
If you guys can’t see that I’m not sure what to tell you.
Why not just leave impeachment out and allow the normal justice system to work?
Because Benjamin Franklin thought it better than assassination.
As Franklin put it, this result would leave the political official “not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character.” Perhaps he had Julius Caesar and the Roman Senate in mind. It dates back to the Magna Carta and James 1.
Do you not know they transcribed a lot of their conversations during the Constitutional Convention?
You might try to learn the context of the subject matter for once, rather than thinking you’re brainier than the likes of…say…Galileo, Copernicus, etc. You have a long history of your ignorance overwhelming basic sensibilities. Federal criminal statutes don’t govern this process. “High crimes and misdemeanors” as a phrase dates back to 1386. Hamilton discussed it intently in Federalist 65.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7
Article I
Section 3 Senate
- Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
- Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
This was handled in 2000
https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download
You just posted my EXACT argument which is supported by the majority of framers and codified in the constitution. Thanks.
Your overwhelming ignorance is consistent, at least. So is your penchant for dictators. Again, it’s in your blood.
I want everyone who reads in here to notice how ridiculous this guy warden is.
Never once did I address him or make a personal comment or insult and the guy goes from 0 to 100 with the hostility and the personal shots.
I’m not sure if this is an act or not but it’s one of the reasons I post less in here. I’m getting too old to trade personal shots with an anonymous person online. It just serves no purpose for me anymore.
I’m willing to debate ideas but I’m over the bullshit.