The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, there is precedent for criminal prosecution and impeachment to both occur separately without one precluding the other

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-claiborne.htm

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers arguing that criminal prosecution is *not* possible for a president? I thought they were saying that impeachment is the only resolution. But impeachment doesn’t mean jail time, so how is that justice?

Trump's lawyers are arguing that impeachment and conviction is a *prerequisite* for any possible jail time. Does that sound stupid? Of course it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

Trump's lawyers are correct. Otherwise, Obama would be sitting in jail for killing American citizens over seas.

If those were crimes, then why didn't Trump prosecute the drone operators who carried out those strikes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, there is precedent for criminal prosecution and impeachment to both occur separately without one precluding the other

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-claiborne.htm

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers arguing that criminal prosecution is *not* possible for a president? I thought they were saying that impeachment is the only resolution. But impeachment doesn’t mean jail time, so how is that justice?

Trump's lawyers are arguing that impeachment and conviction is a *prerequisite* for any possible jail time. Does that sound stupid? Of course it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

Trump's lawyers are correct. Otherwise, Obama would be sitting in jail for killing American citizens over seas.

oh, so then why didn't R congress impeach Obama for it?

Why didn't Rs impeach Bush for an unjust war, lying about the wmd?

Why didn't Rs impeach Reagan for selling arms to Iran when there was an embargo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess Obama can be jailed for drone murders

Yep.

Much worse than anything. Over a thousand innocents including Americans and he kept doing it thinking he had immunity. But he doesn’t and he makes Trump look like an American hero.

Trump has turned democrats into the pro-drone murder of innocents.

It’s amazing how he’s flipped the parties and turned the GOP into the growth party with most of the popular issue stances. Now leading among Hispanics, still leading with whites and cutting into Democrat African American leads plus gaining on the Jewish vote and even turning Muslims against the democrats.

That is what he does - divide people, confuse issues, lie, accuse others of whatever crimes he is committing and gas light that he has not committed crimes when there is overwhelming evidence that he has.

^^^ on the wrong side of history. The drone murder, covid came from a bat side

Create all the false equivalences you like - Criminal conman, fraud, traitor and insurrectionist and his war criminal mentor Putin are the ones in the wrong side of history …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, there is precedent for criminal prosecution and impeachment to both occur separately without one precluding the other

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-claiborne.htm

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers arguing that criminal prosecution is *not* possible for a president? I thought they were saying that impeachment is the only resolution. But impeachment doesn’t mean jail time, so how is that justice?

Trump's lawyers are arguing that impeachment and conviction is a *prerequisite* for any possible jail time. Does that sound stupid? Of course it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

Trump's lawyers are correct. Otherwise, Obama would be sitting in jail for killing American citizens over seas.

If Trump's lawyers are correct, why did Ford need to pardon the never-impeached Nixon?

And I'm just curious - what would you say about all the police officers who have killed American citizens in the course of their work? Certainly some of them (Derek Chauvin for example) are in prison - but not all of them.

[Anonymous]

Every time I read this topic title, I think of the song lyrics:

"Now I'mma kick a way-out style that's smoother than usual;
It's from Above The Law, so see, it's crucial."

ATL'll soon take over the nation
And if you don't wanna hear us, well, change the station
Boo! I sneak in your mind
Sink in your mind, creep from behind
So fast that you won't have time
To deny a brother that's from the streets
Tryin to teach, hopin to reach
Yo, 187's not one that's known to preach
But I wish for each to have freedom of speech.

[Anonymous]

Here is one of the problems. We have a presidential candidate that is threatening and encouraging domestic terrorism if he doesn't get his way. He's an emotional 5 year old with his thumb on the detonator of a hand grenade he is about to throw into a crowd.

We cannot have a president who encourages domestic violence when things do not go his way. Trump and the MAGAs are turning the US into a third world country.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/donald-trump-bedlam-criminal-cases

There will be “bedlam” in the US if criminal cases deny Donald Trump a White House return, said the former president who incited the deadly January 6 attack on Congress but who is the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination this year.

“I think they feel this is the way they’re going to try and win, and that’s not the way it goes,” Trump told reporters, referring to Joe Biden and Democrats, after a court hearing in Washington DC on Tuesday.

“It’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. As we said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box.”

He will not declare that he will discourage his supporters from public violence. He's leading a terrorist cult. And they use the threat of violence as a political weapon.

Speaking to reporters, Trump referred to speeches by Biden around the January 6 anniversary, saying of the charges against him: “When they talk about threat to democracy, that’s your real threat to democracy.”

Claiming he did “nothing wrong, absolutely nothing”, he nonetheless repeated his claim: “If it’s during the time [in office], you have absolute immunity.”

A reporter asked: “You just used the word ‘bedlam’. Will you tell your supporters now, ‘No matter what, no violence’?”

Trump walked away.

[Anonymous]

IOW, he knows he's in big trouble and he's just spouting whatever comes out of his mouth.

Enough with all these delays. Courts can move quickly, when they want to. Let's get 'er done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is one of the problems. We have a presidential candidate that is threatening and encouraging domestic terrorism if he doesn't get his way. He's an emotional 5 year old with his thumb on the detonator of a hand grenade he is about to throw into a crowd.

We cannot have a president who encourages domestic violence when things do not go his way. Trump and the MAGAs are turning the US into a third world country.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/donald-trump-bedlam-criminal-cases

There will be “bedlam” in the US if criminal cases deny Donald Trump a White House return, said the former president who incited the deadly January 6 attack on Congress but who is the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination this year.

“I think they feel this is the way they’re going to try and win, and that’s not the way it goes,” Trump told reporters, referring to Joe Biden and Democrats, after a court hearing in Washington DC on Tuesday.

“It’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. As we said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box.”

He will not declare that he will discourage his supporters from public violence. He's leading a terrorist cult. And they use the threat of violence as a political weapon.

Speaking to reporters, Trump referred to speeches by Biden around the January 6 anniversary, saying of the charges against him: “When they talk about threat to democracy, that’s your real threat to democracy.”

Claiming he did “nothing wrong, absolutely nothing”, he nonetheless repeated his claim: “If it’s during the time [in office], you have absolute immunity.”

A reporter asked: “You just used the word ‘bedlam’. Will you tell your supporters now, ‘No matter what, no violence’?”

Trump walked away.

Trump is an emotional toddler and his MAGA followers are brainwashed zombies willing/eager to burn it all down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, there is precedent for criminal prosecution and impeachment to both occur separately without one precluding the other

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-claiborne.htm

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers arguing that criminal prosecution is *not* possible for a president? I thought they were saying that impeachment is the only resolution. But impeachment doesn’t mean jail time, so how is that justice?

Trump's lawyers are arguing that impeachment and conviction is a *prerequisite* for any possible jail time. Does that sound stupid? Of course it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

+1 Trump’s own impeachment lawyer: “After he gets out of office, you go and arrest him.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, there is precedent for criminal prosecution and impeachment to both occur separately without one precluding the other

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-claiborne.htm

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers arguing that criminal prosecution is *not* possible for a president? I thought they were saying that impeachment is the only resolution. But impeachment doesn’t mean jail time, so how is that justice?

Trump's lawyers are arguing that impeachment and conviction is a *prerequisite* for any possible jail time. Does that sound stupid? Of course it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

Okay I understand. Thanks.

An impossibly high standard, FWIW, since senators of a president’s party are about the least impartial jurors imaginable.

+1 “When you have 35 Senators in your cult, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ‘em by the p#ssy. You can do anything.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, there is precedent for criminal prosecution and impeachment to both occur separately without one precluding the other

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-claiborne.htm

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers arguing that criminal prosecution is *not* possible for a president? I thought they were saying that impeachment is the only resolution. But impeachment doesn’t mean jail time, so how is that justice?

Trump's lawyers are arguing that impeachment and conviction is a *prerequisite* for any possible jail time. Does that sound stupid? Of course it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

Trump's lawyers are correct. Otherwise, Obama would be sitting in jail for killing American citizens over seas.

If Trump's lawyers are correct, why did Ford need to pardon the never-impeached Nixon?

And I'm just curious - what would you say about all the police officers who have killed American citizens in the course of their work? Certainly some of them (Derek Chauvin for example) are in prison - but not all of them.

I’m just curious, do you think Chauvin was consulting with White House counsel when he killed Floyd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 13:year old saw the thread title and said, Haven't these people heard of the rule of law? We learned about it in school. No, the president isn't above the law. Of course not.

Did you explain to your 13 year old that the constitution specified impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and that President Trump was impeached and not convicted?

DP and then her 13 year might reply but what if a president resigns before impeachment and conviction take place, that means he's above the law if he commits High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Maybe. But that isn’t what happened. Trump WAS impeached and was found not guilty. That is the situation.

He wasn't found "not guilty" - a majority of senators voted to disbar Trump from running again, but not the 60 needed to prevent it outright. More than 10 said they would not vote against Trump because he was out of office, so voting for removal was unnecessary and further, that the DOJ would have jursidiction.

So now we have the DOJ arguing in court and team trump citing the lack of removal by the Senate as the get out of jail free card...IOW playing both sides.

Actually the threshold is 67 votes in the senate to convict, which is impossibly high. Trump could easily come up with any BS excuse for any crime whatsoever and get 34 Republican senators to cover for him.

If impeachment plus conviction is the *only* way to hold a president accountable, there are multiple loopholes:
A president could commit a crime then immediately resign.
A president could commit a crime on January 19, just before their term ends.
A president could commit a crime that is not discovered until they are no longer president.
A president could commit a crime that, by its very nature, prevents impeachment from happening. Use your imagination.

If impeachment is the only exception to presidential immunity then there must be a way to impeach a former president. Since there's not, if the court agrees with Trump they're saying that presidents are monarchs. Trump may not realize he's going to lose this argument, but his lawyers certainly do.

What happens after a president is convicted of impeachment? It’s my understanding that he would lose the presidency and just become a private citizen and that’s it. Is that correct? Or does an impeachment conviction also come with a jail sentence?

It's never happened, but I think Trump's lawyers are arguing that an impeachment then allows for subsequent criminal prosecution? I don't see how they get that from the Constitution, but I don't see how they get most of their argument.

Your reasoning is backwards. If the founders had intended the President to enjoy immunity for any and all acts (public or private, within the scope of the office or not) while in office, they would have said so explicitly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, there is precedent for criminal prosecution and impeachment to both occur separately without one precluding the other

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-claiborne.htm

But aren’t Trump’s lawyers arguing that criminal prosecution is *not* possible for a president? I thought they were saying that impeachment is the only resolution. But impeachment doesn’t mean jail time, so how is that justice?

Trump's lawyers are arguing that impeachment and conviction is a *prerequisite* for any possible jail time. Does that sound stupid? Of course it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

Trump's lawyers are correct. Otherwise, Obama would be sitting in jail for killing American citizens over seas.

If Trump's lawyers are correct, why did Ford need to pardon the never-impeached Nixon?

And I'm just curious - what would you say about all the police officers who have killed American citizens in the course of their work? Certainly some of them (Derek Chauvin for example) are in prison - but not all of them.

I’m just curious, do you think Chauvin was consulting with White House counsel when he killed Floyd?

Obviously not, but perhaps if he'd sought advice from some attorneys in Minnesota before encountering Floyd things might have turned out differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 13:year old saw the thread title and said, Haven't these people heard of the rule of law? We learned about it in school. No, the president isn't above the law. Of course not.

Did you explain to your 13 year old that the constitution specified impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and that President Trump was impeached and not convicted?

DP and then her 13 year might reply but what if a president resigns before impeachment and conviction take place, that means he's above the law if he commits High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Maybe. But that isn’t what happened. Trump WAS impeached and was found not guilty. That is the situation.

He wasn't found "not guilty" - a majority of senators voted to disbar Trump from running again, but not the 60 needed to prevent it outright. More than 10 said they would not vote against Trump because he was out of office, so voting for removal was unnecessary and further, that the DOJ would have jursidiction.

So now we have the DOJ arguing in court and team trump citing the lack of removal by the Senate as the get out of jail free card...IOW playing both sides.

Actually the threshold is 67 votes in the senate to convict, which is impossibly high. Trump could easily come up with any BS excuse for any crime whatsoever and get 34 Republican senators to cover for him.

If impeachment plus conviction is the *only* way to hold a president accountable, there are multiple loopholes:
A president could commit a crime then immediately resign.
A president could commit a crime on January 19, just before their term ends.
A president could commit a crime that is not discovered until they are no longer president.
A president could commit a crime that, by its very nature, prevents impeachment from happening. Use your imagination.

If impeachment is the only exception to presidential immunity then there must be a way to impeach a former president. Since there's not, if the court agrees with Trump they're saying that presidents are monarchs. Trump may not realize he's going to lose this argument, but his lawyers certainly do.

What happens after a president is convicted of impeachment? It’s my understanding that he would lose the presidency and just become a private citizen and that’s it. Is that correct? Or does an impeachment conviction also come with a jail sentence?

It's never happened, but I think Trump's lawyers are arguing that an impeachment then allows for subsequent criminal prosecution? I don't see how they get that from the Constitution, but I don't see how they get most of their argument.

The Federalist Papers are also considered founding documents and are often referred to when it comes to constitutional questions. There you find: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. " So yes, definitely subject to prosecution if impeached. No question there at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 13:year old saw the thread title and said, Haven't these people heard of the rule of law? We learned about it in school. No, the president isn't above the law. Of course not.

Did you explain to your 13 year old that the constitution specified impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and that President Trump was impeached and not convicted?

DP and then her 13 year might reply but what if a president resigns before impeachment and conviction take place, that means he's above the law if he commits High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Maybe. But that isn’t what happened. Trump WAS impeached and was found not guilty. That is the situation.

He wasn't found "not guilty" - a majority of senators voted to disbar Trump from running again, but not the 60 needed to prevent it outright. More than 10 said they would not vote against Trump because he was out of office, so voting for removal was unnecessary and further, that the DOJ would have jursidiction.

So now we have the DOJ arguing in court and team trump citing the lack of removal by the Senate as the get out of jail free card...IOW playing both sides.

Actually the threshold is 67 votes in the senate to convict, which is impossibly high. Trump could easily come up with any BS excuse for any crime whatsoever and get 34 Republican senators to cover for him.

If impeachment plus conviction is the *only* way to hold a president accountable, there are multiple loopholes:
A president could commit a crime then immediately resign.
A president could commit a crime on January 19, just before their term ends.
A president could commit a crime that is not discovered until they are no longer president.
A president could commit a crime that, by its very nature, prevents impeachment from happening. Use your imagination.

If impeachment is the only exception to presidential immunity then there must be a way to impeach a former president. Since there's not, if the court agrees with Trump they're saying that presidents are monarchs. Trump may not realize he's going to lose this argument, but his lawyers certainly do.

What happens after a president is convicted of impeachment? It’s my understanding that he would lose the presidency and just become a private citizen and that’s it. Is that correct? Or does an impeachment conviction also come with a jail sentence?

It's never happened, but I think Trump's lawyers are arguing that an impeachment then allows for subsequent criminal prosecution? I don't see how they get that from the Constitution, but I don't see how they get most of their argument.

The Federalist Papers are also considered founding documents and are often referred to when it comes to constitutional questions. There you find: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. " So yes, definitely subject to prosecution if impeached. No question there at all.

It's impossible to tell from that context whether the writer meant that the president would only be liable to prosecution if removed in that manner, or if nothing about impeachment rules out subsequent prosecution.