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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Who did Obama murder?

No one.

Hundreds

https://theworld.org/stories/if-obama-apologized-1-civilian-drone-victim-every-day-it-would-take-him-3-years

So, no one murdered. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Who did Obama murder?

No one.

Hundreds

https://theworld.org/stories/if-obama-apologized-1-civilian-drone-victim-every-day-it-would-take-him-3-years

Anonymous wrote:

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

Who did Obama murder?

No one.

Anonymous wrote:Relax -- it only applies to Trump. Not any other president. And I'm sure he has no plans to ACTUALLY murder anyone....

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.

So how does that question of fact get settled? Trump is claiming the charges should be dismissed before a trial.

That is what these judges have to decide. Does a president have immunity from prosecution for doing acts that are in support of his role or is there a limit. It’s going to be a fact question and he was not convicted by the senate. The constitution allows the senate to remove him and they chose not to. So can a court find his immunity should be striped for an action he says was part of his job and the senate did not disagree? I think the answer will be that ultimately he has immunity. He has to or he can’t do his job.

Huh? Yes, a president pretty much has immunity for carrying out his office. Including shenanigans.

Many things are within the purview of the office. Listening in on the opponent, nope. Pressuring officials to change votes, no. Using force (mob) to delay and alter an election, nope. Those things are not the president's job.

Even if I agree that trump did all of those things, the remedy is impeachment. That’s it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.

So how does that question of fact get settled? Trump is claiming the charges should be dismissed before a trial.

That is what these judges have to decide. Does a president have immunity from prosecution for doing acts that are in support of his role or is there a limit. It’s going to be a fact question and he was not convicted by the senate. The constitution allows the senate to remove him and they chose not to. So can a court find his immunity should be striped for an action he says was part of his job and the senate did not disagree? I think the answer will be that ultimately he has immunity. He has to or he can’t do his job.

Is inciting an insurrection of his own government and treason "part of his job" or the antithesis of it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.

So how does that question of fact get settled? Trump is claiming the charges should be dismissed before a trial.

That is what these judges have to decide. Does a president have immunity from prosecution for doing acts that are in support of his role or is there a limit. It’s going to be a fact question and he was not convicted by the senate. The constitution allows the senate to remove him and they chose not to. So can a court find his immunity should be striped for an action he says was part of his job and the senate did not disagree? I think the answer will be that ultimately he has immunity. He has to or he can’t do his job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Excerpt from historian news analyst Heather Cox Richardson blog for yesterday … some historical - pleased to see 19 former Republican Congress people stepping up to the plate to hold Trump accountable before the law …

https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/january-9-2024?r=1urel1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

On the docket today in front of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was the question of whether former presidents can be prosecuted for things they did while in office. The issue at hand is whether Trump can be tried for his attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but Trump has also been charged in three other criminal cases: a national case over his mishandling of national security documents, a state case in Georgia for interfering with the 2020 election there, and a state case in New York for paying hush money to adult film actress Stormy

While presidential immunity is a crucially important question, it seems unlikely that any court will conclude that a U.S. president can act however they wish without any accountability before the law. Certainly the framers of the Constitution never intended such a thing (if you listen closely, you can hear them spinning in their graves). More recently, in 1974, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon ruled unanimously that President Richard Nixon could not use claims of executive privilege to withhold evidence from a criminal prosecution. Even more recently, on December 29, three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Trump does not have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits.
 
But the more pressing immediate question is when the court can resume progress on the case, which is stalled during appeals. The case is scheduled for trial on March 4, and Trump has been trying to drag it out—as he has all his trials—with the evident hope that it can be delayed until after the election. When Trump appealed the decision of the district court that he was not immune, Special Counsel Smith tried to move things along by taking the case directly to the Supreme Court, but the court declined to take it at that point. The case will almost certainly end up there again, at which time the justices could let the appeals court decision stand or agree to take it up. If they take it up, they could decide it quickly or delay it until after the election.

Today, in The Bulwark, nineteen former Republican members of Congress called on the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to move the case forward as quickly as possible. Calling out “Trump’s gambit to escape accountability altogether: assert an unprecedented claim of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and use the appellate process to delay the trial until after the November election,” they defended the public’s right to have “critical information they need before they cast their ballots in November.”

Here's the most important part of your post:

former Republican members of Congress

No sitting R member of Congress will go against Trump in this. And that is the danger of allowing blanket presidential immunity when there is a sycophantic Congress supporting a deranged POTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.

So how does that question of fact get settled? Trump is claiming the charges should be dismissed before a trial.

That is what these judges have to decide. Does a president have immunity from prosecution for doing acts that are in support of his role or is there a limit. It’s going to be a fact question and he was not convicted by the senate. The constitution allows the senate to remove him and they chose not to. So can a court find his immunity should be striped for an action he says was part of his job and the senate did not disagree? I think the answer will be that ultimately he has immunity. He has to or he can’t do his job.

He has immunity for things that are part of the job.

The president has no role in any of the 50+ "state" elections and shouldn't be exempt from fomenting an insurrection. The Senate didn't "convict" him because he was already out of office and was thus subject to DOJ investigation and they said as much in February 2021.

There is zero chance the court sides with Trump on this.

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.

I would say this is circular reasoning, and anyone with an ounce of brain cells can see that.