Anonymous wrote:It is rather ironic that if the SCOTUS rules for Trump on this, it opens the door for Biden to do whatever he wants.

No, it doesn’t. Because in a fascist government such as the GOP is halfway to installing (Project 2025 woot woot - seriously I think people are just ignoring this like it’s not real, for some reason), the in-group is above the law.

It is rather ironic that if the SCOTUS rules for Trump on this, it opens the door for Biden to do whatever he wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not respond to this case before Biden leaves office.

Here is why if they do Trump can be killed immediately by Biden.

They know this. They are stuck what will they do?

If anyone thinks they are going to be pardoned by Trump in his next term LOL He could have pardoned anyone for Jan 6th up until Biden was sworn in. Think about the fact he did not. Oathkeepers and proud boys are idiots. All Jan 6th people prosecuted are. Where is Trump? Why did he not pardon them all he could have done a blanket pardon....... Hum.....

What? Biden isn’t going to kill Trump.

Of course...because Biden just wouldn't do that, plus if he did he would get impeached and removed from office. Only Trump is allowed to get away with anything.

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not respond to this case before Biden leaves office.

Here is why if they do Trump can be killed immediately by Biden.

They know this. They are stuck what will they do?

If anyone thinks they are going to be pardoned by Trump in his next term LOL He could have pardoned anyone for Jan 6th up until Biden was sworn in. Think about the fact he did not. Oathkeepers and proud boys are idiots. All Jan 6th people prosecuted are. Where is Trump? Why did he not pardon them all he could have done a blanket pardon....... Hum.....

What? Biden isn’t going to kill Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

It’s funny to me that he’s terrified when all I see is him getting the delays he needs to kick the can down the road. And it’s not like his fellow insurrection planners have faced any blowback at all. It’s not like anyone is asking Clarence Thomas, whose wife helped plan the insurrection, to recuse himself.

It seems like the GOP believes they have a king and the king can do whatever he wants.

SCOTUS will not respond to this case before Biden leaves office.

Here is why if they do Trump can be killed immediately by Biden.

They know this. They are stuck what will they do?

If anyone thinks they are going to be pardoned by Trump in his next term LOL He could have pardoned anyone for Jan 6th up until Biden was sworn in. Think about the fact he did not. Oathkeepers and proud boys are idiots. All Jan 6th people prosecuted are. Where is Trump? Why did he not pardon them all he could have done a blanket pardon....... Hum.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Law enforcement officers have immunity for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. When an officer kills someone, the first question is whether they were within the scope of their official duties. In the Chauvin case, the court found that kneeling on the neck of George Floyd was not part of Chauvin's job.

The same standard applies for presidents.

Law enforcement has qualified immunity from civil lawsuits. They have no immunity from criminal laws.

Without immunity arresting someone would be kidnapping.

No, it wouldn’t. Kidnapping is the “unlawful” taking or carrying away of someone by force or fraud. An arrest by a law enforcement officer is lawful. Please stop playing lawyer.

By the way, chauvin did not raise any immunity defense at his criminal trial. Because it doesn’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FWIW I don’t think the founders envisioned our modern party system—where party loyalty cuts across all three branches —when they designed the infrastructure of our government. Definitely understandable, since democracy was so new at the time. They probably assumed senators would be loyal to the Senate and to the legislative branch, which would provide a real check on the president. It may have been true then, but it is most definitely no longer the case. Consequently, an impeachment conviction, which requires 67 senate votes, is now an impossibly high standard to meet. Given our 2-party system, it will never ever happen.

The Whig party was founded in 1678 and the Tories in 1679. The Founders were well aware of political parties.

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.

FWIW I don’t think the founders envisioned our modern party system—where party loyalty cuts across all three branches —when they designed the infrastructure of our government. Definitely understandable, since democracy was so new at the time. They probably assumed senators would be loyal to the Senate and to the legislative branch, which would provide a real check on the president. It may have been true then, but it is most definitely no longer the case. Consequently, an impeachment conviction, which requires 67 senate votes, is now an impossibly high standard to meet. Given our 2-party system, it will never ever happen.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Law enforcement officers have immunity for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. When an officer kills someone, the first question is whether they were within the scope of their official duties. In the Chauvin case, the court found that kneeling on the neck of George Floyd was not part of Chauvin's job.

The same standard applies for presidents.

Law enforcement has qualified immunity from civil lawsuits. They have no immunity from criminal laws.

Without immunity arresting someone would be kidnapping.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Law enforcement officers have immunity for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. When an officer kills someone, the first question is whether they were within the scope of their official duties. In the Chauvin case, the court found that kneeling on the neck of George Floyd was not part of Chauvin's job.

The same standard applies for presidents.

Law enforcement has qualified immunity from civil lawsuits. They have no immunity from criminal laws.

Also the standard for qualified immunity is not whether the act was within the scope of their duties.

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.

Law enforcement officers have immunity for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. When an officer kills someone, the first question is whether they were within the scope of their official duties. In the Chauvin case, the court found that kneeling on the neck of George Floyd was not part of Chauvin's job.

The same standard applies for presidents.

Law enforcement has qualified immunity from civil lawsuits. They have no immunity from criminal laws.

The issue of whether Trump's actions on January 6 fell within his official duties has already been decided by the DC Court of Appeals, in Blassingame v Trump:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A3464AEB2C1CB89985258A7800537E73/%24file/22-5069-2029472.pdf

They cited Clinton v. Jones:
<quote>
Together, Nixon and Clinton establish three governing
principles. First, the President is entitled to official immunity
from civil damages liability based on actions within the “outer
perimeter” of official presidential responsibility, including
discretionary acts within the concept of duty associated with
the presidency. Second, the President is subject to civil
damages suits based on actions taken in an unofficial, private
capacity to the same extent as any private citizen. And third,
the President’s actions do not fall beyond the outer perimeter
of official responsibility merely because they are unlawful or
taken for a forbidden purpose. Rather, the President’s official
immunity insulates all of his official actions from civil
damages liability, regardless of their legality or his motives.
</quote>


The court found:
<quote>
Although the line between President and candidate may
not always be clear, President Trump’s alleged words and
actions were directed toward promoting his victory in the 2020
presidential election rather than carrying out a designated
official duty to confirm the integrity of the electoral process, to
ensure the faithful execution of the laws, or to fulfill other
official purposes.
</quote>

And ruled against Trump.

This issue has already been litigated, the court should dismiss Trump's challenge.

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.

Law enforcement officers have immunity for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. When an officer kills someone, the first question is whether they were within the scope of their official duties. In the Chauvin case, the court found that kneeling on the neck of George Floyd was not part of Chauvin's job.

The same standard applies for presidents.