[going hot]

But not the president. unless he commits an actual close up crime, like personally murdering someone of such. Anything else would be trumpeted as Policy Differences or Political crime..

No one is above the law, no one. Not even the CEO of the US.

The Democrats wold then use that excuse to imprison or kill any Republican president they replace.. They could try, but would need to go through a court of law in a public trial. Anything less would be seen as what it is, a grab of power, a coup.

You heard the demands of leftists to arrest every Republican president that has served in your lifetime, no? I hear the demands of leftists all the time, so what?. They wish all republicans to burn in hell. I got news, ain't going to happen. I hear they will take our firearms, ain't going to happen. I hear a lot of crap. So what, only gets their throats sore.

a president is arrested after he steps down for his actions while president, a subsequent president dare not leave office.The one has nothing to do with the other. If a president is breaking the law, he needs to be arrested, and prosecuted, in a court of law.(the one who leaves office, as there is procedure as you are aware of in office legal action.)

He will try like hell to be dictator-for-life and every change of office will have to be done violently.I do not see the cause and effect, I do not see that jump as a foregone conclusion. Take deep breaths, relax, and think about what you are putting forth as inevitable action. not gonna happen.

There is proper Impeachment and Removal while he is IN office. If that is not used then he must be left alone after he leaves office.

Unless he broke the law. If so, or sufficient evidence via grand jury, he needs to stand trial, regardless of party.

That is why Nixon was instantly pardoned as Fords first act.

Not so. Nixon was brought down in a bloodless coup, orchestrated by the media and the democratic party, and public opinion of the gullible, shaped by the same media. The public swallowed the whole thing. Once he was out of office, the dems had no interest, except for the buzzards. It would have been better to prosecute in a court of law, so the public would actually see just exactly what he was guilty of, and just exactly what was going on. ord's pardon was to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Once we as a nation are fearful of prosecuting officials due to their rank, who decides who is above the law?

[Yosemitest]

To arthurus:

First, I'll have a lot more to add later, as tomorrow is a busy day, and I have many things to do, and don't haver much time right now.
But as a member of FR since 1998 and a Vietnam vet, I would have thought you'd picked up a thing or two about HTML.
You might want to take a glance at
HTML Sandbox,
A guide to using HTML on Free Republic in 5 lines
, and Reference HTML Cheatsheet.
You come across the computer screen like
either a man with an extremely liberal wife,
or a retired school teacher that's been around liberals too long.

Now, that being said,
can you show me a "Statute of Limitations" on TREASON ?
I think NOT !

To going hot:

Thank you for your comments and your logic, as well as your service.
Let me repeat what I addressed in comment #58:
As stated on page 2 of the article published January 25, 1861, Treason Against the United States :
"...
Treason has ever been deemed THE HIGHEST CRIME WHICH CAN BE COMMITTED IN CIVIL SOCIETY;
since its aim is an overthrow of the Government and a public resistance by force of its just powers,
its tendency is to create universal danger and alarm,
and on this account it has often been visited with the deepest public resentment.
Hence, by the common law, the the punishment of high treason was accompanied by all the refinements in CRUELTY which were oftentimes literally and studiously executed.
But under the Constitution of the United States the POWER OF PUNISHING the crime of treason against the United States is EXCLUSIVE in Congress;
and the trial of the offence belongs EXCLUSIVELY to the Federal tribunals.
A State cannot take cognizance or punish the offence, whatever it may do in relation to the offence of treason committed exclusively against itself. "

So anyone who assisted or supported Obama in his TREASON, is guilty, also, of TREASON Against the United States.

Anyone who has any time in the military has been well briefed on the legal headache of trying to figure out whether an order is a "LAWFUL ORDER" or not,
and the rock and the hard spot you're between when you follow an UNLAWFUL ORDER, or FAIL to follow a LAWFUL ORDER.

[arthurus]

You are so tied up in a narrow as hell righteous view that you cannot even understand what I am driving at. It is plain words. There is no more way to get throughIt is like the conservatives who all cheered when Bush got his Homeland Security Act. I only saw that it seems good but Democrats are going to be in charge of it sooner then we think. What then? well, we are starting to find out “what then?”. We put a Democrat president in jail ooutside of the impeachment process. So far so good- he deserves it. Then the following Republican president will be followed by a DEMOCRAT president with a DEMOCRAT attorney general. He will put the Republican president in jail for whatever they can dream up and there is no recourse. Do you think a good man would even run for the Republican nomination after that? The whole political system would turn quickly into a 1960s Latin American Caudillo system where the only people who would run for president are those who think they can grab the system and stay there until they die. It is the only attitude that makes existential sense. But you won’t see any of that. You only think that this president has committed crimes and must be sent to prison. If he has committed crimes, judicial or political, impeach him while he is in office. Don’t destroy the Republic by hounding him after he leaves office. If your own immediate satisfaction is more important than the survival of the Republic, well, there is no helping you or discussing with you.