This vague statue would certainly go after a president. (It is a vague statue of Joe Biden airing out his leg hairs near the schoolyard.)
Posted on 04/25/2024 12:55:09 PM PDT by Az Joe
Thursday’s argument in Trump v. United States was a disaster for Special Counsel Jack Smith, and for anyone who believes that the president of the United States should be subject to prosecution if they commit a crime.
I didn’t follow his logic there. How would a stay in power? By refusing to vacate his office?
Especially all those involved in the Russian collusion hoax. They all knew it was fake and went ahead with the fake investigation anyway in an attempted coup. They also lied to a FISA court.
Apparently our wonderful justices on the SC, Republicans included, seemed to forget the plain reading of the Constitution addressing High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which as we know, means whatever Congress determines it means and thus, would cover any act by a President, criminal or civil. If Congress were to find a President guilty and then remove he/she from office, the President would then be liable for criminal prosecution. We did this with Nixon, which is why he was subject to prosecution after he resigned. Conversely, if a President is found Not Guilty after their impeachment trial, then end of story. This is not hard. We all learned this in 8th grade Civics. Unfortunately, like everything else, our political and judicial system has been corrupted beyond repair.
How cute! Thank goodness we Republicans have put our own flyweight chick lawyer on America's Court of last resort, to keep up with decades of Democratic ones.
Point of logic, Your Pinheadedness: Did you ever read the Constitution and the relevant law? The President of the US is not constrained in any way concerning whom he can hire or consult in order to make decisions as President--which means it could include any task from writing the State of the Union address to running his re-election campaign.
While a President is in office, he's definitely not immune from second-guessing in the newspapers. But he is immune from criminal prosecution. He needs to be impeached and removed (becoming a non-President) to lose that immunity--REMEMBER?
Hey, I just remembered: Supreme Court Justices can be impeached. Anyone remember the criteria?
You didn't ask me, but he would have to have broken the law to have committed a "high crime or misdemeanor," then impeached and convicted by Congress, and could at that point face charges. But I see libel or slander, which are lawsuit material, not jail time. For criminal charges, he would have to have hired the mob or been part of it--and of course be convicted of the crime by Congress and busted to private citizen for that, in order to face criminal charges.
the fact of the matter is the president is NOT immune from prosecution. He is held accountable by congress through the impeachment process.
It is illogical that a president which can pardon himself can be held accountable. If that was the case as was pointed out in the case today, every president would simply pardon himself of any and all offenses committed while president before leaving office. Which would have the exact same effect as him being immune.
He is immune from murder from the judicial branch! A president is held accountable for his actions by the legislative branch through the process of impeachment.
Contrary to public opinion, the Senate is not limited to only removing a president that has been impeached. They can impose any sentence they deem fit on his actions.
roberts alone isn’t enough anymore, they need 2 conservatives to flip to win now
exactly! and it should be considered double jeopardy to do otherwise
What crime(s)? There aren’t any except the ones pulled out of someone’s commie butt.
Can someone please explain this to me as if I were a 10 year old please
I just don’t understand what’s going on reading different points of view and I can’t make anything out
Please thank you
This mis-states the facts at issue. Article I states it very well:
"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.
A sitting President is immune from prosecution, but once removed by impeachment or the passage of time, "[He] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law"
The questions asked and arguments made by the Justices SEEM to indicate that they will side with Trump, but you never know.
“according to law” being the operative words in your post.
False.
...."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...
The Press is gross. Period.
The Supreme Court justices are not blind nor are they ignorant on what the Democrats are doing.
The choice they have is to go along with allowing the Democrats to prosecute President Trump on false charges and in effect open up every President from this day forth open to be charged, convicted and imprison by any prosecutor in the Nation.
Or, they could follow the Constitution that would have any misconduct (or crime) be dealt first with Congress via impeachment and if there was any criminal law violation charged in Federal Court. By bypassing Congress they will seal the fate of our nations as being just one more banana republic.
Just as impeachement, conviction, and removal ends the status of a President, so does the swearing in of his successor.
But Trump is not the President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.