DC circuit court rejects immunity for Trump, SCOTUS appeal is pending

[acptulsa]

[jmdrake]

I brought this very argument up to a friend of mine when the story first broke that Trump's lawyer conceded that under his argument a president who ordered an assassination of a political enemy. But Obama ordered a drone strike of an American citizen, Anwar Al Awlawki, who didn't even get a trial in abstentia and was only arguably "guilty" or what normally would be considered first amendment protected speech.







So....a Democratic or neocon Republican president, with the media industrial complex behind him, can declare a U.S. citizen, without a trial, an "enemy" and kill him, and his teenage son...and later his young daughter, with drone strikes with no transparency or accountability and it's okay because....reasons? Meanwhile Biden is trying to send a left wing black socialist to prison for basically the rest of his life for the "crimes" of saying that America is committing genocide against black people (wasn't that the point of Black Lives Matter?) and that our support of the Ukraine war effort is wrong because that's "Russian interference in our elections." Ummm....okay.

[jmdrake]

I don't know. The Trump fanbois still think he'll put Hillary in prison someday. They're the ones, however, scouting up loopholes through which Biden might escape the same fate. That's all I'm saying.

Is this escalation? Does each half of government get to ignore more laws than the last, out of retaliation, forever?

Yeah...but you and I both know that the Clintons and the Trumps were friends.



Also, Trump tried to at least investigate, if not prosecute, Joe Biden! Of course the difference is that Hillary didn't try to run again. And it's highly likely that Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted if he hadn't tried to run again. Also Biden's Burisma shenanigans were done when he was vice president. And the special prosecutor investigating Biden on mishandling classified documents came to the conclusion that Biden is too demented to prosecute. So....how again are you expecting Biden to ever be prosecuted....for anything? That's especially true if Trump is successfully prosecuted and if those prosecutions prevent him from becoming president. The only way Biden is ever prosecuted is via a Trump Whitehouse / justice department bent on revenge. Really I want Fauci prosecuted more than anybody but that's not likely either.

[jmdrake]

Crimes? What crimes?

Ain't nobody knows anything about any "crimes".

At least, not at the Department of "Just Us" ... (and not except with respect to Trump, anyway ...)

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1783620584548466786
& https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1783623343410700730

Yep. I saw that Justice Thomas brought up Operation Mongoose and I posted about Justice Kavanaugh bringing up Obama's drone strikes.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7226979

I wish that meant they were ready to reign in presidential power across the board. But we all know that's not true.

[acptulsa]

Really I want Fauci prosecuted more than anybody but that's not likely either.

It's more possible now than ever before in my life to do the 1860 and reject both the Democrats and the Whigs. Yes, RFKJr is a mighty long shot even so. But he's not impossible, because the deep state is going for broke, shooting the moon. They're out to get every last heart and the queen of spades too, and there's quite a lot that can go wrong with that plan. That's what makes it possible.

He would prosecute Fauci. His fanbois could never invent enough excuses for him not prosecuting Fauci, if he were given the chance.

[Occam's Banana]

File under "Three Felonies a Day":

https://twitter.com/ConLawWarrior/st...36118133440692
to: https://twitter.com/ConLawWarrior/st...36136810672286
{Clark Nelly @ConLawWarrior | 26 April 2024}

[bold emphasis added - OB]

Just beneath the surface of the Trump immunity case lies the fact that our CJ system has gone so off the rails that few people—especially if they’ve done anything interesting like run for office or start a business—can be confident they haven’t committed multiple felonies. /1

Is it reasonable for future presidents and executive-branch officials to be concerned that the decision whether to prosecute them for *something* they did in office will end up being purely a matter of prosecutorial largesse? Absolutely—just like the rest of us. /2

We live in a wildly overcriminalized society where even the govt has lost track of how many laws are on the books—true fact: DOJ has repeatedly tried and failed to count just the number of federal criminal laws on the books, which is of course just the tip of the iceberg. /3

And it’s not just the number of crimes on the books—it’s how many have no connection to any coherent sense of right and wrong, meaning that even a good, peaceful, civically engaged person’s moral compass provides no reliable protection against inadvertently breaking the law. /4

Case in point: Several years ago, I was put in touch with an elderly woman who inherited a taxidermied critter from a dear, deceased friend. After she could no longer afford to keep it in climate-controlled storage, she decided to sell it on eBay. The first purported buyer…/5

Turned out to be an undercover (!) state fish & wildlife agent who (in his infinite grace) charged her with a misdemeanor while advising her they’d bump it up to a felony if she refused to plead. She did and they did. Which is when I got involved. Question for New Yorkers: /6

Do you have a clear idea which stuffed critters you may possess and which ones it’s a felony for you to possess? The answer for most of you is no you do not. I’m confident of that in part because it took me 20 mins to find the relevant statute—and I knew what I was looking for./7

Now, this grotesque overcriminalization would be much less of a problem if obtaining a conviction were has heavy a lift for the govt as the Constitution requires it to be—particularly the part where they have to persuade a unanimous jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. /8

But that’s not our system anymore. Constitutionally prescribed jury trials have been almost completely displaced by plea-driven mass adjudication. As a result, prosecutors can be—and evidence shows have in fact become—far less discriminating in choosing which cases to pursue. /9

Which brings us full circle. Is Trump’s claim that he should be immune from prosecution for trying to steal the 2020 election hot, steaming garbage? Yup. But are the justices right to be concerned about how the rule in this case could be abused in future cases? Also yup. /end

---

"Constitutionally prescribed jury trials have been almost completely displaced by plea-driven mass adjudication. As a result, prosecutors can be—and evidence shows have in fact become—far less discriminating in choosing which cases to pursue." -- Clark Nelly (above)

"The only alternative is to imagine that federal prosecutors are (1) so extremely competent that they are able to win even the iffiest cases (so much so that even innocent defendants feel compelled to acquiesce), or (2) so extremely restrained that they only ever take on cases that are obvious "slam dunks" (so much so that even guilty defendants feel compelled to acquiesce)." -- me (below)

[bold emphasis added]

Fewer than [half of] 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted in 2022
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-re...itted-in-2022/
{John Gramlich | 14 June 2023}

Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty this week to federal criminal charges related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents after his departure from the White House in 2021. The unprecedented charges against Trump and his subsequent plea raise the question: How common is it for defendants in federal criminal cases to plead not guilty, go to trial and ultimately be acquitted?

In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%).

The overwhelming majority of defendants in federal criminal cases that year did not go to trial at all. About nine-in-ten (89.5%) pleaded guilty, while another 8.2% had their case dismissed at some point in the judicial process, according to the data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

These statistics include all defendants charged in U.S. district courts with felonies and serious misdemeanors, as well as some defendants charged with petty offenses. They do not include federal defendants whose cases were handled by magistrate judges or the much broader universe of defendants in state courts. Defendants who entered pleas of “no contest,” in which they accept criminal punishment but do not admit guilt, are also excluded. The 2022 federal fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2021, and ended Sept. 30, 2022.

The U.S. Justice Department indicted Trump earlier this month on 37 counts relating to seven criminal charges: willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document or record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, scheme to conceal, and false statements and representations.

Trump’s case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where acquittal rates look similar to the national average. In fiscal 2022, only 12 of 1,944 total defendants in the Southern District of Florida – about 0.6% – were acquitted at trial. As was the case nationally, the vast majority of defendants in Florida’s Southern District (86.2%) pleaded guilty that year, while 10.7% had their cases dismissed.

It’s not clear from the federal judiciary’s statistics how many other defendants nationally or in the Southern District of Florida faced the same or similar charges that Trump is facing or how those cases ended.

Broadly speaking, however, the charges against Trump are rare. In fiscal 2022, more than eight-in-ten federal criminal defendants in the United States faced charges related to one of four other broad categories of crime: drug offenses (31%), immigration offenses (25%), firearms and explosives offenses (16%) or property offenses (11%). In Florida’s Southern District, too, more than eight-in-ten defendants faced charges related to these four categories.

Trump, of course, is not a typical federal defendant. He is the first former president ever to face federal criminal charges and is running for president again in 2024. The federal case against Trump is still in its early stages, and it’s unclear when – or whether – it will proceed to trial.

Well yeah if they kept slapping an overabundance of charges on any of us, eventually they could probably build a case.

That's exactly how they do it. They slather on the charges ("three felonies a day"), accumulating longer potential terms of incarceration - so defendants (who do not have the effectively "infinite" resources available to the feds) are strongly incentivized to accept deals in which they plead "guilty" in order to reduce or avoid lengthier prison sentences (keeping in mind that there is no parole for federal convictions).

The only alternative is to imagine that federal prosecutors are (1) so extremely competent that they are able to win even the iffiest cases (so much so that even innocent defendants feel compelled to acquiesce), or (2) so extremely restrained that they only ever take on cases that are obvious "slam dunks" (so much so that even guilty defendants feel compelled to acquiesce).

[Occam's Banana]

Crimes? What crimes?

Ain't nobody knows anything about any "crimes".

At least, not at the Department of "Just Us" ... (and not except with respect to Trump, anyway ...)

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1783620584548466786
& https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1783623343410700730

https://twitter.com/NSKinsella/statu...12219246666237
[link: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...lito-maga.html]

[johnwk]

.
Let us take a look at what our Constitution states with reference to trying a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.


The fact is, the House did Act on January 25, 2021, and filed H. RES. 24 with the Senate, charging Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

This is the first step, under our Constitution to deal with a President who is alleged to have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”).

And under our Constitution, Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 we find:

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” And that includes trying the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors”



And the Senate did in fact exercise its sole power to try Donald John Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And on February 13, 2021, Trump was acquitted of "high crimes and misdemeanors” by the following ROLL CALL VOTE
.
Had Trump been convicted by the Senate, as provided by our Constitution, the Senate could have then disqualified Trump to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, and being convicted by the Senate, the door would also have then been opened to his being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7) But the Senate, exercising its sole power to try the President, acquitted him.



So, the question now is, under what Constitutional authorities did our hate Trump crowd lawfully indict and then prosecute Trump in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which is infested with our hate-Trump crowd, when the constitutionally authorized venue to try the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the Senate of the United States, under which he had already been acquitted?

.

[johnwk]

.

In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.

So, what was the proper venue to try Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors” . . . the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or, the United States Senate, which appears to have "sole power" to try "high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted Trump of the charges?

.

[Sonny Tufts]

.

In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.

So, what was the proper venue to try Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors” . . . the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or, the United States Senate, which appears to have "sole power" to try "high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted Trump of the charges?

.

Impeachment is a civil proceeding, so the constitutional provision vesting the Senate with the sole power to try impeachments does not apply to a criminal proceeding and doesn't divest the District Court of the authority to try a criminal case. The fact that the same conduct (high crimes and misdemeanors) might be involved in both proceedings doesn't change this distinction. Apples and oranges.

While there might be policy arguments for not permitting a President to be tried in a criminal matter without first being impeached, the language of the Constitution doesn't support your theory.

Hypothetical: A President commits what any reasonable person would view as a high crime and then commits another by bribing 34 Senators to vote for acquittal in an impeachment proceeding. He skates, right?

[johnwk]

Impeachment is a civil proceeding, so the constitutional provision vesting the Senate with the sole power to try impeachments does not apply to a criminal proceeding . . .

According to you.






In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.


Under our Constitution, Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 we find:

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” And that includes trying the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors”



And the Senate did in fact exercise its sole power to try Donald John Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted him of "high crimes and misdemeanors” by the following ROLL CALL VOTE



Had Trump been found guilty of the "high crimes and misdemeanors” as charged, that would have opened the door to Trump being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7) But the Senate, exercising its sole power to try the President, acquitted him.


So, the question now is, under what Constitutional authorities did our hate Trump crowd lawfully indict and then prosecute Trump in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for "high crimes and misdemeanors”, which is infested with our hate-Trump crowd, when the constitutionally authorized venue to try the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the Senate of the United States, under which he had already been acquitted?

.

[acptulsa]

According to you.






In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated...

According to him and every other thinking person. Tossing in a non-denial denial and proceeding as if nobody should ever have the thought doesn't address it.

Neither a civil court trial nor an impeachment can result in prison time. Criminal trials can, practically by definition.

Therefore...

Hello?

[Sonny Tufts]

According to you.

SCOTUS will decide this issue, but the Justices during oral arguments in Trump's case were dubious about his claim of absolute immunity and eventually got his attorney to admit that Trump could be prosecuted for private, non-officlal acts committed during his presidency. For example, Justice Barrett (a Trump appointee) pointed to one of the allegations in Trump's indictment that he spoke to “a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results". Trump's attorney conceded that such conduct was a private act that would not be subject to immunity.

Btw, you didn't answer my hypothetical. Give it a try.

[johnwk]

SCOTUS will decide this issue, but the Justices during oral arguments in Trump's case were dubious about his claim of absolute immunity

We are not talking about that here. We are talking about the proper venue to try a president for crimes considered to be impeachable offenses.

In fact, the Senate is assigned the task to convene a trial and try one accused of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

And the House is assigned the task of “impeachment”, which is charging the accused of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Our Founders carved out two specifically identified bodies, the House and Senate, to deal with a president who may engage in acts considered to be impeachable offenses. And their very intentions are documented HERE

“At the time of ratification of the Constitution, the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” thus appears understood to have applied to uniquely “political” offenses, or misdeeds committed by public officials against the state.90 Such offenses simply resist a full delineation, as the possible range of potential misdeeds in office cannot be determined in advance.91 Instead, the type of misconduct that merits impeachment is worked out over time through the political process. In the years following the Constitution’s ratification, precisely what behavior constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor has thus been the subject of much debate.92”

Your theory would add an entirely new body to deal with what has already been assigned, in the first instance, to the House and Senate, and Chief Justice, by our Constitution.

.

[TheCount]

He's not the president

[johnwk]

He's not the president

Oh, come now. Surely you jest.

[Sonny Tufts]

We are talking about the proper venue to try a president for crimes considered to be impeachable offenses.

That may be what you're talking about, but it's not what the Constitution addresses. Impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate have one purpose: to remove the accused from office. It is a civil proceeding that has the collateral result of disqualifying a person found guilty by the Senate from ever holding a federal office.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, which should be patently obvious when you realize that it's not necessary that the behavior forming the basis of an impeachment constitutes criminal activity. For example, the first conviction by the Senate was of John Pickering, a federal judge who was removed for chronic intoxication.

If impeachment were really a criminal proceeding, one who is is acquitted in a criminal trial couldn't be later impeached and removed because of double jeopardy. Yet that's exactly what happened to Alcee Hastings, a federal judge acquitted of bribery and perjury but later impeached and removed for the same acts. He argued, among other things, that his acquittal barred his later impeachment, but the court rejected his double jeopardy claim:

Plaintiff also has no legal foundation for his claim that double jeopardy bars his impeachment. Impeachment is a wholly separate proceeding from a criminal trial, and it has an entirely different purpose, that is to remove from office those judges who have failed to serve during good behavior. Impeachment is sui generis. Double jeopardy no more bars an impeachment trial following a criminal trial than it does a civil trial following a criminal trial. It is long settled law that "Congress may impose both a criminal and a civil sanction in respect to the same act or omission; for the double jeopardy clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense." Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399, 58 S.Ct. 630, 633, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1937) (addition to taxes not prohibited by double jeopardy because it is civil penalty). A penalty is considered punishment when it serves the "twin aims of retribution and deterrence." United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989) (liability for disproportionate penalties under False Claims Act violates double jeopardy when defendant has already been sentenced to jail term and fine). While Judge Hastings may feel personally that his impeachment was intended as retribution against him, the primary purpose of a judicial impeachment is to protect the integrity of our federal court system. Hastings v. U.S., 802 Fed. Supp. 490 (D. D.C. 1992) (emphasis added).

Note that Hastings was tried in a U.S. District Court while he was still a federal judge, and it doesn't appear that anyone argued that "proper venue" was the impeachment process.

[Invisible Man]

We are not talking about that here. We are talking about the proper venue to try a president for crimes considered to be impeachable offenses.

In fact, the Senate is assigned the task to convene a trial and try one accused of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

And the House is assigned the task of “impeachment”, which is charging the accused of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Our Founders carved out two specifically identified bodies, the House and Senate, to deal with a president who may engage in acts considered to be impeachable offenses. And their very intentions are documented HERE




Your theory would add an entirely new body to deal with what has already been assigned, in the first instance, to the House and Senate, and Chief Justice, by our Constitution.

.

The exact quote that you provided proves Sunny's point.

Did you not realize that?

[johnwk]

The exact quote that you provided proves Sunny's point.

Did you not realize that?

What I realize is, you are not making any sense with your provocative innuendo.


Instead of playing cat and mouse, simply state exactly what your mean in clear language so I can respond accordingly.

Aside from that, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is the wrong venue to try Trump for the charges found in the indictment.


The truth is, the House did Act on January 25, 2021, and filed H. RES. 24 with the Senate, charging Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

This is the first step, under our Constitution to deal with a President who is alleged to have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”).

And under our Constitution, Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 we find:

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” And that includes trying the President for acts considered “high crimes and misdemeanors” within our Constitution's meaning.

And the Senate did in fact exercise its sole power to try Donald John Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And on February 13, 2021, Trump was acquitted of "high crimes and misdemeanors” by the following ROLL CALL VOTE

.
Had Trump been convicted by the Senate, as provided by our Constitution, the Senate could have then disqualified Trump to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, and being convicted by the Senate, the door would then have been opened to his being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)

So, the question now is, under what Constitutional authorities was Trump indicted and then prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for the very same type of charges which he was acquitted of under our Constitution's specific process adopted to deal with a President who engages in acts which fall under the founders meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”?


The historical evidence found HERE (start at top of page 8) confirms the charges listed in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are those considered by our Founders as impeachable offenses, over which our United States Senate was delegated "sole power" to try and convict an accused party.


It seems to me the D.C. federal District Court has assumed a power not granted by our Constitution and is the wrong venue to try a President accused of the type of crimes listed in the D.C. Indictment, and which Trump has already been acquitted of by the Senate.

[TheCount]

Oh, come now. Surely you jest.

Maybe with your research skills you can find the part of the constitution about being president for life

[johnwk]

Let us examine exactly what has taken place with the case against Trump in D.C.

.

What appears to have taken place is an intentional perversion of our constitution and the rule of law. Those trying to undermine our Presidency have looked at specific charges the House impeached Trump under and the Senate acquitted him of, parsed those specific charges into an INDICTMENT and assigned any federal statutory criminal law that closely resembles a specific charge under which the House impeached, and then moved forward with re-trying the former President in spite of him already having been acquitted of them under the unique process specifically adopted to deal with a President who commits acts which fall within the constitutional meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

That seems to sum up what has taken place and confirms our rule of law has been undermined, and some very evil actors in our judicial system, are part of this intentional undermining.

[TheCount]

How are they undermining the presidency? He's not the president.

[jmdrake]

How are they undermining the presidency? He's not the president.

True. But if he doesn't have immunity simply because he's no longer president then Obama could be prosecuted for murdering a U.S. citizen via a drone strike....which I would be perfectly fine with happening.

[johnwk]

How are they undermining the presidency? He's not the president.

Do you understand the word presidency, as distinguished from the president?

[johnwk]

True. But if he doesn't have immunity simply because he's no longer president then Obama could be prosecuted for murdering a U.S. citizen via a drone strike....which I would be perfectly fine with happening.

Exactly.

Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President.

In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.


The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique and highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate.

[TheCount]

True. But if he doesn't have immunity simply because he's no longer president then Obama could be prosecuted for murdering a U.S. citizen via a drone strike....which I would be perfectly fine with happening.

I don't see the issue.


Neocon supreme court justices give examples of presidents doing other things which may be illegal - as examples of why the president should be immune

Then people are acting like those justices are criticizing those acts

If those are arguments for immunity then they are saying that the president should be allowed to do those things and get away with it. Any sane person should oppose this.


But we know why they clap. Rah rah team, go team, defend team, support team at all costs, even if it means turning your principles inside out and sabotages your goals.

[TheCount]

Exactly.

Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President.

In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.


The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique and highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate.

Ah yes any reading of the constitution clearly shows that the founders intended for the president to execute americans without due process. Obviously.

[jmdrake]

I don't see the issue.


Neocon supreme court justices give examples of presidents doing other things which may be illegal - as examples of why the president should be immune

Then people are acting like those justices are criticizing those acts

If those are arguments for immunity then they are saying that the president should be allowed to do those things and get away with it. Any sane person should oppose this.


But we know why they clap. Rah rah team, go team, defend team, support team at all costs, even if it means turning your principles inside out and sabotages your goals.

I don't think you actually understood what I wrote. Note that I said "which I would be perfectly fine with happening." So what "team" am I supporting exactly? On the Trump charges, as written, they are paper thin. Yes I've actually read the indictments and in the case of the Stormy Daniels / hush money trial I've even read the order denying the motion to dismiss. The phony "34 count" indictment is a copy / pasta of the same charge 34 times applied to different supposed business records. And the "election interference" charge is totally bogus too. I've listened to the entire 1 1/2 hour phone call between Trump, his lawyers, and the Georgia Secretary of State on the State's lawyers and Trump and his lawyers never asked the SOS to "find votes." Rather the Trump team claimed to have found enough votes to overturn the election including thousands of "dead voters." The SOS claimed there were only 2 dead voters and that a lot of people have the same last name and DOB. Trump's lawyer asked to see the records but they were never offered. The entire conversation was part of a mediation to try to if Trump's Georgia election lawsuit could have been settled without going to trial. It shouldn't even be admissible evidence. Democrat Stacey Abrams sued Georgia in 2018 over her election loss making a similar claim that Trump did about Dominion voting machines. Her lawsuit was not thrown out until 2022. Why isn't she being prosecuted? Total garbage. I'm not a Trump defender like @dannno or @Swordsmyth nor am I even considering voting from Trump like @Anti Federalist or @TheTexan. I'm in the "Can't stand either one of them" camp with @PAF, @CCTelander and @acptulsa. But facts are facts. The's criminal charges against Trump are total byllshyt.

Edit: And here's the phone call.

[acptulsa]

I'm in the "Can't stand either one of them" camp with @PAF, @CCTelander and @acptulsa. But facts are facts. The's criminal charges against Trump are total byllshyt.

Yes. Yes they are. Just giving Trump victim cards to play.

Democrats love playing victim cards, but never vote for people who do the same. Republicans wouldn't dream of playing victim cards, but won't vote for any candidate who doesn't.

[TheCount]

I don't think you actually understood what I wrote. Note that I said "which I would be perfectly fine with happening." So what "team" am I supporting exactly?

Hence why I said "we" instead of "i" and "they" instead of "you."

Democrat Stacey Abrams sued Georgia in 2018 over her election loss making a similar claim that Trump did about Dominion voting machines. Her lawsuit was not thrown out until 2022. Why isn't she being prosecuted? Total garbage.

What crime did she commit that she should be charged for? Trump is not charged with "making claims," whatever that means.


Also, none of what you said has anything to do with whether or not presidents are criminally immune to prosecution (for life).

Even if you disagree with prosecution of Trump, it doesn't follow that you should support granting all presidents immunity to prosecution forever.