US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump’s lawyer argues

[Rebound]

32 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Stop putting your own stupid words in my mouth, dumbass. This is just another topic that's way over your head. Just let the adults discuss it while you play Pokemon Go with your uncle. 

For everyone else who's reading this:

Impeachment is part of the process for charging a president with a crime. Just learn that.  

Nixon wasn't impeached, tried, etc. because he was pardoned by Ford. 

Re: Trump, just like a normal American would be investigated, indicted, etc., criminally charging Trump would need to follow a process as well. The difference is that they'd go through the impeachment process first. 

That's because judges are not a co-equal branch of the US Gov't. As a result they don't get to rule on executive decisions: it's way above their pay grade.

Would it make sense if little Tanya Chutkin could unilaterally rule on executive decisions made by the POTUS? 

Could she have charged Harry Truman with mass murder for dropping nuclear bombs? 

Should US presidents be answerable to mere circuit court judges? Obviously not.

Trump's lawyer never said anything like "He could go uncharged" or whatever. He just said "There's a process that starts with impeachment" [paraphrasing]

Don't take Beave's words or the words of that author as a reasonable summary of the lawyer's comment. They are not. I can tell a person anything, that doesn't make me responsible for their twisted recollection of it. Eg, if Einstein explains the theory of relativity to a child, and they say "light is weird", that doesn't mean that Einstein said "light is weird". 

But, as you will soon learn, the “He must be impeached and convicted first” defense will not work. The court will not accept it. There’s already precedent and the U.S. Constitution does not say that.  

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Right, he didn’t say it, because that’s the question he was asked, but writing, “Trump’s Lawyer Says Yes” does not convey anything.  
 

I know you’re really stuuupid, but it isn’t complicated: The man said, precisely, that the President could not be charged even with murder  unless the President was first impeached and convicted. So if the secret is discovered after the President leaves office, the President is Scott free. Or if he resigns, as Nixon did. But Nixon was pardoned by Ford because the clearly did not believe that Nixon was immune from any prosecution. 

OMG, you're so stupid that I feel like I'm losing brain cells just reading your drivel.

Literally nothing that you said is true - his lawyer didn't say that "post-presidency impeachment is impossible. It's a huge legal loophole, and we love it". It doesn't even make sense. 

And Nixon was pardoned. The fact that he wasn't impeached doesn't even mean anything. 

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

She'd still be an obese slob

At least Rosie O'Donnell could no longer accuse her of punching down.

[WestCanMan]

40 minutes ago, Rebound said:

But, as you will soon learn, the “He must be impeached and convicted first” defense will not work. The court will not accept it. There’s already precedent and the U.S. Constitution does not say that.  

So answer me this: if it was 1948, could little Tanya Chutkin convict Truman of mass murder? Why can't a DA and a willing circuit court judge just ring up whatever presidents they want for whatever executive decisions they deem to have been crimes? Why has that never been done before? 

Why wasn't Biden allowed to be convicted, or at least sued for damages, for killing a family in Kabul?

A POTUS'S executive decisions are made with a buttload of information that you and I aren't privy to, and that the public can't be made aware of for decades. That's why some things are out of their purview. If you don't like it, move to a country where activist judges get to decide everything. 

[Rebound]

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG, you're so stupid that I feel like I'm losing brain cells just reading your drivel.

Literally nothing that you said is true - his lawyer didn't say that "post-presidency impeachment is impossible. It's a huge legal loophole, and we love it". It doesn't even make sense. 

And Nixon was pardoned. The fact that he wasn't impeached doesn't even mean anything. 

In the history of the United States, no government official has ever been impeached after leaving office. The purpose of impeachment is removal from office.

George Santos was charged with crimes without being impeached. So is Senator Menendez. There is no law or judicial precedent which has ever ruled that criminal or civil prosecution cannot occur without impeachment. The only such limitation we have is that the Justice Department has a policy, which is not law and which can be changed, stating that the President will not be prosecuted while in office. Although I believe Bill Clinton was prosecuted while in office. So I don’t think your argument has any leg to stand on, and I have very high confidence that the Federal Appeals Court will reject, and the SCOTUS will as well, probably by not even hearing the case. 

The only other possibility is that the Federal Appeals Court will rule that Trump’s interlocutory appeal has no standing, which will kick his case back to court and then Trump can try to raise the issue on appeal, where it will still fail. 

Dude, I get that you listened to some right wing media channel like NewsMax, and they’re telling you that this whole argument of Trump’s is next-level genius and perfect, but it’s not at all.

Edited January 11 by Rebound

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Speak for yourself. Some would be all over a trans woman with a combover! 😍

Imagine this:

In pigtails with a thong bikini on.

You're welcome.

That sound you're hearing is NOT me laughing, it is me throwing up. 🤮

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

So answer me this: if it was 1948, could little Tanya Chutkin convict Truman of mass murder? Why can't a DA and a willing circuit court judge just ring up whatever presidents they want for whatever executive decisions they deem to have been crimes? Why has that never been done before? 

Why wasn't Biden allowed to be convicted, or at least sued for damages, for killing a family in Kabul?

Biden didn't order a family in Kabul be killed.

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

A POTUS'S executive decisions are made with a buttload of information that you and I aren't privy to, and that the public can't be made aware of for decades. That's why some things are out of their purview. If you don't like it, move to a country where activist judges get to decide everything. 

Here's info you're not privy to: the DRONE PILOT who targeted the man in Kabul was looking at IR video at night.

All he could see is spots of light walking around in the dark.

It's NOT like he saw some little kids and thought he'd take them out.

If you don't believe me, I'll bet I can still find the video of that attack I've posted before.

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

In the history of the United States, no government official has ever been impeached after leaving office. The purpose of impeachment is removal from office.

George Santos was charged with crimes without being impeached. So is Senator Menendez. There is no law or judicial precedent which has ever ruled that criminal or civil prosecution cannot occur without impeachment. The only such limitation we have is that the Justice Department has a policy, which is not law and which can be changed, stating that the President will not be prosecuted while in office. Although I believe Bill Clinton was prosecuted while in office. So I don’t think your argument has any leg to stand on, and I have very high confidence that the Federal Appeals Court will reject, and the SCOTUS will as well, probably by not even hearing the case. 

The only other possibility is that the Federal Appeals Court will rule that Trump’s interlocutory appeal has no standing, which will kick his case back to court and then Trump can try to raise the issue on appeal, where it will still fail. 

Dude, I get that you listened to some right wing media channel like NewsMax, and they’re telling you that this whole argument of Trump’s is next-level genius and perfect, but it’s not at all.

Clinton was sued civilly while in office, not criminal charges.

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

So answer me this: if it was 1948, could little Tanya Chutkin convict Truman of mass murder? Why can't a DA and a willing circuit court judge just ring up whatever presidents they want for whatever executive decisions they deem to have been crimes? Why has that never been done before? 

Why wasn't Biden allowed to be convicted, or at least sued for damages, for killing a family in Kabul?

A POTUS'S executive decisions are made with a buttload of information that you and I aren't privy to, and that the public can't be made aware of for decades. That's why some things are out of their purview. If you don't like it, move to a country where activist judges get to decide everything. 

I don’t know why you are calling a Federal Judge “little.” The woman’s been subjected to countless death threats, but it hasn’t stopped her from doing her job. She’s got a lot more courage than you’ve got. 
 

Truman could have been charged with a crime, but it is unlikely that U.S. Attorneys would believe that serving as commander in chief during war was a not role of the Presidency, and if they charged anyway, the judge would throw the case out.  
 

Congress formally declared war on 1941. Trump had no authority to illegally interfere with state election officials and he certainly did not have the authority to incite a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol.  
 

As President, Trump had more power than anyone in the nation to explore every legal pathway to investigate and legally intervene to ensure the election’s integrity. He had over 60 lawsuits and many recounts.  But he did not have the authority to break laws to change the results of the election. 

Edited January 11 by Rebound

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

In the history of the United States, no government official has ever been impeached after leaving office. The purpose of impeachment is removal from office.

George Santos was charged with crimes without being impeached. So is Senator Menendez. There is no law or judicial precedent which has ever ruled that criminal or civil prosecution cannot occur without impeachment. The only such limitation we have is that the Justice Department has a policy, which is not law and which can be changed, stating that the President will not be prosecuted while in office. Although I believe Bill Clinton was prosecuted while in office. So I don’t think your argument has any leg to stand on, and I have very high confidence that the Federal Appeals Court will reject, and the SCOTUS will as well, probably by not even hearing the case. 

The only other possibility is that the Federal Appeals Court will rule that Trump’s interlocutory appeal has no standing, which will kick his case back to court and then Trump can try to raise the issue on appeal, where it will still fail. 

Dude, I get that you listened to some right wing media channel like NewsMax, and they’re telling you that this whole argument of Trump’s is next-level genius and perfect, but it’s not at all.

Stop wriggling.

Quote

US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump’s lawyer argues

^That^ is completely false and your most recent drivel doesn't change a thing. 

Sure, there are things that Trump could be charged criminally for without an impeachment. For example, if he steals a truckload of rutabaga and chicken gizzards from his neighbour, that would have nothing to do with his office, so a circuit court judge could deal with that, but we're not talking about his civilian life. 

The lawyer was asked about a scenario where Trump clearly used the power of his presidency to take military action. 

Circuit court judges don't judge how the president uses the military. That would definitely go through the impeachment process. 

[Caswell Thomas]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Technically it would be more like the political equivalent of a neutron star collapsing into a black hole engulfing much of the galaxy around it. America would literally explode.

"America would literally explode". No, only the GOP half, the rest would be laughing.

[WestCanMan]

39 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I don’t know why you are calling a Federal Judge “little.”

She's small. It's a reflection of her character, integrity, and deportment.

As a federal judge she should be above lying, pettiness and partisan politics but she's just crakhobarbie with a gavel. 

Quote

The woman’s been subjected to countless death threats,

She shouldn't be lying about people who are on trial, facing a lot of jailtime. It's vile, and that's how karma works.

Quote

but it hasn’t stopped her from doing her job.

It hasn't stopped her from being an activist judge, you're right about that much.

Quote

She’s got a lot more courage than you’ve got. 

As usual, you have no clue wtf you're talking about now.

Quote

Truman could have been charged with a crime, but it is unlikely that U.S. Attorneys would believe that serving as commander in chief during war was a not role of the Presidency, and if they charged anyway, the judge would throw the case out.  

By a circuit court judge? Do you think that the DC DA could indict Truman and a judge could hold a real trial? 

You're the poster boy of leftists.

Quote

Congress formally declared war on 1941.

Yeah, and iirc the Senate declared war on January. Good on them, what a shitty month.

Quote

Trump had no authority to illegally interfere with state election officials and he certainly did not have the authority to incite a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol.  

If the Dems and FBI limited their actual crimes to something that minor between 2016 and 2020 that would have been great for the country.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

"America would literally explode". No, only the GOP half, the rest would be laughing.

No if anything the dems would be the ones who were most upset   

You're not supposed to attack trans people, you're supposed to be allies   Their brains would literally melt trying to figure out how to vote down the first trans president   And all that talk about how transphobic the republicans are goes out the window  

It would be HILARIOUS! the dems would lose  their flipping minds   It would be devastating for their entire intersectional agenda   - you can't BUY enough popcorn to watch that whole mess  

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

She's small. It's a reflection of her character, integrity, and deportment.

As a federal judge she should be above lying, pettiness and partisan politics but she's just crakhobarbie with a gavel. 

She shouldn't be lying about people who are on trial, facing a lot of jailtime. It's vile, and that's how karma works.

It hasn't stopped her from being an activist judge, you're right about that much.

As usual, you have no clue wtf you're talking about now.

By a circuit court judge? Do you think that the DC DA could indict Truman and a judge could hold a real trial? 

You're the poster boy of leftists.

Yeah, and iirc the Senate declared war on January. Good on them, what a shitty month.

If the Dems and FBI limited their actual crimes to something that minor between 2016 and 2020 that would have been great for the country.

Your complaints are vague. But the DC DA is not prosecuting Trump, it is the Department of Justice. Judge Chutkin is the Federal judge who the case was assigned to.  
I’m not aware that she’s been lying and all those other things. She is going to be the judge in the case and a jury will determine guilt. 
If Donald Trump wasn’t a criminal, this prosecution wouldn’t have occurred.  His choice. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

She's small. It's a reflection of her character, integrity, and deportment.

As a federal judge she should be above lying, pettiness and partisan politics but she's just crakhobarbie with a gavel. 

She shouldn't be lying about people who are on trial, facing a lot of jailtime. It's vile, and that's how karma works.

It hasn't stopped her from being an activist judge, you're right about that much.

As usual, you have no clue wtf you're talking about now.

By a circuit court judge? Do you think that the DC DA could indict Truman and a judge could hold a real trial? 

You're the poster boy of leftists.

Yeah, and iirc the Senate declared war on January. Good on them, what a shitty month.

If the Dems and FBI limited their actual crimes to something that minor between 2016 and 2020 that would have been great for the country.

Read the section of the Constitution cited by Sauer and explain where you believe it demands your and his contention that impeachment and conviction is REQUIRED to prosecute a FORMER POTUS for a crime remotely related to official duties.

Then show us where the Constitution says POTUS election laws enforcement is part of a POTUS official duties. They're NOT.

 

Quote

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

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.

The immediate effect of conviction upon an article of impeachment is removal from office,¹ although the Senate may subsequently vote on whether the official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States.² If this latter option is pursued, a simple majority vote by the Senate is required.³ If not, an individual who has been impeached and removed may remain eligible to serve in an office in the future, including as a Member of Congress.⁴

By design,⁵ impeachment is separate and distinct from a criminal proceeding. Impeachment and conviction by Congress operates to remove an individual from office; it does not, however, preclude criminal consequences for an individual’s actions.⁶ Those who have been impeached and removed from office are still subject to criminal prosecutions for the same underlying factual matters, and individuals who have already been convicted of crimes may be impeached for the same underlying behavior later.⁷ A number of federal judges, in fact, have been indicted and convicted for conduct which has formed the basis for a subsequent impeachment proceeding.⁸

The text of the Constitution does not address the sequencing of impeachment and other legal proceedings. Generally speaking, historical practice has been to impeach individuals after the conclusion of any related criminal proceedings, although this might simply reflect practical convenience as such proceedings can alert Congress of improper behavior that may warrant impeachment. Nonetheless, nothing in the Constitution demands this order of events.

The Constitution bars the President from using the pardon power to shield individuals from impeachment or removal from office.⁹ A President could pardon impeached officials suspected of criminal behavior, thus protecting them from federal criminal prosecution; such a move would not, however, shield those officials from removal from office via the impeachment process.

 

 

Edited January 12 by robosmith

[Perspektiv]

16 hours ago, robosmith said:

That sound you're hearing is NOT me laughing, it is me throwing up.

That's rather transphobic of you o_O.

[Rebound]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG, you're so stupid that I feel like I'm losing brain cells just reading your drivel.

Don’t worry, hon. You have no brain cells left to lose.  

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, Rebound said:

Your complaints are vague. But the DC DA is not prosecuting Trump, it is the Department of Justice. Judge Chutkin is the Federal judge who the case was assigned to.  
I’m not aware that she’s been lying and all those other things. She is going to be the judge in the case and a jury will determine guilt. 
If Donald Trump wasn’t a criminal, this prosecution wouldn’t have occurred.  His choice. 

Among other things, she said that the rioters had constructed a gallows, and not even Pelosi, AOC and Schumer said that. Those guys were the biggest liars in the DNC before Chutkin. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Among other things, she said that the rioters had constructed a gallows, and not even Pelosi, AOC and Schumer said that. Those guys were the biggest liars in the DNC before Chutkin. 

Tell me more. 

[WestCanMan]

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Tell me more. 

Whoops! That's not a good look.

[Rebound]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Whoops! That's not a good look.

Yeah, I don’t think excuses such as questioning whether the gallows was high enough or the rope thick enough would hold up against a violent crowd chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”

Pretty threatening. Not to mention… it’s not a rope hanging from a tree. There were steps and a platform. It took a fair amount of lumber and tools to slap that thing together. It was planned.  

Edited January 12 by Rebound

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

That's rather transphobic of you o_O.

Since Trump is NOT TRANS, it is NOT "transphobic."

But maybe you love Trump in a thong. 🤮

[WestCanMan]

28 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Yeah, I don’t think excuses such as questioning whether the gallows was high enough or the rope thick enough would hold up against a violent crowd chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”

Pretty threatening. Not to mention… it’s not a rope hanging from a tree. There were steps and a platform. It took a fair amount of lumber and tools to slap that thing together. It was planned.  

It wasn't capable of hanging anyone, but it had no place there. Her comment about the 'gallows' was fine. 

[Legato]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Since Trump is NOT TRANS, it is NOT "transphobic."

But maybe you love Trump in a thong. 🤮

I don't think Trump's been in any songs. Will search my music database see what come up or down.

Found one.....

 

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Her comment about the 'gallows' was fine. 

#respect

[Perspektiv]

31 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Since Trump is NOT TRANS

Hypothetically trans, like a male can hypothetically be female.