Our S.C. ignored the proper venue to try President for crimes (presidential immunity case)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happened to Nixon, and going down that rabbit hole, is a fool's errand.
I am only interested in supporting and adhering to the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
Should we not agree to that, as a baseline, with reference to what is currently happening to former President Trump?
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 be acquitted of by the Senate.
.
The sole purpose of impeachment is removal from office. A failed impeachment and Senate trial does not mean the President is free from any possibility of criminal prosecution. Using your theories, a President could shoot someone dead in the middle of 5th Avenue, survive impeachment and go free forever after. That's not how it works
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.
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.
.
Impeachment and Senate trial are civil political processes o remove an elected President from office. The results of that process do not have anything to do with criminal charges for anything a President might have done illegally.
Our Constitution's impeachment process opens the door for criminal prosecution in our regular court system
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
Impeachment and Senate trial are civil political processes o remove an elected President from office. The results of that process do not have anything to do with criminal charges for anything a President might have done illegally.
There is no undermining of the rule of law.
What you posted is not true.
Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7 opens the door for anyone found guilty by our Senate to being " . . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law".
Article I; Section 3, Clauses 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".
Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7 opens the door for anyone found guilty by our Senate to being " . . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law".
Article I; Section 3, Clauses 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".
Impeachment and non-conviction by the Senate does not mean the President cannot be charged criminally. Impeachment and Senate trial are civil political processes that have nothing at all to do with criminal charges.
Impeachment and non-conviction by the Senate does not mean the President cannot be charged criminally. Impeachment and Senate trial are civil political processes that have nothing at all to do with criminal charges.
You keep saying that, but Article I Section 3 Clause 7 does indeed seem to imply that Congress needs to convict a POTUS before he can be accused of being criminally liable for an alleged offense.
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.
You keep saying that, but Article I Section 3 Clause 7 does indeed seem to imply that Congress needs to convict a POTUS before he can be accused of being criminally liable for an alleged offense.
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.
All that clause says is that being removed from office does not mean criminal charges are off the table, ie it's a statement that double jeopardy does not arise from being removed from office. The fact a President wasn't removed from office, for whatever reason, doesn't mean he or she cannot be charged for crimes committed while in office that are not part of Presidential duties.
All that clause says is that being removed from office does not mean criminal charges are off the table, ie it's a statement that double jeopardy does not arise from being removed from office.
SCOTUS will be the final arbiter on what it means. Our views are pretty irrelevant, even though I am actually right on this and anyone who disagrees is wrong
Why did our founders adopt a special process (impeachment), to deal with a law-breaking president?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You keep saying that, but Article I Section 3 Clause 7 does indeed seem to imply that Congress needs to convict a POTUS before he can be accused of being criminally liable for an alleged offense.
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.
You are spot on that a conviction by the Senate is required before a party, impeached by the House of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” can be made “. . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The poster’s unsubstantiated opinion is not supported by the documented intentions for which our founders agreed to (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7), which is part of a special process intentionally adopted and designed to deal with those holding an office of public trust who violate that trust and engage in acts amounting to “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
Quote:
“While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.”71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”72 SOURCE
Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is entrusted to act, and sometimes those situations require actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by uniformed civilians. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate, if the President were impeached by the House and charged with criminal activity, to hold a trial to determine guilt or innocence.
The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique and well 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 the United States Senate, and not a federal district court, unless the President is first found guilty by the Senate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let us examine exactly what has taken place with the case against Trump in D.C.
