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.
Does Biden realize when he escapes the WH he'll be tied up in court challenges the rest of his life? Just like Trump is now?
Sure, that has been a large issue for the last 200 years.
Stop listening to Alito and Sauer, the framers never put an immunity clause in the constitution for a very good reason, they didn't want a dictator. Spare me the hypotheticals that this might open the floodgates.
There is nothing to prevent a Federal criminal court or a state criminal court from charging a President with crimes and then prosecuting. Impeachment is a civil process that has nothing to do with criminal charges.
We are talking about acts 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
Quote:
“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.
We are talking about acts 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.
Criminal charges are separate from impeachable offenses, there is nothing in the constitution that grants a president immunity from criminal offenses, that was the case with Nixon.
Well, 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?
.
I am baffled by your insistence that impeachment governs criminal trials of US presidents when Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment's clause) says no such thing. The only power granted is removal from office.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution governs criminal trials.
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Read the above again... In ALL criminal prosecutions.
All of them. ALL criminal prosecutions.
What is your mental block? It is like you have this blind spot. Just relax, take a breath, re-read the impeachment clause and then re-read the sixth amendment.
It is clear as day that ALL criminal prosecutions must take place outside of Congress. This is crystal clear and easy to understand.
Last edited by Igor Blevin; 04-29-2024 at 08:28 PM..
We are talking about acts 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.
There is absolutely nothing in the impeachment clause giving Congress the power to try criminal trials.
Article II, Section 4:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The ONLY power Congress has is to remove the US president from office. That is it. They can't convict him of a felony. They can't convict him of a misdemeanor. The US Congress has no power to try the US president for a crime.
You are reading into the impeachments clause something that is clearly not there. You seem to be getting hung up over the terms "Crimes and Misdemeanors". The Congress can remove a president for crimes and misdemeanors. They can't convict him criminally of crimes and misdemeanors.
The power to try defendants for crimes is in the judiciary, not the legislative. This is crystal clear by the separation of powers. Congress has no constitutional power to try people for crimes committed. That power resides only in the judicial branch of government, not the legislative.
Criminal charges are separate from impeachable offenses,
The historical evidence found HERE (start at top of page 8), confirms the charges listed in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are the very type of charges considered by our Founders as impeachable offenses, over which our United States Senate was delegated "sole power" to try and convict an accused party.
And there is a very good reason for placing this delicate task in the hands of the Senate, with the Chief Justices presiding.
.
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, even though they are within the President's legitimate functions. 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 acts considered to be impeachable offenses. And he was acquitted of such charges by a ROLL CALL VOTE
The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with crimes considered to be impeachable offenses, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate, with the Chief Judge presiding.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand. Is it not self-evident by the terms of our Constitution?
The historical evidence found HERE (start at top of page 8), confirms the charges listed in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are the very type of charges considered by our Founders as impeachable offenses, over which our United States Senate was delegated "sole power" to try and convict an accused party.
And there is a very good reason for placing this delicate task in the hands of the Senate, with the Chief Justices presiding.
.
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, even though they are within the President's legitimate functions. 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 acts considered to be impeachable offenses. And he was acquitted of such charges by a ROLL CALL VOTE
The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with crimes considered to be impeachable offenses, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate, with the Chief Judge presiding.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand. Is it not self-evident by the terms of our Constitution?
.
The issue isn’t impeachable offenses, can a president be charged for criminal offenses after leaving office. A president leaving office has never been charged until now, not Roosevelt, not Bush or Obama. The DC court got it right, no president is immune. The conservative justices want to look at everything but the case before them an avoid any of Trumps actions.
If Trump had a political opponent murdered would that need to wait until he was impeached.
Last edited by Goodnight; 04-29-2024 at 09:09 PM..
The issue isn’t impeachable offenses, can a president be charged for criminal offenses after leaving office. A president leaving office has never been charged until now, not Roosevelt, not Bush or Obama. The DC court got it right, no president is immune.
You are right about one thing. The President is not immune from being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law," if he is found guilty by the Senate, (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7). But the Senate is the constitutionally provided body to conduct a trial to determine "guilty" or "not guilty".
.
Quote:
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)
You are right about one thing. The President is not immune from being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law," if he is found guilty by the Senate, (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7). But the Senate is the constitutionally provided body to conduct a trial to determine "guilty" or "not guilty".
.
The grand jury was set to indict Nixon on 4 criminal charges until he was pardoned by Ford. The special prosecutor indicted the six others but Nixon was named as an unindicted coconspirator since he was still in office. After he left office he could have been indicted.
Once a president leaves office there is a different set of rules.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is wrong venue to try Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The grand jury was set to indict Nixon on 4 criminal charges until he was pardoned by Ford. The special prosecutor indicted the six others but Nixon was named as an unindicted coconspirator since he was still in office. After he left office he could have been indicted.
Once a president leaves office there is a different set of rules.
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.
.
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.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is wrong venue to try Trump.
