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.
From my reading of history, there has never been a POTUS this bad. This is a generally agreed upon by historians and POTUS scholars.
I didn't vote in the poll (yet), but I would say that crimes which are related to the office and the security of the country....definitely yes. As to whether he or she could be indicted for, as an example, selling some weed 10 years back.....that's another story. I could understand some sort of law or code which held such cases in reserve until the POTUS left the office.
But, wow, no doubt the framers would NEVER have wanted the POTUS to be above the law. That's quite clear by all their words and actions.
We are given brains and logic for a reason. Reading Kavanuaghs' glee-filled screed about asking whether someone came in....well, you know, one can clearly say that may be wrong. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so if Republicans want things that way then that is that.
But having it differ once "you got your" target is definitely wrong. A little fairness and consistency goes a long way. No one of sound mind can say the Whitewater Investigation (5 years...I think) was a more serious case than the various dots which are being connected now. It's not about whether Trump cheated or lied or anything like that - it is about the very foundation of our system. If Trump paid off 100's of thousands of dollars so "we the people wouldn't know things" right before his election, that's troubling...especially since he himself was trotting out "Clinton Women" at debates and otherwise.
I didn't vote in the poll (yet), but I would say that crimes which are related to the office and the security of the country....definitely yes.
You cannot indict a sitting president. Even if his crimes are serious (murder/treason). The procedure is, and will always be the same.
1)Impeach
2)Remove from office
Once the above two are done, you can indict away. But since the president sits on top of the executive branch, anyone who can possibly indict him is actually a servant of the president and thus can be dismissed at whim.
Quote:
But, wow, no doubt the framers would NEVER have wanted the POTUS to be above the law. That's quite clear by all their words and actions.
The framers added impeachment for a reason. Are you guys seriously that clueless on your own constitution?
Quote:
If Trump paid off 100's of thousands of dollars so "we the people wouldn't know things" right before his election, that's troubling...especially since he himself was trotting out "Clinton Women" at debates and otherwise.
I don't see why it's troubling, it's personal affairs that he's trying to "get in order." It's up to the opposition to dig it up, if they can't, too bad.
The only issue is if he used campaign funds because that's actually a "no no" but if he used his own money, it's perfectly fine.
He's above the entire executive branch, that's in the constitution.
He's not above the legislative branch, which can impeach and remove him from office. Very easy to understand, I guess too much guns not enough brain
Is the head of the executive branch above the law? Everyone else can and has been indicted for crimes in the other branches, ie congressmen, judges, etc. Impeachment is very different than a criminal indictment. Impeachment is a POLITICAL process and indictment is a CRIMINAL one. But at this point I think you’re being purposefully dense about that to save the thought of having to deal with Trump’s astounding predicament. Enjoy it before the bubble bursts.
Is the head of the executive branch above the law? Everyone else can and has been indicted for crimes in the other branches, ie congressmen, judges, etc. Impeachment is very different than a criminal indictment. Impeachment is a POLITICAL process and indictment is a CRIMINAL one. But at this point I think you’re being purposefully dense about that to save the thought of having to deal with Trump’s astounding predicament. Enjoy it before the bubble bursts.
I just answered your question above. If you're not intelligent enough to understand what I wrote then please you're not intelligent enough to participate in this conversation.
I just answered your question above. If you're not intelligent enough to understand what I wrote then please you're not intelligent enough to participate in this conversation.
Lol. Thanks for the validation. Enjoy your waning moments of denial.
How about directing other people to commit crimes?
If direction constitutes a crime. It doesn't always, but it can.
Example:
A woman complains to a friend about getting cheated out of her life savings by her husband. The friend cheats the husband out of all his money.
The woman would not be held responsible, as she directed no actions. All she did was complain to a friend.
Another woman gets cheated by her husband, seeks out a hit man, and orders her husband to be cheated in return. The hit man cheats him. And they are both tried and convicted of financial wrongdoing.
Because the woman directed the action that led to her husband's loss. With malice aforethought.
It's not always direction that convicts a criminal either. It's more often intent. An attempted cheating by direction may fail, but it's still a lesser crime of Attempted Fraud. The intent to defraud convicts the the hit man and the vengeful woman alike.
There are some crimes a President commits as a part of his duty to the United States. Ordering a killing, for example. But his protections are no more or less than a common soldier's, who is also ordered to kill and is exempt from charges.
In both, there are limits where legal killing ends and crime begins. Neither the President or the private are exempt from murder committed in the middle of a war. That's settled law when it comes to the Private, but so far, not the President.
In both, the difference also comes down to intent. Our law sees killing an enemy as killing, not murder. A soldier is prepared to kill, but must kill only the enemies of his nation under direct orders to do so. That soldier cannot intend to kill his Sergeant. That's intended murder, a crime.
Any President can order a killing, but it must be under the same strictures. He cannot order a personal grudge killing as that's the same crime of intent.
Presidents are not Kings. They lead our government, but are an integral part of it, not separate or above all the others, nor immune from our laws. The other two branches of our government- Congress and the Judiciary- are not immune from criminal court, so by logic, neither is the Executive, as by the Constitution, all branches are equal.
For a fact, there have been Congressmen and Judges who have been prosecuted for murder while in office in the past. In both the Federal and State governments. That's settled law.
So I believe when and if the occasion ever arises, a President could also be tried while serving. The only problem legally that would arise is the President's ability to hold his office after indictment and conviction.
But since all branches are equally responsible for creating the laws we all must obey, I fully expect Congress would exercise its powers of impeachment.
A President cannot make our laws and break them as he pleases. His legal limits may differ from all others, but they still exist. In the least, such a law-breaker cannot be allowed to continue to hold his office. Any other legal consequences must follow a removal of the First Among Equals. A President may be the First, but he's still only equal to the rest of us.
And there is nothing at all to stop a simultaneous impeachment and criminal trial. Impeachment is a singular crime, one that is the only political recourse that exists, and carries no penalty other than removal from office.
There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a simultaneous impeachment trial, nor is there anything that forbids another impeachment if the first fails to convict. Double jeopardy does not exist in impeachment.
Last edited by banjomike; 08-22-2018 at 03:27 PM..
If direction constitutes a crime. It doesn't always, but it can.
Example:
A woman complains to a friend about getting cheated out of her life savings by her husband. The friend cheats the husband out of all his money.
The woman would not be held responsible, as she directed no actions. All she did was complain to a friend.
Another woman gets cheated by her husband, seeks out a hit man, and orders her husband to be cheated in return. The hit man cheats him him. And they are both tried and convicted of financial wrongdoing.
Because the woman directed the action that led to her husband's loss. With malice aforethought.
It's not always direction that convicts a criminal either. It's more often intent. An attempted cheating by direction may fail, but it's still a lesser crime of Attempted Fraud. The intent to defraud convicts the the hit man and the vengeful woman alike.
There are some crimes a President commits as a part of his duty to the United States. Ordering a killing, for example. But his protections are no more or less than a common soldier's, who is also ordered to kill and is exempt from charges.
In both, there are limits where legal killing ends and crime begins. Neither the President or the private are exempt from murder committed in the middle of a war. That's settled law when it comes to the Private, but so far, not the President.
In both, the difference also comes down to intent. Our law sees killing an enemy as killing, not murder. A soldier is prepared to kill, but must kill only the enemies of his nation under direct orders to do so. That soldier cannot intend to kill his Sergeant. That's intended murder, a crime.
Any President can order a killing, but it must be under the same strictures. He cannot order a personal grudge killing as that's the same crime of intent.
Presidents are not Kings. They lead our government, but are an integral part of it, not separate or above all the others, nor immune from our laws. The other two branches of our government- Congress and the Judiciary- are not immune from criminal court, so by logic, neither is the Executive, as by the Constitution, all branches are equal.
For a fact, there have been Congressmen and Judges who have been prosecuted for murder while in office in the past. In both the Federal and State governments. That's settled law.
So I believe when and if the occasion ever arises, a President could also be tried while serving. The only problem legally that would arise is the President's ability to hold his office after indictment and conviction.
But since all branches are equally responsible for creating the laws we all must obey, I fully expect Congress would exercise its powers of impeachment.
A President cannot make our laws and break them as he pleases. His legal limits may differ from all others, but they still exist. In the least, such a law-breaker cannot be allowed to continue to hold his office. Any other legal consequences must follow a removal of the First Among Equals. A President may be the First, but he's still only equal to the rest of us.
And there is nothing at all to stop a simultaneous impeachment and criminal trial. Impeachment is a singular crime, one that is the only political recourse that exists, and carries no penalty other than removal from office.
There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a simultaneous impeachment trial, nor is there anything that forbids another impeachment if the first fails to convict. Double jeopardy does not exist in impeachment.
Thanks. That’s the best explanation yet. And I agree. If the executive is a coequal branch of government (and it is), then it can be held to the same standards as anyone.
So you’re saying the president is above the law then?
Apparently back in the late 90's the MSM said no a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. Now they say yes. Wonder what changed?
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.
