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.
Agree but what does that say about the people who hired him?
He just hired to create mare chaos, not for his legal acumen. Trump evidently thought it would be a good idea for him to go on tour, there isn't a long list that want the job.
As others have noted, the Courts have not ruled on whether a sitting President may be subjected to criminal indictment.
Some argue that a President cannot be indicted on the basis that the Constitution does not explicitly say that indictment is possible.
First, let us review the Constitutional language:
Article I (legislative), Section 3, paragraph 6:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Paragraph 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 argument is that the language of Paragraph 7 precludes indictment of a President, not yet convicted by the Senate, since it cites that a 'party, once removed from office, is THEN liable and subject to indictment, etc.
It is a good solid argument.
However, the problem is this: Paragraph 7 is all-encompassing. It does not specify the President, but cites 'judgment in cases of impeachment' concerning a 'party'. Whom is meant by 'party'.
Article II (executive) section 4 provides:
"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."
Next, we have Article III (judicial), Section 1, which provides:
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
As we know, the foregoing language of Article III has been interpreted as meaning that a sitting Federal judge (including Supreme Court justice) may only be removed from office via impeachment.
However, we have had several cases in which a sitting Federal judge has been indicted before impeachment. I think the most recent case was in 1981, when Alcee Hastings, a sitting Federal District Judge, was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Mr. Hastings (after some rather wild proceedings after his indictment, concerning being found not guilty, then found to have tampered with witnesses and such) was not impeached and removed from office until 1988. See:
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
Yet, there are other 'memos' by the DOJ that seem to conclude otherwise, already discussed herein.
As such, one may appreciate that the law is not 'settled' by any means. If Mr. Mueller truly told Mr. Giuliani what has been reported, then it appears that Mr. Mueller will not ask the grand jury to indict Mr. Trump, even if he feels that there is a basis for indictment. Of course, Mr. Mueller may well believe that it is a moot question, in that the President may end up being impeached.
(CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer.
What this actually mean is that Mueller's investigation is an impeachment investigation.
That is what his report is designed to do. He could have already written it, like Comey did with the Clinton email investigation months before she was interview. If you can call what that was a interview.
These are Trump supporters, an announcement that the president cant be indicted is what passes as good news. It doesn't matter what he does, his supporters will march on.
Laughed right out loud at this post.
Trump can't be indicted for his criminal activities!
This is what passes for good news with Republicans.
Putting aside the fact that this is the most lying administration in public history, how on earth can this "news' be taken as a positive if you support Trump?
I mean, if the guy investigating you, after just one year of investigations, tells you he's currently not able to indict you due to legal restrictions (something which has never happened in American history, not even to Nixon), on what planet is that "good news" for Trump?
As others have noted, the Courts have not ruled on whether a sitting President may be subjected to criminal indictment.
Some argue that a President cannot be indicted on the basis that the Constitution does not explicitly say that indictment is possible.
First, let us review the Constitutional language:
Article I (legislative), Section 3, paragraph 6:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Paragraph 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 argument is that the language of Paragraph 7 precludes indictment of a President, not yet convicted by the Senate, since it cites that a 'party, once removed from office, is THEN liable and subject to indictment, etc.
It is a good solid argument.
However, the problem is this: Paragraph 7 is all-encompassing. It does not specify the President, but cites 'judgment in cases of impeachment' concerning a 'party'. Whom is meant by 'party'.
Article II (executive) section 4 provides:
"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."
Next, we have Article III (judicial), Section 1, which provides:
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
As we know, the foregoing language of Article III has been interpreted as meaning that a sitting Federal judge (including Supreme Court justice) may only be removed from office via impeachment.
However, we have had several cases in which a sitting Federal judge has been indicted before impeachment. I think the most recent case was in 1981, when Alcee Hastings, a sitting Federal District Judge, was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Mr. Hastings (after some rather wild proceedings after his indictment, concerning being found not guilty, then found to have tampered with witnesses and such) was not impeached and removed from office until 1988. See:
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
Yet, there are other 'memos' by the DOJ that seem to conclude otherwise, already discussed herein.
As such, one may appreciate that the law is not 'settled' by any means. If Mr. Mueller truly told Mr. Giuliani what has been reported, then it appears that Mr. Mueller will not ask the grand jury to indict Mr. Trump, even if he feels that there is a basis for indictment. Of course, Mr. Mueller may well believe that it is a moot question, in that the President may end up being impeached.
Great read.
legalsea, I think I speak for all of us when I say I appreciate your in-depth breakdowns with facts and breakdown of legal terminology for us regular folk. You're one of the best posters on here.
Since very few hate him (aside from people he has directly screwed like investors, vendors, contractors and students of his school ... most of all these are probably not very liberal), your post is meaningless.
Most liberals don't hate him. People are disgusted by him, they don't respect him, they recognize that he is morally and ethically bankrupt ... and are repelled by him, but it's not really hate. People don't hate rabid, mangy dogs, they just understand what they are dealing with, keep them at a distance and away from their children.
Perhaps you reference 'hate' because it is the only emotion you understand, it is the only motivation you can relate to. Perhaps hate is essential to your character, and you are projecting it upon others.
Maybe you should do an examination of conscience ...
Nailed it.
Trump followers are projecting their own hatred on others.
Trump followers use logic and facts and liberals hate them for it.
What "logic and facts"? Be specific, please.
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.
