DC circuit court rejects immunity for Trump, SCOTUS appeal is pending

[TheCount]

Kinda - It's been a long-standing principle (starting with Justice Story in the 1800's, I believe) that a President cannot be subject to arrest while performing the duties of his office. That's why an impeachment is necessary prior to indictment. This came up in Spiro Agnew's case in the 70's when it was ruled that this privilege didn't confer to the Vice President. It's been Justice Department precedent for a long time. This has even been the precedent for once a President leaves office if the action was taken during his official term.

Now, we can debate whether or not that precedent should stand. And we can rejoice that now the door has been opened. But what we cannot say is what the Count was saying that the President is "above the law". It's just that there's a process that has historically been followed.

If this is true, why did Trump's own attorneys argue during the impeachment proceedings that impeachment was inappropriate after the end of his term of office and that Trump should be tried in the courts instead?

During President Trump’s 2021 impeachment proceedings for incitement of insurrection, his counsel argued that instead of post-Presidency impeachment, the appropriate vehicle for “investigation, prosecution, and punishment” is “the article III courts,” as “[w]e have a judicial process” and “an investigative process . . . to which no former officeholder is immune.” 167 CONG. REC. S607 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2021); see also id. at S693 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 2021) (“[T]he text of the Constitution . . . makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his Presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/4c6f2b04-4bac-4d61-91e2-49c96f54696b.pdf

Page 34

 

[acptulsa]

If this is true, why did Trump's own attorneys argue during the impeachment proceedings that impeachment was inappropriate after the end of his term of office and that Trump should be tried in the courts instead?



https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/4c6f2b04-4bac-4d61-91e2-49c96f54696b.pdf

Page 34

Just exactly WTF did he say to contradict that?

Nothing.

Why did Ford pardon Nixon?

He wouldn't have gotten the job if he hadn't promised to.

More semantic games.

 

[CaptUSA]

If this is true, why did Trump's own attorneys argue during the impeachment proceedings that impeachment was inappropriate after the end of his term of office and that Trump should be tried in the courts instead?

Seriously? Why do lawyers argue things that they believe will benefit their clients?? Is that really the question you're asking? Why did Clinton's lawyers argue that even civil proceedings couldn't be held against him during his term, even though the actions occurred prior? Lawyers do what lawyers do.

But again, you're distracting - your original statement was that his supporters were saying that he is "literally above the law". And you called it a sign of the horrible education system. But in fact, this is a question of precedent, binding OLC memos, and process for administering the law.

 

[TheCount]

But again, you're distracting - your original statement was that his supporters were saying that he is "literally above the law". And you called it a sign of the horrible education system. But in fact, this is a question of precedent, binding OLC memos, and process for administering the law.

It's not a distraction, there's no difference between the two. It is not a coincidence that they thought that he couldn't be impeached then and that he must be impeached now. They think what they're told to think.

That's the whole premise of my post. Any honest person who has even the foggiest notion of our founding would reject the idiotic talking points these chuds are regurgitating.

 

[Invisible Man]

Just exactly WTF did he say to contradict that?

Nothing.

Why did Ford pardon Nixon?

He wouldn't have gotten the job if he hadn't promised to.

More semantic games.

Nixon was never impeached. Ford's pardon of Nixon presupposed that he could still have been criminally indicted in spite of not having been impeached.

 

[acptulsa]

You can't put gas in the car until you remove the gas cap.

The gas cap got lost years ago. It doesn't have a gas cap.

It used to. Therefore, that's a necessary step.

Sounds like excuse making by someone who doesn't want to see that car fueled.

 

[CaptUSA]

Nixon was never impeached. Ford's pardon of Nixon presupposed that he could still have been criminally indicted in spite of not having been impeached.

Just for the sake of accuracy, your timeline is a bit off. The House Judiciary Committee had an investigation and sent articles of impeachment to the full house for a vote. Senate republicans told Nixon that they had enough votes to convict and remove him from office. Then before the vote in the House, Nixon resigned. Then, Ford pardoned Nixon which ended the impeachment proceeding which was still active. Because the impeachment process was ended and Nixon had the pardon, it also ended any indictments. Ford's pardon didn't presuppose that absent an impeachment conviction, he could still be indicted and prosecuted, it ended the possibility of either.

 

[Invisible Man]

You can't put gas in the car until you remove the gas cap.

The gas cap got lost years ago. It doesn't have a gas cap.

It used to. Therefore, that's a necessary step.

Sounds like excuse making by someone who doesn't want to see that car fueled.

That's quite an elaborate metaphor. I will see if I can translate what you're saying:

You can't put gas in the car until you remove the gas cap.

= You can't indict a federal office holder unless you first remove them from office via impeachment.

The Constitution doesn't say this (as you are well aware). But let's go with it. I get that's what you think.

The gas cap got lost years ago. It doesn't have a gas cap.

= Trump is no longer in office, so removing him from office via impeachment cannot still be a prerequisite for indicting him.

Makes sense to me.

It used to. Therefore, that's a necessary step.

= Trump used to hold office, so even though he isn't still in office he still has to be impeached before he can be criminally indicted.

That's a weird thing to believe. Do you have a reason for thinking this?

Or did I totally botch your metaphor?

If I did, that's on you.

 

[susano]

Immunity protects voters from having the representatives they elected removed and prevented from voting by whatever random, scurrilous charges anyone cares to toss out there. Want to get your bill passed? Press phony charges against members of the opposition, then drop them after the vote.

Impeachment is the process the body uses to deprive actual criminals of that position and that immunity, so the law can proceed against them. Immunity does not cover ex-office holders. The Court was right about that.

This is just Trump channeling Nixon. It doesn't mean a damned thing to anyone but his cultists.

Is what you're saying is that they only have immunity while in office and once out can be charged with crimes?

 

[acptulsa]

Is what you're saying is that they only have immunity while in office and once out can be charged with crimes?

Not me. This thing:

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.

 

[Invisible Man]

Not me. This thing:

Sarcasm?

 

[susano]

Not me. This thing:

Oh, that thing, lol. I haven't read it in a long time and don't even remember that. Good to know. I'm sure the DoJ will get right on it and start charging all of the war criminals.

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1762961167167664586
to: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1762965076581945478

//

 

[johnwk]

Our S.C. ignored the proper venue to try President for crimes (presidential immunity case)

.
Yesterday, 4/25/2024, our Supreme Court, when hearing oral arguments concerning Trump and presidential immunity, they totally dropped the ball in ferreting out the constitutionally authorized venue to try a President for an alleged crime.


The truth is, our Constitution provides for the House to allege a crime, and the Senate is vested with the power to convene a trial to determine if that crime has actually occurred. If the Senate finds a crime has been committed, then the president can be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.


Generally speaking, in the case of a president committing a crime, the House and Senate act in a manner similar to that of a Grand Jury.


There is no other venue, other than Congress, mentioned in the Constitution to deal with a President who violates the law, and since the Constitution does provide that venue, it appears that is the proper venue to deal with a president who acts criminally while in office.


Why was the impeachment process added to our Constitution? One reliable source answering that question is Madison:


"Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings." See: Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense


The bottom line is, the issue, dealing with a criminal acting President, was included in our Constitution under the impeachment process, and our Supreme Court never addressed the constitutionally authorized venue for charging, and then determining, if a president has engaged in criminal activity.


JWK


Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[jmdrake]

Good point!

 

[TheCount]

He's not president

 

[acptulsa]

He's not president

I'd hate to see someone set a precedent that would limit which prosecutors could indict Biden a couple of years from now for crimes he's committing in their jurisdictions.

 

[jmdrake]

He's not president

That didn't stop the House and Senate from attempting impeachment for things he did as president.

I'd hate to see someone set a precedent that would limit which prosecutors could indict Biden a couple of years from now for crimes he's committing in their jurisdictions.

LOL if you think that anybody is going to go after Biden for anything. When Joe Biden was no longer president he bragged on video that as vice president he withheld foreign aid in order to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. It just so happens that prosecutor was investigating a company that just so happened to be paying Biden's crackhead son $80,000 a year for absolutely nothing. And when Trump tried to withhold aid to get Biden investigated....Trump got impeached. So pray tell how anybody will ever prosecute Joe Biden for anything he's ever done as president or vice president?

 

[acptulsa]

So pray tell how anybody will ever prosecute Joe Biden for anything he's ever done as president or vice president?

I don't know. The Trump fanbois still think he'll put Hillary in prison someday. They're the ones, however, scouting up loopholes through which Biden might escape the same fate. That's all I'm saying.

Is this escalation? Does each half of government get to ignore more laws than the last, out of retaliation, forever?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'd hate to see someone set a precedent that would limit which prosecutors could indict Biden a couple of years from now for crimes he's committing in their jurisdictions.

So pray tell how anybody will ever prosecute Joe Biden for anything he's ever done as president or vice president?

Crimes? What crimes?

Ain't nobody knows anything about any "crimes".

At least, not at the Department of "Just Us" ... (and not except with respect to Trump, anyway ...)

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1783620584548466786
& https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1783623343410700730