Trump: "release the J6 hostages"

[A2SG]

I understand why those judges asked those extremely hypothetical questions. I am not naive.

As for his lawyer's answer, please show me in the US Constitution where what he said concerning a President of the USA is incorrect.

First, please show me in the US Constitution where what Trump's lawyers said concerning a President of the USA is correct.

See, the limits of presidential immunity aren't clearly defined. That's what the court is doing now. The argument, according to Trump's lawyers, is that there is no limit.

Don't you think there should be a limit? Or is it anything goes?

-- A2SG, do we really want Trump to have that kind of power...or anyone, for that matter?

 

[Vambram]

• Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
  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.
  

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/#:~:text=Judgment%20in%20Cases%20of%20Impeachment,and%20Punishment%2C%20according%20to%20Law.

Thank you.
It appears to me that this Clause 7 indicates that being impeached and removing by being found guilty through impeachment is meant to come first.

Then criminal indictments and criminal trials would occur.

 

[A2SG]

Thank you.
It appears to me that this Clause 7 indicates that being impeached and removing by being found guilty through impeachment is meant to come first.

Then criminal indictments and criminal trials would occur.

But what Trump's lawyers are arguing is that, if the impeachment and removal doesn't come, then indictments and trials CAN'T come.

That's the problem. No accountability, no limits on presidential power.

-- A2SG, anyone who had doubts about Trump wanting dictatorial power can now see it clearly....

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thank you.
It appears to me that this Clause 7 indicates that being impeached and removing by being found guilty through impeachment is meant to come first.

Then criminal indictments and criminal trials would occur.

Clause seven indicates that is clearly a political process with a political consequence. Criminal process is separate.

 

[childeye 2]

Seditious conspiracy is indeed a very serious crime. I am glad that only 14 out of more than 1200 were charged with that very serious felony.
What happened on January 6th never ever should have happened. I do NOT condone what any of those protestors did.
At the same time, I truly do believe that the vast majority of those 1230 protestors are being treated extremely unfairly by the Department of Justice.

I agree with you. Generally speaking, these people were misguided/duped into committing a crime, and sadly for Ashley and her family, into getting killed. It's all a tragic testimony to the power of a single lie.

 

[childeye 2]

Thank you.
It appears to me that this Clause 7 indicates that being impeached and removing by being found guilty through impeachment is meant to come first.

Then criminal indictments and criminal trials would occur.

Impeachment is the process to remove a person from public office for misconduct. The fact is that at the impeachment proceedings, senate Republicans argued Trump should not be impeached because he was leaving office and could still be charged for his crimes by the department of justice and tried publicly.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand why those judges asked those extremely hypothetical questions. I am not naive.

As for his lawyer's answer, please show me in the US Constitution where what he said concerning a President of the USA is incorrect.

If you knew why she asked the question then you'd know that there is nothing in the constitution which says a sitting president cannot be indicted. She wanted to know if Trump feels the same way as Nixon did when he said 'If a president does it, then it is not illegal'. Which was a statement greeted by a collective gasp from around the world.

 

[Hank77]

And whaddyaknow...his lawyer said there were none. If he's not impeached then he can't be convicted of anything.

I'd reword that to make it more clear.

If he is not impeached and convicted by the Senate he can not be prosecuted by a court. Therefore he has complete immunity against criminal prosecution for anything.

 

[Bradskii]

I'd reword that to make it more clear.

If he is not impeached and convicted by the Senate he can not be prosecuted by a court. Therefore he has complete immunity against criminal prosecution for anything.

True. You need to be prosecuted before you are convicted (assuming you are guilty of course).

 

[Hank77]

True. You need to be prosecuted before you are convicted (assuming you are guilty of course).

Excuse me?

 

[Bradskii]

Excuse me?

I'm agreeing with you. I agree with this: 'If he is not impeached and convicted by the Senate he can not be prosecuted by a court.'

As opposed to me saying he couldn't be convicted. He would have immunity against prosecution. Which also means he is immune against conviction - should he be guilty...but your statement is more specific than mine.

 

[KCfromNC]

Hypothetical anecdotes are now considered an argument?

When there's nothing fact based behind the party leader's talking points, what is one supposed to do, change their support for their favorite sports team, uh, I mean political party?

 

[JustOneWay]

Hypothetical extreme possibilities appear to be fair game by those judges questioning Trump and his lawyers in D.C.

Incorrect. This 'absolute immunity' is Trump's argument. The judge simply took their argument to one of the most extreme scenarios, and Trump still claims 'absolute immunity.

 

[NxNW]

I'm agreeing with you. I agree with this: 'If he is not impeached and convicted by the Senate he can not be prosecuted by a court.'

And yet during Trump's J6 impeachment, he was saying that he can't be impeached once out of office, and only the courts can determine his guilt. Now he's saying the courts can't prosecute him either.

As opposed to me saying he couldn't be convicted. He would have immunity against prosecution. Which also means he is immune against conviction - should he be guilty...but your statement is more specific than mine.

See above!

 

[Valletta]

I always have.
They are not "Patriots."
We are not Venezuela or Hungary yet.....but many in MAGA land seem to want it.....

It's very obvious that Ray Epps was going along with the establishment, his sentence should have been substantial. What a crooked government.

 

[JustOneWay]

It's very obvious that Ray Epps was going along with the establishment, his sentence should have been substantial. What a crooked government.

If you mean to say that he cooperated with authorities to receive a better sentence, then you would be correct. Nothing crooked about that.

 

[Larniavc]

You want to quote Liz Cheney as a law abiding? When they have tampered, distorted, destroyed video deposition tapes where the house who owns the tapes sense they paid for them, actually tax payers; where no one can seem to find them. WH house has them DOJ has them but the ones who should have them dont. With their derangement and had to get Trump at all cost, how that work out for you? had to cut, distort video evidence to try and make the narrative true. Why pay for a Hollywierdo promotional to give it more theatrical display of garbage; GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH LIP STICK YOU PUT ON A PIG, IT IS STILL A PIG. I mean you want to use her whos dad lied about Iraq where so much blood and treasure was lost over a lie, for the sole reason to make money from a war. Liz and her dad have always been liers and evil people.
You have Ray Epps who done more than 90% of the people in prison for just parading who gets a slap on the risk of 6 months? give me a break!!!!

I don’t quite get your point?

 

[Vambram]

If you knew why she asked the question then you'd know that there is nothing in the constitution which says a sitting president cannot be indicted. She wanted to know if Trump feels the same way as Nixon did when he said 'If a president does it, then it is not illegal'. Which was a statement greeted by a collective gasp from around the world.

A criminal indictment of a sitting president, or a criminal indictment of what a president did during his term of office, can only happen after a guilty impeachment Verdict by the US Senate.
I could be incorrect with that interpretation of Clause 7. I am not a Constitutional lawyer. However, that is how I am understanding Clause 7.

 

[childeye 2]

A criminal indictment of a sitting president, or a criminal indictment of what a president did during his term of office, can only happen after a guilty impeachment Verdict by the US Senate.
I could be incorrect with that interpretation of Clause 7. I am not a Constitutional lawyer. However, that is how I am understanding Clause 7.

That's incorrect. Impeachment is the process to remove a person from public office for misconduct.

That's what this means:
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:

For example, at the second Trump impeachment proceedings, senate Republicans pointed out that Trump should not be impeached because he was already leaving office and could still be charged for his crimes by the department of justice and tried publicly. Also, please note that Richard Nixon was given a pardon by Gerald Ford, otherwise Nixon could have faced charges.

 

[Arcangl86]

I honestly can't look at that clause and understand the interpretation that it somehow confers immunity. If anything, what it seems to be saying to me is that impeachment doesn't cause jeopardy to attach, which is also the opposite of what Trump has claimed.