And now on to the more serious question of immunity. . .

[BlindBoo]

The sole authority to discipline the President in his presidential duties, actions, responsibilities, etc. is the U.S.
Congress and no other.

A member of the President's cabinet, appointed by the President, answerable to the President, and who serves at the pleasure of the President, has no authority to discipline or charge the President no matter who he is.

There is no such sole authority given to Congress in the Constitution.

 

[Marener]

There is no such sole authority given to Congress in the Constitution.

The constitution makes it pretty clear that impeachment and criminal prosecution are separate issues.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The sole authority to discipline the President in his presidential duties, actions, responsibilities, etc. is the U.S.
Congress and no other.

A member of the President's cabinet, appointed by the President, answerable to the President, and who serves at the pleasure of the President, has no authority to discipline or charge the President no matter who he is.

Which is not a law. It's a policy that can be changed.

He just explained that to you.

 

[Vrenn]

Another MAGA lawmaker faces accusations of election fraud​

Arizona state Rep. Austin Smith is a far-right conspiracy theorist who's pushed false claims about voter fraud. But a new lawsuit accuses him of forging signatures to qualify for his re-election race.

A Democratic attorney on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging Smith’s petitions, claiming he forged 100 of the 826 signatures and that they “bear a striking resemblance to Smith’s.” The lawsuit included sworn statements from two voters whose signatures appear on Smith’s petitions, saying they did not sign his petitions. It also included images of petition pages that Smith circulated, with every signature appearing to have been signed by one person

 

[Foxfyre]

Which is not a law. It's a policy that can be changed.

He just explained that to you.

It is in the Constitution so it is law.

 

[Flopper]

No. You alter what I write to make silly arguments. It’s called strawman.

You are verbose but utterly unpersuasive.

Very good post. I heard a number of people arguing that impeachment is a means of keeping a president within the law. That is wrong in a number of ways. First being impeachment is a political process for firing a president just as an election is a political process for hiring a president. One of the most important factors in removing a president from office is whether the president's party is in control of congress (which only occurs less than 1/3rd of the time). Impeachment unlike legal actions is not a granular process; that is you are either fired or you get to keep your job. Lastly impeachment does not provide any means for review by the high court.

Democracy only works if everyone can be held accountable. Nations that put there leader(s) above the law invariably become fascist state.

 

[BackAgain]

Very good post. I heard a number of people arguing that impeachment is a means of keeping a president within the law. That is wrong in a number of ways. First being impeachment is a political process for firing a president just as an election is a political process for hiring a president. One of the most important factors in removing a president from office is whether the president's party is in control of congress. Impeachment unlike legal actions is not a granular process; that is you are either fired or you get to keep your job. Lastly impeachment does not provide any means for an injured party to seek compensation.

Democracy only works if everyone can be held accountable. Nations that put there leader(s) above the law invariably become fascist state.

There is no actual threat of putting anyone above the law. That’s just alarmist claptrap.

 

[Flopper]

There is no such sole authority given to Congress in the Constitution.

There is no actual threat of putting anyone above the law. That’s just alarmist claptrap.

There is no actual threat of putting anyone above the law. That’s just alarmist claptrap.

And so said Hitler in 1934 when he merged the chancellery with the presidency and became Führer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is in the Constitution so it is law.

That a sitting president cannot be criminally charged? Afraid not.

 

[BackAgain]

And so said Hitler in 1934 when he merged the chancellery with the presidency and became Führer.

Holy shit. What a retarded response. Floppy, you’re lost.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The contrast in intellect could not be more stark ^^

 

[Rumpole]

The sole authority to discipline the President in his presidential duties, actions, responsibilities, etc. is the U.S.
Congress and no other.

That's not accurate. Feel free to state why you believe this. But, until you do, know that congress can impeach, but they do not administer the law, they just write it. Only the DOJ administers the law, and the President is subject to all laws of the United States. What that means is that a President can be indicted if he commits crimes, hence the multiple indictments.

A member of the President's cabinet, appointed by the President, answerable to the President, and who serves at the pleasure of the President, has no authority to discipline or charge the President no matter who he is.

Not in dispute.

 

[Rumpole]

It is in the Constitution so it is law.

Prove it.

 

[Rumpole]

The constitution makes it pretty clear that impeachment and criminal prosecution are separate issues.

But one does not exclude the other.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not accurate. Feel free to state why you believe this. But, until you do, know that congress can impeach, but they do not administer the law, they just write it. Only the DOJ administers the law, and the President is subject to all laws of the United States. What that means is that a President can be indicted if he commits crimes, hence the multiple indictments.

Not in dispute.

The Attorney General is appointed by the President, is accountable to the President (and Congress) and serves at the pleasure of the President. He is not authorized by any mention in the Constitution to discipline the President.

The sole authority given to deal with the President is given to Congress. The House impeaches (indicts) and the Senate conducts a trial to convict and remove from office or acquit. Period end.

 

[Rumpole]

The Attorney General is appointed by the President, is accountable to the President (and Congress) and serves at the pleasure of the President. He is not authorized by any mention in the Constitution to discipline the President.

That's false. Quote the constitution which you believe states that. I assure you, it doesn't. In modernity, tradition has it that the AG/DOJ operates independent of the executive branch. The cornerstone of United States jurisprudence is 'no one is above the law', including the president, which means he, like everyone else, is subject to the law. Moreover, States are not part of the DOJ and he is indicted in two states. In order for the justice department to apply the law equally to all citizens, it must operate independently of the executive branch.


Were you alive during Watergate? Clinton? You should know this.

The sole authority given to deal with the President is given to Congress. The House impeaches (indicts) and the Senate conducts a trial to convict and remove from office or acquit. Period end.

The impeachment process of the constitution is a political procedure. in the DOJ, or state's justice departments, it's a criminal procedure.

 

[Rumpole]

It is in the Constitution so it is law.

Show us where it is in the constitution. Prove it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Show us where it is in the constitution. Prove it.

Nowhere. What he did was parrot something someone in the right wing noise machine said. Then, when challenged, he actually bothered to read up and found he is wrong. Now the tap dancing begins.

 

[bendog]

Oh for god's sake, are we going to argue about impeachment being a precursor to being indicted? LOL

I think the Scrotus will just give Trump more time by remanding the case to someone somewhere. But it is a serious issue. We've never tried an ex potus about lying ... or starting a war. But Trump's just charged with campaign finance violations .... and possibly perjury (it's the cover up that gets em) And yes, there's an analogy.