Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court To Rule Quickly Whether Trump Can Be Prosecuted

[WorldWatcher]

It lays out what happens if he does wrong. it does not tell us to take him to court.

Article I Section 3

Specifically points out that impeachment is for the removal from office so that the individual can then be subject to indictment, trial, and punishment under the law.

WW

 

[postman]

Notice those are your words. When will you smarten up and actually provide true quotes?

Those are very close to Trumps actual words, and trying to pick apart his words wouldn't give them a meaning different than what I posted.

 

[Robert W]

Those are very close to Trumps actual words, and trying to pick apart his words wouldn't give them a meaning different than what I posted.

Evidence?????

 

[postman]

At the time of his acts, he was president.

At the time Bill Clinton was "not having sex with that woman" he was president also.

Should that have made Clinton immune?

 

[Robert W]

View attachment 871900

Article I Section 3

Specifically points out that impeachment is for the removal from office so that the individual can then be subject to indictment, trial, and punishment under the law.

WW

That is why they tried to convict Trump in the Senate and failed to convict him.

 

[postman]

View attachment 871900

Article I Section 3

Specifically points out that impeachment is for the removal from office so that the individual can then be subject to indictment, trial, and punishment under the law.

WW

Actually, except for the president, all other officers can be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced before they get impeached. As happened to one or more federal judges who refused to resign.

 

[SeaMajor7]

The Stalinist Struggle is

 

[L.K.Eder]

That's now how criminal charges work. You don't have a trial to "hash out" if someone should be charged.

Present evidence of a crime to a Grand Jury, the Jury votes to reject or indict. The person is then charged first for the violation of a specific law.

"Court" is not a fishing expedition.

WW

you have to excuse that retard. he is edumacated by the benghazi hearings, and by the comer "judgment day" kabuki theatre. he does not understand how this works and is merely trolling with unrelated bullshit. as usual.

 

[Robert W]

At the time Bill Clinton was "not having sex with that woman" he was president also.

Should that have made Clinton immune?

Clinton was fined and not jailed for acts done as the Governor of Arkansas.
Democrats then raised a lot of hell saying Clinton never should have been put on trial.

Now they want Trump in prison for things done as the president. And they failed to convict him in the Senate. This explains the confusion by Jack Smith.

 

[Marener]

At the time of his acts, he was president.

So? We aren’t trying to impeach him.

 

[Robert W]

That's now how criminal charges work. You don't have a trial to "hash out" if someone should be charged.

Present evidence of a crime to a Grand Jury, the Jury votes to reject or indict. The person is then charged first for the violation of a specific law.

"Court" is not a fishing expedition.

WW

Crime as president? Check the Constitution to note the Democrats never charged him with the stuff Smith is. This is the confused Smith at the Supreme Court.

 

[Robert W]

So? We aren’t trying to impeach him.

Correct. Two bites at the apple and the Democrats failed. Bigly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That is why they tried to convict Trump in the Senate and failed to convict him.

No bearing on the fact that the Constitution says President's can be impeached during their term (political action) for them to face criminal action in court.

The point is that President's must be removed to face criminal charges, since FPOTUS#45's is no longer President, criminal charges can be brought.

WW

 

[Marener]

Correct. Two bites at the apple and the Democrats failed. Bigly.

So the section you quoted isn’t relevant.

 

[Robert W]

So the section you quoted isn’t relevant.

Why do you think the confused Jack Smith is whining to the Supreme Court?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Correct. Two bites at the apple and the Democrats failed. Bigly.

Not "two bites at the apple".

#1 Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. The Constitution specifically says impeachment is to allow for criminal prosecution.

#2 The 5th Amendment, which is where the concept of double-jeopardy exists, clearly says it's about crimes. See #1, since impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution, double-jeopardy doesn't apply.

WW

 

[Robert W]

No bearing on the fact that the Constitution says President's can be impeached during their term (political action) for them to face criminal action in court.

The point is that President's must be removed to face criminal charges, since FPOTUS#45's is no longer President, criminal charges can be brought.

WW

Trump can now be charged for acts as a civilian only. Even Smith is confused as you are.

 

[Marener]

Why do you think the confused Jack Smith is whining to the Supreme Court?

Because Trump is trying to stall the trial until after the election with frivolous arguments.

 

[WorldWatcher]

you have to excuse that retard. he is edumacated by the benghazi hearings, and by the comer "judgment day" kabuki theatre. he does not understand how this works and is merely trolling with unrelated bullshit. as usual.

I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

Understanding you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them think. (Not that is not a typo.)

WW

 

[Lastamender]

Oh, so you think you're smarter than Jack Smith? He's just trying to nip Trump's frivolous appeals in the bud. Go Jack!

I do not know if people are smarter than Smith, but a bum sleeping in his own puke has more character than him. Hands down.