The Trump legal arguments involving Presidential immunity

[BackAgain]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

 

[BackAgain]

First reply to this thread is the typically inane use of a laughter emoji.

I realized this would sail over the head of most of our liberals. Augy is one of the usual suspects.

 

[Augustine_]

First reply to this thread is the typically inane use of a laughter emoji.

I realized this would sail over the head of most of our liberals. Augy is one of the usual suspects.

 

[White 6]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

Impeachment is a political trial, not a legal system trial. No double jeopardy exists.

 

[Rawley]

Impeachment is a political trial, not a legal system trial. No double jeopardy exists.

WHy not? His rights were at stake.

 

[White 6]

WHy not? His rights were at stake.

His freedom for acts committed, nor property, were ever in jeopardy as in a court of law. Simply in danger of losing his job, based on the political outcome.

 

[BackAgain]

I wouldn’t say you’re a snowflake exactly.

I’d say you’re just a dumbass.

 

[BackAgain]

His freedom for acts committed, nor property, were ever in jeopardy as in a court of law. Simply in danger of losing his job, based on the political outcome.

That’s a facile answer, White.

You might be surprised at what is considered a property interest.

In any event, the 14th Amendment likely doesn’t even apply to the Presidency.
But if it is viewed that way, the alleged disqualification is predicated on involvement in a particular crime.

WHO has any authority to say that another person has been involved in an alleged serious federal crime? On what basis?

 

[BackAgain]

Impeachment is a political trial, not a legal system trial. No double jeopardy exists.

Did you read the brief?

As I said, it’s well worth the read.

An impeachment may be used politically. But it’s supposed he for high crimes and misdemeanors.

And, when you consider the import of a Senate Trial acquittal (hint: read the brief and the Constitution)* you may be a bit surprised at what conclusion you reach.

*(See the page numbered 11 in the brief.)

 

[Rawley]

His freedom for acts committed, nor property, were ever in jeopardy as in a court of law. Simply in danger of losing his job, based on the political outcome.

DO you have any support for this theory? or are you just making it up

 

[BULLDOG]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

Sorry, but I don't think The Devine Right of Kings is included in or constitution.

 

[White 6]

Did you read the brief?

As I said, it’s well worth the read.

An impeachment may be used politically. But it’s supposed he for high crimes and misdemeanors.

And, when you consider the import of a Senate Trial acquittal (hint: read the brief and the Constitution)* you may be a bit surprised at what conclusion you reach.

*(See the page numbered 11 in the brief.)

"Impeachment proceedings are remedial rather than punitive in nature, and the remedy is limited to removal from office. Because the process is not punitive, a party may also be subject to criminal or civil trial, prosecution, and conviction under the law after removal from office."

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."
This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law."

"Article 1, Section 3, Clause 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."
An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office."

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”...

Arguments like your loses many of us at this point here...

When one posts using juvenile name calling and ridiculously regurgitated insults...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Impeachment is a political trial, not a legal system trial. No double jeopardy exists.

But, but, but Liability is a legal genius!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Impeachment proceedings are remedial rather than punitive in nature, and the remedy is limited to removal from office. Because the process is not punitive, a party may also be subject to criminal or civil trial, prosecution, and conviction under the law after removal from office."

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."
This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law."

"Article 1, Section 3, Clause 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."
An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office."

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

View attachment 880336

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/

Whenever I've posted before, on the distinctions between a criminal trial and a political process of impeachment -- it just goes unacknowledged.

For many of the Trump Apologists, ignoring things allows them to keep their cognitive dissonances at bay, or in check.

 

[Kilroy2]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.
ex
They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

Except that impeachment is something that only congress can do to impeach or not impeach . It only removes the person from the position that he or she holds or As defined by the constitution or they get to keep their job.

Trump was impeached but was not removed from office

There is no jail time or fines


It is not a criminal or civil charge under the judicial system.

So it is not double jeopardy.

 

[Kilroy2]

gee, I guess I was a little slow in my post as everyone jump on the obvious error of double jeopardy in a previous post.

 

[westwall]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

Don't forget base stupidity. I have seen very few progressives anywhere who have an IQ above low average.

You simply can't expect not smart people to understand nuance.

They only understand the force of the brick through the window.

And they love being bullies.

It's what they are.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Don't forget base stupidity. I have seen very few progressives anywhere who have an IQ above low average.

Well, they were all watching FOX News w Tucker and believing every lie, all while being laughed at by...

Oh wait!

never mind

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

You want people to read this, while you and your friends here ignore other filings and briefs?

signature: Simply accepting the case does not necessarily delay or hamper Trump’s prosecution. There is no legal reason to slow the proceedings in District Court while the Supreme Court considers the applicability of the obstruction statute. There is no reason to wait on the trial.