While our S.C. babbles on and on today they appear to ignore our Constitution.

[johnwk]

During today’s S.C. hearing regarding presidential immunity, it was repeatedly admitted by all that bribery is a prosecutable offense by the terms of our Constitution. What was repeatedly ignored with respect to our President is, if there is an accusation of our president engaging in bribery or another criminal offense, our Constitution provides the remedy and venue . . . impeachment first, and then a trial by the Senate.

The bottom line is, our nitwitted S.C. in general, has today babbled on and on over a subject matter constitutionally left in the hands of the House, and then Senate.

With regard to any prosecution of the president if found guilty of a crime by the Senate, the president can then be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.

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?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They won't make a decision and will return the case to the state for review.

This puts Trump's case farther down the road until after the election.

 

[jackflash]

During today’s S.C. hearing regarding presidential immunity, it was repeatedly admitted by all that bribery is a prosecutable offense by the terms of our Constitution. What was repeatedly ignored with respect to our President is, if there is an accusation of our president engaging in bribery or another criminal offense, our Constitution provides the remedy and venue . . . impeachment first, and then a trial by the Senate.

The bottom line is, our nitwitted S.C. in general, has today babbled on and on over a subject matter constitutionally left in the hands of the House, and then Senate.

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?

The "D.istrict of C.orruption" gang reminds me of a modern day version of an old 1990's/2000's TV crime/drama series titled "The Sopranos".

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

 

[elektra]

View attachment 937880

so true, the democrat's vengeance is evil and tyranny

 

[Kilroy2]

If Nixon can be denied executive privilege then it should apply to Trump

He can hide behind the office

Claiming executive privilege is admitting wrong doing and hiding in the office of the Presidency

No man should be above the law. Trump made a choice and he should be man enough to face the consequences.

He does not own the presidency.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They won't make a decision and will return the case to the state for review.

This puts Trump's case farther down the road until after the election.

Problem is, either the president, and therefore ALL OF THE US GOVT, has immunity, or it doesn't. Clearly it doesn't.

But you never know with a wack job Supreme Court, most of whom are there because they're willing to twist the Constitution for their own political side.

 

[BackAgain]

Just to clarify the silliness of the thread headline:

No such thing “appears.” The fact is that, from either end of the bench, the jurists all seemed very focused on the Constitution.

Indeed, that’s the entire point.

And they tended to ask questions. It’s kinda what they do. How is asking a few questions the same as “babble?”

 

[BackAgain]

If Nixon can be denied executive privilege then it should apply to Trump

He can hide behind the office

Claiming executive privilege is admitting wrong doing and hiding in the office of the Presidency

No man should be above the law. Trump made a choice and he should be man enough to face the consequences.

He does not own the presidency.

You don’t have a clue about the subject matter. As your post highlights.

 

[candycorn]

During today’s S.C. hearing regarding presidential immunity, it was repeatedly admitted by all that bribery is a prosecutable offense by the terms of our Constitution. What was repeatedly ignored with respect to our President is, if there is an accusation of our president engaging in bribery or another criminal offense, our Constitution provides the remedy and venue . . . impeachment first, and then a trial by the Senate.

The bottom line is, our nitwitted S.C. in general, has today babbled on and on over a subject matter constitutionally left in the hands of the House, and then Senate.

With regard to any prosecution of the president if found guilty of a crime by the Senate, the president can then be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.

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?

The questions they are being asked to consider strain reason. Last week they actually entertained arguments that the 1/6 insurrectionists didn't interrupt official proceedings. Today they entertained the far more ridiculous argument that being President makes you immune to prosecution because you might "make a mistake" as his lawyer put it.

 

[john doe 101]

During today’s S.C. hearing regarding presidential immunity, it was repeatedly admitted by all that bribery is a prosecutable offense by the terms of our Constitution. What was repeatedly ignored with respect to our President is, if there is an accusation of our president engaging in bribery or another criminal offense, our Constitution provides the remedy and venue . . . impeachment first, and then a trial by the Senate.

The bottom line is, our nitwitted S.C. in general, has today babbled on and on over a subject matter constitutionally left in the hands of the House, and then Senate.

With regard to any prosecution of the president if found guilty of a crime by the Senate, the president can then be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.

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?

Didnt trump say previously one should be charged with a crime before being impeached? Now he's saying one should be impeached before being charged with a crime.

 

[Doc7505]

If Nixon can be denied executive privilege then it should apply to Trump

He can hide behind the office

Claiming executive privilege is admitting wrong doing and hiding in the office of the Presidency

No man should be above the law. Trump made a choice and he should be man enough to face the consequences.

He does not own the presidency.

Then why do you fight tooth and nail when Joey BaiDung violates SCOTUS ruling and flaunts executive privilege..

 

[wamose]

They won't make a decision and will return the case to the state for review.

This puts Trump's case farther down the road until after the election.

And since this is nothing more than election interference for Democrats, they might as well just drop the charges. So far, we have seen three judges, James, Lewis and Smith and all three are renegades on a vendetta. I'm not expecting any different from Chutken in DC and whoever sits on the new Arizona case. The lack of judicial integrity today is the reason why our Supreme Court is so important. MAGA

 

[DBA]

Last week they actually entertained arguments that the 1/6 insurrectionists didn't interrupt official proceedings.

They argued the statute used to convict them wasn’t meant to be used in such a way. It was meant to prevent evidence tampering. The defense attorneys stated “But that definition[meaning any disruption of official proceedings) encompasses lobbying, advocacy, and protest, the very mechanisms that citizens employ to influence government.” I don’t think the average professional Democratic protestor wants the same law used against them every time they get their panties in a wad and protest enough to interrupt an official proceeding.

The law was unjustly used. Democrats would fight tooth and nail against it next year if Trump wins the election as it could then be used to arrest many of their fellow Democrats.

 

[candycorn]

They argued the statute used to convict them wasn’t meant to be used in such a way. It was meant to prevent evidence tampering. The defense attorneys stated “But that definition[meaning any disruption of official proceedings) encompasses lobbying, advocacy, and protest, the very mechanisms that citizens employ to influence government.” I don’t think the average professional Democratic protestor wants the same law used against them every time they get their panties in a wad and protest enough to interrupt an official proceeding.

The law was unjustly used. Democrats would fight tooth and nail against it next year if Trump wins the election as it could then be used to arrest many of their fellow Democrats.

And it would be just as ridiculous had all of the roles been reversed politically.

 

[DBA]

And it would be just as ridiculous had all of the roles been reversed politically.

Agreed. Applying Sabanes-Oxley to rioters and protestors would be wrong, regardless of their political affiliation or cause, thus why it should not have been applied in the case of 1/6.

 

[johnwk]

The "D.istrict of C.orruption" gang reminds me of a modern day version of an old 1990's/2000's TV crime/drama series titled "The Sopranos".

And Tammany Hall's thugs

 

[johnwk]

Just to clarify the silliness of the thread headline:

No such thing “appears.” The fact is that, from either end of the bench, the jurists all seemed very focused on the Constitution.

Indeed, that’s the entire point.

And they tended to ask questions. It’s kinda what they do. How is asking a few questions the same as “babble?”

The Supreme Court totally ignored it's Congress's (the House and Senate) job to determine if the President has committed a crime.

The House alleges a crime, and the Senate then has a trial to determine if that crime has 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 issue, dealing with a criminal acting President, was resolved by the adopted impeachment process.

Our Supreme Court never addressed the constitutionally authorized venue for charging, and then determining, if a president has engaged in criminal activity.



.

 

[hadit]

They won't make a decision and will return the case to the state for review.

This puts Trump's case farther down the road until after the election.

Which reveals the true motivation behind all the prosecution going on, to impact the election. Without that, this would just be another drawn out case that most people wouldn't bother to follow.

 

[jackflash]

If Nixon can be denied executive privilege then it should apply to Trump

He can hide behind the office

Claiming executive privilege is admitting wrong doing and hiding in the office of the Presidency

No man should be above the law. Trump made a choice and he should be man enough to face the consequences.

He does not own the presidency.

The corrupt RNC/DNC corporations are what's needed to be on trial @ current for outright defrauding the American general public with their divide & conquer strategy. Below is the RNC in action when they illegally blocked some of Ron Paul's delegates during Paul's last bid for the POTUS.



Below; what more needs to be said here?

DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules

ivn.us