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

[CrazyTrader55]

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?

Democrats don't turn on their own party.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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

Naw, that's the willies crapping in your brain. Go away and clean yourself up.

 

[johnwk]

Democrats don't turn on their own party.

I'm wondering why no one in our big media is discussing the constitutionally authorized venue for charging and then holding a trial to deal with a president alleged to have committed criminal conduct while in office.

 

[g5000]

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?

What you missed is that impeachment is a political solution, not a criminal one.

What you also missed was the point that no president has ever been removed from office by impeachment. So it is a shitty way to hold someone accountable.

When you have a cult of submissive cucks in Congress who are beholden to the President for their political survival, then under your ridiculous scheme the president could have a political rival assassinated and get away with it.

We are not a monarchy. We do not believe in the divine right of kings.

 

[bendog]

What you missed is that impeachment is a political solution, not a criminal one.

What you also missed was the point that no president has ever been removed from office by impeachment. So it is a shitty way to hold someone accountable.

When you have a cult of submissive cucks in Congress who are beholden to the President for their political survival, then under your ridiculous scheme the president could have a political rival assassinated and get away with it.

We are not a monarchy. We do not believe in the divine right of kings.

But perhaps impeachment should be nearly impossible, for the very reason you stated. It's a political not a criminal tool. Maybe Johnson and Nixon came the closest. And, really both of them lost or (in Johnson's case) never had a mandate to even govern.

Alito and Thomas are simply tools. But what if Nixon had been teed up for burglary and obstruction? If he'd been convicted while in office, he'd have to have been impeached because he'd not be in the WH.

But where in the const is presidential immunity found? These clucks are supposed to be textual literalists. If it ain't in the doc, it ain't there. LOL Still, I'm hopeful that there will be at least a plurality decision to differentiate between crimes like breaking into Ellsburg's psych's office for "natl security" and breaking into the opposition HQ to illegally help a reelection.

I think they'll take one for Trump though.

 

[scruffy]

The fool leftards want to try to impeach Trump again?

Fine, go for it.

There's a first time for everything, I guess.

 

[DBA]

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.

candycorn , you reacted to this as fake news. What's fake about it? Do you believe that Sarbanes-Oxley should have been interpreted in this way?

 

[Kilroy2]

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

Yet you just babble on

 

[Kilroy2]

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

It is a high stake poker game where winning is everything and anything that can be done will be done to achieve that win by both sides.

it is amazing some of the things that they will come up

 

[struth]

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.

This isn’t about executive privledge

 

[Kilroy2]

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

Be more specific as to what did he do that violates SCOTUS ruling and flaunts executive privilege

some things should stay as executive privilege such as phone calls to family members involving family matters.

well unless they are planning a crime

 

[johnwk]

What you missed is that impeachment is a political solution, not a criminal one.

I missed nothing.

Article Two of our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations entail required actions which no other public officer is entrusted with and could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate to hold a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue is, by the terms of our Constitution, the United States Senate.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

JWK

When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

 

[elektra]

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.

Nixon was never denied executive privilege, Nixon committed no crimes. Nixon was not even impeached.

Irony though, the Democrats did much worst then Nixon ever did. The Democrats instead of hiring private spies, used falsified FISA warrants, the FBI, and the CIA. The Democrats weaponized the government!

 

[Kilroy2]

Nixon was never denied executive privilege, Nixon committed no crimes. Nixon was not even impeached.

Irony though, the Democrats did much worst then Nixon ever did. The Democrats instead of hiring private spies, used falsified FISA warrants, the FBI, and the CIA. The Democrats weaponized the government!

Nixon claimed executive privilege

Nixon argued that the concept of executive privilege gave him the power to withhold sensitive information, such as the tapes, from other government branches in order to maintain confidential communications within the executive branch and to secure the national interest.

On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Court (with Justice Rehnquist not taking part due to a prior role in the Nixon administration) ruled against the President. Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the President didn’t have an absolute, unqualified privilege to withhold information.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/nixon-40th-anniversary-order-the-watergate-break-

United States v. Nixon - Landmark Cases of the US Supreme Court

Overview “” – Learning About For Students For Teachers Glossary Related Cases Legal Concepts For Students Students This section is for students. Use the links below to download classroom-ready .PDFs of case resources and activities. About the Case Full Case Summaries A thorough summary of case...

landmarkcases.org

msna387256

They voted to start the impeachment process but since he resigned from office, it did not matter anymore so it was dropped.

He then resigned so there was not necessary to proceed any further

Ford then pardon Nixon so Nixon was never impeached but had to be pardon to protect him from facing trial at a later date. Still the pardon was a full and unconditional pardon from any crimes he might have committed.



The Watergate break-in was a crime.

the famous “smoking gun” conversation (transcript, audio) -- proved he’d tried to prevent the FBI from investigating the matter by lying about it. He’d also approved giving hush money to Watergate conspirators. That’s obstruction of justice.

Did he know about the plan? who knows , but it clear he tried to cover up the break-in by lying about it.

He did say that he was not a crook.

Did Nixon really order the Watergate break-in?

On the 40th anniversary of Nixon's resignation, we still don't know whether the president himself ordered the Watergate break-in.

www.msnbc.com

 

[elektra]

Nixon claimed executive privilege

Nixon argued that the concept of executive privilege gave him the power to withhold sensitive information, such as the tapes, from other government branches in order to maintain confidential communications within the executive branch and to secure the national interest.

On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Court (with Justice Rehnquist not taking part due to a prior role in the Nixon administration) ruled against the President. Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the President didn’t have an absolute, unqualified privilege to withhold information.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/nixon-40th-anniversary-order-the-watergate-break-

United States v. Nixon - Landmark Cases of the US Supreme Court

Overview “” – Learning About For Students For Teachers Glossary Related Cases Legal Concepts For Students Students This section is for students. Use the links below to download classroom-ready .PDFs of case resources and activities. About the Case Full Case Summaries A thorough summary of case...

landmarkcases.org

msna387256

They voted to start the impeachment process but since he resigned from office, it did not matter anymore so it was dropped.

He then resigned so there was not necessary to proceed any further

Ford then pardon Nixon so Nixon was never impeached but had to be pardon to protect him from facing trial at a later date. Still the pardon was a full and unconditional pardon from any crimes he might have committed.



The Watergate break-in was a crime.

the famous “smoking gun” conversation (transcript, audio) -- proved he’d tried to prevent the FBI from investigating the matter by lying about it. He’d also approved giving hush money to Watergate conspirators. That’s obstruction of justice.

Did he know about the plan? who knows , but it clear he tried to cover up the break-in by lying about it.

He did say that he was not a crook.

Did Nixon really order the Watergate break-in?

On the 40th anniversary of Nixon's resignation, we still don't know whether the president himself ordered the Watergate break-in.

www.msnbc.com

You left out the part where the sitting president was impeached? Oh wait Nixon was not impeached.

You then left out the part where Nixon was indicted? Oh wait, Nixon was not indicted.
MSNBC, fiction based on fact. Propaganda.
Landmark cases? Never heard of it, but it is guaranteed that a 10 second read on the internet is most likely bullshit or at best, fiction based on fact.
The only thing Nixon proves, is we need to run every Democrat and Republican out of government and throw them in jail for doing far worst to Trump than they did to Nixon.
You know nothing with your 30 second google education. Read a dozen books, then give a summary. Without studying from books, on a subject such as Watergate, you know nothing. You got reading to do.

 

[whitehall]

Babble to some, Constitutional law geniuses to others.

 

[elektra]

The Watergate break-in was a crime.

the famous “smoking gun” conversation (transcript, audio) -- proved he’d tried to prevent the FBI from investigating the matter by lying about it. He’d also approved giving hush money to Watergate conspirators. That’s obstruction of justice.

Nobody proved Watergate was ordered by Nixon. Hundreds of books were written. Start reading.

The smoking gun? Again, no trial, no impeachment.

 

[elektra]

The Watergate break-in was a crime.
the famous “smoking gun” conversation (transcript, audio) -- proved he’d tried to prevent the FBI from investigating the matter by lying about it. He’d also approved giving hush money to Watergate conspirators. That’s obstruction of justice.

When links do not work, it proves the person who posted did not read the links, just cut/paste, from a google search.

Google is no different than a monkey holding a loaded gun, if the wrong person is using google.

 

[Kilroy2]

When links do not work, it proves the person who posted did not read the links, just cut/paste, from a google search.

Google is no different than a monkey holding a loaded gun, if the wrong person is using google.
View attachment 938521

Sorry the specific pages was not found when it takes you to the website as it was probably moved.

Still it not a secret as its history.

If your denying anything that was posted and find a link that says differently then go for it.

Watergate happen and if you need a link to believe that then you really are a trump supporter

Nixon resigned because he was caught

Ford then pardon him for any crimes that he was accused of

Sorry if all you got was that the page not found to deny Watergate never happen then good luck with that

I provide another link in case you believe Watergate never happen

The Watergate Scandal - Timeline, Summary & Deep Throat | HISTORY

A June 1972 break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters led to an investigation that revealed multiple abuses of power by the Nixon administration and a vote by the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment.

www.history.com

 

[d0gbreath]

The Supremes seem to be hot on digging their own graves.