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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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 concept is immunity not privilege. You have no idea what is being discussed. Shut up until you do, jackass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Why? Are like Schumer and want them to "reap the whirlwind"?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

With regards to January 6th, Trump has already been found innocent by trial in the Senate. How can he be charged again?

 

[johnwk]

With regards to January 6th, Trump has already been found innocent by trial in the Senate. How can he be charged again?

Is the Senate's authority to try a president for criminal conduct while in office, an exclusive authority and venue?

I didn't convey that thought you mention, at least I hope my wording has not. My question is, where in our Constitution has our regular court system been delegated an authority to try a President for alleged criminal activity while in office? It seems to me that authority is placed in the hands of Congress (House and Senate) the House to accuse, and our Senate to try and convict a President for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed while holding his/her office of public trust. But is the Senate an exclusive venue for trying the President, or should it be?

It really is a complex issue to resolve with any certainty.

Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct under statutory laws by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding 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 and highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate.

Since there is no indication by the terms of our Constitution that our Senate is not vested with an exclusive power to try the President (for criminal acts he/she may commit while President), and is silent if the Senate is an exclusive venue for that subject matter or that the assigned duty under question may be exercised by a different body such as our regular courts, I would say a constitutional amendment would be necessary to alter or expand what is already placed in the hands of our Senate. To not do so is to ignore the bedrock of our constitutionally limited system of government which requires consent of the governed, and by their own reason and choice.

Does the above make sense?

 

[johnwk]

The concept is immunity not privilege. You have no idea what is being discussed. Shut up until you do, jackass!

Where is the authority lodged to try a President for crimes committed while in office?
.
QUESTION: where in our Constitution has our regular court system been delegated an authority to try a President for alleged criminal activity engaged in while in office? It seems to me that authority is placed in the hands of Congress (House and Senate) the House to accuse, and our Senate to try and convict a President for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed while holding his/her office of public trust.

So, under what authority is our regular court system now prosecuting a former president for alleged crimes committed while his was in office?

JWK

America's wage-earning citizens have been made into taxed slaves to pay for the economic needs of millions upon millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

They understand that. The question comes about when the President is no longer in office, or continues to commit additional crimes.

Trump is claiming that immunity continues.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where is the authority lodged to try a President for crimes committed while in office?
.
QUESTION: where in our Constitution has our regular court system been delegated an authority to try a President for alleged criminal activity engaged in while in office? It seems to me that authority is placed in the hands of Congress (House and Senate) the House to accuse, and our Senate to try and convict a President for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed while holding his/her office of public trust.

So, under what authority is our regular court system now prosecuting a former president for alleged crimes committed while his was in office?

JWK

America's wage-earning citizens have been made into taxed slaves to pay for the economic needs of millions upon millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.

Wow! You stumbled on to a truth!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They understand that. The question comes about when the President is no longer in office, or continues to commit additional crimes.

Trump is claiming that immunity continues.

Typical know-nothing libtard. The case is about his being criminally prosecuted for January 6th, which occurred while he was in office! Catch a f-ing clue, moron!

 

[SavannahMann]

Typical know-nothing libtard. The case is about his being criminally prosecuted for January 6th, which occurred while he was in office! Catch a f-ing clue, moron!

Sort of. One of the cases against Trump is the Documents case in Florida. And that took place after he left office.

But let’s focus on the in office argument.

Biden orders the assassination of Trump. It is carried out. Biden resigns and hands the office over to Kamala. Can you indict Biden for that? Or is he protected for all time since he was in office when it happened? Or if he can keep 34 Senators on his side, is he immune to any penalty once he beats the Impeachment?

The arguments Trump is making fly in the face of History, the famous Nixon Pardon and Clinton plea deal. It is arguments that have been bandied about for lower offices. A cop who beats someone excessively and claims it was line of duty, and he has immunity. It flies in the face of American claims for more than two centuries. No one is above the law.

The Trump argument is that a President is akin to a King, answerable only to God so long as the Parliament stands behind him in minority numbers. That is insane.

I can’t imagine a line of duty claim resting on false documents, fake electors, intimidation, and so much more all being claimed as line of duty. There is a limit to that argument, and Trump wildly surpassed that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Sort of. One of the cases against Trump is the Documents case in Florida. And that took place after he left office.

But let’s focus on the in office argument.

Biden orders the assassination of Trump. It is carried out. Biden resigns and hands the office over to Kamala. Can you indict Biden for that? Or is he protected for all time since he was in office when it happened? Or if he can keep 34 Senators on his side, is he immune to any penalty once he beats the Impeachment?

The arguments Trump is making fly in the face of History, the famous Nixon Pardon and Clinton plea deal. It is arguments that have been bandied about for lower offices. A cop who beats someone excessively and claims it was line of duty, and he has immunity. It flies in the face of American claims for more than two centuries. No one is above the law.

The Trump argument is that a President is akin to a King, answerable only to God so long as the Parliament stands behind him in minority numbers. That is insane.

I can’t imagine a line of duty claim resting on false documents, fake electors, intimidation, and so much more all being claimed as line of duty. There is a limit to that argument, and Trump wildly surpassed that.

The crime of the hypothetical assignation of Trump, is not one of his Presidential duties, is it?

Maintaining classified documents from his presidency after he left office is not even a crime in most people's view, because of the Presidential Records Act. Biden's DOJ cannot successfully prosecute Trump anyway because they absolved Biden of far worse crimes under the laws regarding records he held that he was never even authorized to possess. Trump would simply assert his 14th amendment rights were violated by convicting him but allowing Biden to walk!

You simply don't understand the difference in a cop using excessive force, and what is consider his duties as a police officer. Cops don't get off prosecution if the used excessive force by claiming it was in the line of duty. That is the difference here.

I don't know what fake documents, fake electors, intimidation and other bullshit you are talking about because that has nothing to do with the trial in question. Trump did none of that.

 

[SavannahMann]

The crime of the hypothetical assignation of Trump, is not one of his Presidential duties, is it?

Maintaining classified documents from his presidency after he left office is not even a crime in most people's view, because of the Presidential Records Act. Biden's DOJ cannot successfully prosecute Trump anyway because they absolved Biden of far worse crimes under the laws regarding records he held that he was never even authorized to possess. Trump would simply assert his 14th amendment rights were violated by convicting him but allowing Biden to walk!

Isn’t it? If someone is working against America isn’t it the sworn Duty of the President to stop them? And since it is apparently up to politicians, who lose their authority once the individual resigns, then it is a done deal. No prosecution is possible.

But let’s compare and contrast Biden and Trump on the Documents.

After learning Trump had held on to documents. Biden sent a couple lawyers to search everything. So did Pence by the way. Both groups discovered documents and immediately notified the FBI to come and collect the documents. Then both Pence and Biden cooperated and assisted in a thorough search to insure no further documents were missed.

Trump got a phone call requesting the documents. Trump claimed none existed. Trump got a letter requesting the documents and claimed none existed. Trump got a Subpoena and caused the documents to be hidden when his own lawyers who refused to lie conducted a search. Then finally after obstruction of the effort the FBI got a Warrant to retrieve the documents.

Pence and Biden had accidentally held onto documents and misplaced them in boxes. When the error was discovered admitted it and took steps to correct the mistake. Trump did everything possible to obstruct the retrieval of the documents.

If Trump had turned over the documents when the phone call, letter, or even subpoena had arrived I would agree that prosecution would be excessive. But he didn’t do that did he?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Isn’t it? If someone is working against America isn’t it the sworn Duty of the President to stop them? And since it is apparently up to politicians, who lose their authority once the individual resigns, then it is a done deal. No prosecution is possible.

But let’s compare and contrast Biden and Trump on the Documents.

After learning Trump had held on to documents. Biden sent a couple lawyers to search everything. So did Pence by the way. Both groups discovered documents and immediately notified the FBI to come and collect the documents. Then both Pence and Biden cooperated and assisted in a thorough search to insure no further documents were missed.

Trump got a phone call requesting the documents. Trump claimed none existed. Trump got a letter requesting the documents and claimed none existed. Trump got a Subpoena and caused the documents to be hidden when his own lawyers who refused to lie conducted a search. Then finally after obstruction of the effort the FBI got a Warrant to retrieve the documents.

Pence and Biden had accidentally held onto documents and misplaced them in boxes. When the error was discovered admitted it and took steps to correct the mistake. Trump did everything possible to obstruct the retrieval of the documents.

If Trump had turned over the documents when the phone call, letter, or even subpoena had arrived I would agree that prosecution would be excessive. But he didn’t do that did he?

Nice job lib! Selective memory? When were either Biden or Pence President of the United States? Never! They never had the right to possess those documents. If you knew anything about classified materials, you would know you can't accidentally keep classified documents you never had authority to possess. That is the major and overwhelming difference. They would have had to steal them. Trump had no such issue.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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?

There was no bribery silly.

 

[SavannahMann]

Nice job lib! Selective memory? When were either Biden or Pence President of the United States? Never! They never had the right to possess those documents. If you knew anything about classified materials, you would know you can't accidentally keep classified documents you never had authority to possess. That is the major and overwhelming difference. They would have had to steal them. Trump had no such issue.

And if you were remotely honest you would admit the President sent them to the VP’s. Unless you think Pence conducted a break in to get the documents.

I have consistently said that I can easily imagine and believe files were accidentally stuck in wrong boxes. Accidents are part of being human. And I’ve believed in forgiving honest mistakes longer than I voted for Trump in 2016.

The test of character is not if you make mistakes. But how you respond to mistakes. Admit it and work to correct it is the way we expect our people to react.

Now here we get to the real issue. Both Biden and Pence apparently got these files in the line of duty. The files were accidentally stuffed into the wrong boxes. When discovered honest men notified the authorities. They could have burned the documents to cover up the mistake. They could have stuffed them back in the boxes and ignored it. But they told the truth.

By contrast Trump lied constantly and consistently. What does that tell you about his Character? What would you think if a Superior acted that way when you were in the Service?

 

[johnwk]

Wow! You stumbled on to a truth!

Why do you say "stumbled". Our Constitution is clear that our Senate is the constitutionally authorized venue to try a president for asserted crimes alleged to have been committed while in office, as found in USA v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. 2024)

Our hate Trump crowd knew they could not get a conviction in the Senate, so they ginned up an indictment and in violation of proper jurisdiction, went into the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, even though it is an improper venue, unless the president of found guilty by the Senate.

Our federal Constitution requires the Concurrence of two thirds of the Senate to convict, [which was not achieved] an impeached official. U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 cl. 6.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

And U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 cl. 7 commands.

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.

Keep in mind Trump was not convicted by the Senate which is granted a “sole Power to try”…,


So how can he [former President Trump], " . . . be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law…" without being convicted by the Senate for crimes alleged to have been committed while in office?
.

 

[SavannahMann]

Why do you say "stumbled". Our Constitution is clear that our Senate is the constitutionally authorized venue to try a president for asserted crimes alleged to have been committed while in office, as found in USA v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. 2024)

Our hate Trump crowd knew they could not get a conviction in the Senate, so they ginned up an indictment and in violation of proper jurisdiction, went into the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, even though it is an improper venue, unless the president of found guilty by the Senate.

Our federal Constitution requires the Concurrence of two thirds of the Senate to convict, [which was not achieved] an impeached official. U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 cl. 6.




And U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 cl. 7 commands.




Keep in mind Trump was not convicted by the Senate which is granted a “sole Power to try”…,


So how can he [former President Trump], " . . . be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law…" without being convicted by the Senate for crimes alleged to have been committed while in office?
.

So why did Nixon need a Pardon to prevent an indictment? Why did Clinton need a plea deal?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And if you were remotely honest you would admit the President sent them to the VP’s. Unless you think Pence conducted a break in to get the documents.

I have consistently said that I can easily imagine and believe files were accidentally stuck in wrong boxes. Accidents are part of being human. And I’ve believed in forgiving honest mistakes longer than I voted for Trump in 2016.

The test of character is not if you make mistakes. But how you respond to mistakes. Admit it and work to correct it is the way we expect our people to react.

Now here we get to the real issue. Both Biden and Pence apparently got these files in the line of duty. The files were accidentally stuffed into the wrong boxes. When discovered honest men notified the authorities. They could have burned the documents to cover up the mistake. They could have stuffed them back in the boxes and ignored it. But they told the truth.

By contrast Trump lied constantly and consistently. What does that tell you about his Character? What would you think if a Superior acted that way when you were in the Service?

VPs get a daily classified intel briefing with these documents, That is how they had access, but they are not allowed to keep or copy them. Biden had docs from when he was a Senator and thus had to have stolen them from the SCIF where he had access to them.

You have obviously never seen a classified document. They are marked so there is literally no way to "lose" them in other materials. There is no way my superiors could have done anything of the sort, because I had the same security clearance they did. On some topics, I was the subject matter expert on the ship, and not the Captain. That's how information is compartmented so no one knows too much.

 

[Orangecat]

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?”

Useful idiots are taught to shoot the messenger when the message hurts their feelings.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why do you say "stumbled". Our Constitution is clear that our Senate is the constitutionally authorized venue to try a president for asserted crimes alleged to have been committed while in office, as found in USA v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. 2024)

Our hate Trump crowd knew they could not get a conviction in the Senate, so they ginned up an indictment and in violation of proper jurisdiction, went into the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, even though it is an improper venue, unless the president of found guilty by the Senate.

Our federal Constitution requires the Concurrence of two thirds of the Senate to convict, [which was not achieved] an impeached official. U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 cl. 6.




And U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 cl. 7 commands.




Keep in mind Trump was not convicted by the Senate which is granted a “sole Power to try”…,


So how can he [former President Trump], " . . . be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law…" without being convicted by the Senate for crimes alleged to have been committed while in office?
.

I guess you don't understand when someone agrees with you.

 

[SavannahMann]

VPs get a daily classified intel briefing with these documents, That is how they had access, but they are not allowed to keep or copy them. Biden had docs from when he was a Senator and thus had to have stolen them from the SCIF where he had access to them.

You have obviously never seen a classified document. They are marked so there is literally no way to "lose" them in other materials. There is no way my superiors could have done anything of the sort, because I had the same security clearance they did. On some topics, I was the subject matter expert on the ship, and not the Captain. That's how information is compartmented so no one knows too much.

I’ve seen a few. Had some briefings that were classified both Secret and TS. But the point is that Biden was given the documents. And in the old days a SCIF was often their office.

I got a TS briefing in the middle of the Desert in Saudi Arabia. No SCIF in sight. And we were told the information was Top Secret not to be repeated and no notes were to be taken. I examined Ariel photographs from both Spy Satellites and an SR-71 in the old days. I was taught how the Encryption system worked and how the keys were created. That was considered Secret No Forn.

We were not always as careful as we should have been with the routine handling of classified information. I strongly doubt that in the White House the President only examines TS information in the Situation Room. I doubt the VP walks out of his office to a designated SCIF. I doubt the Senators do either. Most of those folks read the information in offices or in one of the hearing chambers when doing a closed hearing.