Im Gipper said:fka ftc said:6 a and b.Im Gipper said:Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?Quote:
we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i
Those are not counts.
Counts start at paragraph 76.
I dont think many, including you Hawg, agree with me on this, but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS. This particular case alleges to have occurred post Jan 20, 2021 so that's not applicable here.aggiehawg said:That only applied to sitting Presidents. Impeachment and removal are the Constitutionally mandated for a President who has committed a crime. After they are no longer in office, they can be prosecuted. Hence why Ford pardoned Nixon to head this type of crisis off at the pass.Tibbers said:
Right but nothing will come of this instance. It rips the band aid off the precedent that presidents can't ever be charged regardless of wrongdoing. That's the point.
Great post, would read again.bangobango said:Im Gipper said:fka ftc said:6 a and b.Im Gipper said:Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?Quote:
we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i
Those are not counts.
Counts start at paragraph 76.
Dude, this guy knows five lawyers. Stop trying to call him out (just kidding, keep going).
fka ftc said:Great post, would read again.bangobango said:Im Gipper said:fka ftc said:6 a and b.Im Gipper said:Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?Quote:
we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i
Those are not counts.
Counts start at paragraph 76.
Dude, this guy knows five lawyers. Stop trying to call him out (just kidding, keep going).
I also would never hire an Aggie attorney FWIW (maybe Hawg, but she would decline I bet). The ones I have met in real life and several others on here are absolute trash showing poor understanding of the law, the US Constitution and practical matters.
I have heard that theory before and it does make some sense from an overall Constitutional argument. My understanding though is that OLC opinion limits it only to sitting Presidents and sidesteps the question about whether crimes committed while President are never prosecutable. Open question.Quote:
But Nixon likely could NOT have been charged, tried nor convicted by any other means other than impeachment. That's not a proven concept and it presents such significant issues regarding POTUS powers and immunities that Ford decided, quite rightly, to pardon to put an end to it.
POTUS has complete, absolute immunity as long as he believes he is acting in accordance with his oath of office. A subsequent DOJ has no right nor authority to go back and question those actions or decisions. Congress does through impeachment, but the Executive Branch is not supposed to prosecute / persecute former Executive Branches. To do so GREATLY undermines our current government construct.
Maybe. He can figure out on his own like I did, with that person in particular.bangobango said:fka ftc said:Great post, would read again.bangobango said:Im Gipper said:fka ftc said:6 a and b.Im Gipper said:Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?Quote:
we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i
Those are not counts.
Counts start at paragraph 76.
Dude, this guy knows five lawyers. Stop trying to call him out (just kidding, keep going).
I also would never hire an Aggie attorney FWIW (maybe Hawg, but she would decline I bet). The ones I have met in real life and several others on here are absolute trash showing poor understanding of the law, the US Constitution and practical matters.
You should tell Ken Paxton that.
fka ftc said:Maybe. He can figure out on his own like I did, with that person in particular.bangobango said:fka ftc said:Great post, would read again.bangobango said:Im Gipper said:fka ftc said:6 a and b.Im Gipper said:Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?Quote:
we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i
Those are not counts.
Counts start at paragraph 76.
Dude, this guy knows five lawyers. Stop trying to call him out (just kidding, keep going).
I also would never hire an Aggie attorney FWIW (maybe Hawg, but she would decline I bet). The ones I have met in real life and several others on here are absolute trash showing poor understanding of the law, the US Constitution and practical matters.
You should tell Ken Paxton that.
Maybe you clicked on the wrong forum. Here's some help getting you back to your playground.
https://texags.com/forums/25
Or continue your derailing and vague ad homs. I have forgotten more about the law than most lawyers ever bother to know.
Probably more important than someone taking time to count those posts and then derail a thread about it.bangobango said:
And let's not act like somebody with 45+ post on a workday during work hours is really doing anything that important.
No, the OLC issued an opinion in 2000 expressly about former Presidents and concluded that even if a former President was impeached and then found "not guilty" in the Senate trial, they could still be indicted and tried after they left office for the same issue, yet alone even they had not already been acquitted by the Senate.aggiehawg said:I have heard that theory before and it does make some sense from an overall Constitutional argument. My understanding though is that OLC opinion limits it only to sitting Presidents and sidesteps the question about whether crimes committed while President are never prosecutable. Open question.Quote:
But Nixon likely could NOT have been charged, tried nor convicted by any other means other than impeachment. That's not a proven concept and it presents such significant issues regarding POTUS powers and immunities that Ford decided, quite rightly, to pardon to put an end to it.
POTUS has complete, absolute immunity as long as he believes he is acting in accordance with his oath of office. A subsequent DOJ has no right nor authority to go back and question those actions or decisions. Congress does through impeachment, but the Executive Branch is not supposed to prosecute / persecute former Executive Branches. To do so GREATLY undermines our current government construct.
ETA: Although Mueller apparently thought Trump could be impeached, removed from office and indicted, otherwise why go to such lengths to entrap him into an obstruction charge?
Quote:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
And Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor, Cox, but an obstruction charge based upon that was not included in the draft of the articles of impeachment before he resigned.fka ftc said:
Can you link the opinion?
Even so, its an issue only SCOTUS can decide IMO.
Jumping the shark of subsequent POTUS / admins pursuing former POTUS / admin for "crimes" is absolutely 3rd world banana republic territory.
Even Ford and friends knew this.
You hadn't read Federalist 69 before deciding if the Constitution forecloses the prosecution of a former President?Quote:
Edited after reading the reference to Federalist 69
What part of the constitution is based on Federalist 69?TXAggie2011 said:You hadn't read Federalist 69 before deciding if the Constitution forecloses the prosecution of a former President?Quote:
Edited after reading the reference to Federalist 69
Aye aye aye. Make an effort, sir
From the first paragraph of the OLC opinion.TXAggie2011 said:
Surely a wealthy, superior, largely removed from the responsibility-of-daily-life being such as yourself should not have needed a piddly little Aggie to inform you of this longstanding opinion, yet alone to obtain it for you.
But alas, here we find ourselves. https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/expresident.htm
So the OLC opinion recognizes that the issue has never been before the courts, that reasonable arguments can be made for the opposing view, that their opinion / view is based on a different fact set and question (that being whether someone acquitted in court could be subsequently convicted through impeachment process) and they just happen to think their view is better than the alternative.Quote:
We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution. A 1973 Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") memorandum discussing the same question adopted the same position. As far as we are aware, no court has ever ruled on this precise issue. During the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in the late 1980s, though, a district court and both the House and Senate passed on the related question whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution should bar an impeachment trial for the same offenses. Each of those bodies concluded that the Constitution permits an official to be tried by the Senate for offenses of which he has been acquitted in the courts. Although we recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the opposing view, on balance, and largely for some of the same structural reasons identified in the United States's filing in the Agnew case and the 1973 OLC memorandum, we think the better view is that a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate. Our conclusion concerning the constitutional permissibility of indictment and trial following a Senate acquittal is of course distinct from the question whether an indictment should be brought in any particular case.
aggiehawg said:That only applied to sitting Presidents. Impeachment and removal are the Constitutionally mandated for a President who has committed a crime. After they are no longer in office, they can be prosecuted. Hence why Ford pardoned Nixon to head this type of crisis off at the pass.Tibbers said:
Right but nothing will come of this instance. It rips the band aid off the precedent that presidents can't ever be charged regardless of wrongdoing. That's the point.
Heard that, too. But it was getting too convoluted for me to fully understand his reasoning.Quote:
"Constitutional scholar "Robert Barnes says otherwise.
LOL.
Quote:
A magistrate judge will be presiding over the momentous Miami federal court hearing on Tuesday afternoon when former President Donald Trump makes his first appearance on charges of keeping classified documents at his Palm Beach estate and obstructing government efforts to reclaim them.
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman not U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was randomly assigned Trump's case will be handling the former president's arraignment and bond matters.
LINKQuote:
Goodman is a well-regarded veteran magistrate who once worked as a newspaper reporter in South Florida and later obtained his law degree and practiced civil litigation, including as a partner with the Akerman law firm in Miami.
Goodman is known not only for his legal wisdom but also for his wry humor in the courtroom.
Doral is closer to the courthouse?fka ftc said:
Any idea why Trump is staying the night at Doral vs M-A-L? Does it effectively offer him more security / privacy?
Just found it a bit odd but there may be a very clear reason.
No reasonable prosecutor would think that...Im Gipper said:
Dramatic effect to outage the reader mostly. But also, it is to provide context as to why the Feds think it is "dangerous" for Trump to have these documents.
TXAggie2011 said:You hadn't read Federalist 69 before deciding if the Constitution forecloses the prosecution of a former President?Quote:
Edited after reading the reference to Federalist 69
Aye aye aye. Make an effort, sir
Quote:
but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS.
WTF are you talking about?Im Gipper said:Quote:
but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS.
What are you talking about? The constitution specifically says that after someone's impeached, they can be tried and convicted after removal:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
You get this from Barnes Law? Or your secret source? Her name DelRiego?
He's conflating a couple of things. The reference is of course to Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 of the Constitution. Which said that the penalty of impeachment and conviction by sentence can only be removal from office and barred from future office. It then says the CONVICTED can still be subject to criminal proceedings.aggiehawg said:WTF are you talking about?Im Gipper said:Quote:
but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS.
What are you talking about? The constitution specifically says that after someone's impeached, they can be tried and convicted after removal:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
You get this from Barnes Law? Or your secret source? Her name DelRiego?
“He may be required to wear an ankle bracelet” @JoyceWhiteVance pic.twitter.com/VYnppuOpX0
— Joanna Lamb Looby 🇺🇸🌎🇺🇦 (@joannalamblooby) June 9, 2023
I think he may be saying a certain letter guy might be MFB...aggiehawg said:WTF are you talking about?Im Gipper said:Quote:
but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS.
What are you talking about? The constitution specifically says that after someone's impeached, they can be tried and convicted after removal:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
You get this from Barnes Law? Or your secret source? Her name DelRiego?
