---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Im Gipper said:

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

fka ftc said:

6 a and b.

---

Im Gipper said:

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Im Gipper said:

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

fka ftc said:

6 a and b.

---

Im Gipper said:

Those are not counts.

Counts start at paragraph 76.

---

bangobango said:

Dude, this guy knows five lawyers. Stop trying to call him out (just kidding, keep going).

---

Great post, would read again.

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.

---

---

+ 4 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Im Gipper said:

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

fka ftc said:

6 a and b.

---

Im Gipper said:

Those are not counts.

Counts start at paragraph 76.

---

bangobango said:

Dude, this guy knows five lawyers. Stop trying to call him out (just kidding, keep going).

---

fka ftc said:

Great post, would read again.

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.

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.

---

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.

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?

---

---

+ 5 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Im Gipper said:

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

fka ftc said:

6 a and b.

---

Im Gipper said:

Those are not counts.

Counts start at paragraph 76.

---

bangobango said:

Dude, this guy knows five lawyers. Stop trying to call him out (just kidding, keep going).

---

fka ftc said:

Great post, would read again.

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.

---

bangobango said:

You should tell Ken Paxton that.

---

Maybe. He can figure out on his own like I did, with that person in particular.

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.

---

---

+ 6 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Im Gipper said:

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

fka ftc said:

6 a and b.

---

Im Gipper said:

Those are not counts.

Counts start at paragraph 76.

---

bangobango said:

Dude, this guy knows five lawyers. Stop trying to call him out (just kidding, keep going).

---

fka ftc said:

Great post, would read again.

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.

---

bangobango said:

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.

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.

---

Hardest working man in law?

bangobango said:

---

And let's not act like somebody with 45+ post on a workday during work hours is really doing anything that important.

---

Probably more important than someone taking time to count those posts and then derail a thread about it.

https://texags.com/forums/25

I am 45 and for the most part retired from daily work. Its nice to have the personal, professional and financial freedoms to engage in discussions on the Internet I find interesting. But the jealousy by you and others is noted.

Its sad you find it necessary to post comments not related to the topic, yet here we are.

What's your purpose since you certainly are not here to discuss the thread topic?

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

Also, see Federalist 69:

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.

---

Don't really see how you perceive jealousy from my post joking about you bragging about how much smarter you are than everyone else, and how much you forgot, but ok? Derail over

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.

Edited after reading the reference to Federalist 69. I would hope Hamilton had in mind true crimes that would be otherwise indefensible if POTUS committed them in a manner inconsistent with his oath of office, which would first be handled by impeachment - thus maintaining a true separation of powers and keeping the Executive in check.

In this particular instance, we have a subsequent EB going after a previous EB, skipping the impeachment process. That this is also being done against a opposing political candidate who has declared themselves as a candidate would almost certainly be seen as an abuse of power by the current POTUS / EB, which Hamilton was clearly in favor of the Executive NOT having such unlimited powers.

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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Edited after reading the reference to Federalist 69

---

You hadn't read Federalist 69 before deciding if the Constitution forecloses the prosecution of a former President?

Aye aye aye. Make an effort, sir

---

Quote:

---

Edited after reading the reference to Federalist 69

---

TXAggie2011 said:

You hadn't read Federalist 69 before deciding if the Constitution forecloses the prosecution of a former President?

Aye aye aye. Make an effort, sir

---

What part of the constitution is based on Federalist 69?

oh wait, you mean I didn't incorporate a formal reference to an op ed piece written a couple hundred years ago that most people still think was written by a black dude in a broadway musical. Sorry bud.

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

---

From the first paragraph of the OLC opinion.

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.

---

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.

Do not see anything there inconsistent with what I have been saying. Its up for debate, not settled science, and arguments for charging FPOTUS's for alleged crimes committed during their time in office is messy at best.

But in this instance, its irrelevant as the crimes alleged against Trump occurred after his time in office.

---

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.

---

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.

---

"Constitutional scholar "Robert Barnes says otherwise.
LOL.

For the record, I don't think Barnes believes any of these hilariously bad takes he makes. He just knows people out there will lap it up and he can profit on it.

Quote:

---

"Constitutional scholar "Robert Barnes says otherwise.

LOL.

---

Heard that, too. But it was getting too convoluted for me to fully understand his reasoning.

I'm old enough to remember when we wanted Bill Clinton charged with perjury after his impeachment trial. He basically took a plea to a civil citation. Back then conservatives, did not want a strong executive branch, fearful of how the power could be wielded.

Just so people don't get flipped out tomorrow. Judge Cannon won't be handling the arraignment tomorrow. She's still the lead judge but Magistrates handle arraignments.

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

LINK

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.

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.

---

Doral is closer to the courthouse?

I am sure it is, but with motorcade he's probably only 45 minutes when at M-A-L. They may have asked him to just to avoid a 40-mile Free Trump MAGA parade route from both a traffic and security standpoint.

I first thought it odd they landed Trump's plane at MIA, but noticed its adjacent to Doral.

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.

---

No reasonable prosecutor would think that...

---

Quote:

---

Edited after reading the reference to Federalist 69

---

TXAggie2011 said:

You hadn't read Federalist 69 before deciding if the Constitution forecloses the prosecution of a former President?

Aye aye aye. Make an effort, sir

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS.

---

Im Gipper said:

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?

---

WTF are you talking about?

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Quote:

---

but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS.

---

Im Gipper said:

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?

---

aggiehawg said:

WTF are you talking about?

---

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.

The OLC opinion takes the case of a previous ruling where someone acquitted criminally could or could not then be subject to impeachment. The ruling was in favor saying Congress retained its impeachment ability regardless of criminal proceedings.

The reverse of this is not decided science. In that case, can you criminally try a POTUS for alleged crimes committed whilst POTUS without impeachment and conviction by the Senate. That is not what the Constitution says.

I'm Gipper believes it is settled science even though the OLC itself says its never been subject to review and that I am a fraud or poser or other similar ad hom reference.

It is also interesting to note the Joe Biden could (and should) be criminally charged for his crimes as Vice President. Unlike Trump, he has no executive privilege claim to assert only Obama could provide him that. So no impeachment required for him to stand criminal trial.

In order to remove him from current office you would need to impeach and convict.

Also note the concept of sitting POTUS cannot face criminal indictment that was often referenced during Trump impeachment is noting more than that, a concept.

“He may be required to wear an ankle bracelet” ⁦@JoyceWhiteVance⁩ pic.twitter.com/VYnppuOpX0

— Joanna Lamb Looby 🇺🇸🌎🇺🇦 (@joannalamblooby) June 9, 2023

Loading full tweet…

Trans John Kerry says Trump could be forced to wear ankle monitor.

What say all you jailhouse lawyers?

Pretty sure staff should put an ankle monitor on you for making us look at that thing on CNN. Woof.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Quote:

---

but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS.

---

Im Gipper said:

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?

---

aggiehawg said:

WTF are you talking about?

---

I think he may be saying a certain letter guy might be MFB...