Is The President of the United States Above The Law?

[diver52]

Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.

Could the president shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted?

Could the president use his personal properties as federal grounds for profit?

Could the president use the powers of his office for personal financial gain?

What laws, in your mind, do not apply to a president? Murder? Theft? Extortion? Bribery?

The answer to all of that is... yes. Now, once the President leaves office he becomes a private citizen and subject to all of that. So if the statute of limitations hasn't run, then he can be prosecuted. Until then, the only thing that can impact him is impeachment and conviction in the Senate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the others trump supporters who choose to ignore a simple question, admit you believe Trump is above the law and make up some reason. It's not an honest response, but no one expects honesty from a trump supporter.

Can Trump Bleachbit his servers as a response to SanFran Nan's "Subpoena"?

Speechless?

Silence, your post did not deserve anything more. Are you trying to compete with some of the stupidest other posters?

Yeah. Left you without a response. I get that a lot

!

 

[B. Kidd]

After you first answer is the State Dept, FBI, CIA, etc. above the law?

Nice deflection, answer the question posed, or STFU.

The answer is within the structure of the poll, something which you chose to ignore.

Pulling a 'Chuck Todd' on us, eh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can Trump send a Bleachbit server and smashed up blackberry phones in response to the House's imaginary "Subpoena"?

 

[playtime]

Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.

here's a radical idea; how'z about :

DON'T

COMMIT

A

CRIME.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.

Could the president shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted?

Could the president use his personal properties as federal grounds for profit?

Could the president use the powers of his office for personal financial gain?

What laws, in your mind, do not apply to a president? Murder? Theft? Extortion? Bribery?

The answer to all of that is... yes. Now, once the President leaves office he becomes a private citizen and subject to all of that. So if the statute of limitations hasn't run, then he can be prosecuted. Until then, the only thing that can impact him is impeachment and conviction in the Senate.

And, according to the standard they set in 1998, Democrats do not believe perjury and obstruction rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

 

[bendog]

The H. of Rep. and the Senate as well as the Supreme Court and every person within US Jurisdiction - other than a foreign diplomat -are not above the law
Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is a crime consisting of obstructing prosecutors, investigators, or other government officials.

So... why wasn't Clinton removed from office?

He wasn't convicted by a 2/3 vote in the Senate.

And so, obstruction is not a removable offense; a President can commit the federal felonies of obstruction and perjury and not be removed from office.
Right?

That is up to the Congress to determine. The Constitution places the sole power to determine what is an impeachable offense in the hands of the House and the sole power to convict the President of those offenses in the hands of the Senate. There is no other authority which can determine what is or is not an impeachable offense.

The question is not about an impeachment, the question is, is the President above the law. Any president! The memo written and in effect by the DOJ has no legal merit, unless or until the Supreme Court decides it does.

When the gop Rehnquist SC held a sitting president could be civilly sued for actions he/she took BEFORE being elected and not having anything to do with official duties as Potus, I thought the partisan decision would come back to bite us on the ass.

And it directly led to Clinton perjuring himself over a disgusting action in the WH, but not really being related to his official duties. I thought, and still think, impeachment was meant to allow congress to remove a potus who abused his power for political or financial self interest, or who became legally incapable of carrying out his duties.

Clinton should not have been able to get away with perjury, but whether he should even have been impeached was another issue all together. His polls got better AFTER the idiots in the gop took that step.

With Trump there is a pattern of his using his office for personal gain, which in theory is illegal, btw. Renting hotel rooms, largesse for his spawn based on his official acts, and holding up aid for Ukraine to reopen its investigation. But up until the Biden thing, none of that really was a danger to our republic, and I think most of us just chalk up his Biden bs to another failure. LOL

 

[WEATHER53]

Yet another fake thread title that fakes a question while posing a fake editorial statement instead

 

[M14 Shooter]

With Trump there is a pattern of his using his office for personal gain, which in theory is illegal

Don't lie to yourself - Clinton acted with every bit as much corrupt intent as you want to believe Trump did.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.

Could the president shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted?

Could the president use his personal properties as federal grounds for profit?

Could the president use the powers of his office for personal financial gain?

What laws, in your mind, do not apply to a president? Murder? Theft? Extortion? Bribery?

The answer to all of that is... yes. Now, once the President leaves office he becomes a private citizen and subject to all of that. So if the statute of limitations hasn't run, then he can be prosecuted. Until then, the only thing that can impact him is impeachment and conviction in the Senate.

Wrong. There is nothing in COTUS, nor in The US Code that the President of the United States cannot be indicted and tried for any felony or misdemeanor. The only mention is the memo noted above, and until the Supreme Court rules what you claim, there is no legal reason to not bring a sitting President before a Grand Jury.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong. There is nothing in COTUS, nor in The US Code that the President of the United States cannot be indicted and tried for any felony or misdemeanor. The only mention is the memo noted above, and until the Supreme Court rules what you claim, there is no legal reason to not bring a sitting President before a Grand Jury.

The DoJ, and no one else, makes this decision.
But, its good to know you believe Clinton should have been indicted for perjury and obstruction while in office.

 

[peach174]

YES or NO

Explain and cite any authority if you believe a President of the United States is above the law.

This is a loaded question.
First of all.....the idiots that ask it today believe Hillary is above the law.
When Obama made deals with our enemies and gave them billions, he wasn't giving aid to our enemies. He was president. He's above the law.

Now.....a tweet is grounds for impeachment.

Is it a loaded question? Even if is was it deserves an honest response (something I do not expect to come from you). The DOJ memo suggests a president is above the law, quite an ambiguity since COTUS speaks to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is a crime consisting of obstructing prosecutors, investigators, or other government officials.

We have seen this year the President, and this week Sect. Pompeo, directing subordinates to ignore subpoenas legally issued by The Congress.

The corollary question to this thread is, does obstruction of justice meet the standard of a High Crime or a Misdemeanor; and if the subpoenas are legal.

They are not subpoenas they are letters.
Pentagon and OMB Subpoenaed in House Impeachment Inquiry
Until the House votes for a Impeachment Inquiry vote it is not official and the WH does not have to comply.


Now this 2nd set of letters they are including attachments that would be subpoenas yet they shifted the language to subpoena schedules.
Why?
Because the letters &subpoenas omit any penalty for non-compliance.
They can't assign a penalty because the letters do not carry judicial authority.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No. But the president is subject to a different law.

Where the fuck is that different law codified?

In the Constitution.

Then cite the Article and Section within the four corners of our founding document establishing those exceptions to common and criminal law establishing that superior status for the POTUS! Article & Section, Slick, without dodging!

Article 2, Section 4.

Article 2, Section 4.

You appear clueless, but do try again Smack!

Art. 2 Sec. 4 pertains to IMPEACHMENT, which is NOT part of any criminal action or which deals with Article Three Courts and criminal justice system in its process.

Your assertion that a sitting US President, "...is subject to a different law...." and can be justified by Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution is nothing but a pile of horseshit.

 

[diver52]

That is up to the Congress to determine. The Constitution places the sole power to determine what is an impeachable offense in the hands of the House and the sole power to convict the President of those offenses in the hands of the Senate. There is no other authority which can determine what is or is not an impeachable offense.

And, Congress determined obstruction is not a removable offense; a President can commit the federal felonies of obstruction and perjury and not be removed from office.
Right?

No. Congress did determine it was an impeachable offense. Rather, that Congress did. Otherwise, it wouldn't have ended up in the Senate. The Senate just didn't convict.

FYI..... Congress = House + Senate

The senate did not convict because, as is VERY clear form the records of the debate in the Senate and the House, the Democrats did not believe perjury and obstruction to be impeachable offenses.

Thus, Congress determined perjury and obstruction are not removable offenses; a President CAN commit the federal felonies of obstruction and perjury and not be removed from office.

But the Constitution does not say the current Congress is required to follow what prior Congresses did.

Having determined in 1998 that perjury and obstruction are not impeachable offenses, for what rational reason would the Democrats now argue otherwise?

No. The House did determine perjury and obstruction were removable offenses. The Senate determined the President wasn't guilty.

Also, taking your argument, if the Republicans determined that perjury and obstruction were impeachable offenses (and they did), for what rational reason would they argue otherwise now?

 

[westwall]

Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.

President Bill Clinton ring a bell?

Clinton committed perjury in a Court of law and was disbarred. I did not support the effort to impeach him however.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are not subpoenas they are letters.....
Why?
Because the letters &subpoenas omit any penalty for non-compliance.
They can't assign a penalty because the letters do not carry judicial authority.

And everyone who calls them a subpoena is lying to you.
Every one.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.

Could the president shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted?

Could the president use his personal properties as federal grounds for profit?

Could the president use the powers of his office for personal financial gain?

What laws, in your mind, do not apply to a president? Murder? Theft? Extortion? Bribery?

The answer to all of that is... yes. Now, once the President leaves office he becomes a private citizen and subject to all of that. So if the statute of limitations hasn't run, then he can be prosecuted. Until then, the only thing that can impact him is impeachment and conviction in the Senate.

So then, an impeachment inquiry in the house is not a 'kangaroo court'. Subpoenas issued by the house must be complied with and honored as legal means to compel testimony.

 

[diver52]

No. But the president is subject to a different law.

Where the fuck is that different law codified?

In the Constitution.

Then cite the Article and Section within the four corners of our founding document establishing those exceptions to common and criminal law establishing that superior status for the POTUS! Article & Section, Slick, without dodging!

Article 2, Section 4.

Article 2, Section 4.

You appear clueless, but do try again Smack!

Art. 2 Sec. 4 pertains to IMPEACHMENT, which is NOT part of any criminal action or which deals with Article Three Courts and criminal justice system in its process.

Your assertion that a sitting US President, "...is subject to a different law...." and can be justified by Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution is nothing but a pile of horseshit.

Well, you call up the AG and let him know about that right away. I'm sure he will be impressed.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.

Could the president shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted?

Could the president use his personal properties as federal grounds for profit?

Could the president use the powers of his office for personal financial gain?

What laws, in your mind, do not apply to a president? Murder? Theft? Extortion? Bribery?

The answer to all of that is... yes. Now, once the President leaves office he becomes a private citizen and subject to all of that. So if the statute of limitations hasn't run, then he can be prosecuted. Until then, the only thing that can impact him is impeachment and conviction in the Senate.

And, according to the standard they set in 1998, Democrats do not believe perjury and obstruction rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Perjury and obstruction were included in the articles of impeachment issued in 1998.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. The House did determine perjury and obstruction were removable offenses. The Senate determined the President wasn't guilty.

NO member of the Senate, in said debate, even considered the idea that Clinton did not commit the acts he was accused of.
Not ONE
Thus, the senate did not convict because, as is VERY clear form the records of the debate in the Senate and the House, the Democrats did not believe perjury and obstruction to be impeachable offenses.

I ask again:
Having determined in 1998 that perjury and obstruction are not impeachable offenses, for what rational reason would the Democrats now argue otherwise?