Is The President of the United States Above The Law?

[litman]

Trump and his cult will find out the president is not above the law. Did you hear Johnson saying he had never seen obstruction of the president like trump has suffered. Is he fucking crazy. Apparently so as the republicans held a meeting as Obama was sworn in with Moscow mitch promising to stop Obama no mater what. It is funny to watch as Pompeo says anything all directly opposed to what he said while impeaching Clinton. GOP Great on phoniness.

 

[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.

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

DON'T

COMMIT

A

CRIME.

Tell that to the Dems running this shit show.

They are the only ones who have PROVABLY committed crimes.

 

[peach174]

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 st lying to you.
Everyone.

The media is and all the politicians who are calling them subpoenas are.
Totally agree with you on this one.

 

[westwall]

Trump and his cult will find out the president is not above the law. Did you hear Johnson saying he had never seen obstruction of the president like trump has suffered. Is he fucking crazy. Apparently so as the republicans held a meeting as Obama was sworn in with Moscow mitch promising to stop Obama no mater what. It is funny to watch as Pompeo says anything all directly opposed to what he said while impeaching Clinton. GOP Great on phoniness.

I think it is you who are going to be disappointed, cupcake.

 

[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.

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.

Definitely not a kangaroo court. I can't speak to the subpoena issue. I would think not, given how the Nixon process went. However, the House can certainly consider refusing to honor subpoenas as an impeachable offense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

That's the opposite of correct

 

[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.

Tell that to the Dems running this shit show.

They are the only ones who have PROVABLY committed crimes.

 

[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.

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

We've covered that. So let me just say.... no.

 

[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 st lying to you.
Everyone.

The media is and all the politicians who are calling them subpoenas are.
Totally agree with you on this one.

Another example of how Democrats dishonestly prey on the ignorant.

 

[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.

That's the opposite of correct

Really, where in the body of the law is a sitting President guaranteed absolute immunity? Cite the Code and Number.

 

[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.

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.

Let me know when SCOTUS does that.

 

[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.

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

DON'T

COMMIT

A

CRIME.

Tell that to the Dems running this shit show.

They are the only ones who have PROVABLY committed crimes.

Cute meme. How about addressing the ACCURATE claim I made.

Can't? Not smart enough?

We understand that you are a functional moron. Back to your group home now, run along...

 

[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.

We've covered that. So let me just say.... no.

The debate records of the House and Senate very clearly, and without ambiguity, say otherwise.

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?

 

[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.

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.

That's the opposite of correct

Really, where in the body of the law is a sitting President guaranteed absolute immunity? Cite the Code and Number.

The DoJ, and no one else, makes the determination on whom they will and will not try to indict.
But, its good to know you believe Clinton should have been indicted for perjury and obstruction while in office.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Imagine the chaos if the Supreme Court decides the President of the United States has absolute immunity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Imagine the chaos if the Supreme Court decides the President of the United States has absolute immunity.

By "chaos" you mean whining and crying of Democrats.

 

[diver52]

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?

There is no debate in the Senate. There is a trial. The Senators just sit there and listen to the trial and then vote to convict or not convict.

 

[Jitss617]

JC wtf is wrong with democrats? You all are insane

 

[bigrebnc1775]

YES or NO

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

Nope he is not but he's also not below the law either. Nor do you try to rewrite the law to entrap him

 

[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.

Tell that to the Dems running this shit show.

They are the only ones who have PROVABLY committed crimes.

Cute meme. How about addressing the ACCURATE claim I made.

Can't? Not smart enough?

We understand that you are a functional moron. Back to your group home now, run along...

hmmmm - alrighty then. give credible unbiased links & their respective codes in the law to each & every crime from each & every (D) that has provably committed such crimes, m'k?

chop chop.