Is The President of the United States Above The Law?

[bigrebnc1775]

YES or NO

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

Now I must ask are democrats 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.

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?

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

 

[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

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

Even back in the 18th Century, they couldn't imagine having POTUS sitting through a deposition on some stupid trivial matter. That's true even for Born in Kenya Usurper Obama.

See, Nixon V Fitzgerald (1972) and SCOTUS fucked up Clinton v Jones (1997)

You want the President - of any Party - sitting through endless depositions? You need your own country, one that does not share a border with us

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

 

[The Original Tree]

YES or NO

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

Obama was and is to this day. So was Hillary Clinton. The only apparent unifying factor that makes one Immune from The Law is if you are a Leftist and Promote and Support Global Governance and Socialism-Communism.

 

[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.

Another example of how Democrats dishonestly prey on the ignorant.

Agree
Like I said in another thread ,Trump is playing Chess and the Dems are playing checkers.

 

[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?

There is no debate in the Senate.

There most certainly WAS a debate in the senate.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol4.pdf

To wit:
Ted Kennedy:
President Clinton’s behavior was wrong. All of us condemn it.None of us condones it. He failed to tell the truth about it, and hemisled the country for many months. But nothing he did rises tothe high constitutional standard required for impeachment and re-moval of a President from office
Harry Reid:
What the President did was wrong. It was immoral. I don’t believe it constitutes a crime justifying his re-moval from office.

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?

 

[diver52]

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?

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.

You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"

 

[The Original Tree]

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 most certainly WAS a debate in the senate.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol4.pdf

To wit:
Ted Kennedy:
President Clinton’s behavior was wrong. All of us condemn it.None of us condones it. He failed to tell the truth about it, and hemisled the country for many months. But nothing he did rises tothe high constitutional standard required for impeachment and re-moval of a President from office
Harry Reid:
What the President did was wrong. It was immoral. I don’t believe it constitutes a crime justifying his re-moval from office.

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?

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

Orange Man Bad? Global Government ruled by Anti-Christ, GOOD?

 

[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 most certainly WAS a debate in the senate.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol4.pdf

To wit:
Ted Kennedy:
President Clinton’s behavior was wrong. All of us condemn it.None of us condones it. He failed to tell the truth about it, and hemisled the country for many months. But nothing he did rises tothe high constitutional standard required for impeachment and re-moval of a President from office
Harry Reid:
What the President did was wrong. It was immoral. I don’t believe it constitutes a crime justifying his re-moval from office.

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?

A statement before the trial is not a debate. There was no debate. And I have answered your question and see no point in repeating the response.

 

[peach174]

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?

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.

A bad hairdo is not a crime ding bat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House.

And so, you agree that, as the house determined Clinton;'s acts were impeachable, the huge majority Senate democrats who voted no, not because they believed Clinton did not commit those acts, but because they believed obstruction and perjury do not rise to the level of a removable offense, acted outside their constitutional role.

 

[diver52]

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?

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.

You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"

Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?

 

[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?

There is no debate in the Senate.

There most certainly WAS a debate in the senate.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol4.pdf

To wit:
Ted Kennedy:
President Clinton’s behavior was wrong. All of us condemn it.None of us condones it. He failed to tell the truth about it, and hemisled the country for many months. But nothing he did rises tothe high constitutional standard required for impeachment and re-moval of a President from office
Harry Reid:
What the President did was wrong. It was immoral. I don’t believe it constitutes a crime justifying his re-moval from office.

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?

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

Orange Man Bad? Global Government ruled by Anti-Christ, GOOD?

This is a fair summary of the Democrat's "rational reason" to change their position in this matter.

 

[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?

There is no debate in the Senate.

There most certainly WAS a debate in the senate.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol4.pdf

To wit:
Ted Kennedy:
President Clinton’s behavior was wrong. All of us condemn it.None of us condones it. He failed to tell the truth about it, and hemisled the country for many months. But nothing he did rises tothe high constitutional standard required for impeachment and re-moval of a President from office
Harry Reid:
What the President did was wrong. It was immoral. I don’t believe it constitutes a crime justifying his re-moval from office.

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?

A statement before the trial is not a debate. There was no debate. And I have answered your question and see no point in repeating the response.

Why do you lie to yourself like this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.

You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"

Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?

And so, you agree that, as the house determined Clinton;'s acts were impeachable, the huge majority Senate democrats who voted no, not because they believed Clinton did not commit those acts, but because they believed obstruction and perjury do not rise to the level of a removable offense, acted outside their constitutional role.

 

[diver52]

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?

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.

A bad hair do is not a crime ding bat.

It is if the House says it is. Seriously, it's just two words. What about "sole power" is so complicated?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is if the House says it is. Seriously, it's just two words. What about "sole power" is so complicated?

And so, you agree that, as the house determined Clinton;'s acts were impeachable, the huge majority Senate democrats who voted no, not because they believed Clinton did not commit those acts, but because they believed obstruction and perjury do not rise to the level of a removable offense, acted outside their constitutional role.

 

[diver52]

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.

You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"

Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?

And so, you agree that, as the house determined Clinton;'s acts were impeachable, the huge majority Senate democrats who voted no, not because they believed Clinton did not commit those acts, but because they believed obstruction and perjury do not rise to the level of a removable offense, acted outside their constitutional role.

There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.

I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.

Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.

You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"

Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?

And so, you agree that, as the house determined Clinton;'s acts were impeachable, the huge majority Senate democrats who voted no, not because they believed Clinton did not commit those acts, but because they believed obstruction and perjury do not rise to the level of a removable offense, acted outside their constitutional role.

The House voted to impeach because it was Republican. The Senate did not have a 2/3 Republican majority, so it voted not to convict. In the current situation, I expect the House will vote to impeach because it is Democrat. The Senate does not have a 2/3 Democrat majority, so it will vote not to convict. This is all about politics. But that is not the subject of this thread.