quote:
I think this is an interesting argument when combined with his former attorneys arguing he could not be impeached once leaving office. This one leave a situation where a president could poison his SOS a minute before his term needed and be immune from any prosecution.

Couldn’t an argument be made tat you could easily charge a president with a fake crime for simply not liking him?

And you wouldn’t need impeachment to do so.

And in today’s world that is how you poison or assassinate someone.

Kind of like what they are doing now to Trump.

This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 6:04 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Obtuse1

Westside Bodymore Yo

Member since Sep 2016

25907 posts

Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:26 am to dgnx6

quote:
Couldn’t an argument be made tat you could easily charge any citizen with a fake crime for simply not liking him?

FIFY

We could both be charged with spurious crimes by COB today. That is the reason there is a cornucopia of checks and balances. That doesn't mean thousands upon thousands of people haven't been wrongfully accused and convicted in this country since its founding.

None of that is here nor there vis-a-vis my opinion ITT. I am not arguing about whether or not Trump is being charged because people don't like him. I am arguing about the application of a specific clause of the Constitution and how it applies to the case at bar. The clause clearly (IMO) was crafted to prevent the removal of the judicial branch check and I see no way to read it to show it meant to remove that check.

Keep in mind I am arguing about what is and have no interest in arguing what should be in a case where I think the constitutional language is clear. That is an argument best left to philosophers and more erudite thinkers.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board