- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:37 am to davyjones
quote:
I find it suspect that after extensive national discussion of this particular topic that you’re having problems recalling the guiding principle on the matter. For your convenience, here it is, to follow:
LINK
That's for federal prosecutions.
quote:
The OLC memorandum explained, however, that the use of the term ‘ ‘neverthe less” cast doubt on the argument that the Impeachment Judgment Clause con stitutes a bar to the prosecution of a person subject to impeachment prior to the termination of impeachment proceedings. Id. at 3. “Nevertheless” indicates that the Framers intended the Clause to signify only that prior conviction in the Senate would not constitute a bar to subsequent prosecution, not that prosecution of a person subject to impeachment could occur only after conviction in the Senate. Id. “The purpose of this clause thus is to permit criminal prosecution in spite of the prior adjudication by the Senate, i.e., to forestall a double jeopardy argu ment.”
I said this, ITT
quote:
The OLC memorandum next proceeded to consider whether an immunity from indictment or criminal prosecution was implicit in the doctrine of separation of powers as it then stood. OLC Memo at 20. After reviewing judicial precedents and an earlier OLC opinion,7 id. at 21-24, the OLC memorandum concluded that “under our constitutional plan it cannot be said either that the courts have the same jurisdiction over the President as if he were an ordinary citizen or that the President is absolutely immune from the jurisdiction of the courts in regard to any kind of claim.” Id. at 24. As a consequence, “ [t]he proper approach is to find the proper balance between the normal functions of the courts and the special responsibilities and functions of the Presidency
quote:
The memorandum also considered but downplayed the potential concern that criminal proceedings against the President would be “too political” either because “the ordinary courts may not be able to cope with powerful men” or because no fair trial could be provided to the President. Id. Although the fear that courts would be unable to subject powerful officials to criminal process “arose in Eng land where it presumably was valid in feudal time,” “[i]n the conditions now prevailing in the United States, little weight is to be given to it as far as most officeholders are concerned.” Id. Nor did the memorandum find great weight in the contention that the President, by virtue of his position, could not be assured a fair criminal proceeding. To be sure, the memorandum continued, it would be “extremely difficult” to assure a sitting President a fair trial, id., noting that it “ might be impossible to impanel a neutral jury.” Id. However, “there is a serious ‘fairness’ problem whether the criminal trial precedes or follows impeachment.” Id. at 26. And “the latter unfairness is contemplated and accepted in the impeach ment clause itself, thus suggesting that the difficulty in impaneling a neutral jury should not be viewed, in itself, an absolute bar to indictment of a public figure
The memo addresses the concerns about a "fair trial" often brought up on this board.
quote:
As a consequence of the personal attention that a defendant must, as a practical matter, give in defending against a criminal proceeding, the memorandum concluded that there were particular reasons rooted in separation of powers concerns that supported the recognition of an immunity for the President while in office. With respect to the physical disabilities alone imposed by criminal prosecution, ‘ ‘in view of the unique aspects of the Office of the President, criminal proceedings against a President in office should not go beyond a point where they could result in so serious a physical interference with the President’s performance of his offi cial duties that it would amount to an incapacitation.” Id. at 29. To be sure, the concern that criminal proceedings would render a President physically incapable of performing constitutionally assigned functions would not be “quite as serious regarding minor offenses leading to a short trial and a fine.” Id. But “in more serious matters, i.e., those which could require the protracted personal involvement of the President in trial proceedings, the Presidency would be derailed if the Presi dent were tried prior to removal.”
As I already stated on page 11:
quote:
I somewhat get the federal separation of powers argument, but a state prosecution wouldn't have those issues
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:39 am to Sam Quint
quote:
The reality is that you just have a shtick that argues against whatever the majority of the board believes.
This is not true at all.
Take the thread about the SCOTUS ruling on pols blocking people on social media. When that happened to Trump years ago, I thought it was a bad idea and the MAGA mob agreed. I maintain the same position and was accused of being a "contrarian' for maintaining the same belief/argument
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If she's disbarred, no.
Stopped right there. Everything else is bound to be bullshite mental masturbation.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:42 am to Sam Quint
He is the voice of reason. He is logic.
Follow this fat middle aged attorney who spends 12 hours a day on tigerdroppings as your shepherd.
lol.
Follow this fat middle aged attorney who spends 12 hours a day on tigerdroppings as your shepherd.
lol.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:45 am to doya2
Hope she dresses for it.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:03 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Powerful black women are essentially untouchable in today's America.
And in a place like Atlanta she could kill a white man on the street in broad daylight and get away with it.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:08 am to azcatiger
quote:
Powerful black women are essentially untouchable in today's America.
Who is Marilyn Mosby?
Who is Tiffany Henyard?
Fani is going to jail. It might take a year or two, but she gone.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:11 am to Rebel
I believe you are correct.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
She’ll get to continue to interfere with the presidential election until that happens- IF it ever happens.
Hooray for justice.
Hooray for justice.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:15 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
She’ll get to continue to interfere with the presidential election until that happens- IF it ever happens.
Hooray for justice.
Well yeah. She's allowed to due process and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
She thought she could play loose with the rules because Kamala et al, had her back.
She was the medias darling when she brought the indictments.
She flew to close to the sun and is about to learn she was a disposable pawn.
She was the medias darling when she brought the indictments.
She flew to close to the sun and is about to learn she was a disposable pawn.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:17 am to Vacherie Saint
I doubt this case moves forward at all.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:17 am to Rebel
quote:
She thought she could play loose with the rules because Kamala et al, had her back.
I don't even think it's this. As other people have said, she has that HNIC persona like the others you mentioned, and they just think they can get away with anything once they have a small bit of power.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
So then your answer to my question is that the DA in Ruston can compel the President to appear at the courthouse annex every month for a year until a trial is finally held? Pitiful
PitifulPosted on 3/16/24 at 9:22 am to Rebel
Its mere existence is cannon fodder for Dems. Macafee is a coward just like Kemp.
You know who is not a coward? Fani
You know who is not a coward? Fani
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
HNIC
Jesus Christ dude.
Log off for a couple of hours
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:24 am to davyjones
Well said. Fani doesn’t gaf.
If she did, we wouldn’t be here.
If she did, we wouldn’t be here.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:26 am to VOR
quote:
There has never been any actual prejudice to the defense, in any event.
Imagine being this stupid.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 9:32 am to davyjones
quote:
So then your answer to my question is that the DA in Ruston can compel the President to appear at the courthouse annex every month for a year until a trial is finally held?
Where in the memo cited do they argue differently?
Again, the memo discusses (and dismisses) the argument you are making.
quote:
The memorandum also considered but downplayed the potential concern that criminal proceedings against the President would be “too political” either because “the ordinary courts may not be able to cope with powerful men” or because no fair trial could be provided to the President. Id. Although the fear that courts would be unable to subject powerful officials to criminal process “arose in Eng land where it presumably was valid in feudal time,” “[i]n the conditions now prevailing in the United States, little weight is to be given to it as far as most officeholders are concerned.” Id. Nor did the memorandum find great weight in the contention that the President, by virtue of his position, could not be assured a fair criminal proceeding. To be sure, the memorandum continued, it would be “extremely difficult” to assure a sitting President a fair trial, id., noting that it “ might be impossible to impanel a neutral jury.” Id. However, “there is a serious ‘fairness’ problem whether the criminal trial precedes or follows impeachment.” Id. at 26. And “the latter unfairness is contemplated and accepted in the impeachment clause itself, thus suggesting that the difficulty in impaneling a neutral jury should not be viewed, in itself, an absolute bar to indictment of a public figure
quote:
The OLC memorandum also considered the degree to which a criminal prosecu tion of a sitting President is incompatible with the notion that the President pos sesses the power to assert executive privilege in criminal cases. The memorandum suggested that “the problem of Executive privilege may create the appearance of so serious a conflict of interest as to make it appear improper that the President should be a defendant in a criminal case.” Id. “If the President claims the privi lege he would be accused of suppressing evidence unfavorable to him. If he fails to do so the charge would be that by making available evidence favorable to him he is prejudicing the ability of future Presidents to claim privilege.” Id. Ultimately, however, the memorandum did not conclude that the identification of the possible incompatibility between the exercise of certain executive powers and the criminal prosecution of a sitting President sufficed to resolve the constitutional question whether a sitting President may be indicted or tried
The argument that memo relies on to dissuade federal prosecutions is based in separations of powers. This argument, by its very nature, can only apply to federal prosecutions (as the status of federal authorities in conflict is what leads to the separation of powers analysis).
Page 14 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News