What point are you trying make with this link? This has nothing whatsoballsout to do with this discussion.
Market activity after Nixon resignation and Clinton impeachment?
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Were the Office Of President half of what you purport, there would be no need
for a White House Counsel.
Read that slowly, think about it a bit.
Have a tall glass of milk,
Have Mom change your clothes,
and get the hell back to your "positions."
One other item that needs to be mentioned. When the impeachment committee voted to recommend impeachment of Nixon, one of the articles was obstruction of justice. But note--it was not due to the firing of Archibald Cox, which had happened some months prior. ---The firing did not constitute obstruction of justice since the president has the constitutional authority to do so. ---Here with Trump, the left is trying to claim obstruction of justice because he fired Comey. ---There is no obstruction. He had the right to fire Comey for any reason ( in this case incompetence). A president can only be impeached and removed from office. He/She cannot be criminally charged with anything. --furthermore if charged when not president, they will simply be pardoned. Presidents are above the law. Period.
Last edited:
Do they have Google on the Interwebs where you live? It's a fascinating thing. I just googled Youtube Trump Lies, and WOW, is it chock-full (and *hilarious*) -- whole *industries* have broken out in the vain attempt to keep ahead of the verbal fece-flow....
But in your defense of The OrangePhilandererInChief, you leave out that he has not been yet spoken under the oath of a court setting. He's one hand-raising away from an orange suit. (Talk about camo!)
Last edited:
Please indicate where Trump has lied, threatened or bribed to obstruct justice. --
Whether a president can be charged in a regular criminal court remains to be seen. The concept has never been tested in the courts. There is wide disagreement among law professors, prosecutors and prominent attorneys.
There may be wide disagreement but I can assure you, presidents cannot be indicted. In fact the DOJ agrees from 1973 forward:
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution
"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution
of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive
branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked
to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and
to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to
reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclu
sion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation
of the Constitution.
The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal
contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) prepared a comprehensive
memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers
are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not,
whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment
or criminal prosecution while in office.
See
Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,
Re: Amenability of the
President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution
while in Office
(Sept. 24, 1973) (“ OLC Memo” ). The OLC memorandum con
cluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment
and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same
year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro
Agnew. In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury pro
ceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing
that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indict
ment and criminal prosecution.
See
Memorandum for the United States Con
cerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5,
1973),
In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972:
A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States
(D. Md. 1973)
(No. 73-965) (“ SG B rief’). In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was
careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitu
tionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.
In this memorandum, we conclude that the determinations made by the Department in 1973, both in the OLC memorandum and in the Solicitor General’s brief, remain sound and that subsequent developments in the law validate both the
analytical framework applied and the conclusions reached at that time. In Part
I, we describe in some detail the Department’s 1973 analysis and conclusions.
In Part n, we examine more recent Supreme Court case law and conclude that
it comports with the Department’s 1973 conclusions.2"
Last edited:
