Dixon Memo declared null and void, the President of the United States is fully subject to investigation, indictment, arrest, prosecution and imprisonment while in office

[SottoVoce]

@DougBH

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@DougBH

Forget Trump for a minute. Lets pretend this ruling has nothing too do with him.

Do we really want future Presidents subject to various state cases brought against him by states where the opposite political party is in control of the prosecutors and judicial system?

That could effectively overturn the results of an election.

If the case is bad enough and there is strong enough proof, that should result in an impeachment, conviction in the Senate, and then charges could be brought.

This is nothing new. Nixon v Fitzgerald and Clinton v Jones state a President can face criminal charges while in office and while the President has immunity from civil charges brought against actions while in office, they do not have immunity from civil charges brought from actions before office.

The Trump attorneys tried to use a DoJ memo as legally binding or as precedent, which it is not. It’s simply how the DoJ decided to treat presidential indictments.

Please cite the precedent you mention. Because neither of those said any such thing AFAIK.

Nixon v Fitzgerald

Richard NIXON, Petitioner v. A. Ernest FITZGERALD. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Taken at face value, the Court’s position that, as a matter of constitutional law, the President is absolutely immune should mean that he is immune not only from damages actions but also from suits for injunctive relief, criminal prosecutions and, indeed, from any kind of judicial process. But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. The Constitution itself provides that impeachment shall not bar “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Similarly, our cases indicate that immunity from damages actions carries no protection from criminal prosecution.

Clinton v Jones

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)

The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts-- i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 749, 752, and n. 32–provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct.

Your quote from Nixon v Fitzgerald is from the dissenting opinion, not the opinion of the court.

Clinton v Jones was about immunity in civil lawsuits.

Maybe that will wind up being the opinion for the highest courts to hear this case. They hardly are precedent, though.

From the findings

While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President’s official acts.

This case was about a civil lawsuit brought against the President for an action while in office. The last bolded statement I gave repeats that and says the president has immunity from such a lawsuit. Immediately prior to that, the first bolded statement, says the President does not have immunity (bar) from “every exercise of jurisdiction (indictment).”

The dissenting opinion furthered what was already said in the findings.

[zantax]

@SottoVoce

@DougBH

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@DougBH

Forget Trump for a minute. Lets pretend this ruling has nothing too do with him.

Do we really want future Presidents subject to various state cases brought against him by states where the opposite political party is in control of the prosecutors and judicial system?

That could effectively overturn the results of an election.

If the case is bad enough and there is strong enough proof, that should result in an impeachment, conviction in the Senate, and then charges could be brought.

This is nothing new. Nixon v Fitzgerald and Clinton v Jones state a President can face criminal charges while in office and while the President has immunity from civil charges brought against actions while in office, they do not have immunity from civil charges brought from actions before office.

The Trump attorneys tried to use a DoJ memo as legally binding or as precedent, which it is not. It’s simply how the DoJ decided to treat presidential indictments.

Please cite the precedent you mention. Because neither of those said any such thing AFAIK.

Nixon v Fitzgerald

Richard NIXON, Petitioner v. A. Ernest FITZGERALD. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Taken at face value, the Court’s position that, as a matter of constitutional law, the President is absolutely immune should mean that he is immune not only from damages actions but also from suits for injunctive relief, criminal prosecutions and, indeed, from any kind of judicial process. But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. The Constitution itself provides that impeachment shall not bar “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Similarly, our cases indicate that immunity from damages actions carries no protection from criminal prosecution.

Clinton v Jones

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html

The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts-- i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 749, 752, and n. 32–provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct.

Your quote from Nixon v Fitzgerald is from the dissenting opinion, not the opinion of the court.

Clinton v Jones was about immunity in civil lawsuits.

Maybe that will wind up being the opinion for the highest courts to hear this case. They hardly are precedent, though.

From the findings

While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President’s official acts.

This case was about a civil lawsuit brought against the President for an action while in office. The last bolded statement I gave repeats that and says the president has immunity from such a lawsuit. Immediately prior to that, the first bolded statement, says the President does not have immunity (bar) from “every exercise of jurisdiction (indictment).”

The dissenting opinion furthered what was already said in the findings.

Any number of type of cases involving the President can come before the court, the court saying they have jurisdiction in some is not saying he may be thrown in prison by the court. There is only one constitutional method to remove him from office and it does not include the court.

[SottoVoce]

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@DougBH

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@DougBH

Forget Trump for a minute. Lets pretend this ruling has nothing too do with him.

Do we really want future Presidents subject to various state cases brought against him by states where the opposite political party is in control of the prosecutors and judicial system?

That could effectively overturn the results of an election.

If the case is bad enough and there is strong enough proof, that should result in an impeachment, conviction in the Senate, and then charges could be brought.

This is nothing new. Nixon v Fitzgerald and Clinton v Jones state a President can face criminal charges while in office and while the President has immunity from civil charges brought against actions while in office, they do not have immunity from civil charges brought from actions before office.

The Trump attorneys tried to use a DoJ memo as legally binding or as precedent, which it is not. It’s simply how the DoJ decided to treat presidential indictments.

Please cite the precedent you mention. Because neither of those said any such thing AFAIK.

Nixon v Fitzgerald

Richard NIXON, Petitioner v. A. Ernest FITZGERALD. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Taken at face value, the Court’s position that, as a matter of constitutional law, the President is absolutely immune should mean that he is immune not only from damages actions but also from suits for injunctive relief, criminal prosecutions and, indeed, from any kind of judicial process. But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. The Constitution itself provides that impeachment shall not bar “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Similarly, our cases indicate that immunity from damages actions carries no protection from criminal prosecution.

Clinton v Jones

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)

The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts-- i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 749, 752, and n. 32–provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct.

Your quote from Nixon v Fitzgerald is from the dissenting opinion, not the opinion of the court.

Clinton v Jones was about immunity in civil lawsuits.

Maybe that will wind up being the opinion for the highest courts to hear this case. They hardly are precedent, though.

From the findings

While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President’s official acts.

This case was about a civil lawsuit brought against the President for an action while in office. The last bolded statement I gave repeats that and says the president has immunity from such a lawsuit. Immediately prior to that, the first bolded statement, says the President does not have immunity (bar) from “every exercise of jurisdiction (indictment).”

The dissenting opinion furthered what was already said in the findings.

Any number of type of cases involving the President can come before the court, the court saying they have jurisdiction in some is not saying he may be thrown in prison by the court. There is only one constitutional method to remove him from office and it does not include the court.

This is not about removing him from office. This is about what types of lawsuits can and cannot be brought before a sitting president. Impeachment is a legislative body bringing charges against a president which can lead to removal from office if convicted. These cases deal with situations in which charges arise from non-legislative bodies.

[biggestal99]

@Blackwolf

DEMOCRAT Party

Democratic Party,

Allan

[WuWei]

@DougBH

Forget Trump for a minute. Lets pretend this ruling has nothing too do with him.

Do we really want future Presidents subject to various state cases brought against him by states where the opposite political party is in control of the prosecutors and judicial system?

That could effectively overturn the results of an election.

If the case is bad enough and there is strong enough proof, that should result in an impeachment, conviction in the Senate, and then charges could be brought.

Yes. Yes we do.

[AmusedObserver]

So-called Judge Marrero, that is.

[Cynic]

But any other elected or unelected position, including equal branches of government, can?

At what point will you admit that you view the president as a pseudo king?

[Plasmaball]

Eh it’s not about being a king. It’s about the president having a full plate and cant be distracted by these things.

And people will say we have a system in place so this is redundant at best.

The issue is when you have a majority government that is in the same party protecting that person. That’s why you see this
Issue.

[TommyLucchese]

@Plasmaball

Eh it’s not about being a king. It’s about the president having a full plate and cant be distracted by these things.

And people will say we have a system in place so this is redundant at best.

The issue is when you have a majority government that is in the same party protecting that person. That’s why you see this
Issue.

Yeah well this is what happens when you elect an incompetent moron who can’t get anyone smart or talented to work for him.

[toreyj01]

I honestly don’t see this as some sort of pejorative, and if it is one, it’s not that bad.

Sort of clunky and ham handed to me. And I know BlackWolf was kidding, this is just an aside.

[zantax]

@Cynic

But any other elected or unelected position, including equal branches of government, can?

At what point will you admit that you view the president as a pseudo king?

I am pretty sure kings can’t be impeached.

[mwevans1234]

Ain’t nothin gonna happen…

[Plasmaball]

No that’s the legal argument they use…that’s a scotus judge stating that…

[MoleUK]

Didn’t take long.

https://twitter.com/BobVanVoris/status/1181331078012907525

[Kevhead]

@zantax

Nonsense, if you are prevented from carrying out the duties of the office you have been effectively removed from office. Arrest and or imprisonment is removal from office, period.

I have a brilliant idea. Dont be a criminal and run for office

[gwhit]

No, but nothing in the Constitution says you can’t thrown them in jail for a crime. And if he is in jail he could be deemed unable to perform his durties and get 25thed out.

[gwhit]

@Cynic

At what point will you admit that you view the president as a pseudo king?

When Admiral General Trump is not longer POTUS?

[Konssurvative1]

@DougBH

Do we really want future Presidents subject to various state cases brought against him by states where the opposite political party is in control of the prosecutors and judicial system?

Yes…dont be a ■■■■■■■ crooked politician thinking he or she is above the law…or the judiciary can and will investigate, indict, take to trial and potentially punish a president who lies, steals, cheats and breaks the law.

■■■■■■■ straight. No president is and can not be deemed above the law.

Nuff said

[TommyLucchese]

You were dumb enough to think that the judiciary would take a position that would remove themselves from the checks and balances of the constitution. That’s where you’re at lol.

[Optrader]

@Kevhead

@zantax

Nonsense, if you are prevented from carrying out the duties of the office you have been effectively removed from office. Arrest and or imprisonment is removal from office, period.

I have a brilliant idea. Dont be a criminal and run for office

Who WOULD you run on the Democrat side then?