Intelligent folks who have read and understand the Constitution don’t need further explanation.
So, you really had nothing to say and just wanted to be cute. Ok.
It’s OK to say you just don’t get it. But you do you.
I had no problem asking for some clarity. You are the one having difficulty explaining how your comment relates to anything I wrote. But that has always been you game . . . obfuscate, agitate and agitate . . . anything but a mature and productive discussion.
JWK
“The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that . . .” even the President “. . . remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office. Nixon v. Fitzgerald :: 457 U.S. 731 (1982)
You are arguing that the prosecution of Mendenez in federal court is unconstitutional.
I find it hard to believe that if what you are stating is accurate that his team of experienced defense lawyers would not be making that argument.
Which leads me to think what you are saying is inaccurate.
Do you have any real life experience in practicing the law including cases where constitutional issues such as what you are describing are argued in front of the judge?
What I am pointing out is some of the documented facts concerning our founders adopted way to deal with a party who exercises a federal public trust and is accused of violating that trust in the course of their activities.
Any member of Congress who is impeached and then found guilty by the Senate [our Constitution’s unique due process for one exercising a federal public trust who violates that trust] is then, upon being convicted, “. . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, as stated under Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7.
.
And the reason for having this unique due process procedure is explained by our Founders.
In Federalist No. 65:
Hamilton convincingly explains that the Senate and not our ordinary judicial system, was the proper venue as the place to try “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
“They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused,”
Hamilton went on to note:
“The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.”
What I have established is our founders prescribed due process to deal with a party who exercises a federal public trust and is accused of violating that trust in the course of their activities.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Today Menendez filed paperwork to run for reelection as an independent. He has absolutely no chance of winning, but he could syphon off just enough votes to elect a Republican. Is this Menendez attempt to gather some leverage and get democrats to force a favorable plea agreement in exchange for him dropping out?
1 Like
No, it’s so he can keep fundraising to pay his legal bills.
How exactly would “the Democrats” force a favorable plea?
it is the DoJ thats prosecuting him. A little pressure from above and Wala… magic plea deal.
Seems plausible to me considering the snake involved.
