During today’s S.C. hearing regarding presidential immunity, it was repeatedly admitted by all that bribery is a prosecutable offense by the terms of our Constitution. What was repeatedly ignored with respect to our President is, if there is an accusation of our president engaging in bribery or another criminal offense, our Constitution provides the remedy and venue . . . impeachment first, and then a trial by the Senate.
The bottom line is, our nitwitted S.C. in general, has today babbled on and on over a subject matter constitutionally left in the hands of the House, and then Senate.
JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
It is an absolute abomination that we have a constitutionally ignorant nitwit, such as Michael Dreenben, in our Department of Justice, who does not acknowledge and identify the proper venue, to determine if a criminal act has been committed by a President.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
He is not in office. Removed from office isn’t the same as prosecuted for a crime committed outside the scope of his presidential duties . The question isn’t whether he is removed from office but whether he is convicted of a crime.
You have no basis for arguing that the constitution and you would never give this right to a dem president. Ever
The question is if a president has committed an offense while in office, and that matter has been left in the hands of Congress (the House and Senate)
See:
Hastings had been impeached in May 1787, the same month the U.S. constitutional convention opened. The House of Commons charged Hastings with a mix of criminal offenses and non-criminal offenses, including confiscating land and provoking a revolt in parts of India. Hastings’ trial by the House of Lords was pending while the American delegates were debating in Philadelphia. Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings. (In the end, The House of Lords acquitted Hastings in 1795.)
The Senate’s job is to determine if the president has committed a crime, but does not have authority to prosecute that crime. Once the Senate does its job and finds the president guilty of a crime, that opens the door for the president to be prosecuted under statutory law. Jurisdiction over whether a crime has been committed is left in the hands of the Senate.
Okie please cite to me where does it say that the senate and the courts don’t have concurrent jurisdiction over a president comiting criminal acts that are not in his capacity or in furtherance of his presidency
You keep rolling your eyes they are going to stay that way
Please let me know if this the argument you want to make in prosecuting Obama for killing an American citizen without due process
Provide a link showing the “Trump team” argued it is the Senate’s job to have a trial to determine if a president has committed a crime. I don’t recall the “Trump team” making that argument, but I could be wrong.
