While our S.C. babbles on and on today, they certainly appear to ignore our Constitution

[Ben_Natuf]

That would depend on whether they were alternate electors selected in the event either the courts or congress rule in your favor

[FreeAndClear]

@Ben_Natuf

That would depend on whether they were alternate electors selected in the event either the courts or congress rule in your favor

If they had fake signatures from their respective state then they were alternate only to reality.

[johnwk2]

@Ben_Natuf

I really don’t have much here, but I just wanted to pipe in with this.

It has always been my understanding, which could be wrong, that a person conducting “official acts” was immune from legal ramifications in the conduct of those official acts. The caveat being, official acts are authorized, regulated and legal. In the event a person committed an illegal act in the course of their duties, that act would not be “official” to begin with since it was outside of the authority granted and would certainly not be authorized.

When it comes to the President, before he could be charged or tried for illegal acts, he would first have to be impeached, found guilty, and removed from office. Then he could be criminally charged. The problem with this prosecution(J6) is he was impeached, and acquitted.

That said, whether a President can be charged with a crime in the conduct of his office after he leaves office is kind of gray. In theory, of course he can. But what constitutes the line between an official act with someone who has the powers of the Presidency and what would not be an official act and therefor unlawful? There are certainly things the President is empowered to do in the conduct of his duty that would be unlawful for anyone else.

AI, after presented with the following question (Is a guilty verdict of an impeachable offense by our Senate required before an accused is also liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, within our regular system of law?) reports the following:

Yes, a guilty verdict in an impeachment trial by the Senate is a necessary step before an accused official can be subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment within the regular system of law in the United States. Let me explain the process:

1. Impeachment Process:

   • A U.S. president or other federal officials can be impeached by the House of Representatives if they are suspected of committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.
   • The House of Representatives votes by a simple majority to approve one or more articles of impeachment. If approved, the accused is officially impeached.
   • However, impeachment alone does not remove the official from office or subject them to criminal penalties.

2. Senate Trial:

   • After impeachment, the process moves to the Senate for a trial. The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the trial, and senators serve as jurors.
   • The Senate trial operates much like a criminal trial. The prosecution (represented by “impeachment managers” from the House) presents evidence against the accused.
   • The president’s defense team then presents its opening arguments, followed by calling witnesses. Both sides can cross-examine witnesses.
   • Senators can also be called as witnesses and testify standing at their desks in the Senate chamber¹².

3. Verdict and Conviction:

   • When it’s time to deliver their verdict, each senator stands at their desk and simply states “guilty” or “not guilty” to each article of impeachment.
   • A two-thirds supermajority (67 senators) is required to convict and remove the president or other officials from office.
   • If the Senate fails to get the required votes for conviction, the accused is acquitted and retains their position.
   • If convicted, the official is removed from office immediately¹²³.

4. Punishment and Future Disqualification:

   • If the Senate convicts, the impeachment trial is over, and the official is removed from office.
   • Additionally, the Senate can vote on whether to disqualify the official from holding any future federal office. Disqualification requires only a majority vote of senators present.
   • There is no appeal process for impeachment decisions¹²³.

In summary, impeachment by the House is the first step, but conviction by the Senate is necessary for removal from office and potential disqualification from future federal positions. So far, no U.S. president has been removed from office through impeachment, but the process underscores the seriousness of holding public officials accountable for their actions.

[WuWei]

@FreeAndClear

@WuWei

@FreeAndClear

There is presidential immunity. It’s not limitless.

Where is the limit?

Within the purview of the presidency. Trying to retain office through use of fraudulent electors falls outside of that regardless whether it’s a political act.

Who says?

[johnwk2]

@WuWei

@FreeAndClear

@WuWei

@FreeAndClear

There is presidential immunity. It’s not limitless.

Where is the limit?

Within the purview of the presidency. Trying to retain office through use of fraudulent electors falls outside of that regardless whether it’s a political act.

Who says?

Seems to me FreeAndClear is describing a President who engages in misconduct and abuses his office of public trust by attempting “. . . to retain office through use of fraudulent electors.”

If that be true, I would imagine then it is within the delegated and sole powers of the House to draw up articles of impeachment, agree upon those charges, and then have the Senate, who has sole power to try impeachments, to conduct a trial for the alleged charges, (as was done to Trump) and if convicted, the party shall then be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

But I could be wrong as to what FreeAndClear is pontificating,

[conan]

@Ben_Natuf

When it comes to the President, before he could be charged or tried for illegal acts, he would first have to be impeached, found guilty, and removed from office. Then he could be criminally charged.

That has always been my understanding.

[Samm]

@dderatz

Want to elucidate?

I love it.

[FreeAndClear]

@WuWei

@FreeAndClear

@WuWei

@FreeAndClear

There is presidential immunity. It’s not limitless.

Where is the limit?

Within the purview of the presidency. Trying to retain office through use of fraudulent electors falls outside of that regardless whether it’s a political act.

Who says?

I do. I understand your question. But in this case i do.

[johnwk2]

@conan

@Ben_Natuf

When it comes to the President, before he could be charged or tried for illegal acts, he would first have to be impeached, found guilty, and removed from office. Then he could be criminally charged.

That has always been my understanding.

And if the above understanding be true - which is amply supported by the legislative intent for which a unique due process was adopted to deal with impeachable acts and actors- the question then arises, under what Constitutional authorities was Trump indicted and is now being prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for essentially the same charges which he was acquitted of under our Constitution’s unique process adopted to deal with a President who engages in acts which fall under the founders meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

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?

[WuWei]

Who are you?

[FreeAndClear]

@WuWei

Who are you?

I am having a discussion.

That’s all

I am just being fervent about it

[WuWei]

@FreeAndClear

@WuWei

Who are you?

I am having a discussion.

That’s all

I am just being fervent about it

You are inventing law out of thin air.

[FreeAndClear]

@WuWei

@FreeAndClear

@WuWei

Who are you?

I am having a discussion.

That’s all

I am just being fervent about it

You are inventing law out of thin air.

To some extent sure. My adamant position is based on what is written and what is missing.

[WuWei]

What is written?

[johnwk2]

@FreeAndClear

My adamant position is based on what is written

Ok, then address what is written HERE

[FreeAndClear]

@WuWei

What is written?

Impeachment. The whole sentence is restricted to impeachment and removal from office.

[conan]

@johnwk2

under what Constitutional authorities was Trump indicted

There isn’t one…and libs know it. But that’s not going to stop em from going on with this charade. Their hatred knows no bounds.

[FreeAndClear]

@conan

@johnwk2

under what Constitutional authorities was Trump indicted

There isn’t one…and libs know it. But that’s not going to stop em from going on with this charade. Their hatred knows no bounds.

Of course there is but only for the fake electors.

[WuWei]

@FreeAndClear

@WuWei

What is written?

Impeachment. The whole sentence is restricted to impeachment and removal from office.

Right. After which he can be tried for acts committed while in office.

[FreeAndClear]

@WuWei

@FreeAndClear

@WuWei

What is written?

Impeachment. The whole sentence is restricted to impeachment and removal from office.

Right. After which he can be tried for acts committed while in office.

Which part of the sentence is restrictive instead of expansive. In addition to removal they can be prosecuted.