Former President stands trial

Originally Posted by teckk I'm going to ask one more time. Moderators, are political posts now allowed on LQ again? You are allowing them. Why?

Hopefully because they respect the adulthood of all the members and figure anyone opposed simply needn't click. Mods are not surrogate Parents. Do you still think you need a pair?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs If "the Officeholder" is now subject to "unlimited criminal liability" – and of course, if there is "criminal liability"

The Office of President is not above the law, and never has been above the law.

Article 2 of the Constitution exists to prevent prosecution for official duties.

It was not designed to protect the misappropriation of campaign funds.

But let's be honest here... When it comes to Mr. Trump, you have blinkers on. Let me ask you Mr. Sundialsvcs, how much money have you lost on your Trump Media shares?

Originally Posted by rkelsen The Office of President is not above the law, and never has been above the law. Article 2 of the Constitution exists to prevent prosecution for official duties. It was not designed to protect the misappropriation of campaign funds. But let's be honest here... When it comes to Mr. Trump, you have blinkers on. Let me ask you Mr. Sundialsvcs, how much money have you lost on your Trump Media shares?

Point: when he committed the crimes he was not an officeholder. So there are no applicable protections AT ALL against prosecution except those common to all political candidates.

Originally Posted by wpeckham Point: when he committed the crimes he was not an officeholder.

Yeah, that's a big point that some people seem to be missing.

Side note: People on Twitter are having a field day with the fact that Mr. Trump fell asleep in court... Sleepy Don, Don Snorleone, the Nodfather. LMAO.

When the French National Assembly was drawing up a scheme for a constitutional monarchy in 1790, they based it largely on the American presidential system rather than the British "unwritten" model. The monarch in effect was a hereditary chief executive. He and his family were inviolable and could not be legally held to account for anything that he did while in office. He could be deposed by the assembly if he refused to take the constitution oath, fled abroad, or was caught dealing with the enemy in time of war, and he then became an ordinary citizen liable for his actions, but he could not be charged with anything he had done whilst he was king. They took the same view as sundialsvc, namely that you cannot rule a country if you are liable to be thrown subsequently into jail for life by your enemies for anything you might do that they didn't like.

Of course, Louis XVI was charged with treason and executed after being captured in flight, but by that time France was a republic with a different constitution.

Originally Posted by hitest Yes. He paid off an adult film star to prevent her from coming forward about their affair. The US voters may have voted differently in 2016 if they knew about the affair. Election interference. Trump very narrowly won the 2016 election.

man.

Did he have more than one woman?
He got his wife over a night party with a friend, right? If I recall well, the web.

Originally Posted by Xeratul man. Did he have more than one woman? He got his wife over a night party with a friend, right? If I recall well, the web.

Yes, he sure did. Karen McDougal, former playboy playmate, was another one of his flings. She's part of this trial too.

On the BBC News the other day, a woman Trump supporter yelled, something like: "There's millions of us, with guns. If he's convicted, you'll have civil war on your hands." Maybe it could be arranged for her to share his cell?

You all had just better consider very carefully what it means to "put a President on trial, or in prison(!)," for whatever he did while in Office. (Or, "before he became President, but ]because he became President."

If you open this "can of worms," you will never close it again. And, very soon, you will run out of candidates.

The Supreme Court already ruled that the President was immune from civil liability, but the case before them did not postulate a criminal charge so the Court did not make any comment on that matter. (Courts [should ...] limit themselves strictly to the "four corners" of the present case.)

There are over 4,000 counties in this country which can convene a Grand Jury, and if you decide that the President can be imprisoned you will open a floodgate of never-ending criminal indictments. At 12:01 PM on Inauguration Day, the exiting President will be hauled off to jail and placed in solitary confinement ... forever. An abundance of world history – some of it recently cited here – tells you exactly what will be the outcome of this. Stated simply, "the US Constitution will fail," because Article 2 will now mean nothing and "powers" will no longer be separated. Under these conditions, no sensible person will step forward to do the job.

As I said: "Damned if I do, and Damned if I don't. Therefore, I quit." Very soon you have an election with no candidates. If that is what you want, you may proceed.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs You all had just better consider very carefully what it means to "put a President on trial, or in prison(!)," for whatever he did while in Office. (Or, "before he became President, but ]because he became President." If you open this "can of worms," you will never close it again. And, very soon, you will run out of candidates. The Supreme Court already ruled that the President was immune from civil liability, but the case before them did not postulate a criminal charge so the Court did not make any comment on that matter. (Courts [should ...] limit themselves strictly to the "four corners" of the present case.) There are over 4,000 counties in this country which can convene a Grand Jury, and if you decide that the President can be imprisoned you will open a floodgate of never-ending criminal indictments. At 12:01 PM on Inauguration Day, the exiting President will be hauled off to jail and placed in solitary confinement ... forever. An abundance of world history – some of it recently cited here – tells you exactly what will be the outcome of this. Stated simply, "the US Constitution will fail," because Article 2 will now mean nothing and "powers" will no longer be separated. Under these conditions, no sensible person will step forward to do the job. As I said: "Damned if I do, and Damned if I don't. Therefore, I quit." Very soon you have an election with no candidates. If that is what you want, you may proceed.

This is a false scenario put forward by those who support the insurrectionist in chief. In over 240 years we have never indicted another POTUS in criminal court, and we only came close ONE other time, and there is good reason. To get past a Grand Jury to indict, you have to prove to that GJ that your evidence supports bringing the charges. If you have no evidence of a crime, you will never get past that step to actually bring the charges.

Had Nixon not been pardoned preemptively the evidence might well have been sufficient. It sure looked sufficient to me, but we never got to see it tested!

If any future POTUS is investigated on leaving office, but there is no crime and/or no evidence, then there will be no charges. That is how this works. That is how this has ALWAYS been supposed to work, but we never tested that it DID work. Until now.

This is not an aberration or breakage of the system, this is the way it SHOULD be.
---------------------------
BUT LET US ASSUME that something like that scenario plays out and not one wants to run for office.
I have a solution.
Remember the draft?

The Supreme Court already ruled that the President was immune from civil liability,

What exactly is that about as Trump has been found to have defamed E. Jean Carrol in 2 civil suits.

The current trial is for actions by Trump long before he began running for office.

Presidents cannot or at least have not been prosecuted for actions taken during office even though those actions are based on a lie and kill large numbers of people. LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin and GW Bush and his fantasy WMD.

Trump was 'elected' in 2016 but not by a popular vote as he lost the popular vote to Clinton by a margin 5 times greater than Bush lost to Gore in 2000. Bush was also the only president in the last half century who received fewer electoral votes than Trump.

f you open this "can of worms," you will never close it again. And, very soon, you will run out of candidates.

I hope not. We don't need more criminals in Washington and I doubt we will ever 'run out of candidates'.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs There are over 4,000 counties in this country which can convene a Grand Jury, and if you decide that the President can be imprisoned you will open a floodgate of never-ending criminal indictments. At 12:01 PM on Inauguration Day, the exiting President will be hauled off to jail and placed in solitary confinement ... forever. An abundance of world history – some of it recently cited here – tells you exactly what will be the outcome of this. Stated simply, "the US Constitution will fail," because Article 2 will now mean nothing and "powers" will no longer be separated. Under these conditions, no sensible person will step forward to do the job.

H. Clinton and Biden were investigated a lot and they were not indicted for criminal or civil acts. All US citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, that is, no one is above the law. I may be dead wrong on this if the SCOTUS grants Trump immunity from prosecution.
Your nightmare scenario is a bit far fetched in my opinion. For a future president to stand trial he/she needs to commit crimes(like Trump). Of course we could have rogue justice departments like the abomination headed by Barr that lash out and jail political enemies (Michael Cohen).

Originally Posted by hazel When the French National Assembly was drawing up a scheme for a constitutional monarchy in 1790, they based it largely on the American presidential system rather than the British "unwritten" model. The monarch in effect was a hereditary chief executive.

The American founding fathers were divided over whether the president would serve for life or be hereditary. George Washington made it a point to not run for reelection after 8 years (2 terms) in office. He emphasized that he did not want to die in office and establish a tradition of "president for life". American presidents respected this tradition until Franklin Roosevelt broke it by being reelected to a third term in 1940 and a fourth term in 1944. So the United States passed a Constitutional amendment enforcing Washington's wishes.

That is an important point, jailbait, and by extension even more valuable. The wrioting of the Constitution was a battle all on it's own between bitterly divided poles, the Elites, like Alexander Hamilton, who wanted extreme power in the hands of the elite (go figure) and the more egalitarian liberals like Jefferson and Paine. The very fact that 2 extremes hammered out such a long-lasting and balanced set of guidelines, rights and responsibilities demonstrated (or should demonstrate today to those locked in Party Politics) that Checks and Balances works and just how badly it would suck had one dominated over the other. We NEED each other.

Originally Posted by wpeckham BUT LET US ASSUME that something like that scenario plays out and not one wants to run for office.

Don't give it legs. This is a nonsensical fantasy being pushed by those who failed high school History class.

Remember the Magna Carta?

Another poster wrote, "They'll never admit he is guilty, because that would mean he made fools of them." 'bout sums it up, I reckon.