Yet one more thing involving the President for which it would really, really help having it written it down in actual law.
So you don’t know the answer? You were just guessing?
I wasn’t aware the President can simply order the arrest of his political opponents. Got any examples of that occurring?
Now the Fulton County DA has opened his own criminal investigation of Trump’s efforts.
Based upon all known information.
All the information you know, or all known information?
Why is it so hard for you to answer this simple, direct question that I’ve asked you?
You made an assertion: back it up or withdraw it.
Let’s look at it this way. GA did not indict trump while he was in office, now did they?
So are you just trying to start a argument? Any discussion is pointless since they didn’t.
Nor did NY.
Nor did anyone else.
There is debate over whether or not states could… and no one did. Maybe because if there is debate or how legal it is, it would be better to wait a couple weeks until you know it’s kosher.
If you want to debate this, start a debate over whether or not they could, because in this case you are only being needlessly argumentative over a totally and completely moot point.
I was seeking information and clarification on a law or policy that I may not have known existed. It’s becoming increasingly clear from your evasiveness and from other posters’ responses that it is likely that no such law or policy exists and you were making unfounded assumptions and/or confusing the US DoJ with the state of Georgia. Why you can’t answer the question posed or simply abandon your assertion is certainly confusing.
He’s not being “needlessly argumentative”. You made a clear statement:
You’re being asked to back that up: “Cite?”
There is the DOJ memo that a sitting president may be immune from federal prosecution. But where are you getting the principle that a sitting president is immune from state prosecutions?
Arguments that the AG NY and the DA in Georgia did not prosecute may have other explanations, such as the state of their investigations. Has either one of them has expressly stated they consider the president immune from state criminal laws?
So, cite, please, to support your statement.
Modhat: @DrDeth & @Snowboarder_BO enough with the back and forth that is personal. @DrDeth if you can’t cite your statement that started this, at least stop defending it to the detriment of the thread. So cite from a reasonable site or stop talking about it.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
OK, so as I said There is debate over whether or not states could… and no one did. Maybe because if there is debate or how legal it is, it would be better to wait a couple weeks until you know it’s kosher.
I have worked for years with District Council, and even tho ianal I know how they work.
Now, you are the AG of a state.
You have two choices:
A. Indict now, and there will be two issues- “Can a sitting President be indicted by a state?” and #2 “Did a individual attempt to interfere with a election, as prohibited by law?” which seems to be a slam dunk.
or
b. Indict in a month or so and have a single issue: “Did a individual attempt to interfere with a election, as prohibited by law?” which seems to be a slam dunk.
If you go for option A, the defense will move to dismiss because of the first issue. Whichever way the court rules, it will be appealed and appealed again and again. This will take enormous amounts of time and money (and it is even possible that trump would try to get Federal lawyers to defend him on this) and defect from issue 2. Before you even try Option A, you will research and ask legal experts who will give many opinions, basically boiling down to “Well, there doesnt seem to be anything stopping it, but it’s never been tested”. That “never been tested” is a big red warning sign, if you ever want you case to come to a conclusion. What is happening now in the senate? The big defense is - you cant finish impeaching a man not in office.
or just go for Option B- and well, slam dunk.
Now, I am willing to bet the AGs of GA and especially NY know more law that we do. And they have opted for (well in the case of GA, it hasnt quite gotten that far) option B. Thus, Option B seems to be the correct legal choice here.
As I said originally “Cant do it until trump left Office.”. Maybe that could be phrased as “they dont want to do it until trump leaves office, for the reasons i have explained”. But in the end it’s the same.
My cite? The Attorney General of NY who has waited on her stack of indictments until after trump left office. (in fact I dont think she has even filed yet).
and here:
No U.S. President has ever been indicted. But on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2021, Donald Trump will no longer be president. And federal and state prosecutors will then be free to pursue criminal charges against him. They have the power, they have the evidence, and Trump will no longer have de facto immunity from prosecution.
There has been considerable discussion over whether Trump should be criminally charged after he leaves office. …Once Trump is out of office, he faces serious legal jeopardy. His capacity for survival has been demonstrated repeatedly. But as a non-president his ability to successfully attack his attackers may not work with federal and state prosecutors. They have the power and the evidence to force Trump into a courtroom to defend himself. And that will be something extraordinary to behold.
Note that this august legal journal has used the phrases: Trump will no longer have de facto immunity from prosecution. ….after he leaves office. and "Once Trump is out of office, he faces serious legal jeopardy…"
He (or she) should not be.
Up until very very recently, the point has been moot in that no President has committed crimes worth prosecuting.
That we know of.
Nixon was pardoned before he could ne prosecuted.
Ugh. I’m freaked out that PBS NewsHour has “Warning: Explicit Content” on their live YouTube stream of this trial. It’s all so bad.
I’m not sure how much faith I put in the Georgia actions. Is it possible that they are opening a case just so they can close it with “no crimes”?
FWIW, that Fulton County DA is a recently-elected Democrat.
Ok, thanks, that would make it much less likely.
In addition, my understanding is that Fulton county is heavily Democratic in its voting. That is, it won’t likely be a jury full of redneck Trumpers if there is a jury trial in that county.
Personally, I am glad both that I can watch unedited evidence and testimony, that those who would find it too upsetting are warned and thus have the option to not watch.