Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Isn't saying someone is ABOVE THE LAW an invitation to be crushed/destroyed/annihilated? What SANE person would ever support THAT?

Isn't saying someone is ABOVE THE LAW an invitation to be crushed/destroyed/annihilated? What SANE person would ever support THAT?

Posted - June 3, 2018

Responses


  • 1233
    Nobody is saying that. You don't understand the law.

    The question of whether Trump can pardon himself doesn't make sense. You can only be pardoned if charged. The president can't be charged. So the situation never arises. A president can be impeached. After a successful impeachment, charges could be brought.

    Just because someone has a power doesn't mean it's ok to use that power. Someone who has a gun has the power to kill. That doesn't mean it's okay to use that power. You are conflating what a president CAN do with what a president SHOULD do.

    Trump has the power to stop the investigation into himself and have everyone involved charged with sedition. Whether he SHOULD, is another debate. So long as there is evidence of sedition, which there is, I'm fine with it.

    The opinion of congress is what is relevant, because it's the congress that impeaches.


    This post was edited by Zeitgeist at June 3, 2018 4:20 PM MDT
      June 3, 2018 2:09 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Some say a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime---we don't know that yet.  Mueller may test that supposition. This post was edited by tom jackson at June 4, 2018 3:21 AM MDT
      June 3, 2018 3:10 PM MDT
    1

  • 1233
    It's no supposition. The constitution (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7) is clear that impeachment must occur first.

    “Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
      June 3, 2018 4:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
      The Constitution provides for removal of an incompetent president tom. A wackadoodle should not be president. It does not say a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime does it? If so that strikes me as being doublespeak. If a prez is not above being removed from office for being a nutjob why should he not be removed for being a criminal? Anyway it will probably go to The Supremes. Which way d'ya think the pendulum will go? Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday! :)
      June 4, 2018 3:27 AM MDT
    0