I don’t think the boobie drawings will be much of a loss to posterity.
Trump won't stop tearing up official papers so the White House archives employ a staff to tape them back together for the National Archives
And as it’s not federal law he can’t claim he can pardon himself.
Seeing what you did, there
It is better, … but the current state of legal scholarship says you can’t indict a sitting president. That leaves us exactly where we were before this discussion. Impeachment has to come first.
Good correction - that is the meaning I meant to put across. Thanks
Nope. But what about filing charges directly to the court aka a complaint? Or how about a simple arrest. Sure you can’t idict but that’s not the only tool at our disposal.
The same legal arguments against indictment likely apply. The republic is probably healthier long term if the sitting executive can’t be taken into custody. Consider a situation where arrests are used to influence political outcomes and you can see the danger.
Likely but it seems like the court would have to make that decision wouldn’t it? What would “Criminal charges filed against President Trump” do as a headline? Yeah, pundits would flip but doesn’t it need to be tested in court?
I think we have a compelling case study right nos showing that there needs to be a direct Judicial-branch enforcement check on the Presidency. When Congress fails to act against a criminal president, there needs to be some kind of mechanism to stop the illegal actions of a sitting president.
I’d argue that section 3 of the 14th Amendment strongly implies such a mechanism:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
If one cannot be President or Vice President after having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the federal government; if only Congress can override such a prohibition with a 2/3 vote, then that strongly implies that the Judicial Branch is the branch with jurisdiction over this section. If the insurrection or rebellion is discovered after the person takes office, there has to be a mechanism by which they are removed from office. If not indictment, then by court order? Would it require the SCOTUS? Or could a lower court initiate proceedings to be judged at the level of SCOTUS?
I’d forgotten Mueller’s military service and the lasting effect it had on his career choices:
“I consider myself exceptionally lucky to have made it out of Vietnam. There were many—many—who did not. And perhaps because I did survive Vietnam, I have always felt compelled to contribute.”
Yeah, its a pretty easy call that Mueller can take Don in a street fight. Even if it’s 5’11" vs. 6’1" (I’m not accepting Trump’s “official” 6’3" height), Mueller still looks battle-ready while Trump, as is well known, does not exercise; in Trump’s view, the human body, like a battery, has a “limited capacity” and any exercise wears it out. Mueller’s square jaw beats Trump’s turkey neck, every time.
It seems we are hitting upon a flaw in our founding framework whereby a criminal party may take control of the government to install a dictator and eliminate democracy. Unless we have oversight of all three branches by all three branches, the potential for the dissolution of our government will remain a very real possibility.
We’re living it.
The problem, as I see it, is that who is going to enforce a ruling by the judicial against the executive? Who is going to enforce a vote by the legislative against the executive? Andrew Jackson called attention to this with his, “(SCOTUS) has made his decision, now let’s see him enforce it”, quote. The quote may be apocryphal, but the concept is the same: If the military is loyal to the president, who is going to force him to do anything?
The military swears to uphold the Constitution. They do not swear fealty to the president. That’s a fallacy. The president is the Commander-in-Chief, but no military officer is above the law, so that doesn’t really prevent them from taking him into custody.
Sure, that’s how it’s supposed to work. But will it? Will they? I recently talked to a top Assistant DA in my county, a fairly liberal one in California, and he said that the lawyers were all against Trump, but the sheriffs were all for Trump. I wonder if that’s how it is in the military.
The compliance solution is to tape up the pieces? Is there no one in the administration who will say, “you can’t do that”? The complete toadiness of everyone around that idiot is utterly mystifying to me.
“Don’t let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.”
Good idea. And maybe use ink that is invisible in normal lighting, but visible under an UV lamp or something like that.
Sure there were, but they lose their jobs awfully fast. Some people would rather lose their moral compass than lose their job.
Judicial police. We call them bailiffs.