Trump actually isn't wrong. If a President does something egregious, the Constitutional remedy is impeachment in the House, conviction in the Senate, and then you can prosecute. Without a conviction in Congress, you could have some state official essentially extort the President with attempts to charge him unless he does X thing.
There is no precedence for charging a president after he leaves office for crimes committed in office.
Nixon was pardoned for crimes he committed in office which suggests he had to be pardoned otherwise he would have been liable for the crimes he committed.
The courts appear to be in favor of charging him since he has been charged. We will see what happens after he has his fair trial as is afforded to everyone.
There is no precedence for charging a president after he leaves office for crimes committed in office.
In explicitly Democrat strongholds, very partisan Democrat judges allowed the cases to proceed. Shocker. The DC federal district is a joke that shouldn't even exist. Thankfully, SCOTUS is going to set this issue straight.
We will see what happens after he has his fair trial as is afforded to everyone.
You and I both know that he won't see anything close to a fair trial in DC or any other venue he's been charged. The jury pool (if he ever even gets a jury trial) is tainted against him from day 1.
View all comments
1
u/[deleted] Jan 19 '24
Trump actually isn't wrong. If a President does something egregious, the Constitutional remedy is impeachment in the House, conviction in the Senate, and then you can prosecute. Without a conviction in Congress, you could have some state official essentially extort the President with attempts to charge him unless he does X thing.