Mueller's team told President's legal team they cannot indict a sitting President

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: introvert

The LAW is where the problem lies my friend .... Clearly there are more recent Presidents that should be looking for a booking with SpaceX or Branson right now

Perhaps and we do have the power to change that, if we feel strongly enough about it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the info. As is is, my statements stand.

Which was?

The president is not above the law.

He is not and has never been as I pointed out.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: darkbake

Which crimes would they be?

No one knows until the investigations over, sorry. And if you are so sure there were no crimes committed, the honest-to-God best course of action is to let the investigation run its course. Trying to shut it down early not only looks suspicious, it makes everyone think Trump has something to hide, especially since Trump would be the one shutting it down.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If impeached the process is then moved to the Senate where they hold a trial which is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. However unlike an actual judicial setting the Senate will decide, by 2/3 majority vote, to find the President guilty (removed from office) or not guilty (life goes on - see Clinton's impeachment).

However unlike an actual judicial setting the Senate will decide
i agree with most of your post...

however this here is your interputation

imo this is where it gets unclear.

if they vote 2/3 to remove they are still bound by rules of the house.
no single branch has the power you describe.
just exactly what part gives them the power to judge in a non judicial setting

a reply to: face23785

Congress can only impeach if potus does something to them like lie under oath like was done by Clinton or Nixon.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xcathdra

If impeached the process is then moved to the Senate where they hold a trial which is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. However unlike an actual judicial setting the Senate will decide, by 2/3 majority vote, to find the President guilty (removed from office) or not guilty (life goes on - see Clinton's impeachment).

However unlike an actual judicial setting the Senate will decide
i agree with most of your post...

however this here is your interputation

imo this is where it gets unclear.

if they vote 2/3 to remove they are still bound by rules of the house.
no single branch has the power you describe.
just exactly what part gives them the power to judge in a non judicial setting

The fact impeachment and removal is a political question and not a judicial one. The Senate is not bound by House Rules. They are bound by Senate rules. Impeachment is an enumerated power granted to the Legislative branch and it spells out the procedure for impeachment. That includes the part the House plays and the part the Senate plays.

People in the Senate wanting to impeach are equated to the prosecution and those who dont are equated to the defense. Both sides have the right to call witnesses and present evidence. The job of the Chief Justice is to oversee the trial to keep both sides in check only.

Once both sides finish a vote is held. If 2/3's vote to convict then the President is removed from office.

As a mater of fact the Legislative does have the sole authority of impeachment. Not just for Potus but for all government officials who meet the legal requirements (appointed individuals and heads of executive departments, like the FBI and elected officials, like potus and v potus). They can also remove federal judges.

The reason for this is the Senate is assigned the task of advise and consent when it comes to the Presidents nominees for the executive and judicial branches.

In all cases the House is responsible for drafting articles of impeachment and voting to impeach or not.
In all cases the Senate is responsible for the "trial" to remove or keep the affected official.

Should Congress overreach or act in a manner that is not acceptable the legal remedy is the election cycle to remove those members from office.

The courts have been very clear on interfering in other branches when they are exercising their constitutional authority. They dont do it, they dont allow it and it's for a good reason.

Separation of powers.

Procedures

Source - wikipedia

House of Representatives

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives on her or his own initiative, either by presenting a list of the charges under oath or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be initiated by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of actions constituting grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, or state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.

The type of impeachment resolution determines the committee to which it is referred. A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules, and then to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment, it will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment. The Impeachment Resolution, or Article(s) of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee's recommendations.

The House debates the resolution and may at the conclusion consider the resolution as a whole or vote on each article of impeachment individually. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article for the resolution as a whole to pass. If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as "House managers", with a "lead House manager") are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. These managers are roughly the equivalent of the prosecution/district attorney in a standard criminal trial.

Also, the House will adopt a resolution in order to notify the Senate of its action. After receiving the notice, the Senate will adopt an order notifying the House that it is ready to receive the managers. The House managers then appear before the bar of the Senate and exhibit the articles of impeachment. After the reading of the charges, the managers return and make a verbal report to the House.


The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The Constitution requires a two thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached.[5]

The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.[7] Upon conviction in the Senate, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office.[5] The removed official is also liable to criminal prosecution. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting criminal case.

Beginning in the 1980s with Harry E. Claiborne, the Senate began using "Impeachment Trial Committees" pursuant to Senate Rule XI.[8] These committees presided over the evidentiary phase of the trials, hearing the evidence and supervising the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The committees would then compile the evidentiary record and present it to the Senate; all senators would then have the opportunity to review the evidence before the chamber voted to convict or acquit. The purpose of the committees was to streamline impeachment trials, which otherwise would have taken up a great deal of the chamber's time. Defendants challenged the use of these committees, claiming them to be a violation of their fair trial rights as well as the Senate's constitutional mandate, as a body, to have "sole power to try all impeachments." Several impeached judges sought court intervention in their impeachment proceedings on these grounds, but the courts refused to become involved due to the Constitution's granting of impeachment and removal power solely to the legislative branch, making it a political question.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xcathdra

If impeached the process is then moved to the Senate where they hold a trial which is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. However unlike an actual judicial setting the Senate will decide, by 2/3 majority vote, to find the President guilty (removed from office) or not guilty (life goes on - see Clinton's impeachment).

However unlike an actual judicial setting the Senate will decide
i agree with most of your post...

however this here is your interputation

imo this is where it gets unclear.

if they vote 2/3 to remove they are still bound by rules of the house.
no single branch has the power you describe.
just exactly what part gives them the power to judge in a non judicial setting

The fact impeachment and removal is a political question and not a judicial one. The Senate is not bound by House Rules. They are bound by Senate rules. Impeachment is an enumerated power granted to the Legislative branch and it spells out the procedure for impeachment. That includes the part the House plays and the part the Senate plays.

People in the Senate wanting to impeach are equated to the prosecution and those who dont are equated to the defense. Both sides have the right to call witnesses and present evidence. The job of the Chief Justice is to oversee the trial to keep both sides in check only.

Once both sides finish a vote is held. If 2/3's vote to convict then the President is removed from office.

As a mater of fact the Legislative does have the sole authority of impeachment. Not just for Potus but for all government officials who meet the legal requirements (appointed individuals and heads of executive departments, like the FBI and elected officials, like potus and v potus). They can also remove federal judges.

The reason for this is the Senate is assigned the task of advise and consent when it comes to the Presidents nominees for the executive and judicial branches.

In all cases the House is responsible for drafting articles of impeachment and voting to impeach or not.
In all cases the Senate is responsible for the "trial" to remove or keep the affected official.

Should Congress overreach or act in a manner that is not acceptable the legal remedy is the election cycle to remove those members from office.

The courts have been very clear on interfering in other branches when they are exercising their constitutional authority. They dont do it, they dont allow it and it's for a good reason.

Separation of powers.

Yea it gets very tricky at this point.You have too many opinions coming into play.

It makes the likely hood of any of this happening very slim when you factor in term limits it is much a game of playing out the clock.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Well, it doesn't get tricky and its not opinion. It is Constitutional fact so I am not sure what the disconnect is.