christiefan915 (05-27-2018)
I wonder is Rump’s attorneys have read this?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZO.html
4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
christiefan915 (05-27-2018)
“With respect to acts taken in his "public character"-- that is official acts--the President may be disciplined principally by impeachment, not by private lawsuits for damages. But he is otherwise subject to the laws for his purely private acts.“
ThatOwlWoman (05-26-2018)
anatta (05-26-2018)
civil case.. what does this have to do with Trump?
ptif219 (05-26-2018)
constitutionally, don't they have to wait until he's out of office before they can prosecute for private crimes?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
it's all a grey area.
But basically the stress and time to defend a criminal case would be detrimental to the POTUS ability to perform his duties. Facing jail concentrates the mind elsewhere.
A civil case still allows resolution, in that the penalties are not so drastic.
Least it how I read it all
Darth Omar (05-26-2018)
Rune (05-27-2018)
christiefan915 (05-27-2018), Rune (05-27-2018)
Jarod ain't no lawyer
for documents? of course not. Testimony is a different animal
https://www.lawfareblog.com/dont-sub...mony-president
While Trump might not be in the best position to defend a claim that presidents should not be compelled by courts to testify, the case that the judiciary possesses such an authority is hardly an easy one. Presidents have in the past avoided testing the issue by voluntarily agreeing to testify when necessary. After much delay, Bill Clinton eventually consented to giving testimony to independent counsel Kenneth Starr under carefully negotiated conditions. Other presidents have likewise chosen to cooperate when asked to testify.
Previous Supreme Court cases have stopped well short of asserting a judicial power to subpoena presidential testimony in a criminal case.
the courts have an interest in seeing jurisprudence is carried out in a timely basis to accomplish justice.
However the competing interest of facing a conviction is weighed against that.
I ASSUME ( and it's just my opinion) the courts look at the difference of civil satisfaction as not being anywhere near as weighty a matter as a criminal penalty
Bookmarks