(multiple 'use cases' that
After more than 50 years
in New York City, Trump
found that repeated
works. Then he found it
works in Washington D.C. ---
with a Republican majority
in the Congress.
(2019 Nov blog post)
Blog menu >
This page on the
"cant' indict a sitting President" NONSENSE
(Trump's actions --- realized and as-yet-unrealized
--- provide proof of the ridiculousness of that.)
! Note !
Web-links or images or paragraphs may be added
(or changed), if/when I re-visit this page.
What new treasons, betrayals, frauds,
back-stabbings, threatening, bullying,
etc. are going on under that hairball?
I think almost every U.S. citizen by now --- even Trump's most ardent supporters --- have heard Trump say that he could stand in the middle of Times Square and shoot someone and he would still be elected President
Trump said this, not only on the campaign trail in 2016, but even after he became President --- in some of his rallies in front of his 'deplorables'.
In a 2019 show on a news TV channel, I saw one of Trump's lawyers asked:
If Trump actually shot someone in the middle of Times Square, would he be subject to prosecution while he is a sitting President?
That lawyer cited the "cannot indict a sitting President" defense to claim that he could not be charged, much less prosecuted.
Really? He could maim or kill someone and still remain President?
OK. Let's examine that a little further.
Where would this lawyer draw the line?
If he killed THREE people, could he at least be removed from office, if not prosecuted? No?
How about if he killed TEN people? No?
How about if he stood in the middle of Times Square with a high-speed automatic weapon and big magazine of ammunition and killed THIRTY people? No?
Can he hole up in a hotel over-looking an outdoor concert (like the shooter in Las Vegas) and kill about ONE HUNDRED people without being arrested and prosecuted?
Could the police at least intervene to stop him from killing any more?
Would Trump's lawyers and ardent Republican defenders in the U.S. Congress let him kill ANY number of people and still be President?
Surely, they might draw the line somewhere.
Even 'Moscow Mitch' and 'Leningrad Lindsey' --- self-proclaimed 'strict Constitutionalists' --- might find such lethal behavior shows that that Nixon-era DOJ (Department of Justice) 'ruling' --- that you 'cannot indict a sitting President' --- is ridiculous when you 'take it to a limit'.
If Mitch and Lindsey et. al. say that Presidential murder is OK, how about other crimes?
How many women can Trump rape before he can be removed from office or prosecuted?
How many millions of dollars in taxes can Trump evade before he can be removed from office or prosecuted?
How many people can he de-fraud (with 'fake' universities and the like) before he can be removed from office or prosecuted?
How much tax payer money can he 'funnel' to his hotels before he can be removed from office or prosecuted?
How much weakening of the NATO alliance can Trump perpetrate before he can be removed from office or prosecuted? Can he wake up someday and 'unilaterally' pull the USA out of NATO? Will Republican Congress-people say that is OK?
Let's Bury that 'Ruling'
(It was an attempt to defend Nixon.)
If you look at the source of that DOJ 'ruling', you see that it came from some Republican lawyers in the Department of Justice who were dealing with the fact that Nixon was facing impeachment for the Watergate break-in and other 'high crimes and mis-demeanors'.
Those lawyers did not imagine that we would ever have a President like Donald Trump --- who laughs at all laws (against fraud, rape, treason, etc.) and defends himself with repeated lies and bullying --- a defensive tactic he probably learned from his many years on the streets of New York City -- and from his bulldog of a lawyer Roy Cohn.
Trump --- with his horrible behavior and his many crimes --- has brought us to the point that we can now see the ridiculousness of that ruling.
It took a serial, habitual criminal to take us to that point --- but that is where we are.
Hey, 'News' Channels Hosts
(Stop accepting that 'cannot indict
a sitting President' B.S.)
It is frustrating to me to watch 'News' channel hosts --- like Anderson Cooper and many others --- simply let some 'contributor' or 'expert' on their show state that 'cannot indict a sitting President' B.S. without 'calling them out' on it.
The hosts just go on with the show as if that is a 'real', settled thing.
And it is not just 'Republican apologists' that bring up that 'cannot indict a sitting President' concept as if it is a real, Constitutional thing.
Apparently Chuck Rosenberg and Chris Matthews (and Anderson Cooper) have not asked themselves the question:
How many people can the President kill before he becomes indictable?
If they asked that question, maybe they would no longer tolerate the use of that ridiculous 'ruling' as a defense for bad, criminal behavior by the President.
Can the President build concentration camps
in which to gas and burn people --- and
still be unindictable?
For more info on Presidential Indictability:
More examples of the ridiculousness of the 'ruling' that you 'cannot indict a sitting President' may be added at a future date.
Until then, you could try some WEB SEARCHES for more info on the subject.
There are more subtle ways for
a President to kill people ---
for example, by removing
Bottom of this page on blog topic
To return to a previously visited web page location, click on
the Back button of your web browser, a sufficient number of times.
OR, use the History-list option of your web browser.
Or you can scroll up, to the top of this page.
Page was posted 2019 Nov 16.
A President can kill people 'indirectly'
--- by condoning an atmosphere of
extremist hate ...
and by condoning organizations that
propagate hate ...
and by showing approval
of such hate in Hitler-like
rallies of 'haters'.