Two Party Opera by Brian Carroll for August 23, 2018

I guess the proof of this would be for Trump to go through with his boast and actually murder someone in public on 5th Ave., and see whether Congress would decide whether that met the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Verdy interestinc.

So what keeps a candidate from running for (in this case) President while in jail? To my knowledge you can, but, my knowledge has been known to be faulty, I’m not alone.

If a President could be indicted , huh, maybe the answer is 42.

\\//_

Just an FYI –

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team was one holdout juror away from winning a conviction against Paul Manafort on all 18 counts of bank and tax fraud, juror Paula Duncan told Fox News in an exclusive interview Wednesday.

~

Duncan described herself as an avid supporter of President Trump, but said she was moved by four full boxes of exhibits provided by Mueller’s team – though she was skeptical about prosecutors’ motives in the financial crimes case.

~

“Every day when I drove, I had my Make America Great Again hat in the backseat,” said Duncan, who said she plans to vote for Trump again in 2020. “Just as a reminder.”

~

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/manafort-juror-reveals-lone-holdout-prevented-mueller-team-from-winning-conviction-on-all-counts.html?

In the process to form a nation, the regulations were a little too terse — actually too ambiguous — and the parties do not seem interested in changing something that may disqualify a potential winning candidate.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/25/stephen-nodine/can-convicted-felon-run-congress-jail/

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-a-senator-serve-in-congress-after-a-conviction-in-court

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-convicted-felon-run-for-President

From Madison to Giuliani. Sigh.

To be fair, a governor of Massachusetts was elected while in jail, was sworn in, and promptly pardoned himself.

However, Nixon is different. He DID consider pardoning himself, but he knew that would open him up to instant impeachment anyway, as that was an inappropriate use of power (something today’s GOP wouldn’t give a crap about, evidently). He was laser-focused on protecting his place in history, and resignation allowed him to protect that — as indeed he was rehabilitated later, writing numerous books, and to some becoming a respected statesman. Not me – but I read history.

And every single option would have been a dick move by Nixon.

When I taught 5th grade, some students were always taken aback that Nixon was the only president who resigned. Naturally, they asked why. After I explained, I wondered what Nixon was thinking by supposing he could “preserve” his reputation. No matter his accomplishments, the man will always have a giant “BUT” over his presidency, and rightfully so. The kids always snickered when they found out Nixon & I share first names. Thanks a lot, Tricky Dick!

@richsolano, it’s a matter of degree. Nixon never admitted guilt. Ever. Resigning, he could claim (at least in his head) that he was “hounded” out of office rather than escaping certain impeachment and criminal charges. He was always able to claim that he was never convicted of a crime. The fact that he was pardoned first was irrelevant.

Toward the end there, Nixon liked to wander the halls late at night and talk to the presidential portraits in the White House. I’m sure that he told THEM he was innocent. And they agreed………

“more time writing this thing” – LOL. Crazy that they didn’t foresee that one day the people would elect a grifter as President.

Question 1 — Let’s say, just for the heck of it, that some POTUS does actually commit a murder in the middle of 5th Avenue some sunny day. He (She) then grants themselves a full pardon for committing said murder. Would it then be possible to use that action (the pardon) as cause for an obstruction of justice claim? Yes, there can be no prosecution for the killing, but does the pardon simply prohibit liability, or does it totally (in a legal sense), negate the event in itself? If the former, then the pardon itself is protecting a guilty party from punishment, but there is justice of some kind to be served.

Question B — How about a quick un-pardon? Heck, we could send poor Tricky Dick to the Big House right now (well, after we dig him up…)

Instate the XXV Amendment?

Like they say, There’s a first time for everything. And while we’re on the topic of options … Dick, what makes you think you deserved more of them when you only gave Pat that frumpy respectable cloth coat.

The idea that Presidents cannot be indicted in foolishness. There is nothing in the Constitution that expressly prevents. Grand juries, which are the institution that indict people, existed before the Constitution and were not altered by the Constitution in any way, so the idea that grand juries cannot indict a sitting president is a canard.