Former President Trump was found guilty on all counts in his historic and unprecedented criminal trial, making him the first former president of the United States to be convicted of a crime.
This is a great day for Conservatism, the rule of law is upheld.
A minor crime doesn’t preclude you either. I believe you are talking about impeachment which is a different topic entirely. Impeachment is a political process and has nothing to do with criminal law.
I understand it’s not laid out in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement that Presidents not be criminals, but the only reason a President can be impeached for them is because a criminal president is a short step from a tyrant.
While it doesn’t prevent them from running for President, the framers clearly understood that we cannot tolerate having a criminal as President.
I’m not sure you understand impeachment. It is a political process that has nothing to do with criminal charges. I am not sure the point you are trying to make because you seem to be conflating unrelated things.
I think you’re just refusing to see the logic that because impeachment is intended to charge an official for conduct and present the possibility that they may deserve to be removed from office, it only makes sense that acts which are cause for impeachment are ones we don’t want our officials doing.
So if a President commits a crime and is impeached, it is possible they may be removed from office for that crime.
So if the President then does a worse crime as a public citizen does it not stand to reason that they’re probably not a good fit for the job?
It’s only as political a process as the sitting congress wants it to be. It was intended as a legitimate consequence for a potential tyrant, and I am using it as such in these arguments.
When this topic arose, I thought a felony would preclude you from office. I was a bit surprised it does not.
I agree with your assessment as to why it shouldn’t, but I still found it a tad surprising.
It’s because it should, ethically.
It makes no sense that you could be restricted from holding office because of one minor crime but not from a worse one.
A minor crime doesn’t preclude you either. I believe you are talking about impeachment which is a different topic entirely. Impeachment is a political process and has nothing to do with criminal law.
Nope, not impeachment. Misdemeanor, which is lesser than a felony.
I have no clue what you are referencing since that isn’t a requirement to be elected for president. High crimes and misdemeanors is about impeachment.
I understand it’s not laid out in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement that Presidents not be criminals, but the only reason a President can be impeached for them is because a criminal president is a short step from a tyrant.
While it doesn’t prevent them from running for President, the framers clearly understood that we cannot tolerate having a criminal as President.
I’m not sure you understand impeachment. It is a political process that has nothing to do with criminal charges. I am not sure the point you are trying to make because you seem to be conflating unrelated things.
I think you’re just refusing to see the logic that because impeachment is intended to charge an official for conduct and present the possibility that they may deserve to be removed from office, it only makes sense that acts which are cause for impeachment are ones we don’t want our officials doing.
So if a President commits a crime and is impeached, it is possible they may be removed from office for that crime.
So if the President then does a worse crime as a public citizen does it not stand to reason that they’re probably not a good fit for the job?
It’s only as political a process as the sitting congress wants it to be. It was intended as a legitimate consequence for a potential tyrant, and I am using it as such in these arguments.
I’m sad that I completely forgot 34 was also impeached multiple times. What a shit show.