I have to continue since you are so persistent in your belief that you are greater and grander than the law. It should be insulting the American people and the Constitution to have such a President like you Trump. Who has the audacity to put himself on the pedestal and think he could do anything to anyone and then get away it with it. It is insulting and beneath the office and beneath the possible position your are holding at the moment. Donald J. Trump, you act like thief and act like disgrace in the White House. If you we’re innocent and your family we’re the same? Why need to be pardoned. If the Trump Campaign and the Trump Organization was clean of guilt, why need the pardon? Do you think the American people are that ignorant and stupid, to not see this. The whole world see it and how you are eaten inside by the guilt of your association and use of Russian questionable financial transaction to keep yourself afloat.
Because of this and your continues allegations and attacks on peers. Your misuse of power and your wish to undermine the American democracy and institutions. It is time to again. Go back in time, last time it was the advice Richard Nixon asked for days before his impeachment for obstruction against justice. The same sort of acts President Trump is currently doing and undermining the law as much as he can. Therefore I have to go back to a document based in 1998, when Law Professor Rotunda are writing to Judge Kenneth Starr on indictment. This was on the matter of then President Bill Clinton. But worth noting certain fragments of document to show the capacity President Trump has under current legislation. Not that he understands it, unless it 140 words or explained to him on ‘Fox and Friends’. Still, worth noting though!
“For Example, if the President in a moment of passion slugs an irritating heckler, he has committed a criminal battery. But no one would suggest that the President should be removed from office simply because of an assault. Yet the President has no right to assault hecklers. If there is no recourse against the President, if he cannot be prosecuted for violating the criminal laws, he will be above the law. Clinton vs. Jones rejected such an immunity; instead, it emphatically agreed with the Eight Circuit that: “the President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens”. The “rational for official immunity is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is a issue”. The President has no immunity in such a case. If the Constitution prevents the President from being indicted for violations of one or more federal crime statutes, even if those statutory violations are not impeachable offences, then the Constitution authorizes the President to be above the law. But the Constitution creates an Executive Branch with the President under sworn obligation to faithfully executive the law. The Constitution does not create an absolute Monarch above the law” (Rotunda, P: 5, 1998).
“As Nixon vs. Sirica carefully noted: “Because impeachment is available against all ‘civil officers of the United States’ not merely against the President, it is difficult to understand how many immunites peculiar to the President can emanate by implication from the fact of impeachability”. Moreover, it would be anomalous and aberrant to interpret the Impeachment Clause to immunize the President for alleged criminal acts, some which occurred prior to the time he assumed the Presidency and all far removed from any of the President’s enumerated duties: witness tampering, destruction of documents, subornation of perjury perjury, illegal pay-offs” (Rotunda, P: 7, 1998).
“Later, in Clinton v. Jones, the Court rejected any notion of Presidential immunity (even a temporary immunity) for the President who is sued by a private civil litigant for damages involving acts not within his Presidential duties. In that case, President Clinton’s “strongest argument” supporting his claim for immunity on a temporary basis, the Court said, was the claim that the President occupies a “unique office” and burdening him with litigation would violate the constitutional separation of powers and unduly interfere with the President’s performance of his official duties” (Rotunda, P: 36, 1998).
“These factors all buttress and lead to the same conclusion: it is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting President for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the President’s official duties. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law” (Rotunda, P: 55, 1998).
“This conclusion does not imply that a President must be required to serve an actual prison term before he leaves office. The defendant President could remain free pending his trial, and the trial court could defer any prison sentence until he leaves office. The defendant-President may petition the courts to exercise its discretion in appropriate cases. It is one thing for the President to petition the court to exercise its discretion; it is quite another for the President to announce that he is above the law and immune from criminal prosecution” (Rotunda, P: 55, 1998).
This letter of Law Professor Rotunda states very clearly the provisions and special place within the Republic the President has and the laws that needs to be extended to prosecute him/her. So with this in mind, no one not even President Clinton was above the law. The same scenario remains today with President Trump. That Nixon tried to find ways to pardon himself is clear, the same does now President Trump.
The possible collusion and collaboration with foreign officials and entities will be more clear as the investigation and drops of information leaks to the press. The more meetings, lack of disclosure from the Trump Organization and the Trump Campaign. The same is it his family and associates, as long as the narrative still exists and there are plot-lines to define. The story will live on and the investigators will look into the possible breaches. The Office of Special Council Robert Mueller has lots of power. Something, President Trump cannot stop. Therefore, Tucker Carlson and others trying to gain leverage and saying the investigation makes everything in Mosciw illegal, like buying cigarettes in Moscow. That show’s the disrespect of a criminal investigation by the Trump Friendly Press like Fox News and Sinclair Media.
While that goes on, the 1998 letter show’s that the President can be prosecuted and is not a person who cannot be put on trial. What is different unless there is a special court and trial, the criminal offenses done before his Presidential Term and his sentencing has to be served after his term. That because of the Executive Branch and the august role of government the President are. Certainly, ironic writing that while describing Trump.
This will be lines from the letter, that says the most for me, because the criminal offenses before the Presidential Term: “it would be anomalous and aberrant to interpret the Impeachment Clause to immunize the President for alleged criminal acts, some which occurred prior to the time he assumed the Presidency and all far removed from any of the President’s enumerated duties: witness tampering, destruction of documents, subornation of perjury perjury, illegal pay-offs” (Rotunda, 1998).
So obstruction of justice, which is witness tampering and destruction of documents are likely things that people knows Trump has done or wanting to do. That is why Special Investigator Mueller has asked the government and White House to keep their documents relating to Russian affairs and the known meetings with Russians. So the investigation looks into the possible crimes of the Presidency before and also, within, but the impeachment would happen with a federal grand jury, where the President is sentenced for crimes, which is not in the President’s Office duties. So, the possible grand jury are there as much as it was for Nixon and was for Clinton. No difference for Trump, unless the House of Representatives and Senators at the Congress are spineless individuals who are all loyal to Moscow and Russians like Trump. Peace.
Ronald R. Rotunda letter to Judge Kenneth W. Starr – ‘Re: Indictability of the President’ (13.05.1998)