Skipper
5994
I’ve wondered that too, for a number of reasons. Mostly due to the fact he is accusing the former president of a crime against him, so regardless of it was a tweet/speech/formal statement, that should apply?
Skipper
5995
So looking up things, it appears complicated:
[quote]The Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel has considered this issue in depth twice in the past half-century – in 1973, in connection with President Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate, and again in 2000, after President Bill Clinton was acquitted of impeachment charges. On both occasions, federal lawyers in the Attorney General’s office apparently determined that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President was impermissible and unconstitutional because it would undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
The United States Constitution provides only for impeachment and is silent on the issue of whether federal officials can be criminally prosecuted while holding office. As a result, analysists are forced to comb through fragments of debates held during the constitutional conventions to discern the Framers’ intent with regard to this issue. In 1973 and 2000, lawyers in the Attorney General’s Office determined because of the singularly unique duties and demands of the position, a President cannot be called upon to answer the demands of another branch of government – in this case the judicial branch – in the same manner as all other individuals. They concluded as a matter of policy that a President cannot both serve as the nation’s chief executive and defend criminal charges.[/quote]
So wait… If a President literally murdered someone on stage during a broadcast address, there’s nothing anyone can do until after he’s impeached?
KevinC
5997
Let’s just hope no one utters such words on Fox and Friends.
Sounds like a dare to me!
Skipper
5999
It was a scary read for me also. Not to mention, how is it we’ve gone this long without at least one President fucking up bad enough that it needed to be addressed?
Daagar
6000
Because once upon a time, the population had an IQ larger than their shoe size.
I suspect it’s set up like that so the opposition party can’t tie up the President with a lot of unfounded charges and court appearances.
There is a mechanism to remove the President from power temporarily, though, isn’t there – in the case of illness, inability to serve, etc. I would think the President slaying someone on camera would cause this to be invoked.
Clay
6002
Yes, I’m sure Obama would have had Snoop arrested for shooting a comedy version of him in a video.
Of course, now 30 million Americans instantly believe it’s true and will fight tooth and nail to defend that belief.
Sigh.
Trump should ask Ted Nugent what happened to him.
Pretty sure it was nothing.
There were like numerous target range images being sold of Obama.
I wish I could have Snoop’s failing career.
He can keep the career. I’ll take the cash, though.
Wasn’t there also lynched and burned effigies of Obama as well? And didn’t POTUS suggest someone should assassinate Clinton during the campaign?
Pointing out Republican or Trumpian hypocrisy is like screaming at the wind to stop.
Agreed.
I’ve found the most satisfying tactic thus far vs. my overtly conservative Trumpist friends is to simply throw their own criticisms back at them. In this case something like “Are you saying Trump is offended by the Snoop Dogg video? Does he need a safe space? What a snowflake! A real man would challenge Snoop to a rap battle. #MAGA - Make America Gangsta Again!”
Ridiculous? You bet. It does seem to piss them off though, so I’ll take it.
