Trump Throws TANTRUM After Jimmy Kimmel RIPPED Him Apart!

Living successfully with OCD

 

'A lot of MAGA in the room': Rep. Crockett slams Supreme Court

Why convicting a former president is not such a bad idea

Those who argue against former President Donald Trump’s conviction on any of the criminal charges against him often argue that this will have a chilling effect on future presidents and their ability and willingness to make the hard decisions that a head of state is called upon to make. He himself has maintained that a president is immune from prosecution for anything he does while in office—even if it is in violation of an existing law.

     I’m neither a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer, but I did serve in government for half a century, twenty years in the U.S. Army and thirty years as an American diplomat, and from my point of view as someone who raised his hand and swore to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I have a completely different take on the issue.

     I must say, first of all, that I strongly support the American justice tradition that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but if a jury of his or her peers determines that a crime was committed and the evidence shows that the person indicted is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that person should not only be formally convicted, but should be sentenced according to the law. And that includes former presidents.

     Why do I say this? I take issue with the belief that convicting a president of violating the law will inhibit the ability of future presidents to carry out their duties. One of their duties is to faithfully carry out the law of the land. It’s in Article II, Section,1, Clause 8 of the Constitution: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In Section 3 of Article II, it says that the President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Now, again, I’m no lawyer, but my understanding of these requirements is that this person should NOT be violating the laws which he (or she) is enjoined to take care that they be faithfully be executed. To think otherwise strikes me as playing fast and loose with the meaning of the Constitution.

     So, back to the effect of convicting our former president. I say, let the jury see and hear the evidence, let them make their decision, and then respect that decision. What will it achieve? It will send a message to future presidents and their staffs that we are a nation of laws and flaunting the laws will not be tolerated. It will say to the nations of the world who call us hypocrites when we call them on their violations of and disrespect for the rule of law that we are quite serious in our belief that no one is above the law.

     I see this as a benefit to our system of government and our status in the world.

     To see it any other way makes me fearful for the health of our democracy and makes me wonder what it was I spent half a century of my life sacrificing for. The Founding Fathers were not perfect, but they were wise, and I don’t think we should twist the meaning of their words to suit the whim of one man, or even one group of men who wish to avoid taking responsibility for their deeds. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a president cannot be held accountable for breaking the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that says any citizen cannot be held accountable for breaking the law, and we assume then that when a citizen breaks the law, there will be accountability. The Constitution requires that the president be a citizen. Logically, then, the Founding Fathers, in my opinion, did not intend that a president be allowed to do anything at any time, to anyone without consequences. I think they hoped that no one who aspired for this august office would be so carven as to knowingly violate the law. But, if you read the Federalist Papers, you’ll see that they recognized that humans are fallible, and since the president is human, I must assume that in the back of their minds they recognized the possibility of a fallible individual ascending to that office.

     Let’s allow the system to function the way it was intended to function and move on.

WHOA: Rightwing crowd TURNS on Trump in stunning display

Why Judge Cannon needs to issue gag order in classified documents case

 The graphic below was copied from an email I received at 11:31 am, May 25, 2024, from teamtrumpnews.com, and it shows why Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for a gag order in the classified documents case is justified. This is going out all over the place (I mean, it was emailed to me of all people) and is being used to solicit donations - naturally.

AOC on the real story behind that Marjorie Taylor Greene exchange

Dominant vs domineering

 

Two Years In - What's Next for Russia's War in Ukraine

How technology is changing the English language

 

Sister Rosetta Tharpe - Didn't it rain, children

The historical lure of gold

 

Trump SNAPS in court after fed up judge finally drops the hammer on him

Jury finally hears BOMBSHELL evidence against Trump

Trump accidentally HUMILIATED by Fox anchor over SIMPLE question