Politics Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president

Of course they can't convict him of obstruction while he's President. The Justice Department has already decided that.
Well, they could wait and convict after Trump gets kicked out of office.
Note to Trump, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Now, back to Nadler, okay link me up to what he said and let's see if it's applicable or if it's apples and oranges.
By the way, what were they angry at Bill Clinton about? Was it the fact that he lied about having some sort of sex with a person other than his wife? OMG, you must be insane with rage about Trump.

 

God what a jackass post!
I often suspect the left thinks the Constitution is unsettled law but you rarely hear one say it out right.

 

Fanciful?

Well, I guess you reflect exactly what I said. Not all that many years ago, you hear none of this noise as most people had be taught and excepted the idea that the Constitution called for impeachment rather than indictment and trial of the President. I guess it is not taught these days or the inference process has been rerouted.

Going to the original intent, I infer that the indictment/trial process is replaced by the impeachment process to hold electable people responsible for these actions to reduce frivolous political usage. And as Mr Hamilton argued, the Senate is the only place a President could possible be accorded a jury of his peers.

You might find a reading about this thinking of interest.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president

Then try Federist papers 65 ,66, 79, and 81.

It all makes sense to me.

 

Actually I think you maybe partially correct. Since no one person actually did get exactly what they would have preferred, the Constitution represents a composite group consensus. It often does not document well, the group consensus since it is also hampered with being the result of the group wording acceptable to obtain the votes. Not necessarily the best wording at conveying explicit directions, let alone intent. However, we do have a plethora of documentation that does let us have a fair look at the mind set of the participants , perhaps even their intent in this serious matter. I don't think it takes a shaman to understand.

In the case of impeachment vs indictment and trial, it seems to me, it is very odd that anyone would come to the conclusion that leaving the President open to trial by a majority opposition is the intent, where so much is written as to why we have impeachment in the Constitution with not a word about a trial except for by the Senate.

 

Then on the other hand. I will let you in on another little clue. Most of the group did not have any intent. So follow those that did. The heavy hitters that had intent in shaping the Nation were the INTPs and an ENTP. The two heavy INTPs were Jefferson and Madison with Madison taking the bulk of the load after being a protege of Jefferson. Guess who the ENTP was?

Madison and Franklin were followers of Naturally Law in which Franklin being a very heavy hitter backed up Madison in this area. So Madison as the primary author of the Constitution had the support and philosophy of Jefferson on one hand, and on the other Franklin and Natural law. This is helpful in understanding intent. Who was that other influential heavy hitter? The ENTP?

He nodoubt would have been one of the early Presidents but for a catastrophic event.