I say just charge him a large fine.
Itâs great that we are discussing whether we could jail a sitting president.
If a president were drunk and disorderly, could a local cop arrest him and put him in a cell until he made bail? Very likely. (Not that it would happen, but theoretically, it should be possible.)
Theorizing on a remedy if a president defies the law by violating a court order doesnât get us very far. And while it may be that a president couldnât be jailed for contempt of a state-court order, there are plenty of other ways for the state court to enforce itâs decrees. A fine of $100 a day, or maybe $500 until the president lives up to the order would be OK. And if it could not be collected until the president is out of office, OK with that, too. (I picked $500 because at some point it would be said that the fine for a civil contempt is too high.)
Sitting president? Do they mean Putin?
A theoretical jailing for a theoretical president. Oh, waitâŚ
But state Supreme Court Appellate Division Justices Peter Tom and Angela Mazzarelli had some theoretical questions about practical matters.
Theyâre playing with fire here rather than doing their jobs.
Not sure why.
Well good weâre talking about jailing him or more to the point stopping a corrupt president that threatens the US, but not good that we have a corrupt president to begin with.
âCould a New York court order the president to jail if he were to buck an order in the case?â
OMG please and the sooner the better
The article states that he is a human being. Whereâs the proof he doesnât act like one.
And, since this is supposed to be a democracy, I vote yes, please put him in jail, the sooner the better for all of us.
âTrumpâs lawyers say his remarks were opinions that he had a free-speech right to express in the course of politics.â
There are two people on the entire planet that know factually whether or not Zervos is making this up - Zervos and Trump. How then can his statement be interpreted as an opinion?? I cannot have an opinion as to what I did last night - I know what I did last night. Any statement I make about what I did last night is either factually true or factually false - there is no opinion.
Nobody is above the law. Nobody.
Plus interest, so the fine retains its value no matter how long they put it off. 12%% is a very reasonable rate.
Does the guy with the nuclear football have to sit in the cell with him?
NEW YORK (AP) â Appeals court judges weighing President Donald Trumpâs
bid to shut down a former âApprenticeâ contestantâs defamation suit
against him are asking a hypothetical question: Could a New York court
order the president to jail if he were to buck an order in the case?
âŚ
Then judges must ask their conscience and the statutesâŚâis a sitting president above the law?â Itâs a serious moment but one that can be resolved. Yes, a president can be jailedâŚthat is why we have a vice-president who can replace the jailed president until he/she serves their term in jail.
Then again we have never had a person in office who is as corrupt (and brazenly so) as trump. He has interest in the land across the street from the FBI building and wants to build a luxury hotel so he met with the head of the GAO (documented by photos and emails) to discuss the deal. This is the definition of corruption and in any other administration would be grounds for impeachment.
And that is the answer. Jones v. Clinton was very clear, that a president does not have " temporary immunity" but that a court must consider the practical realities.
the opinion is here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1768307810279741111&q=Clinton+v.+Jones,+520+U.S.+681&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1
the key section of the opinion addresses the Supreme Courtâs finding of an abuse of discretion in granting a stay until Clinton left office. As the Court stated:
"Nevertheless, we are persuaded that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to defer the trial until after the President leaves office. Such a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account whatever of the respondentâs interest in bringing the case to trial. The complaint was filed within the statutory limitations periodâalbeit near the end of that periodâand delaying trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.
The decision to postpone the trial was, furthermore, premature. The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need. Id., at 255. In this case, at the stage at which the District Court made its ruling, there was no way to assess whether a stay of trial after the completion of discovery would be warranted. Other than the fact that a trial may consume some of the Presidentâs time and attention, there is nothing in the record to enable a judge to assess the potential harm that may ensue from scheduling the trial promptly after discovery is concluded. We think the District Court may have given undue weight to the concern that a trial might generate unrelated civil actions that could conceivably hamper the President in conducting the duties of his office. If and when that should occur, the courtâs discretion would permit it to manage those actions in such fashion (including deferral of trial) that interference with the Presidentâs duties would not occur. But no such impingement upon the Presidentâs conduct of his office was shown here.
I highlight the key passage. Zervosâs lawyer did a really really bad job here. The correct answer was to say âIn Jones the Supreme Court stated that hypothetical future events do not call for a stay, rather the court must manage the litigation, âkeeping in mind impingement upon the Presidentâs conduct of his officeâ and courts have many tools to manage litigation,and extreme hypothetical which assume noncompliance with court orders can not justify what Jones found not to exist, immunity.â
Unfortunately, most âtrial lawyersâ are not good at understanding the details of constitutional principles, and I think Zervos was ill served by her lawyers in this case with her answerâŚ
This is so stupid. there are so many other tools available to the court that they never need to reach this question. For example, itâs perfectly fine for them to sanction the president (like any other party) and prohibit him from putting on evidence, or terminating his defenseâleaving remedies the only thing to be tried. That strikes me as completely different from interfering with the operation of his official duties by placing him in custody. Put another way, the power to compel testimony from the president and prejudice his case for failing to follow the courtâs orders in a civil suit arising out of nonofficial acts is not the same as the power to place him in jail and prevent his discharge of official acts. The latter interferes directly with his official duties.
Not a lawyer, but isnât the danger that a precedent could be set that protects him? Careful.
Could a federal court order a sitting President into jail for refusing to comply with a court order? Doubtful. And yet we have Clinton v Jones telling us a President can be sued. Why should the outcome here be any different?
Do we not have a vice-president the function for whom is to act as a stand-in should the president not be able to conduct the nationâs affairs (see 25th amendment)? When John Kennedy was assassinated, LBJ took the oath of office within 2 hours of his death. When Nixon resigned Gerald Ford stepped in and took over. The system is there for the continuation of the nationâs functions should trump end up cooling his iPhone callused thumbs while incarcerated.
âincarceratedââŚwith respect to trump I like that word. It conjures up for me a hunk of meat that is denied its freedom since the root word comes from the Latin.