Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.// no, what he said is not precise enough in law. Any decent brief would have it thrown out in minutes.//
well if I had made that call - and it was played back to me along with the tag - and "so we are investigating conspiracy to subvert elections"
I dont think I would say - ha sue! or indict!
I wd be more - |I need a phone call to a lawyer
but me old chine we all receive unwelcome police attention in different ways
well if I had made that call - and it was played back to me along with the tag - and "so we are investigating conspiracy to subvert elections"
I dont think I would say - ha sue! or indict!
I wd be more - |I need a phone call to a lawyer
but me old chine we all receive unwelcome police attention in different ways
Peterpedent: Could be wrong but he can't be above the common law - fraud, murder, whatever. If he were to be proven to have money from a foreign power, for example, there's no presidential immunity. If he had knowledge of, or participated in, actions deemed to be not in the interests of the USA (the wartime Act) then I think he could be charged under a number of statutes.
thank you paignton
I will re read my book on american federal law and presidential immunity from suit
as for arresting heads of state or reps of heads of state, in 1707 the Russian ambassador was indicted for theft - Catherine the great was - - greatly displeased. ( Diplomatic Privileges act 1707(*)
Members of parliament cannot be arrested for diddly squat to and fro their journeys to Parliament - and as for arresting MPs in the palace of westminster
1642 - i see the birds have flown
so there is a long history of the guys at the top getting off.
you will find that president is immune from suit (under executive privilege) except for high crimes and misdemeanours for which he must be impeached
(*) the British Ambassador proffered a gold embossed russian translation of the act to Catherine at a grand levee on his knees whilst he stared at the floor
we were assured by the lecturer in International Law in 1972 ( Parry I think)
I will re read my book on american federal law and presidential immunity from suit
as for arresting heads of state or reps of heads of state, in 1707 the Russian ambassador was indicted for theft - Catherine the great was - - greatly displeased. ( Diplomatic Privileges act 1707(*)
Members of parliament cannot be arrested for diddly squat to and fro their journeys to Parliament - and as for arresting MPs in the palace of westminster
1642 - i see the birds have flown
so there is a long history of the guys at the top getting off.
you will find that president is immune from suit (under executive privilege) except for high crimes and misdemeanours for which he must be impeached
(*) the British Ambassador proffered a gold embossed russian translation of the act to Catherine at a grand levee on his knees whilst he stared at the floor
we were assured by the lecturer in International Law in 1972 ( Parry I think)
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.