The Curious Arrest of the President of the United States, Part One

Feb 3

In the following paragraphs, I am going to attempt to lay out the case for why we need to arrest Donald John Trump, before impeaching him. His lawless presidency must be put to an end before he endangers the Entirety of America plunging us into a civil war and/or a world war or a depression of the U.S. Economy and bankruptcy of the country. Under Donald Trump the inevitability for all three has almost become equally great. This is an existential threat to our safety as a country, just as great as any international terror threat or foreign Countries could ever be. The absolute insanity the country has had to endure as a result of the president's 10-year war on immigrants and faulty economic theories, many people have died, the deaths of immigrants and citizens alike cannot stand. We must explore many topics to come to the answer, arrest the president. But press on we must.

In the course of my lifetime there have been technically two impeached presidents. Yes, one can argue Donald Trump was impeached twice, but there’s still only two impeached presidents and neither of which has been convicted namely to political parties’ existence. Impeachment alone was never going to be a remedy so long as there are only two political parties in existence and I hope to touch a little bit on this as well. Then, if you will bear with me, I'm going to steal a bit of the supreme Court thought process on buckets of issues. I'm going to start placing issues into buckets, with the first bucket US law and constitutional violations, the second bucket international law, UN conventions and charters violated. The third bucket is going to be cover-up’s, bribery and extortion. We will even be dedicating some time to explaining the reason that the supreme Court ruling is just unconstitutional and how there's actually nothing saying we can't arrest a president. All in all, we’re going to cover a lot of ground in a short amount of time, and I hope I can lay this out in a manner you can all follow along with.

Impeachment – Analysis

The United States Constitution article two, section four; The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Over the course of 200 years, we as Americans have Impeached 2 presidents and held 4 trials for impeachment, none of which were impeached and removed this is due to two large flaws in impeachment and has never been a remedy for a rouge executive branch or presidency. Such as political parties existence, the clear need for criminal indictment or conviction to justify “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Even when the charges are as serious as Incitement of Insurrection, domestic terrorism, and war crimes.

Political Parties – as we discussed one of the problems is political parties themselves, as there are no incentives to impeach your own leader, as doing so is damaging your own political organizations brand. I would argue that the United States was designed by the founders to operate without political parties, as there is no reference to them in the constitution to them. The first amendments freedom of association is the closest we have to a reference to political party in the constitution of the United States of America. Due to this fact, we have unintentionally removed our own ability to hold the executive accountable for its actions, regardless of whether they are legal or illegal. The simple fact is in a two-party system there will never be a successful impeachment. One could argue that in a system that had zero political parties or a three-party system impeachment would be possible, but as it stands and has been used in the past, Impeachment is unlikely to succeed in a conviction.

Criminal Indictment – The need for a criminal indictment or conviction is a must for the impeachment process, as we have seen with the impeachment of Bill and Donald that allegations of criminal wrong doing is not enough, as in both the conclusion was made that no one in congress knows what a high crime and misdemeanors are and in both cases the recommendation by senator’s was criminal prosecution as a remedy, on its face a high crime would be what we call today a felony and misdemeanors is a term we still use. This line in itself, “and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Shows that the president is not above the law and in fact is directly subject to the law via the constitution. The impeachment process was intended to remove a president’s powers, right to rule and protection of the executive branch after a criminal indictment.

Bill Clinton’s - Impeachment, Democrat: The Impeachment of Bill Clinton was on two counts, perjuring himself to a criminal grand Jury, A lawsuit regarding sexual harassment by Bill Clinton. Obstruction of justice in Jones suit and in the investigation by Independent Counsel Starr.

```
Results: Acquitted
```

Perjury Charge: 45 Guilty, 55 Not Guilty.

Obstruction of Justice Charge: 50 Guilty, 50 Not Guilty.

The consensus from the impeachment of Bill was disagreement about what constitutes an impeachable offense for the President of the United States. In 1998 Senator Olympia stated she believed the President’s attempted to influence the testimony of his personal assistant, but that the proper remedy for this was a criminal prosecution.

Donald Trump's – Impeachment x2, Republican:

The first impeachment of Donald J trump was due to as the president puts it “a perfect phone call” with the president of Ukraine and the conditioned withholding of funds to the country of Ukraine, in exchange for an investigation into his political rival. The charges were abuse of power and obstruction.

Results: Acquitted
Abuse of Power: 48 Guilty, 52 Not Guilty
Obstruction: 47 Guilty, 53 Not Guilty

The House of Representatives managers and President attorneys had reached very different views on the question of “high crimes and misdemeanors” requiring evidence of a criminal act or legal violation. The managers believed that indictable criminal offenses were not needed. The president’s attorneys took, the opposite view arguing that criminal offenses were indeed needed to impeach a sitting president. The debate over a link between illegal acts and impeachable acts continues to this day unresolved.

The Second impeachment of Donald J Trump centered around the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. When an angry mob of trump supporters clashed with capital police in a riot, in and on the United States Capitol grounds in an attempt to disrupt the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election. The core accusation was one of the first amendments. if the president’s speech just before the riot calling for violence, was an incitement of insurrection constituting “Unprotected speech” or as the president’s attorneys had argued “Protected speech” under the First Amendment.

Results: Acquitted
Incitement of Insurrection: 57 Guilty, 43 Not Guilty

The trial of Donald was the first of its kind for a U.S. president, taking place after his loss in the presidential elections of 2020, a race Donald insists was rigged, but was largely a loss due to the COVID-19 epidemic alongside its economic and psychological effects on the voting population of such an out brake. This can be seen in economic data leading up to the electoral loss. After the impeachment was concluded senator Mitch McConnell in the senator’s floor speech following the acquittal saying this body is not invited to act as the nation’s overarching moral tribunal, we are not allowed to work backwards to decide whether the accused person deserves punishment. Then continuing to state that impeachment is not the criminal justice system and the then Ex-president was still liable for prosecution in the ordinary justice system.

Judicial review – Analysis

The Supreme Court – The court while being a constitutionally approved body, holds and exercises unconstitutional powers. The power of judicial review was awarded to the Supream Court by the Supream Court in 1803 case of Marbury V. Madison, when the court decided it was the arbiter of constitutionality, making the first judicial review of a law, A power they do not possess under the constitution of the United States of America. This was not a politically free ruling as the chief justice at the time was the chief of staff to the previous administration.

This is what we would call in modern times an unconstitutional power grab by a political party.

As the conservative members of the supreme court like to argue originalism, saying we have to not only fallow the original wording, meaning, and intent of the United States Constitution. They have introduced a self-compounding paradox into the supreme court itself, excluding their own unconstitutional role in a process, while arguing we have to follow the constitution. This allows them the to make legal precedent, that becomes default U.S. Law, bypassing the congress of the United States Congress. Making the supreme Court unelected lawmakers, not accountable to the voters.

There is an argument for the Court having the power of judicial review, I myself find I am in agreement with this thought, but the fact remains that they don’t have the power under the constitution which is the power vesting document from the people of America to the federal government. Leaving us with only one solution, amend the constitution with a clear process to allow the supreme court to do judicial review. For example, if a law is ruled unconstitutional it should be sent back to congress to be rectified and made to fall in line with the constitution or alternatively, we could include a process of verification by the court before it heads to the desk of the president.

This would however leave the originalist argument as obsolete and reinforce that the constitution is not a static document, but a living document as the founders intended.

Trump V. The United States - The ruling in Trump V. The United States was unconstitutional on three fronts:

The Supreme Court as previously discussed does not have the constitutional authority to review law for constitutionality.

Nor does it have the right to make law, as unelected officials. As there is no process defined within the constitution itself to allow them to do judicial review, they simply cannot do what we have allowed them to do for over 200 years. a. This not only stands for Trump V. The United States, but as well all rulings the supreme court has made with its unconstitutional power over its 200+ years. Including rulings regarding; citizens united, voting rights, etc.

and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This line in the U.S. constitution article two, section four is in complete contradiction the supreme court ruling on its face making the ruling unconstitutional. As I previously said, the term high crimes is a reference to felonies and criminal proceedings and process.

a. This line means the President of the United States of America must be accountable to the justice system.

This Violates Congresses Powers of investigation, in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: “Although the power of inquiry was not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it has nonetheless been acknowledged as an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function derived implicitly from Article I’s vesting of legislative Powers in the Congress.”

a. The president being Immune form investigations for actions and duties carried out in his day to day, would render the notion that the power of congress no longer has the power of oversight, and constitutes a violation to separation of powers.

U.S. Law And Constitutional Violations of the Trump Administration:

Over the course of the last 10 years Donald John Trump has engaged in an Extreme self-described war on Immigration and immigrants themselves leading to many constitutional and legal violations, that the President of the United States should and will be held accountable for, in this section I hope to lay out a few of the more obvious violations.

Domestic Terrorism – U.S.C 18 Chapter 113B: the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that: a) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State. b) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and c) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

As we can see from the individual actions of ICE and CBP by allowing agents to enjoy Impunity and threaten and assaulting individual citizens exercising their first amendment rights, violating Minnesota state statutes on use of force by peace officers, on January 24, 2026 after Alex Perettis death in an extrajudicial execution of a citizens of America a citizen. After which ICE and CBP engaged in a 3 hour and 45 min riot where ICE and CBP with chemical weapons began assaulting U.S. citizens exercising their first amendment right to peacefully assemble. These actions satisfy (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State. Also (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

The second portion of the domestic terrorism definition is intent to (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, this intent arrived in the form of a letter from the Attorney General Pamela Bondi, held within this letter were three demands from the executive branch.

You and your office must restore the rule of law, support ICE officers, and bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota. Fortunately, there are common sense solutions to these problems that I hope we can accomplish together.

A. First, share all of Minnesota's records on Medicaid and Food and Nutrition Service programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data, with the federal government. Allowing the federal government to efficiently investigate fraud will save Minnesota taxpayers' money and ensure that Minnesota's welfare funds are being used to help those in need, not enrich fraudsters.

B. Second, repeal the sanctuary policies that have led to so much crime and violence in your state. Removing criminal illegal aliens from Minnesota neighborhoods will save lives, and state and local officials should support this goal. All detention facilities in your state should cooperate fully with ICE, honor immigration detainers, and permit ICE to interview detainees in custody to determine immigration status. I urge you to reach an agreement with ICE that allows them to remove illegal aliens in custody of Minnesota's prisons and jails and avoids pushing these interactions into your streets.

C. Third, allow the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to access voter rolls to confirm that Minnesota's voter registration practices comply with federal law as authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Fulfilling this commonsense request will better guarantee free and fair elections and boost confidence in the rule of law.

I am confident that these simple steps will help bring back law and order to Minnesota and improve the lives of Americans. This can be interpreted to be a blatant threat to the officials of the state of Minnesota to comply to what the executive branch preference, or they will allow the continued lawless behaver of ICE and CBP to continue.

In the fallowing days, Tom Holman, employee of the Executive Branch, arrived in Minnesota to make in person demand’s such as access to State correction facilities systems to deport/release convicted criminals from Minnesota correction facilities to the streets of a different country. The executive branch has elevated itself to that of a domestic terrorist organization.

Domestic terrorism by the executive branch is an extension of the January 6th riots, what the Then former president of the United states did was incitement Insurrection.

War Crimes – U.S.C 18 Chapter 118 § 2441:

(a) Offense, Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection

(b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. Definitions - As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party.

(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907.

(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

(d) Common Article 3 Violations; Torture, Cruel or inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, Murder, Mutilation or Maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, Rape, Sexual assault or abuse, Taking hostages.

As the president of the United States has conflated two crisis the American people face: immigration and the war on drugs into justification to take military action against the country of Venezuela there by violating the constitution bypassing congress in the process of making war. But has used his personal 10-year characterization of immigration as an invasion to justify war power actions such as the alien enemies act, by exercising these powers he has placed the United States on a war footing and thus constitutes a war on immigration. Making him subject to war crimes under 18 U.S Code chapter 118.

We can find examples of almost all section (d) in news reports from across the country. Usually committed by the ICE and CBP agents, alongside violation reporting from the migrant detention centers run in various locations across the country at the behest of the Trump administration.

The Impoundment Control - 2 U.S. Code Chapter 17B:

§ 682 “Deferral of budget authority” includes (A) withholding or delaying the obligation or expenditure of budget authority (whether by establishing reserves or otherwise) provided for projects or activities; or

(B) any other type of Executive action or inaction which effectively precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority, including authority to obligate by contract in advance of appropriations as specifically authorized by law.

§ 683 (A) Transmittal of special message - Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying

(B) Requirement to make available for obligation - Any amount of budget authority proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved as set forth in such special message shall be made available for obligation unless, within the prescribed 45-day period, the Congress has completed action on a rescission bill rescinding all or part of the amount proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved. Funds made available for obligation under this procedure may not be proposed for rescission again.

The Trump administration has continued to ignore the judicial orders on repeat since the beginning of his second term and has continued to commit the same acts repeatedly in a pattern that can be proven over the course of a year. In President Trumps attempt to bend the will of state governments and world governments to the will of the executive branch Donald trump has made numerous violations to the Impoundment Control ACT. including freezing funds from the state of Minnesota and five other states, Illegal Dismantling of USAID.

EPSTEIN FILES TRANSPARENCY ACT - PUBLIC LAW 119–38:

To require the Attorney General to release all documents and records in possession of the Department of Justice relating to Jeffrey Epstein, and for other purposes.

(a) Deadline - Public information. In General, not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall, subject to subsection

(b), make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorneys’ Offices, that relate to:

(1) Jeffrey Epstein including all investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters.

(2) Ghislaine Maxwell.

(3) Flight logs or travel records, including but not limited to manifests, itineraries, pilot records, and customs or immigration documentation, for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity.

(4) Individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings.

(5) Entities (corporate, nonprofit, academic, or governmental) with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks. (6) Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates.

(7) Internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates.

(8) All communications, memoranda, directives, logs, or metadata concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of documents, recordings, or electronic data related to Epstein, his associates, his detention and death, or any investigative files.

(9) Documentation of Epstein’s detention or death, including incident reports, witness interviews, medical examiner files, autopsy reports, and written records detailing the circumstances and cause of death.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 – a landmark law that ended legal segregation and outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibited discrimination in public accommodations, schools, and employment, fundamentally dismantling Jim Crow laws.

Violations to - § 881.12 Civil rights, 42 U.S. Code § 2000d, 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-2, 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-3, 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-6, 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-7

Constitutional - Bill of Rights Violations

The First Amendment:

a. Mahmoud Khalil – 2025

b. Harvard University – 2025

c. [AP journalists]26 – 2025

d. FCC – 2025

e. Other University, nationwide – 2025

f. Minnesota ICE – 2026

g. ICE, violation to people Right peaceful to assembly – 2026

h. Don Lemmon and others – 2026

• The Second Amendment: