User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:38:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: If you couldn’t do so, why even hold the senate trial after he left office? Regardless, I’m not arguing for blanket immunity which I think is not supported but I’m mainly laughing at the assertion that the DOJ is apolitical and there won’t be abuses because trust them. They basically want to be equal to the three branches themselves. IMO the impeachment process affords what might be the only safe guard to against a partisan DOJ targeting political enemies. Not the best solution, but considering how partisan things are, it might be a good idea to give the minority party a podium and the former president a chance at a defense before they’re drug through the court using lawfare. Of course the DOJ is partisan, but let's not pretend that impeachment proceedings are non-partisan either. They have become hyper-partisan as well. Regardless, impeachment serves two purposes - to remove an official from office, and to prevent them from holding office again. Lets say a former president served two terms. He is now out of office, and ineligible to hold office again. But after leaving office, there arises probable cause to believe he engaged in criminal activity while in office. Impeachment makes no sense in this case. So, should he be susceptible to legal prosecution, or does he then also enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:38:46 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. Trump is doing his best to muddy the waters by calling all his actions as Qualified. No one is attacking that clause or believes it should not exist. The question is did his actions following the election constitute the duty of President or the of a Candidate? Were his calls to multiple Secretaries of States to influence elections done with the idea it would ensure accurate results or give him favorable results, did he send Rudy to Georgia to investigate crimes. The crux of the matter is where we draw that line and thus why its before the court. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:40:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. Presidents already enjoy immunity from civil suits for official conduct while in office. But we aren't talking about being sued. We are talking about indictments for criminal acts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:40:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BobRoberts]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: No but it could serve as a check against a partisan executive branch going after an opponent. You would then have two branches of the government in agreement and then the obvious court challenges would allow for the third to give truth input. In this situation, how is an executive held criminally liable for criminal acts that are not required by the office that they perpetrated while in office? Does it require an impeachment prior to any Criminal trial can take place? |
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:42:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: There has always been a system of punishing a president for crimes. it is called IMPEACHMENT. Why the fuck is this even a question? Because he isn’t president anymore and can’t be impeached. The idea he is immune from prosecution is ridiculous |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:43:48 PM EDT
[#6]
If they don't grant immunity can we start prosecuting those who pass unconstitutional gun laws that eventually get overturned?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:44:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Of course the DOJ is partisan, but let's not pretend that impeachment proceedings are non-partisan either. They have become hyper-partisan as well. Regardless, impeachment serves two purposes - to remove an official from office, and to prevent them from holding office again. Lets say a former president served two terms. He is now out of office, and ineligible to hold office again. But after leaving office, there arises probable cause to believe he engaged in criminal activity while in office. Impeachment makes no sense in this case. So, should he be susceptible to legal prosecution, or does he then also enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution? Impeachment serves as the method for the legislative branch to hold the executive accountable for misdeeds while in office. They are constitutionally not allowed to criminally prosecute because that power resides in the executive. The removal from office is the only punitive option available to them and by doing so it should allow for a non corrupt new president’s DOJ the ability to investigate the case. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:47:19 PM EDT
[#8]
It is quite the can of worms. Imagine if all government officials can be prosecuted after the fact for whatever the other side wants to make up.
The whole system will rapidly break down. Which could be the point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:49:24 PM EDT
[#9]
So what’s the word. He’s immune? Presidents can do whatever the fuck that want now?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:49:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: No but it could serve as a check against a partisan executive branch going after an opponent. You would then have two branches of the government in agreement and then the obvious court challenges would allow for the third to give truth input. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: The senates ability to remove does not overlap or trump criminal liability. The Senate does not hold power to punish perpetrators of crimes, only to remove and bar them from further service. Do you really think the only penalty of a sitting President committing Treason would be their removal from office? No but it could serve as a check against a partisan executive branch going after an opponent. You would then have two branches of the government in agreement and then the obvious court challenges would allow for the third to give truth input. Another problem is that any future president could be tied up with partisain legal action. Remember when Democrat lawmakers were calling gor Bush to be tried for warcrimes? I do. No imagine that Bush didn't have immunity and had to address any an all charges that the left thought up |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:51:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Trump is doing his best to muddy the waters by calling all his actions as Qualified. No one is attacking that clause or believes it should not exist. The question is did his actions following the election constitute the duty of President or the of a Candidate? Were his calls to multiple Secretaries of States to influence elections done with the idea it would ensure accurate results or give him favorable results, did he send Rudy to Georgia to investigate crimes. The crux of the matter is where we draw that line and thus why its before the court. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. Trump is doing his best to muddy the waters by calling all his actions as Qualified. No one is attacking that clause or believes it should not exist. The question is did his actions following the election constitute the duty of President or the of a Candidate? Were his calls to multiple Secretaries of States to influence elections done with the idea it would ensure accurate results or give him favorable results, did he send Rudy to Georgia to investigate crimes. The crux of the matter is where we draw that line and thus why its before the court. Seems to me that calling out issues of fraud in a federal election would be in the perview of the executive branch. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:52:54 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Impeachment serves as the method for the legislative branch to hold the executive accountable for misdeeds while in office. They are constitutionally not allowed to criminally prosecute because that power resides in the executive. The removal from office is the only punitive option available to them and by doing so it should allow for a non corrupt new president’s DOJ the ability to investigate the case. Ok, so the question still remains. Is an unimpeached (or, impeached but unconvicted) former president susceptible criminal prosecution, or do they enjoy immunity? I guess we'll see soon what the scotus has to say. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:53:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: In this situation, how is an executive held criminally liable for criminal acts that are not required by the office that they perpetrated while in office? Does it require an impeachment prior to any Criminal trial can take place? The official acts qualification of this case hasn’t been determined yet judicially. I think there’s a small chance that it could be remanded back to the lower court for that determination. Who knows though. This is uncharted waters. To answer your question though, I think there has to be a check in place against a rogue administration using its DOJ to target its opponents. Otherwise, you get this cycle of the new administration using lawfare against its political opponents. It’s not like we’ve not recently seen this exact department used to target political rivals and to hamstring their administration. A 2/3rds vote by the legislative would signal support to the executive and would also require the executive to have a pretty air tight case. Thus limiting the potential for malicious prosecutions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:54:51 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Oldgold: To prosecute a former President is a dangerous precedent. I could see this happening after everyone of them went out of office. Why even run? The demmunists know damned well the republicucks will never have the balls to do the same.. Republicucks are too busy looking for the non-existent higher road, they are fighting a Tijuana back alley knife fight abiding by Queensbury's Rules. They don't even have the balls to impeach Biden for making a res gestae statement in front of the media, that he used Congressionally-appropriated taxpayer money to blackmail the Ukrainian government to fire the AG investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden's crimes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:55:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Another problem is that any future president could be tied up with partisain legal action. Remember when Democrat lawmakers were calling gor Bush to be tried for warcrimes? I do. No imagine that Bush didn't have immunity and had to address any an all charges that the left thought up Sitting presidents don't face criminal prosecution. They are only held accountable by congressional powers of impeachment, or the voters. The question is if there is a presumption of criminal immunity, and if it extends to presidents once they no longer hold office. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:57:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AZ_Hi_Desert]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Of course the DOJ is partisan, but let's not pretend that impeachment proceedings are non-partisan either. They have become hyper-partisan as well. Regardless, impeachment serves two purposes - to remove an official from office, and to prevent them from holding office again. Lets say a former president served two terms. He is now out of office, and ineligible to hold office again. But after leaving office, there arises probable cause to believe he engaged in criminal activity while in office. Impeachment makes no sense in this case. So, should he be susceptible to legal prosecution, or does he then also enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution? He may be ineligible for the Presidency but not for any other office. He can be in the Senate, House, or even SCOTUS. In Trump's case, as these actions were done while he was POTUS, the only remedy would be impeachment. If convicted he would be ineligible for any office. Lawfare has ripped away the facade that kept us from going into constant legal warfare which will proceed actual to violence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:57:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Ok, so the question still remains. Is an unimpeached (or, impeached but unconvicted) former president susceptible criminal prosecution, or do they enjoy immunity? I guess we'll see soon what the scotus has to say. Are you willing to open the can of worms in front of you because it might get you elusive win against the orange man? Or do you look at the bigger picture and see what road this could lead us down? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:00:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: He was acquitted for not reaching the required 2/3rd majority. He was not found "not guilty". The issue still stands that the only power the Senate holds is to remove and bar from office. Its not a criminal proceeding. He was found not guilty. Why do you think they vote on it ? He was acquitted BECAUSE a case proving his guilt was not put forth. Rhetoric is not fact. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:00:33 PM EDT
[#19]
The goal of this hearing (from the DOJ's perspective) is simply to get a small window of attack and then spin that into the existing J6 trial against Trump prior to the election if possible.
DOJ's inability to respond timely to Trump's attorneys response and call for immunity is what led to a several month delay and the pressure on the appeals court (which led here) by the lawfare team also caused a great deal of confusion and angst. Point is, this effort is all designed in concert with several other efforts and what we're seeing in the House...basically, to prevent Trump from becoming president again. MTG's calling for Johnson's removal...is less than well, good. Everyone knows she's banging Kevin McCarthy who was ousted and would and needs Trump out of the way to regain donors and keep the cash flowing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:00:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Are you willing to open the can of worms in front of you because it might get you elusive win against the orange man? Or do you look at the bigger picture and see what road this could lead us down? Honestly, I think arguing that a President can never be criminally prosecuted, and are literally free to operate outside the law, is a much much more dangerous can of worms to open. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:01:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Stupid Trump.
He should forced his appointment as Proconsul to Gaul with 4 legions backing him. Then watch the vermin scuttle once he set foot back on US soil. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:02:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert: He may be ineligible for the Presidency but not for any other office. He can be in the Senate, House, or even SCOTUS. In Trump's case, as these actions were done while he was POTUS, the only remedy would be impeachment. If convicted he would be ineligible for any office. Lawfare has ripped away the facade that kept us from going into constant legal warfare which will proceed actual violence. I really don’t think they care about any potential ramifications as long as orange man bad. The entire argument is Trump can’t have immunity because we want his head. They fail to see that if Trump has no immunity then no president has that protection either. Past or future. Might as well start queueing up grand juries after Election Day so that they can have the presser for criminal charges right after the inauguration. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:03:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Smokey0844]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Honestly, I think arguing that a President can never be criminally prosecuted, and are literally free to operate outside the law, is a much much more dangerous can of worms to open. Edit. Needs less emotion So today I learn that I don’t know how to multi quote correctly. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:06:41 PM EDT
[#24]
I expect if/when Trump returns to the Presidency, he's impeached again and the Republicucks will join with the Dems.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:08:10 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Seems to me that calling out issues of fraud in a federal election would be in the perview of the executive branch. Certainly if had you know used actual processes and people in the executive branch tasked with that job, but he didn’t do that did he? Was Sidney Powell a special investigator hired by the DOJ or was she work for the Trump Campaign? Oh yeah she already plead guilty and is turning states witness. It’s going to be tough to claim official immunity for election interference when your direct campaign staff and attorneys are getting locked up and bankrupted by their actions. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:09:03 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: So what’s the word. He’s immune? Presidents can do whatever the fuck that want now? They pretty much did until the left decided Trump was the exception |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:12:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Seems to me that calling out issues of fraud in a federal election would be in the perview of the executive branch. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. Trump is doing his best to muddy the waters by calling all his actions as Qualified. No one is attacking that clause or believes it should not exist. The question is did his actions following the election constitute the duty of President or the of a Candidate? Were his calls to multiple Secretaries of States to influence elections done with the idea it would ensure accurate results or give him favorable results, did he send Rudy to Georgia to investigate crimes. The crux of the matter is where we draw that line and thus why its before the court. Seems to me that calling out issues of fraud in a federal election would be in the perview of the executive branch. Yeah but there this this little thing that his AG told him it didn't exist and nearly all his legal advisor told him the same thing save a few. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:13:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I really don’t think they care about any potential ramifications as long as orange man bad. The entire argument is Trump can’t have immunity because we want his head. They fail to see that if Trump has no immunity then no president has that protection either. Past or future. Might as well start queueing up grand juries after Election Day so that they can have the presser for criminal charges right after the inauguration. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert: He may be ineligible for the Presidency but not for any other office. He can be in the Senate, House, or even SCOTUS. In Trump's case, as these actions were done while he was POTUS, the only remedy would be impeachment. If convicted he would be ineligible for any office. Lawfare has ripped away the facade that kept us from going into constant legal warfare which will proceed actual violence. I really don’t think they care about any potential ramifications as long as orange man bad. The entire argument is Trump can’t have immunity because we want his head. They fail to see that if Trump has no immunity then no president has that protection either. Past or future. Might as well start queueing up grand juries after Election Day so that they can have the presser for criminal charges right after the inauguration. Agreed. Every change of power would result in an immediate prosecution and possibly execution. Seems obvious. But I'm sure someone will come along and tell us about the safeguards in our constitutional process, you know, like the FISA system couldn't be abused etc. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:13:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Crazyascanbe: What if someone did this, what if someone staged a coo to take over the government What if..... Maybe you are not listening or you are and you on Dems side No one wants to hear pigeons nonstop! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:14:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sigifrith: Stupid Trump. He should forced his appointment as Proconsul to Gaul with 4 legions backing him. Then watch the vermin scuttle once he set foot back on US soil. LOL. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:15:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyorock: They pretty much did until the left decided Trump was the exception Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyorock: Originally Posted By GutWrench: So what’s the word. He’s immune? Presidents can do whatever the fuck that want now? They pretty much did until the left decided Trump was the exception This - did everyone think up until now, former Presidents were held to the same scrutiny and law enforcement as everyone else? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:15:54 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Crazyascanbe: I hear a lot of what ifs but I dont hear anything in the terms of what happened The Supreme Court decides questions, not cases. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:16:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cja11B2P: Because he isn't president anymore and can't be impeached. The idea he is immune from prosecution is ridiculous |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:16:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Honestly, I think arguing that a President can never be criminally prosecuted, and are literally free to operate outside the law, is a much much more dangerous can of worms to open. Pretty sure that the Trump people said that impeachment conviction is required. Who argued for never ever prosecution? Funny that the DOJ admitted that the President has full immunity if the AG says an action is ok. |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:17:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Bottom line. The left has balls. The right does not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:19:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Funny that so many are in agreement that asking a secretary of state to enforce fair, secure, constitutional election laws is a criminal act of election influencing.
That's fucked up. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:20:03 PM EDT
[#37]
My hope is DJT loses the case, wins in Nov, charges Biden and BHO with every conceivable crime, and we hear the libtards bitch about the world they created for 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:20:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheLookingGlass: Oh shit Gorsuch just brought up drone strikes by Hussein Yep. Didn't bring up gun-running to the cartels which directly led to the death of US law enforcement, but dang, that was interesting. Presidents do murders. Am I now supposed to get excited about what Trump did? Is this somehow the worst thing a president ever did? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:22:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Presidents can do whatever they that want now?  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:23:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Its going to be a unanimous decision. The court isnt going to come down with a split decision, they rarely do with items that have this much impact. Most of Arfcom isnt going to like it either. Somehow this place has become okay with a President having absolute immunity for non official acts as President. Impeachment and trial is the act to remove a sitting president, if you believe that is the only mechanism, then sitting duck Presidents have carte blanche to do whatever they want, as no impeachment process will move fast enough prior to the President leaving office. The only penalty for impeachment is removal from office. There are a lot of Illinois congressmen behind bars for acts while sitting members of Congress, this is only unique because its the President. Expulsion from Government and trail in the federal/state court is nothing new for the other arms of Government and I am okay with it equally applying to the Executive branch. Especially why they foment a riot in an attempt to interrupt the certification of the election results. We can be friends. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:24:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: We can be friends. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:26:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceChimp: Tagged for the eventual 20 page thread slide by the_crew where they keep repeating the same wrong things over and over and pretend they haven't been shot down dozens of times already. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceChimp: Originally Posted By wesr228: Originally Posted By R2point0: Tag for the random speculation and ranting. That's why I'm jumping in! Tagged for the eventual 20 page thread slide by the_crew where they keep repeating the same wrong things over and over and pretend they haven't been shot down dozens of times already. *glances at last page* Yup |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:26:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Pretty sure that the Trump people said that impeachment conviction is required. Who argued for never ever prosecution? Funny that the DOJ admitted that the President has full immunity if the AG says an action is ok. I didn't have a chance to listen to any of the arguments today. But it sure seems like Trump is arguing for exactly that in the truth social post below. “EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY. EXAMPLE: YOU CAN’T STOP POLICE FROM DOING THE JOB OF STRONG & EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THE OCCASIONAL ‘ROGUE COP’ OR ‘BAD APPLE.’ SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH ‘GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT.’ ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR THE AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE AN EASY DECISION. GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT!” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:26:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NavyDoc1]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Himarker180: Yeah but there this this little thing that his AG told him it didn't exist and nearly all his legal advisor told him the same thing save a few. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Himarker180: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. Trump is doing his best to muddy the waters by calling all his actions as Qualified. No one is attacking that clause or believes it should not exist. The question is did his actions following the election constitute the duty of President or the of a Candidate? Were his calls to multiple Secretaries of States to influence elections done with the idea it would ensure accurate results or give him favorable results, did he send Rudy to Georgia to investigate crimes. The crux of the matter is where we draw that line and thus why its before the court. Seems to me that calling out issues of fraud in a federal election would be in the perview of the executive branch. Yeah but there this this little thing that his AG told him it didn't exist and nearly all his legal advisor told him the same thing save a few. Well, since hte AG was lying... And additionally, having an AG that disagrees with the executive still doesn't make it not the perview of the executive branch. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:27:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: StanGram]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Of course the DOJ is partisan, but let's not pretend that impeachment proceedings are non-partisan either. They have become hyper-partisan as well. SNIP But after leaving office, there arises probable cause to believe he engaged in criminal activity while in office. Impeachment makes no sense in this case. So, should he be susceptible to legal prosecution, or does he then also enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution? Do you not see the issue with this? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:28:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Funny that so many are in agreement that asking a secretary of state to enforce fair, secure, constitutional election laws is a criminal act of election influencing. That's fucked up. His ambiguous language, shyster persona, and general status as a vulgarian does not serve him well. But i understand your point. People, me included at times, are willing to assume the worst about Trump. But, even assuming he violated the law (which I am not in fact in this matter but do ad arguendo) the question of what immunity, if any, the president may have, is very interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:29:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Seems to me that calling out issues of fraud in a federal election would be in the perview of the executive branch. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. Trump is doing his best to muddy the waters by calling all his actions as Qualified. No one is attacking that clause or believes it should not exist. The question is did his actions following the election constitute the duty of President or the of a Candidate? Were his calls to multiple Secretaries of States to influence elections done with the idea it would ensure accurate results or give him favorable results, did he send Rudy to Georgia to investigate crimes. The crux of the matter is where we draw that line and thus why its before the court. Seems to me that calling out issues of fraud in a federal election would be in the perview of the executive branch. If he directed the DOJ to investigate, and they came back and said "this is what we found", it would probably be "official". When his AG says "we investigated and didn't find anything", and then he continues to make unsupported claims (against all advice from his official advisors and legal counsel) and goes so far as to try to get fake elector slates submitted to Congress, it's "personal". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:30:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. As an expert in geotech, I am insulted by your comparison of her to rocks. What did the rocks do to deserve that? Also, the moon is made of gases, and islands may tip over. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:31:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: He was found not guilty. Why do you think they vote on it ? He was acquitted BECAUSE a case proving his guilt was not put forth. Rhetoric is not fact. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: He was acquitted for not reaching the required 2/3rd majority. He was not found "not guilty". The issue still stands that the only power the Senate holds is to remove and bar from office. Its not a criminal proceeding. He was found not guilty. Why do you think they vote on it ? He was acquitted BECAUSE a case proving his guilt was not put forth. Rhetoric is not fact. Technically it was a hung jury. Acquittal has to be unanimous, it definitely wasn't that. And if it was a secret ballot simply on the question of guilt, it probably would have been 100 to 0 against him. Multiple senators, certainly enough to cross the threshold, are on record saying they thought he was guilty but they found some excuse for not voting that way. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:32:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Well, since hte AG was lying... And additionally, having an AG that disagrees with the executive still doesn't make it not the perview of the executive branch. But when his campaign lawyer pleads guilty to election interference in the very state he was calling? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
