User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:27:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: The constitution has a tool for criminal presidents. It is called impeachment. Why add anything else. The constitution is absolute. Outside impeachment the constitution is clear, the pres has immunity from civilian prosecution because there is impeachment. Once impeached, the civies can prosecute. That is old news. As to your scenario, that might happen. This administration is that corrupt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Then Biden should immediately kill or house arrest Trump. Since you think a President has full immunity. Hey he can argue democracy is at stake. Nobody can stop him. Fucking clown world The constitution has a tool for criminal presidents. It is called impeachment. Why add anything else. The constitution is absolute. Outside impeachment the constitution is clear, the pres has immunity from civilian prosecution because there is impeachment. Once impeached, the civies can prosecute. That is old news. As to your scenario, that might happen. This administration is that corrupt. Nixon v. Fitzgerald provided protection for POTUS from civil prosecution for official actions while in office. Some of it has bearing on today's hearing, I was surprised it wasn't mentioned much. I'm sure the justices will refer to it. If it appears they will rule in Trumps favor the decision will probably be leaked like by some clerk trying to stir up trouble like the abortion ruling. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:28:30 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: No. Nixon resigned and was about to face prosecution, until Ford pardoned him. Nobody ever thought up until now that a President is totally immune unless impeached and found guilty by the Senate. 230 years of believing the President is not above the law... until Trump cult came along. Lol Prosecution by who, and where? |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:28:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By st0newall: or trump could, if re-elected. dress hunter biden up in a gimp suit and keep him in a dungeon underneath the white house and bring him out to watch trump rape various womenz he would send seal team zero out to capture and bring back for his enjoyment. heck i wanna be president, its like being a god. Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:30:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: What law? Is killing a US citizen without due process legal? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? As ever, it depends upon the law, the prosecutor and the finder of fact. Ok--so what is the evidence that Obama did not follow the law? What law? Is killing a US citizen without due process legal? This back and forth is getting tiresome, if you're trying to make a point just state it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:31:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I defer to your expertise--what is the consequence to Jack Smith if he presented false evidence to the grand jury and in his indictment? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I'm not sure, at this point, that anyone should be compelled, bullied or hectored into agreeing that the allegations contained in the indictment are "facts." I understand, but the DOJ hasn't covered themselves in glory regarding DJT. I defer to your expertise--what is the consequence to Jack Smith if he presented false evidence to the grand jury and in his indictment? Nothing. Prosecutors enjoy almost absolute immunity. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:32:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". In today’s arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today’s world not a hypothetical one. It’s damn clown world stuff but they said it. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:32:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If a prosecutor can convince a grand jury probably cause exists they broke the law with money laundering schemes, etc., they deserve to face criminal charges as well. and what happens when a corrupt DOJ slow walks a case so the limitations expire. Did this not happen with some of the tax violations regarding Hunter? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:34:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Did they rule? Do you honestly not know how the USSC works? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:35:03 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: What law? Is killing a US citizen without due process legal? Shortly after 9/11 the legislature passed laws allowing executive authority extremely wide latitude prosecuting the war on terror. Further, with the specific cases of those like Anwar Al-Awlaki, where you have American citizens in terrorist organizations overseas, it was deemed impractical to somehow try and capture the individual to bring them back to America for trial. There were judicial rulings pretty much explaining that because these dudes have done so much bad shit, the threat they present to America, and the infeasibility of treating them like any other domestic American citizen, they had been afforded all the due process required to put them on a terrorist kill list. At least that's the gist of it - I'll have to look up the specifics of it later. That's not an answer that will satisfy everybody, but the decisions and actions were at least in compliance with the guidance and legal requirements as determined at the time. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:35:38 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Nothing. Prosecutors enjoy almost absolute immunity. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I'm not sure, at this point, that anyone should be compelled, bullied or hectored into agreeing that the allegations contained in the indictment are "facts." I understand, but the DOJ hasn't covered themselves in glory regarding DJT. I defer to your expertise--what is the consequence to Jack Smith if he presented false evidence to the grand jury and in his indictment? Nothing. Prosecutors enjoy almost absolute immunity. Especially so if they are democrats |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:36:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Nothing. Prosecutors enjoy almost absolute immunity. Do you remember Mike Nifong? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:39:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NavyDoc1]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:39:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Shortly after 9/11 the legislature passed laws allowing executive authority extremely wide latitude prosecuting the war on terror. Further, with the specific cases of those like Anwar Al-Awlaki, where you have American citizens in terrorist organizations overseas, it was deemed impractical to somehow try and capture the individual to bring them back to America for trial. There were judicial rulings pretty much explaining that because these dudes have done so much bad shit, the threat they present to America, and the infeasibility of treating them like any other domestic American citizen, they had been afforded all the due process required to put them on a terrorist kill list. At least that's the gist of it - I'll have to look up the specifics of it later. That's not an answer that will satisfy everybody, but the decisions and actions were at least in compliance with the guidance and legal requirements as determined at the time. If you can find an actual case saying that the Al-Awlaki hit was judicially approved please post. The DOJ today said they internally determined that the strike was legal and blessed off on it so I take that to mean it never faced judicial review. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:39:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: In today's arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today's world not a hypothetical one. It's damn clown world stuff but they said it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". In today's arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today's world not a hypothetical one. It's damn clown world stuff but they said it. Presidents should not have complete immunity. I only give some concessions on that in the case of FOREIGN affairs. But most certainly not domestic affairs. It's been or was..... a strongly held common opinion amongst Americans that NO MAN is above the law. The idea that only an impeach can stop a President. Well, then the President can also eliminate or house arrest his opposing senators and Congressmen way before an articles of impeach can reach the floor. Totally crazy political theory. But it's all about being in love with Trump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:41:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. What a horrific insult to rocks.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:42:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Do you remember Mike Nifong? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Nothing. Prosecutors enjoy almost absolute immunity. Do you remember Mike Nifong? Sure. But he knowingly presented false testimony and knowingly failed to disclose exculpatory testimony and facts in a state not a federal case. He was also a pretty poor lawyer who didn't have the 100% support of the entire federal government IMO. So, I'm fairly confident the feds will not face such scrutiny. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:43:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Presidents should not have complete immunity. I only give some concessions on that in the case of FOREIGN affairs. But most certainly not domestic affairs. It's been or was..... a strongly held common opinion amongst Americans that NO MAN is above the law. The idea that only an impeach can stop a President. Well, then the President can also eliminate or house arrest his opposing senators and Congressmen way before an articles of impeach can reach the floor. Totally crazy political theory. But it's all about being in love with Trump. I’m not hearing as much full immunity arguments from people in here as desire for a checks and balances system to prevent weaponization of it against political enemies. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:43:24 PM EDT
[#18]
When the AG favors the part AGAINST the President, the AG could give advice detrimental to the President. Or the AG could use that as an opportunity to alert the FBI of the president’s potential action. Trump needs to appoint an iron clad Conservative AG. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: In today’s arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today’s world not a hypothetical one. It’s damn clown world stuff but they said it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". In today’s arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today’s world not a hypothetical one. It’s damn clown world stuff but they said it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:45:33 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. that is very insulting to rocks |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:47:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ZuoZongtang: When the AG favors the part AGAINST the President, the AG could give advice detrimental to the President. Or the AG could use that as an opportunity to alert the FBI of the president’s potential action. Trump needs to appoint an iron clad Conservative AG. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ZuoZongtang: When the AG favors the part AGAINST the President, the AG could give advice detrimental to the President. Or the AG could use that as an opportunity to alert the FBI of the president’s potential action. Trump needs to appoint an iron clad Conservative AG. Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". In today’s arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today’s world not a hypothetical one. It’s damn clown world stuff but they said it. Unless both houses of Congress are stacked with conservative Republicans an attorney general with any backbone will never be approved |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:48:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ZuoZongtang: When the AG favors the part AGAINST the President, the AG could give advice detrimental to the President. Or the AG could use that as an opportunity to alert the FBI of the president’s potential action. Trump needs to appoint an iron clad Conservative AG. Or the president could want to commit genocide and the AG goes sure thing man. I’m your wing man. He’s now totally free and clear. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:51:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eracer]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". You equate Donald Trump with Josef Stalin?  You're as bad or worse than the leftists who equated him to Adolf Hitler. Go join your local Antifa chapter. You'll fit right in. |
|
|
|
NE, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:52:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TinSpinner: Unless both houses of Congress are stacked with conservative Republicans an attorney general with any backbone will never be approved So appoint an acting AG with backbone and continually nominate candidates who are even more unacceptable. Legislative takes the blame for not approving one. Meanwhile, acting AG cleans house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:53:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Presidents should not have complete immunity. I only give some concessions on that in the case of FOREIGN affairs. But most certainly not domestic affairs. It's been or was..... a strongly held common opinion amongst Americans that NO MAN is above the law. The idea that only an impeach can stop a President. Well, then the President can also eliminate or house arrest his opposing senators and Congressmen way before an articles of impeach can reach the floor. Totally crazy political theory. But it's all about being in love with Trump. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". In today's arguments, the DOJ said literally that as long as POTUS gets the thumbs up from the AG on an action they are immune from prosecution. Right now. In today's world not a hypothetical one. It's damn clown world stuff but they said it. Presidents should not have complete immunity. I only give some concessions on that in the case of FOREIGN affairs. But most certainly not domestic affairs. It's been or was..... a strongly held common opinion amongst Americans that NO MAN is above the law. The idea that only an impeach can stop a President. Well, then the President can also eliminate or house arrest his opposing senators and Congressmen way before an articles of impeach can reach the floor. Totally crazy political theory. But it's all about being in love with Trump. I'm really not following this, are you saying we should be able to tie up a President in legal battles without impeaching them? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:54:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Shortly after 9/11 the legislature passed laws allowing executive authority extremely wide latitude prosecuting the war on terror. Further, with the specific cases of those like Anwar Al-Awlaki, where you have American citizens in terrorist organizations overseas, it was deemed impractical to somehow try and capture the individual to bring them back to America for trial. There were judicial rulings pretty much explaining that because these dudes have done so much bad shit, the threat they present to America, and the infeasibility of treating them like any other domestic American citizen, they had been afforded all the due process required to put them on a terrorist kill list. At least that's the gist of it - I'll have to look up the specifics of it later. That's not an answer that will satisfy everybody, but the decisions and actions were at least in compliance with the guidance and legal requirements as determined at the time. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: What law? Is killing a US citizen without due process legal? Shortly after 9/11 the legislature passed laws allowing executive authority extremely wide latitude prosecuting the war on terror. Further, with the specific cases of those like Anwar Al-Awlaki, where you have American citizens in terrorist organizations overseas, it was deemed impractical to somehow try and capture the individual to bring them back to America for trial. There were judicial rulings pretty much explaining that because these dudes have done so much bad shit, the threat they present to America, and the infeasibility of treating them like any other domestic American citizen, they had been afforded all the due process required to put them on a terrorist kill list. At least that's the gist of it - I'll have to look up the specifics of it later. That's not an answer that will satisfy everybody, but the decisions and actions were at least in compliance with the guidance and legal requirements as determined at the time. I understand, but it would seem that any subsequent administration could easily find a way to prosecute, if they were so inclined. Moreso with fast and furious IMO. The point is that every single president would be prosecuted. upon leaving office. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:57:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I’m not hearing as much full immunity arguments from people in here as desire for a checks and balances system to prevent weaponization of it against political enemies. You have little faith that the won’t rules will be abused by the directly elected representatives of the legislature that you would prefer that the unelected judges approved by that same legislature will somehow devise a precedent that avoids your constitutional concerns? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:58:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? You do know that people in the DOJ stated they know that President Trump honestly believed there was fraud in the 2020 election. So if the President believed it, is he not the final authority on the matter and thus how he wants to pursue it. Did President Trump himself storm the Capitol on Jan 6th? Nope. He said we are going peacefully and patriotically march. A DOJ official even said half of President Trump's legal team said there was no evidence and the other half said there was. I see the SC is saying it was the political lawyers that said there was fraud. Curious, did AG Barr or any other DOJ official tell President Trump that the political lawyers have no say and if you listen to them it opens you up to criminal prosecution? Did President Trump preclude a single vote from being counted? Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:00:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Smokey0844]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: You have little faith that the won’t rules will be abused by the directly elected representatives of the legislature that you would prefer that the unelected judges approved by that same legislature will somehow devise a precedent that avoids your constitutional concerns? I have no faith in any of them due to their own actions. Therefore, yes, there needs to be some system in place to eliminate the chance of them doing what they want to do as much as possible. Edit: i have some faith in the court but I’m waiting on it to become the dumpster fire with the other two branches |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:06:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. You saved me from a timeout and were more diplomatic. Thx |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:15:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: I don’t agree with your assumption, but there is nothing from stopping congress from holding impeachment hearings/votes on the drone strikes. Congress has ceded a lot of the power and oversight to the executive branch following WW2 but if they can prove he ordered a strike that isn’t covered under those provisions, yes it would be an impeachable offense. One that did fall under those provisions is going to an official act and perfectly legal. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Question for the group: assuming that impeachment is held as being required for criminal charges, could a future Congress hold an impeachment trial against say Obama for the drone strikes? Like 8 years from now in the timeline. I don’t agree with your assumption, but there is nothing from stopping congress from holding impeachment hearings/votes on the drone strikes. Congress has ceded a lot of the power and oversight to the executive branch following WW2 but if they can prove he ordered a strike that isn’t covered under those provisions, yes it would be an impeachable offense. One that did fall under those provisions is going to an official act and perfectly legal. But impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Nothing stopping congress from impeaching Obama for wearing a tan suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:15:33 PM EDT
[#31]
I wonder how many of the Trump haters here look or sound like Dreeben irl. Gross, smug and effeminate.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:17:55 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I have no faith in any of them due to their own actions. Therefore, yes, there needs to be some system in place to eliminate the chance of them doing what they want to do as much as possible. Edit: i have some faith in the court but I’m waiting on it to become the dumpster fire with the other two branches There largely are systems and processes in place. People just don’t like the results when it comes to Trump. Ultimately, we have to decide whether we want the people directly responsible for holding elected officials accountable. We can vote out those that abuse congressional and executive powers and in extreme cases of corruption & abuse they can feel criminal charges. This isnt a new concept, nor was the constitutional impeachment clause the end to the process. Congress readily get rid of members that break the law and DOJ or their state takes them to trial. Not one of them has argued that only impeachment must proceed their trials. It’s really only novel because it’s being applied to President. Agnew, who also falls under the impeachment clause, was investigated, charged and plead guilty to felony criminal charges while Vice President. If your plan is to rely on the people that were appointed and approved by the same people you can’t/won’t trust, it’s going to fail. We navigated the reconstruction, we can navigate this chapter of history without ceding more control to the unelected. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:19:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: But impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Nothing stopping congress from impeaching Obama for wearing a tan suit. I’m completely in agreement, Impeachment is largely driven by rules and laws that the Congress made. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:19:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I understand many people believe that all the charges filed against Trump are bogus, the DOJ is on nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt, and as such, would love to see a SCOTUS ruling that somehow protects him. But the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges against Donald Trump, shouldn't be used either way to address the larger question of criminal immunity for a former president. Remove Trump from the equation entirely and the issues still remain. If probable cause exists to believe a former president committed a crime while in office, should he be held to account by the criminal justice system? Does it matter if the president was not impeached while in office? What if the probable cause was not discovered until after the president left office? Does it matter if the action was taken as part of presidential duties (Obama drone strikes, for example), or was purely of a personal nature? I actually said I agree about holding a president accountable for crimes after he is out of office if they are discovered after they are out, but again these alleged crimes were committed while he was still president. President Trump was still president when he started questioning the election, he was still president on Jan 6th. Pelosi and her ilk should have moved faster to remove him while still seated despite he was leaving. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:23:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TinSpinner: Nixon v. Fitzgerald provided protection for POTUS from civil prosecution for official actions while in office. Some of it has bearing on today's hearing, I was surprised it wasn't mentioned much. I'm sure the justices will refer to it. If it appears they will rule in Trumps favor the decision will probably be leaked like by some clerk trying to stir up trouble like the abortion ruling. Tap everyone's phones ect now so they can find who leaks it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:29:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: There largely are systems and processes in place. People just don’t like the results when it comes to Trump. Ultimately, we have to decide whether we want the people directly responsible for holding elected officials accountable. They’re willingly flaunting their unaccountability in our faces. We can vote out those that abuse congressional and executive powers and in extreme cases of corruption & abuse they can feel criminal charges. It’s never “my guy”. This isnt a new concept, nor was the constitutional impeachment clause the end to the process. Congress readily get rid of members that break the law and DOJ or their state takes them to trial. I must have missed the Crossfire Hurricane trials. Not one of them has argued that only impeachment must proceed their trials. It’s really only novel because it’s being applied to President. Agnew, who also falls under the impeachment clause, was investigated, charged and plead guilty to felony criminal charges while Vice President. I’m pretty sure the VP is not afforded the same protections as POTUS. If your plan is to rely on the people that were appointed and approved by the same people you can’t/won’t trust, it’s going to fail. I think it’s already failed. My plan is to handicap them enough to hopefully stop the inevitable tit for tat prosecutions and maybe just maybe give people enough time to vote in some change before the violence starts. We navigated the reconstruction, we can navigate this chapter of history without ceding more control to the unelected. The elected are using the unelected to do this underhanded crap. That’s why you saw direct questioning about what would prevent the DOJ from being weaponize and their only answer was to trust them. They took an oath. The same DOJ who has been caught doing wrong in the past wants us to trust them. They’ll do right this time. They promise. Forgive the formatting. I’m on my phone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:30:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By st0newall: or trump could, if re-elected. dress hunter biden up in a gimp suit and keep him in a dungeon underneath the white house and bring him out to watch trump rape various womenz he would send seal team zero out to capture and bring back for his enjoyment. heck i wanna be president, its like being a god. Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". you've just pretty much described the biden white house with that statement |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:34:01 PM EDT
[#38]
So this whole thing is a win:win for the dems?
They lose the case, the court is corrupt and we need to win the election to save democracy and stack the court broadcast 24/7. They win the case, they proceed to go after T$ to make him ineligible to be elected (and everyone with an R by their name). It all ends the same: Massive At this point even if T$ wins, do you really think the dems will hand over things much less accept things peacefully? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:35:18 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: you've just pretty much described the biden white house with that statement I’m not tracking the argument that we don’t want checks and balances on the executive and then get hit with how dare you use an impeachment requirement as a check against the executive? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:37:19 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ZF-1: So this whole thing is a win:win for the dems? They lose the case, the court is corrupt and we need to win the election to save democracy and stack the court broadcast 24/7. They win the case, they proceed to go after T$ to make him ineligible to be elected (and everyone with an R by their name). It all ends the same: Massive At this point even if T$ wins, do you really think the dems will hand over things much less accept things peacefully? I’m thinking that we may be closer to the twilight of this nation as it was originally intended than a lot of us realize.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:39:51 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I’m thinking that we may be closer to the twilight of this nation as it was originally intended than a lot of us realize. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By ZF-1: So this whole thing is a win:win for the dems? They lose the case, the court is corrupt and we need to win the election to save democracy and stack the court broadcast 24/7. They win the case, they proceed to go after T$ to make him ineligible to be elected (and everyone with an R by their name). It all ends the same: Massive At this point even if T$ wins, do you really think the dems will hand over things much less accept things peacefully? I’m thinking that we may be closer to the twilight of this nation as it was originally intended than a lot of us realize. I have no problem believing the dems would have no moral issue doing an actual armed J6 insurrection and say "if maga can do it, so can we"... |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:41:48 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I’m thinking that we may be closer to the twilight of this nation as it was originally intended than a lot of us realize. It's hard not to think that. I'm 66 and I never thought I would see the shit we're seeing. . |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:45:29 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Presidents should not have complete immunity. I only give some concessions on that in the case of FOREIGN affairs. But most certainly not domestic affairs. It's been or was..... a strongly held common opinion amongst Americans that NO MAN is above the law. The idea that only an impeach can stop a President. Well, then the President can also eliminate or house arrest his opposing senators and Congressmen way before an articles of impeach can reach the floor. Totally crazy political theory. But it's all about being in love with Trump. You do realize you are pretty much covering what the Democrats are doing now, and fretting that Trump might do the same, right? Do you get that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:51:54 PM EDT
[#44]
I'll say it again.
Presidents that don't have immunity will be subjected to partisan prosecutions as well to extradition to foreign nations. Obama ran guns to Mexico and some of those guns were used in murders. So Mexico could charge Obama with accessory in dozens/ maybe hundreds of murders. Obama could be charged for accessory to murder of Brian Terry. No statute of limitations on murder charges. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:52:56 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: You do realize you are pretty much covering what the Democrats are doing now, and fretting that Trump might do the same, right? Do you get that? Yeah sure lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:55:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Presidents should not have complete immunity. I only give some concessions on that in the case of FOREIGN affairs. But most certainly not domestic affairs. It's been or was..... a strongly held common opinion amongst Americans that NO MAN is above the law. The idea that only an impeach can stop a President. Well, then the President can also eliminate or house arrest his opposing senators and Congressmen way before an articles of impeach can reach the floor. Totally crazy political theory. But it's all about being in love with Trump. Might be about seeing through the smoke to recognize a political hit when one sees it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:56:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: It can be both. It's one thing until adjudged the other thing. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:56:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Did they rule? |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:57:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Well people here want our President to basically be Joseph Stalin. All checks and balances against the Executive branch wiped away, all because "Muh Lord Trump". Trump is nothing like your govonor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:58:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino: Do you mean new evidence might have it reclassified as a war crime? Or that Al-Quaeda might consider it a war crime? No new evidence required. It was cleared by one administrations opinion so it can be reversed by another. Basically like an executive order. |
|
|
|
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.
