User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:32:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Do you not see the issue with this? I do see the issue. Our government sucks. DC sucks. Politicians suck. And I'm firmly in the camp of believing more accountability is the answer, not an abdication of it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:32:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: 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". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: 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. 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". Why? The executive is the arbiter of the issue, his people play an advise and consent role, but the executive can--and does all the time-- countermand the wishes of the AG or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the SUrgeon General, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:32:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: 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!” I don’t give a shit about what Trump posted on Truth. Why do you even bring it up other than to thread slide? We’re in a thread literally talking about the oral arguments but you’re here rambling on with some bullshit on social media willingly admitting you have no idea wtf went on today. Seriously what the actual fuck dude. 
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:33:45 PM EDT
[#4]
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. You do realize that a President can be impeached, convicted in a Senate trial, and not be removed? Removal and applying a future office disability is not automatic. Until Trump no prosecutor had even entertained the thought of prosecuting a President after he left office. There was a reason for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:34:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: But when his campaign lawyer pleads guilty to election interference in the very state he was calling? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally 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? Irrelevant. People will take a plea to get out of malicious prosecution all the time. She pled to be let off the hook. It's still the perview of the executive regardless of what she or anyone decided to do. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:34:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I don’t give a shit about what Trump posted on Truth. Why do you even bring it up other than to thread slide? We’re in a thread literally talking about the oral arguments but you’re here rambling on with some bullshit on social media willingly admitting you have no idea wtf went on today. Seriously what the actual fuck dude. The former president's public comments on presidential immunity in a thread about presidential immunity is thread sliding. lol, sure thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:35:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Why? The executive is the arbiter of the issue, his people play an advise and consent role, but the executive can--and does all the time-- countermand the wishes of the AG or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the SUrgeon General, etc. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: 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. 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". Why? The executive is the arbiter of the issue, his people play an advise and consent role, but the executive can--and does all the time-- countermand the wishes of the AG or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the SUrgeon General, etc. Because his actions were in pursuit of personal benefit, not fulfilling his duties as chief executive and enforcer of the law. The President takes an oath to the Constitution and to faithfully execute the Office. Finding some crackpot lawyer who could never get a job working for the government to tell him what he wants to hear, and then acting based on that, is not how a president executes the Office. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:35:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Irrelevant. People will take a plea to get out of malicious prosecution all the time. She pled to be let off the hook. It's still the perview of the executive regardless of what she or anyone decided to do. So a President can never be party to election interference? Watergate was an official act of a President? |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:35:56 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: 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. 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. And that immunity is a judicial invention. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:36:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. Affirmative Action hires are known for many things..Being competent isn’t one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:36:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I do see the issue. Our government sucks. DC sucks. Politicians suck. And I'm firmly in the camp of believing more accountability is the answer, not an abdication of it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Do you not see the issue with this? I do see the issue. Our government sucks. DC sucks. Politicians suck. And I'm firmly in the camp of believing more accountability is the answer, not an abdication of it. Except this partisan lawfare is doing the exact opposite of that. The man did absolutely nothing different than his political opponet did after losing the 2016 election. Prosecuting one side of the political arena exclusively certainly kills accountability. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:36:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 3one5: If they don't grant immunity can we start prosecuting those who pass unconstitutional gun laws that eventually get overturned? Ohhhhh, I like this idea. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:36:28 PM EDT
[#13]
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 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cja11B2P: Originally 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 Why can't he be impeached? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:36:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The former president's public comments on presidential immunity in a thread about presidential immunity is thread sliding. lol, sure thing. Another sliding attempt. Care to discuss the actual arguments made today? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:37:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NavyDoc1]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: So a President can never be party to election interference? Watergate was an official act of a President? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Irrelevant. People will take a plea to get out of malicious prosecution all the time. She pled to be let off the hook. It's still the perview of the executive regardless of what she or anyone decided to do. So a President can never be party to election interference? Watergate was an official act of a President? Nixon didn't orchestrate Watergate nor was that ever the accusation nor was he ever criminally prosecuted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:38:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I do see the issue. Our government sucks. DC sucks. Politicians suck. And I'm firmly in the camp of believing more accountability is the answer, not an abdication of it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Do you not see the issue with this? I do see the issue. Our government sucks. DC sucks. Politicians suck. And I'm firmly in the camp of believing more accountability is the answer, not an abdication of it. So you want people who are admittedly partisan, who are more or less immune and totally unaccountable voters, to be tasked with holding our candidates accountable? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:39:05 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:39:24 PM EDT
[#18]
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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally 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. Nobody except for you is saying that a president can never be criminally prosecuted. Your continued lies are tiring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:40:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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? Thank you. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:40:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AZCOP: Alito just called all leftist prosecutors out for doing this to interfere with his election bid. Jay The irony is thick, to say the least. Alito's not the only one to have made that observation. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:40:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: So you want people who are admittedly partisan, who are more or less immune and totally unaccountable voters, to be tasked with holding our candidates accountable? I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:41:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Nobody except for you is saying that a president can never be criminally prosecuted. Your continued lies are tiring. Somebody has to parrot the DNCs position. Why not him? |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:44:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Where's the prosecution of the 2016 alternate electors that Hiallry put up? Bias in the DOJ, say it ain't so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:45:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:45:49 PM EDT
[#25]
Trump may have had the desire to treat certain things similar to the democrats, but his executive branch wasn't friendly to those desires. In this administration, there are all sorts of executive branch agencies taking unilateral action against "political opponents". The agencies seem to willingly go after the competition in a way they weren't willing to in the Trump administration. So many things he wanted them to look at were quickly swatted down or ignored. Blue states seem to have the same proclivities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:46:00 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: 5-4 One of the soft conservatives, probably Roberts, will vote with liberals. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:46:53 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Nobody except for you is saying that a president can never be criminally prosecuted. Your continued lies are tiring. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally 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. Nobody except for you is saying that a president can never be criminally prosecuted. Your continued lies are tiring.  He literally just posted Trump making that claim. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:46:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. Well the DOJ does not agree with you. According to them, if Barr told Trump it was ok, he would have full immunity. You would know this if you listened in. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:49:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: StanGram]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: So you want people who are admittedly partisan, who are more or less immune and totally unaccountable voters, to be tasked with holding our candidates accountable? I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. You answered a question that was never asked. Do you believe former presidents should be held accountable by people who are not themselves held accountable, and who you admit to being politically opposed to them. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:51:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. They are not above the law. The Constitution addresses this with impeachment. But, only a moron would think letting prosecutors from the opposing political party supercede that is a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:51:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Did Obama act within the law? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:53:54 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Is premeditated murder within the law? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:54:26 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: You answered a question that was never asked. Do you believe former presidents should be held accountable by people who are not themselves held accountable, and who you admit to being politically opposed to them. This is a false premise. Everybody is accountable to somebody. Even bad prosecutors. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:55:13 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:55:56 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Based on the arguments laid out by the Solicitor General today - Yes. And remember, there is no Statute of Limitations for Murder. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:56:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: So what's the word. He's immune? Presidents can do whatever the fuck that want now?
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:56:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? *Looks at entire quote tree* Bin Laden wasn't an American citizen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:56:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: R2point0]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: They are not above the law. The Constitution addresses this with impeachment. But, only a moron would think letting prosecutors from the opposing political party supercede that is a good idea. Probably the better analogy is that of a statute of limitations - you have until the end of his term to get him, but once that's gone, tough luck. And the punishment available is removable from office. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:58:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: This is a false premise. Everybody is accountable to somebody. Even bad prosecutors. Lol. So who's holding Merrick Garland accountable? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:58:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. That's why The Party put them on the Supreme Court. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:59:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:00:33 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Because his actions were in pursuit of personal benefit, not fulfilling his duties as chief executive and enforcer of the law. The President takes an oath to the Constitution and to faithfully execute the Office. Finding some crackpot lawyer who could never get a job working for the government to tell him what he wants to hear, and then acting based on that, is not how a president executes the Office. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: 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. 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". Why? The executive is the arbiter of the issue, his people play an advise and consent role, but the executive can--and does all the time-- countermand the wishes of the AG or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the SUrgeon General, etc. Because his actions were in pursuit of personal benefit, not fulfilling his duties as chief executive and enforcer of the law. The President takes an oath to the Constitution and to faithfully execute the Office. Finding some crackpot lawyer who could never get a job working for the government to tell him what he wants to hear, and then acting based on that, is not how a president executes the Office. Bunk, what about standing up for those who knew or thought there was a rigged election? Don't they have a say after the paid for politicians and media say otherwise? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:00:55 PM EDT
[#43]
I'll be glad when this thread gets locked and a new one gets created when SCOTUS renders their decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:02:05 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sixnine: Where do you stand on all the law breaking being done by Biden and his son? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sixnine: Originally Posted By Low_Country: I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. 
|
|
|
|
MA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:02:22 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R2point0: You are missing his point. The argument being made is the impeachment isn't good enough (even though the founders thought it was.) And that the punishment of removal from office isn't harsh enough (again, the founders thought it was.) Probably the better analogy is that of a statute of limitations - you have until the end of his term to get him, but once that's gone, tough luck. And the punishment available is removable from office. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R2point0: Originally Posted By ExFed1811: They are not above the law. The Constitution addresses this with impeachment. But, only a moron would think letting prosecutors from the opposing political party supercede that is a good idea. Probably the better analogy is that of a statute of limitations - you have until the end of his term to get him, but once that's gone, tough luck. And the punishment available is removable from office. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. The only thing stopping Congress from doing anything quickly is themselves, so their lack of swift action is tantamount to a lack of consensus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:02:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sixnine: Where do you stand on all the law breaking being done by Biden and his son? 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:02:41 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: This is a false premise. Everybody is accountable to somebody. Even bad prosecutors. How long has been since the Special Prosecutor hide exculpatory evidence about Ted Stevens? If I remember right nothing happen to him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:04:00 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Did Obama act within the law? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:04:29 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? In a sane world that should shut down the discussion. Well done. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:05:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Well the DOJ does not agree with you. According to them, if Barr told Trump it was ok, he would have full immunity. You would know this if you listened in. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By Low_Country: I do not believe anybody, even former presidents, are above the law. Well the DOJ does not agree with you. According to them, if Barr told Trump it was ok, he would have full immunity. You would know this if you listened in. If the next President has an attorney general with a differing view than the last one, who wins? |
|
|
|
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.
Attached File
