Posts: 70
Threads: 65
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation:
1
So today we are the point where we are arguing that the president has total and absolute immunity from everything. In other words:
- If someone commits a crime like "shoots a person on 5th Avenue and then becomes president we can't prosecute him until he leaves office.
- If someone while president shoots someone we can't prosecute him until he leaves office.
- If the president of the united states breaks the law while in office, no matter how bad the crime is, we cant prosecute him until he leaves office.
Folks, that's where we are. That was the arguement from Trump's lawyers today.
Let that sink in. I thought this was the stuff of dictatorships. We very well may be on that path if this is what is the new normal.
I'll like to hear what others think
What others think? That ship has sailed. Its you against me. News vs. fake news. All the links I can find on the 'Net for my side vs. all the links you can find for your side. Media bias at unprecedented levels. Foreign agents infiltrating U.S. social media to propagandize and fear monger the weak minded. What about Obama?? The Clintons?? Emails! And the beat goes on....and on......
The libtards. The nazis. MAGA hats. Grabbing p*ssies. The deplorables. Its a new world, but not my new world. The swamp has never been more swampy.
I think we are at a point were some believe their new sources no matter what the facts are. And that is sad on both sides.
not. to mention the democracts. ongoing secret. meetings
I don’t really understand where this is all coming
from. What is the legal basis he’s
claiming for having immunity. I see references
to Nixon vs Fitzgerald, in which Nixon was granted immunity from civil claims,
but I don’t really understand what the basis was for them to grant him immunity
other than people with black robes making it so.
Similarly, you hear rumors of people running for president
because it makes them immune from being prosecuted for the crimes they’ve
committed. I would imagine that is
supposedly stemming from a similar precedence.
What I don’t understand is how we’ve gotten this far along,
and it’s never been spelled out in a law, that people could reference in these
articles. It’s always, “This political
expert is skeptical that …” or “This political expert believes …”. I really hate our legal system, where
everything is up for interpretation and is based off previous rulings. This should really take like 10 minutes. What laws do you believe give you the right
to subpoena his tax forms. What laws do
you believe protects him from having to give up his tax forms?
Quote: @"mblack" said:
So today we are the point where we are arguing that the president has total and absolute immunity from everything. In other words:
- If someone commits a crime like "shoots a person on 5th Avenue and then becomes president we can't prosecute him until he leaves office.
- If someone while president shoots someone we can't prosecute him until he leaves office.
- If the president of the united states breaks the law while in office, no matter how bad the crime is, we cant prosecute him until he leaves office.
Folks, that's where we are. That was the arguement from Trump's lawyers today.
Let that sink in. I thought this was the stuff of dictatorships. We very well may be on that path if this is what is the new normal.
I'll like to hear what others think
I guess you need to amend the constitution.
Article 2, section 2. The president has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
If you could sue/prosecute a POTUS, he/she would spend all day giving depositions. The office of POTUS is unique in our constitutional republic. The duties are extraordinary and thus are the constitutional protections. Prosecuting a POTUS has never been done. The closest we got was BJ Clinton, who agreed to a video-taped deposition in Jones V. Clinton, while POTUS. If Starr had pressed for more, he would have lost at the SCOTUS. Additional to the constitutional protections, are
the DOJ position memoranda going back 50 yrs (including GOP/DEM administrations) that DOJ cannot allow the prosecution of a POTUS.
The framers did provide for ONE WAY to remove/'prosecute' a POTUS. Impeachment.
"Dictatorship". lol
Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
@"mblack" said:
So today we are the point where we are arguing that the president has total and absolute immunity from everything. In other words:
- If someone commits a crime like "shoots a person on 5th Avenue and then becomes president we can't prosecute him until he leaves office.
- If someone while president shoots someone we can't prosecute him until he leaves office.
- If the president of the united states breaks the law while in office, no matter how bad the crime is, we cant prosecute him until he leaves office.
Folks, that's where we are. That was the arguement from Trump's lawyers today.
Let that sink in. I thought this was the stuff of dictatorships. We very well may be on that path if this is what is the new normal.
I'll like to hear what others think
I guess you need to amend the constitution.
Article 2, section 2. The president has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
If you could sue/prosecute a POTUS, he/she would spend all day giving depositions. The office of POTUS is unique in our constitutional republic. The duties are extraordinary and thus are the constitutional protections. Prosecuting a POTUS has never been done. The closest we got was BJ Clinton, who agreed to a video-taped deposition in Jones V. Clinton, while POTUS. If Starr had pressed for more, he would have lost at the SCOTUS. Additional to the constitutional protections, are
the DOJ position memoranda going back 50 yrs (including GOP/DEM administrations) that DOJ cannot allow the prosecution of a POTUS.
The framers did provide for ONE WAY to remove/'prosecute' a POTUS. Impeachment.
"Dictatorship". lol
I'm pretty sure that that's the point.
And, honestly: if the Democrats were honest and trustworthy folk, I'd join them in seeking "justice". But it doesn't seem to me to be "justice". It seems like a calculated attempt to circumnavigate the last election's results. There has been so much "fake news" regarding ANYTHING to do with the Republican party, that Democrats' accusations just aren't believable. Democrats could probably say the same thing about Republicans. So here we are. But can we at least stop trying to pretend that this is about justice, honesty and protecting the Constitution?
So a show of hands. Who bothers to even listen/watch the first 15 minutes of their pre-trump morning news station? (abc/cbs/nbc etc)
Im so sick of anti-trump reporting that I dont care anymore. The abcs/nbcs of the world have been caught lying so many times that I no longer care if theyre reporting fake news or not.
Quote: @"Viking1987" said:
not. to mention the democracts. ongoing secret. meetings
If you believe that I suggest investing in real estate, because I have a beautiful bridge in San Francisco to sell you.
|
