Even for events that cross the line?
Just wondering if everybody thinks Biden should be able to “cross the line.”
Just wondering if everybody thinks Biden should be able to “cross the line.”
Should Presidents have Full and Total Immunity
- Thread starter HerdandHokies
- Start date
Should Obama be held responsible for murder when he knew his drone strikes were killing innocent civilians?
That's the eventual door that will get opened.
I'm not defending the immunity President's get, but I've been saying for a while the way the laws are set up, they make it incredibly difficult to successfully prosecute them. President's make hard decisions which almost 100% of the time have unintended messy outcomes. You hope they're guided by good intentions but don't want them paralyzed into non-action for fear of prosecution.
It speaks to Patton's quote, "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
That’s what impeachment is for. You get convicted and removed you are open for prosecution.
No, that's an official act within the Constitutional scope of the position.
Hell, let's dig up Truman and prosecute him for nuking the Japs.
Electioneering is not an official act.
Bingo. It's a messy, evil world.
Is this in the secret sequel to the constitution you all won’t let anybody else see?
No. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal justice act.
And there are times you will be prosecuted before impeachment, because an arrest or indictment is how Congress finds out someone broke the law. Bob Menendez should be impeached and removed from the Senate, I don't care if he beats the rap in court, we now know he had the loot from bribery in his home, fvck him.
Well, it’s a small part of the Grand Canyon sized gulf that separates me from EG, sure
Sure, but do you have a yes or no answer as to the question posed? Because I can answer it pretty easily. No, Presidents shouldn’t have full and total immunity even when “crossing the line.”
My legal answer is yes, my moral answer is no. Guys like, Clinton, Obama, Trump, & Biden will bend it to their advantage
Senator is not the President and obviously bribery and looting is worse than challenging election results.
So if Biden has the FBI assassinate Trump tomorrow and the Senate won’t vote 2/3 to convict then that’s something that should be legal?
That's where you think this is headed? I'm being serious. That's where you think this is headed? I get his defense team is arguing this, but I'm asking if you, a reasonable democrat, believes this.
Given everything Biden & his DOJ are doing to stop Trump, I actually think it's a pretty ballsy defense on Trump's part, actually. And there are plenty of dems with TDS that would see it as a move for the greater good.
I don’t think Biden will actually assassinate Trump but is that not the logical conclusion of this train of thought? It’s an argument that one President and 34 Senators can overthrow the government. Presidents aren’t kings. They’re beholden to the laws of the land.
As an aside I think this is a bad argument for them to present to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is going to be falling all over themselves to let him off on something. Saying things that sound like “we’ll interpret a win in this case to mean the President can assassinate political opponents” is going to give some of the justices pause.
For as divided as the court is, I think the SCOTUS would try to find any way out they could, regardless if it were Trump or Biden. Historically, they do not like being put in this positions like this.
I agree, I just think Trump is making that harder for them. I feel very sure they’re not going to agree that Biden can show up at their doorstep with a roll full of quarters when he gets the itch to make an appointment.
I believe you have to err on the side of caution with the President, especially in nuanced situations with ample room for interpretation. If Biden walks outside, pulls out a Glock and shoots 8 random people for sport, he shouldn’t have immunity. That’s a clear criminal act done with clear malicious intent.
In areas of executive privilege it is far more cloudy. If Putin sends Biden a letter thanking him for helping him see the light about not using nukes in Ukraine and Biden frames the letter and takes it because he feels it signifies a major accomplishment in his political career, should he be prosecuted? The fact that the letter indicates Putin was about to use nukes would be highly classified in nature. If he forgot to officially declassify it before leaving, should he go to prison? I don’t think so.
In areas of executive privilege it is far more cloudy. If Putin sends Biden a letter thanking him for helping him see the light about not using nukes in Ukraine and Biden frames the letter and takes it because he feels it signifies a major accomplishment in his political career, should he be prosecuted? The fact that the letter indicates Putin was about to use nukes would be highly classified in nature. If he forgot to officially declassify it before leaving, should he go to prison? I don’t think so.
So, we could never conduct another war. Do you want to speak German or Jap or better yet, how is your Mandarin? There is a difference in illegal acts. Hey go bomb a hospital or kids home with that being the intended target. That is war crime. However, sir we have 200 Al Qaeda fighters in this village who are planning attacks on American troops. The damage assesments say we could inflict some civilian casualties. Go or No Go, sir? Go. That is not a war crime or illegal.
You can conduct a war without blatant disregard for civilian casualties which don’t even fulfill a strategic objective. There’ll always be civilian casualties, and I agree with the decision at the time to drop the bombs on Japan, but Obama’s “drone it if it moves” approach did way more harm than good for our foreign relations.
Edit: and when Obama did it we weren’t even in an actual war
Challenging election results means going to court. Which Trump did, in front of over 90 judges.
Telling a state official to find votes that don't exist isn't challenging results. Attempting to parade in false electors is not challenging results. Telling the Vice President to do something illegal is not challenging results.
Refusing the peaceful transfer of power is far worse than bribery. It strikes at the very heart of how our system even exists.
I do not know of any President, Congressman, or Senator that has personally looted, what are you talking about?
And the process of impeachment for a President or a Senator is exactly the same, except that the Chief Justice shall preside if it is the President. In neither case is impeachment a requirement for prosecution, this appears no where in the Constitution. Neither is criminal conviction necessary for impeachment. The reason, again, is impeachment is a political process; impeachment is remedial, not punitive. Notice that the President cannot pardon an impeachment.
Now, one difference between members of Congress and the President is each house has the power to vote to expel a member. This is not impeachment. However, IMO Congress may still move to fully impeach a member of Congress and vote to disqualify them from further office. In the case of Menendez, my opinion is his corruption is so egregious he should be impeached and disqualified...but I would be happy to just have him removed, what a piece of shit.
In no way, shape or form should a president be immune from crimes against our nation. Immune from collateral damage, for doing what he or she thought was for the greater good?
Yes.
Getting rich off the backs of taxpayers?
He'll no.
So my answer is yes and no, depending on the circumstances.
Yes.
Getting rich off the backs of taxpayers?
He'll no.
So my answer is yes and no, depending on the circumstances.
We got it the first time, dumbass.
Repeating yourself adds nothing and only shows why most on this board laugh at you.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Top 10 Playmaking Duos of All-Time. Take A Look At Who Came In At #6- Latest: BleedsGreen33