Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

I mean… Nixon resigned before being impeached, and was then pardoned by his VP, if I recall correctly?

[Bumber]

So a president can get away with any federal crime, including conspiracy to commit murder, regardless of presidential immunity or prerequisite to impeach.

The power to pardon would probably be nerfed in the next patch, however.

[hector13]

Only if it’s prosecuted as a federal crime, pretty sure the presidential pardon only covers those? I might be wrong.

Presidential immunity - at least as expressed by Trump and his legal team - appears to be a it more absolute, given the arguments presented in attempting to dismiss the state trial in Georgia.

[anewaname]

Obama had to sign off on the action to kill that al-Qaeda leader, and there were secondary casualties. There should have been a series of court proceedings and Obama should have been involved. A prosecutor should have even attempted to convict him of murder.

But, wasn't the USA "at war" with the stateless organization known as al-Qaeda? How does that factor into this? What are the rights of a US citizen who joins an organization that you are actively exchanging gunfire with? Which laws still apply during a war of this sort?

Those things would come up in those court proceedings as well, and would probably lead to the case ending before Obama had to be personally involved, but by having the court proceedings go through the steps, it would create some fine precedent for dealing with ass-hats like Bob "Pay Me In Gold" Menendez and the multitude of others, because Obama's case would have been backed up by evidence and Bob's would not.

Side Note: Trump had an "expert witness" and I liked what Judge Engoron said about him, the "only thing his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say."

[McTraveller]

And that hints at why there is a concept of Presidential Immunity - if in the course of executing duties of the office, such as related to war, a President shouldn't have to worry about getting convicted of murder.  (In fact, by legal definition, such actions shouldn't be classified as murder at all).

The legal confusion, which appears to be perpetuated by the "Trump legal team", is that this immunity applies to any action of the President, when very likely it doesn't; if a President goes out and punches a reporter because they get angry, that is not an action related to executing duties of the office, so should have no protection.

Now maybe there are some grey areas; is assassinating the leader of an aggressive militant group reasonable for the security of the nation, or is it just a personal ego trip of the sitting President?  But I don't think the "Trump legal team" argues that point, even if they recognize the difference - they want to stretch it to the extreme, not discussing the difference between action against "a political opponent" versus action against "a threat to the nation."  Sure someone who is a threat to the nation is also likely a political opponent, but it's not the political opposition that warrants aggressive response.

[None]

So do you support putting Obama on trial for murder right now? Or does he get presidential immunity for having to make that decision?

However, you only seem to say things like that when Republicans do bad things. Your other tactic is to whatabout a Democrat doing something bad too, as though that justifies what the Republicans do, as opposed to, you know, punishing them both so the stupid shit stops.

Pro-tip: I don't personally think Obama should be tried for murder. It's a shoe-on-the-other-foot test.

i can't believe it's not whataboutism

[Maximum™]

GOOD LORD stop letting this shit get thrown out an Overton window!

Presidential Immunity ONLY EVER applies to civil cases, fucking duh, otherwise you'd have assholes constantly suing every president for wearing tan suits or golfing or what the fuck ever.

Nobody anywhere ever until this stupid orange turd tried to argue it meant they could get away with murder or trying to overthrow the government or selling classified documents to the saudis because NO PRESIDENT EVER WAS AS MUCH OF A SCUMBAG, not even that disgusting piece of shit Reagan would have ever considered this kind of shit. If I were a necromancer I would regularly resurrect ole Ronnie and give him full senses of pain and awareness just to curbstomp him every fucking day, and he was still nowhere near as terrible as the orange turd.

[nenjin]

Ah yes. The classic Republican tactic of wasting everyone's time arguing something absurd to distract from what actually, factually matters. Maybe don't sell your soul to the fucking devil next time just for the sake of winning, fools.

[Bumber]

The legal confusion, which appears to be perpetuated by the "Trump legal team", is that this immunity applies to any action of the President, when very likely it doesn't

I think the argument was for "official" acts, which they claim election stuff falls under the oath to make sure laws are faithfully executed. Stop the steal, etc.

[Maximum™]

Which, natch, is nonsense, as presidents have 0 role in elections outside of having their name on a ballot/campaigning, but even then they aren't running as presidents, but candidates.

Yet again said immunity was only ever for civil suits.

[McTraveller]

Election season starts.

 

[Random_Dragon]

Election season starts.

 

Ugh, already?

[Frumple]

Pfft, it started months ago. It's just getting a bit more intense, as it will continue to for the rest of the year.

[McTraveller]

For those not familiar... I was referring to the Iowa caucus, often considered the start of the US Presidential election cycle proper.  It's where we start seeing exactly how popularity overrides capability.  Or to borrow the phrase from a book my wife's reading: how tribe is chosen over truth.

[anewaname]

So, in the last GOP debate, which was just Halley and DeSantis, Halley closed with "make america proud again"...

Last night, when Trump spoke before/during Iowa's event, he used that phrase in the middle of a series of "make america [word] phrases", with a moment of extra pause to make it clear he was saying, "Halley never owned this phrase" and the heirarchy-minded ever-Trumpers loved it, starting their cheering at that moment (probably staged, but he and they knew what it meant). All part of the "take the good words before your enemy does" concept.

EDIT: Also, according to the FirstPost vid I was watching, Trump called Vivek a fraud and a conman while Viveck called Trump the best president of the 21st century... Maybe Vivek was paid to be in the race to ensure DeSantis is shown what proper fealty looks like.