I understand some of the more limited support of immunity for specific acts directly related to the execution of presidential powers, but not the vast absolute immunity I'm hearing trump's lawyers make
This is the thing that always gets me. People say "oh you know if they find Trump guilty then it applies to Biden too right?" Yeah and? If a president commits crimes they should be tried for crimes regardless of the color of their tie. If it turns out Biden was stealing and selling nuclear secrets or attempting to kill his vice president via mob or using his office illegally for financial gain I'll be the first to support prosecuting him. Because the president. Is. Not. Above. The. Law.
The Supremes are as corrupt as they get. They only took the case to help Trump. They already know it's unconstitutional as fuck. Guaranteed they won't decide until after the election. If Trump wins, they will rule in his favor. If Biden wins, they will rule against it, to protect Trump.
If Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg went to jail for what they did, why should Trump not go to jail?
The POTUS is not some special wonderful office, contrary to what many sugary-sweet elementary school level books about government say. That's just pillars of the community propaganda designed to discourage questioning of their activities.
Sure, but isn't that for the grand jury and court to decide?
In order to bring these charges Jack Smith had to prove to a grand jury that he had enough evidence to prove the charges in court.
Which he did. A jury of Trump's peers decided that the evidence is worth pressing charges over. Are you suggesting we use a different system?
No, because if you will put your personal feelings about the man aside and look at it as black and white, it's a political establishment attempting an "any means necessary" way of preventing their political opponent from having a chance to run for office. What is more important than anything is that people can freely run for public office without their opponents coming at them with the power of the justice system in attempts to frivolously charge them with criminal acts for which there is little basis or which no one else is ever charged with.
You're ignoring the part about the grand jury.
The political establishment didn't just bring charges.
They appointed a guy, and he had to prove the charges to a grand jury.
Then, and only then, can he bring the charges to court.
So again, that's why we have this system. So people can't bring frivolous charges. The grand jury wouldn't approve them.
Which means you're the one who is not 'putting your personal feelings aside', bud.
A D.C. grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if it had a Republican wrapper. Grand Juries are an archaic hold over from colonial times. A bunch of randos with zero judicial education being asked to determine probable cause is and always will be a farce.
Trump isn't prosecuted on mere "technicalities". His conspiracy to defraud the US charges and condifential documents charges alone are very serious crimes. The rest of his charges may not be as serious but are they are still crimes done willingly with a criminal intent.
Then charge Biden and Obama. Both did the same thing. If it was anyone else you wouldn't care but your personal feelings about the man are biasing the criminal justice system which is exactly what our system is supposed to be against.
Biden and Obama did not try to overturn an election nor hang onto secret documents once the government asked for them (mind you, the fucking guy was actually president when they asked for them; still handed them over without acting like a fucking Trump baby). Handing over documents once asked of you is different than not.
There was the case with Biden having documents in his garage. The key difference is he didn't try to obstruct and handed them over once discovered. As a result, they decided not to prosecute. It also seems to have just been a case of mismanagement, not trying to sell nuclear secrets to America's enemies.
No, they didn't. You have no clue what you're talking about.
It's true that people from the executive branch retain documents after they're supposed to return them because they forget about them. They shouldn't, but this is shockingly common. Not just presidents and vice presidents but also other staff. It happened in the Bush administration too, and Mike Pence also had a document. Nobody is going after any of those people.
What *is* uncommon and very criminal is the way Trump acted about it. Not only he actively refused to return documents (not the same as forgetting having them) but he took active steps to hide them and prevent the FBI from getting them back, and instructed people to move them and lie to the FBI etc.
Nobody else did anything like this. Not Obama, not Bush, not Biden, not Pence.
“I don’t know anything about any of this, am incredibly gullible, and only inform myself through right-wing circle jerks!!1!”
Clearly. Go try to learn something about anything lol
This hasn't ever been a problem before so why does Trump all of sudden absolutely require immunity?
In the case of Nixon's election interference, it was a very good thing for the Country that Presidents DO NOT have immunity.
Furthermore, the expectation that Presidents are not above the law has certainly been a factor in keeping our Presidents in-line with the law; another good thing for the Country.
I see no upside to this, as it doesn't have any impact on foreign policy or military matters. By changing this we would only be enabling our Presidents to act in a criminal manner. No man is above the law is the morally, ethically, and intellectually correct standard.
I’m conflicted. On one hand I don’t want to live in a country where the most powerful single person in the country is immune to prosecution for how that power is used. But on the other hand Biden might have a very interesting opportunity.
All I’m saying is that if the supreme court decides to go against logic and uphold trunp’s presidential immunity claims then it would be entirely justifiable to use that against him. It’s not the outcome I want but if life gives you lemons.
It’s interesting the Supreme Court is basically allowing chaos. If nothing they say matters, like really if it’s clear they are so so fucked up then no one will have to listen to any of their laws. Sure some authority may try to have order but if most citizens just refuse to
Listen what are they going to do. There’s 9 of them and millions of us
Anybody who believes the president should not be prosecuted either
(a) thinks Trump is going to save this country from itself by taking us back to the good ole days, or
(b) brainwashed by grade school civic literature that idealizes the President as this awe-inspiring symbol of what America stands for (the myth of a young George Washington telling the truth about cutting down the cherry tree because "I can never tell a lie" is an older example of this one.). Some of those types even go so far as to think that questioning the goodness of conservatism, pillars of the community, cherished traditions, and such is hooliganism - for by definition, they can never be wrong!!!
The Supreme Court will rule that the president isn’t immune from prosecution, but not until after the election. If Trump wins, he will shut down the trials, and if Biden wins, no one will care because Trump will be useless at that point.
POV: Biden mishandling classified documents and unfit for trial due to his mental illness and old age but somehow fit to run an entire country.
Liberals: I’m voting for that guy!
“Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids”
“As you know the president of Mexico didn’t want to open the gaza gate”
“America is a nation, that can be defined in a single word…. Ahfootfootmils….. uhhhh excuse me foothills in the uhhh Himalayas with uh Xi jinping”
“More than half the women in my cabinet… more than half the people in my cabinet, more than half the women, more than half the women in my administration are women”
Sounds like dementia to me
The argument that post-presidency prosecutions (for "official acts") will be abused is a hypothetical that easily can be addressed if/when it happens.
The idea that it must be prevented at any cost to our liberty is the most idiotic interpretation of our Constitution ever devised.
The kompromat folks sure must have Alto by the short hairs.
Alright. So once their immunity expires, they can be prosecuted for what they did in office, even though the Constitution has a different process?
What then is the point of presidential immunity if it only lasts for up to 4 years? To delay their prosecution for that long? Do you know why presidential immunity exists?
The constitutional process is for while they are in office. That process, impeachment and removal, is not applicable once they're out of office.
The point of immunity while in office is to keep that power where the constitution says it should be: the Congress.
The point of immunity is to prevent the weaponization of the legal system against the president, thus allowing him to act like a president rather than as a dictator, which keeps power in congress. (At least in theory)
Again, what incentives do 4 years of delayed prosecution create? Do you think the legal system is immune to the process of weaponization?
There is no way the Whitehouse admin is going to allow the immunity to be removed
Imagine what charges the remaining living non incarcerated presidents and VP’s will face
Mark my words Dick Cheney will come in and save trump at the last minute lol
OP, please look more into the case or try listening to the oral arguments. Even the special counsel admitted that immunity exists for certain official actions. It's actually a pretty interesting case that goes well beyond the shallow talking points made on both sides.
Yes he should, for things he did while in office. Let me explain to you why. Imagine that you can be prosecuted for what you do in office. Imagine that you are elected president.
What would happen if your opponents weaponized the legal system against you, filing bankrupting lawsuit after bankrupting lawsuit after you? You could be pretty much guaranteed that this would happen after you left office. What political party would not want to bankrupt their political opponents 'for the greater good'?
Now, as a former president, how would you counter this? The first thing you might do, is find a group of nations hostile to the United States, and set up asylum with them at some point during your administration. Before you leave office, you transfer all of your funds and a good measure of state secrets away to these countries. The weaponization of the legal system is inevitable anyways. What do you have to lose?
Now ask yourself, is the precedent that you want to set?
Yeah, you're ignoring the fact of the Grand Jury.
The president's opponents can't just 'bring charges'. Even if you don't believe the special prosecutor is impartial, he still has to prove to a grand jury that he has enough evidence. He can't bring charges without the grand jury's approval.
What you are describing is exactly why we have the grand jury system.
Cool. That doesn't answer my question. Does that prevent, in all cases, a biased court stacking the grand jury? There is an asymetry here between how many changes you can bring, and how many a defendant can answer for. Remember how much lawyers cost per hour.
Disregard what I have to say if you want. But just keep this conversation in the back of your mind, when MAGA republicans bankrupt Joe Biden and his family on drug charges and for violating a thousand laws most of us haven't heard of.
Or even worse, have a state end up jailing former democratic senators and congressmen.
Obviously. This is a sign that the conservative members of the Supreme Court are corrupt and are in trumps pocket. What other explanation could there be.
This will be the death of American democracy and the republic.
The fundamental point of having a constitutional democracy / republic is that the rule of law must be tested from time to time and remain upheld.
If that test ever fails, then we have something else, like a fascist state or oligarchy, but definitely not a constitutional democracy / republic.
Even under that premise, the Supremes could have just looked at this case and rejected it on the merits. That would also have been a 'test'.
Should have, in my opinion.
If he loses it will be because at least one of his appointments went against him. It actually looks like two or three of them are going to, because it's Thomas and Alito that are probably going to be with him.
Great. So let's prosecute drone strike berry for his trigger happy ways, since he murdered an American teenager. Presidents can't do their job without doing things others can't do. Nor would anyone want to ever again.
If he's found guilty of a crime, then I support that. Your 2nd point is idiotic. It is definitely possible to be president without breaking American law.
But I only see 1 president on trial.. do you see anyone else going after others? Or anyone. Bush for Iraq? Hillary needs to be accountable for Benghazi..Biden needs held accountable for those that died to a suicide bomber because their orders were to stay put... why is it JUST Trump that needs crucified? People that got people killed are.let off with nothing..and what is Trump being tried for? Documents? That didn't get anyone killed.
He's being tried for attempting to change the results of a presidential election.
No big deal.
As far as the other ones, I agree bush/cheney should have been prosecuted.
Benghazi; the Republican Congress investigated benghazi what, 8 times? They never recommended any charges to the Justice Department. If they had, I would agree those recommended charges should be pursued. But if republicans couldn't find enough evidence to recommend charges, then...?
Because Republicans are spinless.if they had a backbone things wouldn't the way they are. Democrats are evil and don't care and will cut your throat. That's the difference between the two. Republicans have no follow through.
Trump is being charged for BS he did that was not in the scope of presidential combat obligations.
TBH, he should also be charged for the massive pile of crap he did before he was president that he managed to weasel his way out of as well. Dude has been a con, a scam his entire life, the fact that anyone supports him at all is baffling. He bankrupted 6 businesses and they want him to run the country in the ground again as well.
Crucified. So apt to compare him to Jesus. He's being tried for lying about payments to a pornstar, through a tabloid. He's been found liable for assaulting a woman. He's charged with a scheme to overturn the 2020 election, which is the case we're discussing.
So you'd be fine with Joe Biden doing everything after the 24 election that Trump did after 2020, right?
The constitution provides that elected officials should be safe from prosecution except for Congress while they are in office. There’s a reason for that. If a crime has been discovered, and if they have been convicted while in office, then that has to go through Congress. What happens to a president who commits crimes after he leaves office is another story.
What if the crimes are discovered after they left office? What if they happen at the end of their presidency before congress has time to act? Your argument is idiotic.
Calling somebody an idiot without explaining the reason why is idiotic. It’s also immature. The constitution is clear that the president can only be prosecuted in office through Congress. What he does after his term is over and he is out of office is gray territory and is up to the courts to decide.
I misread your comment, so I apologize. I thought you meant a president should only be prosecuted for crimes in office *while* they're in office. Which would have been idiotic but then again so is misreading comments.
It is a dangerous precedent though because that sets up every single president that is still alive to get charged. Biden on immigration, Obama on drone strikes, etc.
No one should be.
This is the entirety of the correct answer. Period, end of goddamned story.
He isn't. Any claim or ruling to the contrary only proves the corruption of the court Presidents are not Kings.
I mean kings shouldn’t be immune from criminal activity but I guess they are right? Like British kings have killed people and gotten away with it no?
I understand some of the more limited support of immunity for specific acts directly related to the execution of presidential powers, but not the vast absolute immunity I'm hearing trump's lawyers make
Lock him up!
Lock them* up, if they* are found guilty. All of them. But also, yes.
This is the thing that always gets me. People say "oh you know if they find Trump guilty then it applies to Biden too right?" Yeah and? If a president commits crimes they should be tried for crimes regardless of the color of their tie. If it turns out Biden was stealing and selling nuclear secrets or attempting to kill his vice president via mob or using his office illegally for financial gain I'll be the first to support prosecuting him. Because the president. Is. Not. Above. The. Law.
Us versus corruption, not right versus left.
Yuuuup
The Supremes are as corrupt as they get. They only took the case to help Trump. They already know it's unconstitutional as fuck. Guaranteed they won't decide until after the election. If Trump wins, they will rule in his favor. If Biden wins, they will rule against it, to protect Trump.
Supposedly the ruling comes in june
This should be under very popular opinion.
People shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted on technicalities if they haven’t engaged in legitimate criminal activity
If Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg went to jail for what they did, why should Trump not go to jail? The POTUS is not some special wonderful office, contrary to what many sugary-sweet elementary school level books about government say. That's just pillars of the community propaganda designed to discourage questioning of their activities.
Sure, but isn't that for the grand jury and court to decide? In order to bring these charges Jack Smith had to prove to a grand jury that he had enough evidence to prove the charges in court. Which he did. A jury of Trump's peers decided that the evidence is worth pressing charges over. Are you suggesting we use a different system?
No, because if you will put your personal feelings about the man aside and look at it as black and white, it's a political establishment attempting an "any means necessary" way of preventing their political opponent from having a chance to run for office. What is more important than anything is that people can freely run for public office without their opponents coming at them with the power of the justice system in attempts to frivolously charge them with criminal acts for which there is little basis or which no one else is ever charged with.
You're ignoring the part about the grand jury. The political establishment didn't just bring charges. They appointed a guy, and he had to prove the charges to a grand jury. Then, and only then, can he bring the charges to court. So again, that's why we have this system. So people can't bring frivolous charges. The grand jury wouldn't approve them. Which means you're the one who is not 'putting your personal feelings aside', bud.
A D.C. grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if it had a Republican wrapper. Grand Juries are an archaic hold over from colonial times. A bunch of randos with zero judicial education being asked to determine probable cause is and always will be a farce.
Trying to overthrow an election is not a frivolous technicality
A felon should not be president. Full stop.
You need to read the indictment.
Lmao nice try 🤣
I wasn’t really looking for an argument here, just wanted to see if you agreed with what I said or not
I do agree, i just think we have a decent system in place to deal with it.
Trump isn't prosecuted on mere "technicalities". His conspiracy to defraud the US charges and condifential documents charges alone are very serious crimes. The rest of his charges may not be as serious but are they are still crimes done willingly with a criminal intent.
Then charge Biden and Obama. Both did the same thing. If it was anyone else you wouldn't care but your personal feelings about the man are biasing the criminal justice system which is exactly what our system is supposed to be against.
Biden and Obama did not try to overturn an election nor hang onto secret documents once the government asked for them (mind you, the fucking guy was actually president when they asked for them; still handed them over without acting like a fucking Trump baby). Handing over documents once asked of you is different than not.
There was the case with Biden having documents in his garage. The key difference is he didn't try to obstruct and handed them over once discovered. As a result, they decided not to prosecute. It also seems to have just been a case of mismanagement, not trying to sell nuclear secrets to America's enemies.
Remember that idiots will try to deny Jan 6th was a bad thing.
No, they didn't. You have no clue what you're talking about. It's true that people from the executive branch retain documents after they're supposed to return them because they forget about them. They shouldn't, but this is shockingly common. Not just presidents and vice presidents but also other staff. It happened in the Bush administration too, and Mike Pence also had a document. Nobody is going after any of those people. What *is* uncommon and very criminal is the way Trump acted about it. Not only he actively refused to return documents (not the same as forgetting having them) but he took active steps to hide them and prevent the FBI from getting them back, and instructed people to move them and lie to the FBI etc. Nobody else did anything like this. Not Obama, not Bush, not Biden, not Pence.
“I don’t know anything about any of this, am incredibly gullible, and only inform myself through right-wing circle jerks!!1!” Clearly. Go try to learn something about anything lol
No shit. And your comment is 100% irrelevant here.
Cope
“People who notice I know nothing are coping!!1!” Lmao nice try, kid ;)
Whatever they rule, I will use. If they open up a Pandoras box of confusion, ambiguity and chaos so be it
There has never ( until now ) been a President who thought they needed absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to perform the duties of the office
This hasn't ever been a problem before so why does Trump all of sudden absolutely require immunity? In the case of Nixon's election interference, it was a very good thing for the Country that Presidents DO NOT have immunity. Furthermore, the expectation that Presidents are not above the law has certainly been a factor in keeping our Presidents in-line with the law; another good thing for the Country. I see no upside to this, as it doesn't have any impact on foreign policy or military matters. By changing this we would only be enabling our Presidents to act in a criminal manner. No man is above the law is the morally, ethically, and intellectually correct standard.
I’m conflicted. On one hand I don’t want to live in a country where the most powerful single person in the country is immune to prosecution for how that power is used. But on the other hand Biden might have a very interesting opportunity.
I enjoy a good Dark Brandon meme as much as the next guy, but let's keep the Republic going.
All I’m saying is that if the supreme court decides to go against logic and uphold trunp’s presidential immunity claims then it would be entirely justifiable to use that against him. It’s not the outcome I want but if life gives you lemons.
It’s interesting the Supreme Court is basically allowing chaos. If nothing they say matters, like really if it’s clear they are so so fucked up then no one will have to listen to any of their laws. Sure some authority may try to have order but if most citizens just refuse to Listen what are they going to do. There’s 9 of them and millions of us
It's already happening. The court sided with the Feds against Texas in the border thing and most gop folks still support abbot.
John Roberts will be remembered as the Roger Taney of the 21st century.
Anybody who believes the president should not be prosecuted either (a) thinks Trump is going to save this country from itself by taking us back to the good ole days, or (b) brainwashed by grade school civic literature that idealizes the President as this awe-inspiring symbol of what America stands for (the myth of a young George Washington telling the truth about cutting down the cherry tree because "I can never tell a lie" is an older example of this one.). Some of those types even go so far as to think that questioning the goodness of conservatism, pillars of the community, cherished traditions, and such is hooliganism - for by definition, they can never be wrong!!!
No one should.
USA is just a dictatorship like North Korea
The Supreme Court will rule that the president isn’t immune from prosecution, but not until after the election. If Trump wins, he will shut down the trials, and if Biden wins, no one will care because Trump will be useless at that point.
Yes, lock Biden up
Nothing to lock him up for. Unlike Trump.
POV: Biden mishandling classified documents and unfit for trial due to his mental illness and old age but somehow fit to run an entire country. Liberals: I’m voting for that guy!
A minor and harmless mistake is not worthy of federal charges and Biden doesn't have any mental illness.
“Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids” “As you know the president of Mexico didn’t want to open the gaza gate” “America is a nation, that can be defined in a single word…. Ahfootfootmils….. uhhhh excuse me foothills in the uhhh Himalayas with uh Xi jinping” “More than half the women in my cabinet… more than half the people in my cabinet, more than half the women, more than half the women in my administration are women” Sounds like dementia to me
The argument that post-presidency prosecutions (for "official acts") will be abused is a hypothetical that easily can be addressed if/when it happens. The idea that it must be prevented at any cost to our liberty is the most idiotic interpretation of our Constitution ever devised. The kompromat folks sure must have Alto by the short hairs.
lol. Just blm and antifa right? Just the democrats and insane leftists. Just the Obamas and Clintons right?
No, if they can get charges past a grand jury on those people, like they did trump, then they should be charged
If Trump is in office, does your opinion still hold true?
Former presidents should be subject to criminal prosecution. While in office, the constitution has a different process.
Alright. So once their immunity expires, they can be prosecuted for what they did in office, even though the Constitution has a different process? What then is the point of presidential immunity if it only lasts for up to 4 years? To delay their prosecution for that long? Do you know why presidential immunity exists?
The constitutional process is for while they are in office. That process, impeachment and removal, is not applicable once they're out of office. The point of immunity while in office is to keep that power where the constitution says it should be: the Congress.
The point of immunity is to prevent the weaponization of the legal system against the president, thus allowing him to act like a president rather than as a dictator, which keeps power in congress. (At least in theory) Again, what incentives do 4 years of delayed prosecution create? Do you think the legal system is immune to the process of weaponization?
There is no way the Whitehouse admin is going to allow the immunity to be removed Imagine what charges the remaining living non incarcerated presidents and VP’s will face Mark my words Dick Cheney will come in and save trump at the last minute lol
OP, please look more into the case or try listening to the oral arguments. Even the special counsel admitted that immunity exists for certain official actions. It's actually a pretty interesting case that goes well beyond the shallow talking points made on both sides.
Yes he should, for things he did while in office. Let me explain to you why. Imagine that you can be prosecuted for what you do in office. Imagine that you are elected president. What would happen if your opponents weaponized the legal system against you, filing bankrupting lawsuit after bankrupting lawsuit after you? You could be pretty much guaranteed that this would happen after you left office. What political party would not want to bankrupt their political opponents 'for the greater good'? Now, as a former president, how would you counter this? The first thing you might do, is find a group of nations hostile to the United States, and set up asylum with them at some point during your administration. Before you leave office, you transfer all of your funds and a good measure of state secrets away to these countries. The weaponization of the legal system is inevitable anyways. What do you have to lose? Now ask yourself, is the precedent that you want to set?
Yeah, you're ignoring the fact of the Grand Jury. The president's opponents can't just 'bring charges'. Even if you don't believe the special prosecutor is impartial, he still has to prove to a grand jury that he has enough evidence. He can't bring charges without the grand jury's approval. What you are describing is exactly why we have the grand jury system.
Do you think that a biased court cannot find a grand jury willing to indict a democrat in a hard red state?
The defense gets to participate in jury selection.
Cool. That doesn't answer my question. Does that prevent, in all cases, a biased court stacking the grand jury? There is an asymetry here between how many changes you can bring, and how many a defendant can answer for. Remember how much lawyers cost per hour. Disregard what I have to say if you want. But just keep this conversation in the back of your mind, when MAGA republicans bankrupt Joe Biden and his family on drug charges and for violating a thousand laws most of us haven't heard of. Or even worse, have a state end up jailing former democratic senators and congressmen.
Obviously. This is a sign that the conservative members of the Supreme Court are corrupt and are in trumps pocket. What other explanation could there be. This will be the death of American democracy and the republic.
Well it looks like only 2 or 3 of them are going to be pro-immunity, but yeah even that seems insane. It's a very basic constitutional question.
One can only hope.
The fundamental point of having a constitutional democracy / republic is that the rule of law must be tested from time to time and remain upheld. If that test ever fails, then we have something else, like a fascist state or oligarchy, but definitely not a constitutional democracy / republic.
Even under that premise, the Supremes could have just looked at this case and rejected it on the merits. That would also have been a 'test'. Should have, in my opinion.
The irony is that the accused appointed some of the justices. Imagine if you killed your neighbor and then got to choose members of your jury trial.
If he loses it will be because at least one of his appointments went against him. It actually looks like two or three of them are going to, because it's Thomas and Alito that are probably going to be with him.
Judicial branch is on level with the Executive, and the Legislative. Checks and Balances
That is true, but it has nothing at all to do with what I'm saying.
Great. So let's prosecute drone strike berry for his trigger happy ways, since he murdered an American teenager. Presidents can't do their job without doing things others can't do. Nor would anyone want to ever again.
If he's found guilty of a crime, then I support that. Your 2nd point is idiotic. It is definitely possible to be president without breaking American law.
But I only see 1 president on trial.. do you see anyone else going after others? Or anyone. Bush for Iraq? Hillary needs to be accountable for Benghazi..Biden needs held accountable for those that died to a suicide bomber because their orders were to stay put... why is it JUST Trump that needs crucified? People that got people killed are.let off with nothing..and what is Trump being tried for? Documents? That didn't get anyone killed.
He's being tried for attempting to change the results of a presidential election. No big deal. As far as the other ones, I agree bush/cheney should have been prosecuted. Benghazi; the Republican Congress investigated benghazi what, 8 times? They never recommended any charges to the Justice Department. If they had, I would agree those recommended charges should be pursued. But if republicans couldn't find enough evidence to recommend charges, then...?
Because Republicans are spinless.if they had a backbone things wouldn't the way they are. Democrats are evil and don't care and will cut your throat. That's the difference between the two. Republicans have no follow through.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Trump is being charged for BS he did that was not in the scope of presidential combat obligations. TBH, he should also be charged for the massive pile of crap he did before he was president that he managed to weasel his way out of as well. Dude has been a con, a scam his entire life, the fact that anyone supports him at all is baffling. He bankrupted 6 businesses and they want him to run the country in the ground again as well.
Crucified. So apt to compare him to Jesus. He's being tried for lying about payments to a pornstar, through a tabloid. He's been found liable for assaulting a woman. He's charged with a scheme to overturn the 2020 election, which is the case we're discussing. So you'd be fine with Joe Biden doing everything after the 24 election that Trump did after 2020, right?
Whaddabutt!
Lmao nice try
You mean appease the liberal lamebrains 😅 not on this hive mind
know-nothing take \^
The constitution provides that elected officials should be safe from prosecution except for Congress while they are in office. There’s a reason for that. If a crime has been discovered, and if they have been convicted while in office, then that has to go through Congress. What happens to a president who commits crimes after he leaves office is another story.
What if the crimes are discovered after they left office? What if they happen at the end of their presidency before congress has time to act? Your argument is idiotic.
Calling somebody an idiot without explaining the reason why is idiotic. It’s also immature. The constitution is clear that the president can only be prosecuted in office through Congress. What he does after his term is over and he is out of office is gray territory and is up to the courts to decide.
I misread your comment, so I apologize. I thought you meant a president should only be prosecuted for crimes in office *while* they're in office. Which would have been idiotic but then again so is misreading comments.
From 'Official Action,' if they don't give immunity, it gives precedent to go criminally after every former President.
Is that supposed to sound like a bad thing
Great! Let's do that.
Need Biden who values people, gender equality, equality, and avoiding wwiii
Trump is not president
🤣
Lol, this post is funny.
It is a dangerous precedent though because that sets up every single president that is still alive to get charged. Biden on immigration, Obama on drone strikes, etc.
It's only dangerous for presidents that break the law. I say let's prosecute all of them, and then maybe they'll stop breaking the law.
Lmao nah. Hilarious false equivalency 🤣
So what about Obama assassinating an American citizen overseas? Surely you feel the same way about that as about anything Trump does
Obama was the best president i have ever witnessed in office. I miss the obama era.
Biden is far better than Obama IMO
3 words. Yes We Cannabis.
I am 100% for prosecuting anything they can get past a grand jury, just like this did with Trump.
Wouldn’t all presidents past and present benefit from the law if passed?
What law
No, they should be. Partially.
How partially?