Anonymous wrote:Passion is a valuable political resource. President Trump has passionate supporters; Biden doesn’t. President Trump has armed supporters; Biden doesn’t.
If we had been so worried about political violence back in 1776, we would be paying taxes to London. The Patriots realized that their political passion was their most valuable resource against the British Empire.
So too does President Trump. Each supporter carrying an AR-15 outside a Black urban polling place is worth a 100 votes minimum, for the count of people who get out of line and walk home.
So why wouldn’t President Trump harvest that passion?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My 13:year old saw the thread title and said, Haven't these people heard of the rule of law? We learned about it in school. No, the president isn't above the law. Of course not.
Did you explain to your 13 year old that the constitution specified impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and that President Trump was impeached and not convicted?
DP and then her 13 year might reply but what if a president resigns before impeachment and conviction take place, that means he's above the law if he commits High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Maybe. But that isn’t what happened. Trump WAS impeached and was found not guilty. That is the situation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.
Did you listen to the arguments? That’s not what was said. Trump’s attorney was arguing it’s a violation of the separation of powers for his conduct to be reviewed by a court.
Yes because the remedy is impeachment. That is what the constitution says. Court should dismiss the case based on a lack of jurisdiction.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.
So how does that question of fact get settled? Trump is claiming the charges should be dismissed before a trial.
That is what these judges have to decide. Does a president have immunity from prosecution for doing acts that are in support of his role or is there a limit. It’s going to be a fact question and he was not convicted by the senate. The constitution allows the senate to remove him and they chose not to. So can a court find his immunity should be striped for an action he says was part of his job and the senate did not disagree? I think the answer will be that ultimately he has immunity. He has to or he can’t do his job.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers argued in court today that a President could order Seal Team 6 to murder a political opponent and he would be immune from criminal prosecution.
What type of argument is this? Didn’t we fight a war with Britain to get away from a king?
It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?
You would get to a point of a feckless presidency that can't act in many cases. Would you like Biden to be prosecuted for killing 13 children in Kabul, Afghanistan in a missile strike that Biden concurred to? The precedent you would be setting is MADNESS.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers argued in court today that a President could order Seal Team 6 to murder a political opponent and he would be immune from criminal prosecution.
What type of argument is this? Didn’t we fight a war with Britain to get away from a king?
It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?
Anonymous wrote:Couldn’t the president just have gunmen at the impeachment vote and kill anyone that votes to impeach? Now you have a King 🤴
Anonymous wrote:Guys. This is a feature of the constitution. Not a bug. Prosecuting current and former presidents is not a good thing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It does matter that Trump was not convicted by the Senate. But if we now say a president can be tried criminally once they have left office for actions taken while in office, why not have that apply to all prior presidents. That would be interesting to see.
What other presidents in recent memory besides Richard Nixon and Trump have done prosecutable things while in office?
I recall a certain president perjured himself and was disbarred. Perjury is a crime.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers argued in court today that a President could order Seal Team 6 to murder a political opponent and he would be immune from criminal prosecution.
What type of argument is this? Didn’t we fight a war with Britain to get away from a king?
It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?
Anonymous wrote:Couldn’t the president just have gunmen at the impeachment vote and kill anyone that votes to impeach? Now you have a King 🤴
Anonymous wrote:Guys. This is a feature of the constitution. Not a bug. Prosecuting current and former presidents is not a good thing.
Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers argued in court today that a President could order Seal Team 6 to murder a political opponent and he would be immune from criminal prosecution.
What type of argument is this? Didn’t we fight a war with Britain to get away from a king?