311–320 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Many Americans see themselves as rebels. Funny thing is many of the most vociferous so-called rebels are nothing more than bullies and aggressors. People who already hold most of the power, and are "rebelling" only at the fact that their victims are starting to struggle a bit under their grip. There's nothing "rebellious" about being a wealthy real estate baron and casino owner. And nothing "rebellious" about support…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To make this claim you have to argue that the indictment is illegitimate. And I suppose there are a lot of people who will make that claim. Presumably the reason Obama, Bush and Clinton won't be charged with crimes is that there isn't enough evidence that they committed any crimes for a prosecutor to seek an indictment.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Quick question, who is the most criminal president in US history? Your post is a lot of meta talk and very short on actual....crimes. The idea behind this indictment is that Trump broke the law as a citizen. Not that he did stuff in office that people dislike. Which law did Obama break which you think he evaded prosecution for on account of being president. Please be specific.
Not parent, but I am relatively certain you can't just kill US citizen with a wave of a hand ( not legally that is[1]). Obama did just that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
Your Wikipedia link makes it seem like an honest mistake. Which would not be a crime, though could have civil penalties if government immunity wasn't involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Better serve as long as possible in that case, and use the power of government to keep himself in power. Kind of what used to happen before democracy.
Why would a future president think there are any limits whatsoever on his actions, when a future of prosecution will never await him? Kind of what happened on Jan 6.
> Kind of what happened on Jan 6.
A riot by angry admirers of the last President when they overran the White House with only token resistance? You prevent that by arresting him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour bef…
[flagged]
Don’t worry… we’ll be okay whatever happens. It’s never as bad as what the FUD pushers wished would happen (“feared” would be the wrong word here).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour bef…
Doesn't that just give over power to prosecutors to pick who you get to vote for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Yes everything is different right now and all precedent and apprehensive reactions should be disregarded - aka what every single hysterical partisan in history has said. Don’t worry… we’ll be okay whatever happens. It’s never as bad as what the FUD pushers wished would happen (“feared” would be the wrong word here).
Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. We are overdue for setting the precedent of a former President being charged with a crime, and we ought to go back and charge a few other former Presidents with crimes while we’re at it.
> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. I think that's overstated. First of all, it was the Magna Carta which established that the king was not above the law, so in that sense the founding of the United States was more "and we don't need a king". Second, there are frequently legal discussions in the present day as to whether a sitting presiden…
That is similar to the immunity given to the sitting US President. What is different is that monarch is not really expected to obey the law either. For example, the Prime Minister was fined for illegally not wearing a seatbelt. If the king didn’t wear a seatbelt, it would not be a big deal - the royal family freely ignore traffic laws (and more serious laws) without consequences. Queen Elizabeth did agree to start paying taxes, but there was never any suggestion that she be compelled to pay taxes, merely that it would be the right thing to do.
I think it sets a good precedent. If indicting past presidents (and vice presidents) for crimes committed while in office (or while running for office), well, the courts are going to be busy on this front for years to come. Bush and Cheney are certainly candidates, r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims. The list could be expanded to include charges related to the unConstitutional domestic spying progra…
We’ve prosecuted a vice president candidate for similar crimes. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senator-and-presidenti...
And more importantly, that's not what Trump was indicted for. Indicting him for misusing campaign funds would be straight-forward, if they could prove it.
So the fact that they indicted him for something else seems to show that they couldn't prove he misused campaign funds. They actually indicted him for recording a payment to his lawyer as "legal expenses", because it was allegedly used to pay for Stormy Daniels silence.
What I don't understand is why this is different from the many other cases when people and companies pay to settle claims in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement. Those are usually considered legal expenses.
I think the poster child for this is Henry Kissenger.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/22/uk.kissinger/...