- Nov 26, 2015
- Reaction score
God bless Andrew Weissman...or as i call him MUELLER'S PITBULL!
I did not claim double jeopardy, I said it is no different. I understand that it is a political process but it is a political process for a reason. IF we allow presidents to go after the other side with the complete power of the executive office then we are going to end up in a very bloody place. Pursuing a POTUS for actions done while they are president belongs in the political sphere, it really is that simple.Not true at all. Impeachment is a political process, it doesn't go at all by which evidence is presented. Nor was he ever charged with obstruction of justice. You can't exactly claim double jeopardy for a crime he wasn't impeached for. Even less so for state-level charges. The DOJ has a policy to not indict a sitting president. Fine so be it. But impeachment is not supposed to be a substitution for criminal prosecution.But it is rather straightforward to be honest.Then I actually apologize and will say that we are of a mind. I'm not comfortable with it myself, with a few caveats. I do not believe a president should involve himself with interfering with whether or not the DOJ investigates someone, So Biden has an immediate problem. How to even stop it? Do you call up the AG and order him to stop it? That in itself is a dangerous precedent. Can be construed and probably is obstruction of justice. Do you pardon Trump yourself? Taking aside it is political suicide to do so it would not stop the state-level charges. So what do you do?I do not support Trump and never have.You are worried about setting bad precedents?Yes, that's the ticket. Current administrations should be going after and locking up previous ones.
I have no doubt that you cannot see exactly how fucking dangerous that precedent is.
Let's see... not releasing tax returns, not divesting from your businesses when elected, openly saying you fired the director of the FBI because an investigation his agency was conducting, equivocating when asked to condemn white supremacy, holding a press conference saying you believe the Russian president over your own intelligence agency's , calling the press an "enemy of the people", inviting the Russian ambassador into the oval office without other Americans present and giving him intelligence given by Israel without even notifying them, releasing classified sattelite photos on twitter, going against health experts advice during a pandemic, pressuring a foreign government to investigate the son of his political rival and OPENLY CALLING FOR THE DOJ TO. INVESTIGATE HIS PREDECESSOR.
This is not all, I actually could go on for a bit but anyone who supported Trump, now saying it is dangerous to not follow precedent is either gaslighting or has been asleep the last 4 years.
That does not change the fact that going after the last president makes the rest of the things you listed look like minnows swimming with whales. It is not even close.
I don't like the optics or the precedent. But the fact of the matter is that Trump more than likely has committed crimes. I come to this conclusion from what I read in the Mueller report (no matter how much he claims it exonerated him) it didn't at all on the obstruction of justice case. The Cohen case where he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and there's a high degree of likelihood NY has him on multiple financial crimes. If you accept that a former president being charged with crimes is a bad precedent then not charging him even if a clear case can be made is an equally dangerous precedent because it would just signal a complete lack of accountability.
I'm just saying it is not at all straightforward.
That is what impeachment was for and it was pursued. That it failed does meant that the democrats should simply try again. It really is no different than double jeopardy.
For actions while they are in power? The impeachment process covers that and if they pursue it or not is actually irrelevant - that is the remedy for those issues. It should be left to the proper remedy, not the remedy one side may think is best suited to get the outcome they want or to fix it when they fail with the proper remedy.Does the law apply to a former president? If you claim that as long he was impeached during his term and acquitted he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would seem it doesn't. Not exactly think that's a good precedent.
Like?To be clear I don't think Biden or an AG Biden appoints will make it a point to rehash everything that has happened these last four years. I don't think he should. The fact of the matter is that there are already things happening now, things that are pretty hard to stop without the personal intervention of the president. And I'm much less convinced that he should do this when this does occur.
< Previous Thread