"We just don't do that to former U.S. Presidents." So say so many. So are they actually kings who can do anything and not be held responsible?

[Wintw]

"We just don't do that to former U.S. Presidents." So say so many in terms of holding them responsible for significant crimes. So are they actually kings who can do anything and not be held responsible? Is that the trick here? And I'm talking about Obama being held responsible. I think it is a strong bet that this will change when President Trump is not president in over four years from now though.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Our elected civil servants have made themselves American royalty. That needs to end.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Our elected civil servants have made themselves American royalty. That needs to end

Agreed!!! posthaste...

 

[rightwinger]

Ummmm.......maybe Trump needs to be concerned about the Glass House he lives in.

When Bush left office, Obama gave him a free pass on investigations of 9-11, war crimes, torture, evidence on going to war.

If Trump wants to set a new precedent for prosecuting former Presidents, he will leave himself open to multiple prosecutions once he can no longer claim Executive Privilege

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA")
Historically, under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," you were not permitted to sue the king. Sovereign immunity has carried over to modern times in the form of a general rule that you cannot sue the government -- unless the government says you can.

You can't sue the King...

 

[The Irish Ram]

If Trump wants to set a new precedent for prosecuting former Presidents,

You can't sue the King, but you can surely prosecute him if his actions were criminal. Gun running to drug terrorists would be one example...

 

[BULLDOG]

It;s been 8 years since Obama ran for anything. Silly Trump is afraid to run on current conditions, so he has to go back years to find something to stir up his crazies.

 

[Olde Europe]

"We just don't do that to former U.S. Presidents." So say so many in terms of holding them responsible for significant crimes. So are they actually kings who can do anything and not be held responsible? Is that the trick here? And I'm talking about Obama being held responsible. I think it is a strong bet that this will change when President Trump is not president in over four years from now though.

"And I'm talking about Obama being held responsible."

For a moment, I thought you were concerned about the fate of the Republic - supposedly governed by laws, not men. That you would right next erupt in preemptive whining on behalf of your Dear Leader ...

"I think it is a strong bet that this will change when President Trump is not president in over four years from now though."

... wasn't much of a surprise after that.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[rightwinger]

If Trump wants to set a new precedent for prosecuting former Presidents,

You can't sue the King, but you can surely prosecute him if his actions were criminal. Gun running to drug terrorists would be one example...

Let’s do it!

Can’t wait for the prosecutions of Trump begin.
This time without Executive Privilege

 

[Osiris-ODS]

The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA")
Historically, under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," you were not permitted to sue the king. Sovereign immunity has carried over to modern times in the form of a general rule that you cannot sue the government -- unless the government says you can.

You can't sue the King...

Sovereign immunity pertains civil liability, not criminal.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

If Trump wants to set a new precedent for prosecuting former Presidents,

You can't sue the King, but you can surely prosecute him if his actions were criminal. Gun running to drug terrorists would be one example...

Let’s do it!

Can’t wait for the prosecutions of Trump begin.
This time without Executive Privilege

Yeah, maybe you can take up a collection to hire Mueller again to investigate Russia collusion.