President Shithole's SCOTUS nominee made a dangerous suggestion years ago that should send chills up your spine, REGARDLESS OF PARTY.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-kavan...ial-power/


Krapenaugh basically said the president should not be subject to investigation, litigation or indictment while in office. "You could always do that after they leave office"......... HEY YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT, did it ever occur to you that if you wait that crime could cause more damage?

No sorry, there is a reason our founders put in place the actions of checks on power.

I think it depends on what you are talking about. I had said during the Clinton / Monica thing, that it should have waited until after. Now if it was something directly related to the Presidency, then that’s another matter. I think it depends on what it is. Afterwards, you can throw the book at him. For me, it’s not about trying to protect the person in office, but not taking away from the office for a frivolous suit or charge.

(July 10, 2018 at 2:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think it depends on what you are talking about. I had said during the Clinton / Monica thing, that it should have waited until after.   Now if it was something directly related to the Presidency, then that’s another matter.   I think it depends on what it is. Afterwards, you can throw the book at him.   For me, it’s not about trying to protect the person in office, but not taking away from the office for a frivolous suit or charge.

Personally, I think that would be a massive violation of due process.

(July 10, 2018 at 2:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think it depends on what you are talking about. I had said during the Clinton / Monica thing, that it should have waited until after.   Now if it was something directly related to the Presidency, then that’s another matter.   I think it depends on what it is. Afterwards, you can throw the book at him.   For me, it’s not about trying to protect the person in office, but not taking away from the office for a frivolous suit or charge.

Remember Trump has already suggested that he could serve more than two terms. 
Combine the two and you get an untouchable dictator like Mugabe, it took decades to dislodge him.

(July 10, 2018 at 2:44 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 10, 2018 at 2:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think it depends on what you are talking about. I had said during the Clinton / Monica thing, that it should have waited until after.   Now if it was something directly related to the Presidency, then that’s another matter.   I think it depends on what it is. Afterwards, you can throw the book at him.   For me, it’s not about trying to protect the person in office, but not taking away from the office for a frivolous suit or charge.

Remember Trump has already suggested that he could serve more than two terms. 
Combine the two and you get an untouchable dictator like Mugabe, it took decades to dislodge him.

I don’t see that happening.... although it’s funny how that seems to come about each time. I would be curious to see the statement this was based on?

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-president-...ife-884073

(July 10, 2018 at 3:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 10, 2018 at 2:44 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Remember Trump has already suggested that he could serve more than two terms. 
Combine the two and you get an untouchable dictator like Mugabe, it took decades to dislodge him.

I don’t see that happening.... although it’s funny how that seems to come about each time. I would be curious to see the statement this was based on?

He's publicly joked about it a couple of times. I don't take it seriously.

That said, Trump is one of those people who doesn't seem to have a genuine sense of humor -- certainly not when it comes to himself. I don't trust people with no sense of humor. They often say outrageous or hurtful shit to others and then try to smooth it over by claiming they were just joking. I don't expect to see a push for a constitutional amendment, but I'm sure Trump wouldn't fight it if it happened. His 'joke' reveals his wish.

What is it with people who think those in power should be under less scrutiny than the average joe, instead of more? This is part of why corruption happens. we forget that people in power can be dipshits too, when they're not being watched.

IIRC, there was some talk during Bush 43's term to start an investigation into the (presumed) subsequent Clinton 44 administration to start building the case for Hillary's impeachment before she was even sworn in.

Not sure why Kavanaugh would have such a hard-on for both Clintons . . . .

(July 10, 2018 at 2:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think it depends on what you are talking about. I had said during the Clinton / Monica thing, that it should have waited until after. Now if it was something directly related to the Presidency, then that’s another matter. I think it depends on what it is. Afterwards, you can throw the book at him. For me, it’s not about trying to protect the person in office, but not taking away from the office for a frivolous suit or charge.

So treason is frivolous, huh?