(July 10, 2018 at 8:27 am)Brian37 Wrote: 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?

(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.

(July 10, 2018 at 8:15 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 10, 2018 at 5:43 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think it depends on what it is.  If you are talking corruption or something related, and can’t wait....then I would agree.  It also doesn’t mean that they can’t be investigated.

I don't care if it's a fucking speeding ticket. If a president commits a crime, he should be prosecuted exactly the same as any other citizen. Only bad things come from the people agreeing to put an elected official above the law.

My underlining above

Let's think about the worst case scenario for a moment: The president commits treason during a term with a congress that takes no action against this president for political reasons (they're able to pass all the laws they want, pack the courts, and gerrymander congressional districts giving themselves an advantage in all future elections).

In such a situation, making the president immune from prosecution during a time when the congress won't impeach them means that that president would remain in office and remain a threat to National security at least until a midterm election.  So for a minimum of two years we would have a treasonous president, and presumably a treasonous administration reeking havoc on the nation with no way of stopping them short of a coup.

That's not a good situation.

In the case of a little piddly misdemeanor like a one-off speeding ticket, it's so insignificant an infraction that the president would either pay the fine or, if they insist on going to court, the case would be so short they'd be in and out of court in a matter of minutes, or might not even have to make an appearance before a judge at all.

In a case such as Clinton's and Trump's harassment and assault allegations, if the subsequent investigation does find evidence of their guilt I think the president should not be immune from prosecution while in office.  If Congress doesn't impeach them after the trial then the voting public can vote them out of office.

Where I think this opinion starts to get dicey is in Benghazi situations: investigations that are launched by a rival political party for the express purpose of digging up dirt on the president (or candidate) so that they can bring criminal charges and impeach or try them.  In the political climate we've had for the last 20-25 years this seems to be the modus operandi of congress.  I'm not sure how I would remedy this to prevent such politically motivated investigations.

Perhaps a solution is to say something like "If the legislative and executive branches are both controlled by a single party, criminal or civil prosecution of a president can happen while they are in office.  If the legislative and executive branches aren't controlled by a single-party monopoly, the result of investigations should be impeachment followed by prosecution."



Still not a great solution. My ultimate opinion is that nobody should be above the law and right now we seem to have a stars-aligning situation where the president has his foot on a step ladder on his way to climbing above the law.

(July 10, 2018 at 3:20 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: 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.

An amendment to do what? Revoke term limits? or implement them? <-- That's already the 22nd amendment.

(July 11, 2018 at 1:17 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(July 10, 2018 at 3:20 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: 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.

An amendment to do what? Revoke term limits? or implement them? <-- That's already the 22nd amendment.

I should have been clearer: to revoke.

(July 11, 2018 at 1:17 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(July 10, 2018 at 8:27 am)Brian37 Wrote: 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?

(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.

(July 10, 2018 at 8:15 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I don't care if it's a fucking speeding ticket. If a president commits a crime, he should be prosecuted exactly the same as any other citizen. Only bad things come from the people agreeing to put an elected official above the law.

My underlining above

Let's think about the worst case scenario for a moment: The president commits treason during a term with a congress that takes no action against this president for political reasons (they're able to pass all the laws they want, pack the courts, and gerrymander congressional districts giving themselves an advantage in all future elections).

In such a situation, making the president immune from prosecution during a time when the congress won't impeach them means that that president would remain in office and remain a threat to National security at least until a midterm election.  So for a minimum of two years we would have a treasonous president, and presumably a treasonous administration reeking havoc on the nation with no way of stopping them short of a coup.

That's not a good situation.

In the case of a little piddly misdemeanor like a one-off speeding ticket, it's so insignificant an infraction that the president would either pay the fine or, if they insist on going to court, the case would be so short they'd be in and out of court in a matter of minutes, or might not even have to make an appearance before a judge at all.

In a case such as Clinton's and Trump's harassment and assault allegations, if the subsequent investigation does find evidence of their guilt I think the president should not be immune from prosecution while in office.  If Congress doesn't impeach them after the trial then the voting public can vote them out of office.

Where I think this opinion starts to get dicey is in Benghazi situations: investigations that are launched by a rival political party for the express purpose of digging up dirt on the president (or candidate) so that they can bring criminal charges and impeach or try them.  In the political climate we've had for the last 20-25 years this seems to be the modus operandi of congress.  I'm not sure how I would remedy this to prevent such politically motivated investigations.

Perhaps a solution is to say something like "If the legislative and executive branches are both controlled by a single party, criminal or civil prosecution of a president can happen while they are in office.  If the legislative and executive branches aren't controlled by a single-party monopoly, the result of investigations should be impeachment followed by prosecution."



Still not a great solution.  My ultimate opinion is that nobody should be above the law and right now we seem to have a stars-aligning situation where the president has his foot on a step ladder on his way to climbing above the law.

(July 10, 2018 at 3:20 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: 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.

An amendment to do what? Revoke term limits? or implement them? <-- That's already the 22nd amendment.

BING AND FUCKING GO! BINGO!

Like I said, not going after unethical and or criminal behavior while it is happening would be like a homicide investigator not going after a serial killer and letting the body count rise.

Ethics matter as well. 

The problem with "I'd be fair to either party in office" with this SCOTUS's nominee's suggestion that we "wait" is dangerous. Lots of damage could be done in that time.

If the idea is to filter out "frivolous" court cases or hearings, you are still left with "Who gets to decide?" what is or is not "frivolous". We already have that, they are called courts and congress. Letting a judge undermine that by erasing that oversight would literally put one politician in the position of becoming a dictator. And that is not a party issue, that is a long term issue, something one should consider for their grandchildren, regardless of party.

(July 10, 2018 at 8:27 am)Brian37 Wrote: 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.

No wonder he's a nominee for a corrupt order.