|
Post by nikonoclast on Jul 1, 2024 19:08:17 GMT -5
Using your logic both Clinton and Obama should be brought up on numerous charges. No reason to stop there! LOL There's historical precedent. Our ancestors had the right idea. Dig up the corpse of LBJ and put it on trial!
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jul 1, 2024 19:08:59 GMT -5
So what about official presidential acts with criminal intent. Say charging folks a million dollars for a pardon or an Embassy appointment. Excepting bribes is illegal but if done under the pretense of official presidential actions. This was a big ol’ delay til after the election.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 1, 2024 19:09:52 GMT -5
bullshit, it does not give a President immunity for crimes. You want to claim that since you don't like the decision, but it is not true. Nope, your trying to paint it for what it's not. Many conservative legal scholars, such as Judge Luttig, disagree with your position and think it pollyanna bullshit. Fact is, that after today in America one man is above the law. I just hope he has the courage to push the envelope No MAN is above the law. The office, not the person, is above the law. The President, while performing his duties is and must be above the law. Sending troops into a dangerous area would be open to criminal charges and lawsuits. Without immunity for President duties, the President can not perform his job. That immunity for acts taken as President under his official duties has to extend beyond the period he is in office, as long as the acts were taken while in office and was part of his authority as President. The office of the President has to be above the law or you incapacitate his ability to do his job. That was the decision of the court and it was the correct decision. A sitting President can not be charged with a crime. Congress has to first impeach him and remove him from office. Once he is a past President, then the courts would need to determine if the acts fell within the official duties as President and if the court said it did not, he could be criminally charged.
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jul 1, 2024 19:13:34 GMT -5
And if you had both houses of congress and the Supreme Court in your pocket you could get away with anything.
|
|
|
Post by nikonoclast on Jul 1, 2024 19:14:11 GMT -5
I never had the desire to try psychedelic shrooms and now I know why..... Read the text. It specifies that no inquiry can be made as to the President's motive. That equals blanket immunity. Trump claims that he de-classified documents telepathically. He's getting away with it. Bow to the man who would be king.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 1, 2024 19:19:50 GMT -5
So what about official presidential acts with criminal intent. Say charging folks a million dollars for a pardon or an Embassy appointment. Excepting bribes is illegal but if done under the pretense of official presidential actions. This was a big ol’ delay til after the election. Where under official Presidential duties is accepting bribes listed? Both acts would need to be authorized under the official powers of the President. While granting pardons and making appointments is, bribery is not. BTW, if you don't think embassy appointments aren't payment to a crony for financial or other support to help the man get elected, you been living under a rock your entire life. How many pardons have happened for the same reason? You are using bad examples.
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jul 1, 2024 19:33:05 GMT -5
You’re talking in circles. Pardon power is an official duty of the presidency. Can the president charge a million dollars for a pardon?The decision said his intent can not be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 1, 2024 19:53:00 GMT -5
You’re talking in circles. Pardon power is an official duty of the presidency. Can the president charge a million dollars for a pardon?The decision said his intent can not be questioned. No, while the pardon is an official duty, charging money for one is not an official duty. His reason for charging money (intent) is immaterial. Charging money would fall outside the official duties of the President, and also be an impeachable offense. My guess is both sides of the aisle would impeach any President doing such. After he was removed from office, then the justice department could file charges for the bribery and if a judge ruled accepting bribes was not an official part of the President's powers, he could be criminally charged. Does that clarify what i was saying for you?
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jul 1, 2024 19:57:05 GMT -5
You’re talking in circles. Pardon power is an official duty of the presidency. Can the president charge a million dollars for a pardon?The decision said his intent can not be questioned. No, while the pardon is an official duty, charging money for one is not an official duty. His reason for charging money (intent) is immaterial. Charging money would fall outside the official duties of the President, and also be an impeachable offense. My guess is both sides of the aisle would impeach any President doing such. After he was removed from office, then the justice department could file charges for the bribery and if a judge ruled accepting bribes was not an official part of the President's powers, he could be criminally charged. Does that clarify what i was saying for you? Yes, and you have entirely to much confidence that a one party majority, including SCOTUS wouldn’t take us to a dark place.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jul 1, 2024 19:58:07 GMT -5
Using your logic both Clinton and Obama should be brought up on numerous charges. Please release your inner tensions. You've been holding back for so long. Let the world hear it, loud and clear. Take a deep breath, and scream out the window ... "Bengazi! Bengazi! Bengazi!" Why is it always the left that projects?
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jul 1, 2024 19:58:46 GMT -5
Oh, and Richard Nixon didn’t break the law. Can’t question his intent.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 1, 2024 20:08:09 GMT -5
No, while the pardon is an official duty, charging money for one is not an official duty. His reason for charging money (intent) is immaterial. Charging money would fall outside the official duties of the President, and also be an impeachable offense. My guess is both sides of the aisle would impeach any President doing such. After he was removed from office, then the justice department could file charges for the bribery and if a judge ruled accepting bribes was not an official part of the President's powers, he could be criminally charged. Does that clarify what i was saying for you? Yes, and you have entirely to much confidence that a one party majority, including SCOTUS wouldn’t take us to a dark place. Do you believe a President should have no immunity and any decision he makes is subject to civil and criminal liability?
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 1, 2024 20:09:34 GMT -5
Oh, and Richard Nixon didn’t break the law. Can’t question his intent. Ford Pardoned him, so you are correct. I guess that is the solution, all incoming Presidents grant the outgoing President a pardon for all acts as President.
|
|
|
Post by OhMy on Jul 1, 2024 20:13:29 GMT -5
No, while the pardon is an official duty, charging money for one is not an official duty. His reason for charging money (intent) is immaterial. Charging money would fall outside the official duties of the President, and also be an impeachable offense. My guess is both sides of the aisle would impeach any President doing such. After he was removed from office, then the justice department could file charges for the bribery and if a judge ruled accepting bribes was not an official part of the President's powers, he could be criminally charged. Does that clarify what i was saying for you? Yes, and you have entirely to much confidence that a one party majority, including SCOTUS wouldn’t take us to a dark place. Using that logic should Congress put into law that we can never have a one party majority including SCOTUS? I wonder if you would take the same position if your side had the majority.
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jul 1, 2024 20:15:05 GMT -5
Oh, and Richard Nixon didn’t break the law. Can’t question his intent. Ford Pardoned him, so you are correct. Ford pardoned him because he knew prosecutors were going to prosecute. And I do believe presidents need immunity for official actions. But the way it reads all a president has to do is say it was an official action. All Nixon would have to say is we broke into watergate because we suspected terrorist activity. Huh, I was wrong but it was official.
|
|