Should a POTUS (any POTUS) be granted immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office?

Should a POTUS (any POTUS) be granted immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Dave Matthews said:
Why should America wait for justice?
Click to expand...
In this larticr case where there is a nominee actuvtubelt campaigning, what is the harm in doing so? He’s not a flight risk and crimes alleged are not heinous, egregious, or anything that an immediate trial would not protect the public from. So let the man run a fair election against his rival. What’s to fear by doing so?
 
Seeker of Rock said:
In this larticr case where there is a nominee actuvtubelt campaigning, what is the harm in doing so? He’s not a flight risk and crimes alleged are not heinous, egregious, or anything that an immediate trial would not protect the public from. So let the man run a fair election against his rival. What’s to fear by doing so?
Click to expand...
In my opinion (if I understand your first sentence) Americans deserve to know if they are electing a criminal or not. What's wrong with that?
 
Sky Blue Lou said:
So a bit of injustice that particular generalization. There is a certain school of thought that Trump is more patriotic than the current Dem party operators, candidates and followers. I am not talking about Magatards.
Click to expand...
I just want to say again I appreciate your level headed discussion. I get heated sometimes, but trying not to.
Seeker of Rock said:
I DO NOT find it acceptable to go after someone for crimes years ago at a time convenient to interfere with a viable candidate’s right to campaign for Presidency. Go after him if you want (even well after the crimes occurred) but with Due Process and scheduling that doesn’t interfere with his right to campaign and voters’ rights to have a fair Presidential race. This is really a dirty tactic Dems are using, in fear/desperation and understandably so. But it undermines freedom of choice by impeding one candidate’s right to campaign and focus on that campaign.
Click to expand...
That’s been one thing that also bothered me. I don’t want Dems to lose the moral high ground by playing dirty. However, plenty of federal cases take over two years to get to indictment, including the very similar case involving John Edwards. This is not unique to Trump’s cases at all.
 
"Moral High Ground..." :cautious:

The current and obvious objective of the so called "progressives" is the dismantling of the moral foundation the USA established in its Constitution... The "Socialist Democrat Progressives" have waged war against Christian morality. The only way for Democrats to "progress" is to DESTROY!
 
leddy said:
I just want to say again I appreciate your level headed discussion. I get heated sometimes, but trying not to.

That’s been one thing that also bothered me. I don’t want Dems to lose the moral high ground by playing dirty. However, plenty of federal cases take over two years to get to indictment, including the very similar case involving John Edwards. This is not unique to Trump’s cases at all.
Click to expand...
Genuinly curious to know who the Dems are that are playing dirty...
 
JAPOV said:
"Moral High Ground..." :cautious:

The current and obvious objective of the so called "progressives" is the dismantling of the moral foundation the USA established in its Constitution... The "Socialist Democrat Progressives" have waged war against Christian morality. The only way for Democrats to "progress" is to DESTROY!
Click to expand...
"War"... "Destroy"... Lol!
 
Dave Matthews said:
Genuinly curious to know who the Dems are that are playing dirty...
Click to expand...
That’s not what I was saying. The timing of the indictments bothered me because I didn’t want to think the Dems were playing dirty. After exploring that and seeing how federal cases often take a couple of years to investigate and indict, and seeing John Edwards case took that long, I don’t think they are playing dirty. My wording was awkward. I’m very jet lagged atm.

I think the Dems have the moral high ground here. They don’t need to resort to tricks.
 
leddy said:
That’s not what I was saying. The timing of the indictments bothered me because I didn’t want to think the Dems were playing dirty. After exploring that and seeing how federal cases often take a couple of years to investigate and indict, and seeing John Edwards case took that long, I don’t think they are playing dirty. My wording was awkward. I’m very jet lagged atm.

I think the Dems have the moral high ground here. They don’t need to resort to tricks.
Click to expand...
OK, I understand no worries.
It just sort of feels like the natural progression of the legal process in regards to indictment and charges is somehow a Dem operation in some people's eyes.
What makes it even more fucking ridiculous is that those who speak these kinds of words are hiding behind a party that calls themselves "the law and order" party.

Is Trump above the law? Or are you in the "law and order" party? Which one is it?
Sure hope you shake off the jet lag soon!
 
JAPOV said:
"Moral High Ground..." :cautious:

The current and obvious objective of the so called "progressives" is the dismantling of the moral foundation the USA established in its Constitution... The "Socialist Democrat Progressives" have waged war against Christian morality. The only way for Democrats to "progress" is to DESTROY!
Click to expand...
You never answered these questions:
leddy said:
should the federal reserve be subject to political influence? Should the potus be able to operate above the law?
Click to expand...
 
JAPOV said:
"There's Nothing Federal About The Federal Reserve..."
https://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/the-federal-reserve-is-privately-owned
Click to expand...
That doesn’t answer the question. I know what the federal reserve is. It’s independent for a reason. Trump has always tried to say they should listen to him, and now it seems his people are trying to figure out how to mandate that. Do you think the fed should be subject to the whim of the potus?

I also asked the question of this thread. Do you think a president should be immune from prosecution from crimes committed in office?
 
leddy said:
That doesn’t answer the question. I know what the federal reserve is. It’s independent for a reason. Trump has always tried to say they should listen to him, and now it seems his people are trying to figure out how to mandate that. Do you think the fed should be subject to the whim of the potus?
Click to expand...
The Fed...hmmm. Now that there is a whole nother kettle of fish... lol

I read an excellent book recently. The Lords of Easy Money - How the Federal Reserve broke the American Economy by Christopher Leonard. I highly recommend it. Basically tells the tale of Greenspan, quantitative easing and various other bullshit ploys to avoid making big shot bankers pay for their misdeeds. And etc... Too much for me to go into. I really should read it again so I could argue the point better. It is not really an anti-Fed screed more of a cautionary tale and it definitely pulls the curtain back exposing Greenspan's bullshit. Remember when everyone said he was so smart it's no wonder you can't understand his statements? All BS. He was making it all up.

*Oh yeah - the president should stay out of it.
 
Sky Blue Lou said:
The Fed...hmmm. Now that there is a whole nother kettle of fish... lol

I read an excellent book recently. The Lords of Easy Money - How the Federal Reserve broke the American Economy by Christopher Leonard. I highly recommend it. Basically tells the tale of Greenspan, quantitative easing and various other bullshit ploys to avoid making big shot bankers pay for their misdeeds. And etc... Too much for me to go into. I really should read it again so I could argue the point better. It is not really an anti-Fed screed more of a cautionary tale and it definitely pulls the curtain back exposing Greenspan's bullshit. Remember when everyone said he was so smart it's no wonder you can't understand his statements? All BS. He was making it all up.

*Oh yeah - the president should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like exactly the type of book I like to read. I will look for it. Have a long flight today anyway.

Have you ever seen the deep fake videos of fed chair Powell on Reddit’s Wall Street bets sub? They’re funny as hell.
 
Dave Matthews said:
It just sort of feels like the natural progression of the legal process in regards to indictment and charges is somehow a Dem operation in some people's eyes.
Click to expand...
It is commonly accepted by many folks from all sides of the political spectrum that were Trump not running most of the charges he faces would never have been brought. (I feel like I am repeating myself. lol) That perception brings the whole possibility of a "Dem operation", as you describe it, into play. Whether it is - a conspiracy as it were - I cannot say, nor can anyone else. Do I think it is? Not a coordinated thing, although the possibility is there, I think it more likely that it is several isolated incidents of very anti-Trump attorneys trying to make names for themselves.
 
leddy said:
Sounds like exactly the type of book I like to read. I will look for it. Have a long flight today anyway.
Click to expand...
I think you will. Where you off to? If you already said I totally missed it. :oops:
leddy said:
Have you ever seen the deep fake videos of fed chair Powell on Reddit’s Wall Street bets sub? They’re funny as hell.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about Reddit. (Double oopsie) I just never got into it.
 
PorterhouseMusic said:
I think that's it's an interesting consideration that several of the conservative SCJ's are widely considered "originalists" - with regard to how the constitution is interpreted and how how the framer's intent is to be interpreted. Considering that - is there any mention anywhere in the constitution (or anywhere else FTM) of "presidential immunity"? If not - why would they even be considering it? Fair question - yes, no?
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed this. Fair question yes. Can I answer it - emphatically no. I am woefully ignorant of constitutional law. I've never even read the whole thing! :oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top