Presidential Immunity?

[JonC]

I don't recall, at least during my lifetime, the supporters of any Democratic presidential candidate rioting and storming the U.S. Capitol to try to overturn the Electoral College result.

I recall Democrat supporters rioting, storming federal buildings, and killing people.

And I recall Democrats trying to overturn the Ekectorial College result. And even trying to get rid of the Electorial College to centralize the power in a few Democrat states.

But I think Jan 6 was the first time political sheeple stormed the US Capitol.

It doesn't matter, though. We can't hold the Democrats responsible for the actions of their sheeple. We shouldn't change this if the sheeple belong to Republicans.

 

[KenH]

And even trying to get rid of the Electorial College to centralize the power in a few Democrat states.

I go WAY beyond that. I think that the U.S. Constitution, which has been used to create the current federal Leviathan, should be ditched and that the United States should return to the Articles of Confederation.

 

[KenH]

And I recall Democrats trying to overturn the Ekectorial College result.

I have no recall of that ever happening. An odd Democrat here or there may have voted in the House on the day that the Electoral College vote was confirmed, but I have no recall of any organized attempt as Donald Trump and his acolytes attempted.

 

[KenH]

We can't hold the Democrats responsible for the actions of their sheeple. We shouldn't change this if the sheeple belong to Republicans.

If a highway patrolman pulls you over for speeding, I doubt you can get out of it by saying that some other person ahead of you was speeding and they were not held accountable and, therefore, he should not hold you accountable.

 

[Van]

The Democrats have passed House bills to eliminate the EC, but thus far they have been killed in the Senate.

 

[sdcoyote]

I honestly believe that no person, no matter their office, should be immune from prosecution for crimes they committed while in office. This is not a dig at D. Trump. It refers to anyone.

 

[JonC]

I have no recall of that ever happening. An odd Democrat here or there may have voted in the House on the day that the Electoral College vote was confirmed, but I have no recall of any organized attempt as Donald Trump and his acolytes attempted.

I am not sure it matters what either of us recalls.

The problem is not only the hypocrisy but the placing of Trump below law.

If you go to a public area and preach that the powers of this world are evil, that our only hope is Christ, and a few nuts who follow you spark a riot shouting "down with the powers of the world" and attack politicians.....that is not on you.



Now.....Trump did tell the crowd to go to the Capitol and protest, to fight.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

We can not simply pick out "fight" and "go to the Capitol".


You can't hold a person responsible for the actions of other people.

Trump did call for protest. But did he call for violence? No. He said to go peacefully. Trump never said to break into the Capitol. He said to go to the Capitol and peacefully make their voices heard.


The fact that Trump is unfit for President does not justify making our judicial system a political weapon. Biden is just as unfit for President.

 

[Centrist]

If Trump is prosecuted, remember that will only be the beginning of a huge legal battle. He will have the right to appeal.
And if he is prosecuted, he may do time, won't be in office, but...what if? Just remember that if he wins the appeal, he's back and mad as a hornet.

Do I fear that? Not at all. I support him, actually. But the issue is, if he wins, doesn't that show election tampering on behalf of the prosecution? I mean to say, this is only the beginning. Truly we are better off if he does win. Because if he is prosecuted, then that opens the doors to prosecute other presidents as well. And soon the government will be quite similar to that of the third world banana republics where no one wants to serve out of fear of retribution from the other side.

 

[JonC]

If Trump is prosecuted, remember that will only be the beginning of a huge legal battle. He will have the right to appeal.
And if he is prosecuted, he may do time, won't be in office, but...what if? Just remember that if he wins the appeal, he's back and mad as a hornet.

Do I fear that? Not at all. I support him, actually. But the issue is, if he wins, doesn't that show election tampering on behalf of the prosecution? I mean to say, this is only the beginning. Truly we are better off if he does win. Because if he is prosecuted, then that opens the doors to prosecute other presidents as well. And soon the government will be quite similar to that of the third world banana republics where no one wants to serve out of fear of retribution from the other side.

My concern is we are already quite similar to that of the third world banana republic.

Our government was designed on compromise. Two competing political camps come together m, compromise, and the nation gets the best of each.

Now it is more polarized and no compromise. It is not about the nation but about political power.

The GOP threatens Republican Congressmen if they work out a boarder deal during the Biden administration.

The DNC uses hoaxes and the legal system to disrupt the opposing party.

It is all corrupt.


I hope Trump woukd win over Biden, but I fully expect his term to be wasted with impeachment, and perhaps retribution.


I'm with Bernard Marcus. Out of over 300 million people, you're telling me Trump and Biden are the best we have???!!!!

 

[JonC]

If a highway patrolman pulls you over for speeding, I doubt you can get out of it by saying that some other person ahead of you was speeding and they were not held accountable and, therefore, he should not hold you accountable.

I have said along the sane thing.

But there is a difference. Here it is the speeders not held accountable having the highway patrol man pulling you over because you are their competition.

 

[Centrist]

Out of over 300 million people, you're telling me Trump and Biden are the best we have???!!!!

You can always vote for me! I support banning Mondays and making Fridays a national holiday!

 

[JonC]

You can always vote for me! I support banning Mondays and making Fridays a national holiday!

You may just get me voting again

 

[canadyjd]

Just read a story that a “friend of the court” brief has been filed stating the entire Jack Smith special prosecution is a violation of federal law because he (Smith) has never been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be a federal prosecutor.

I see a way out for the SCOTUS to get rid of these cases without addressing the issue of presidential immunity at all.

If Smith’s appointment is illegal, everything he has done goes away.

peace to you

 

[KenH]

Out of over 300 million people, you're telling me Trump and Biden are the best we have???!!!!

That is on those people who voted for those two awful candidates in the Republican and Democratic Parties. Both of those old, worn out, past their use by date parties should go into the dustbin of history.

 

[canadyjd]

I go WAY beyond that. I think that the U.S. Constitution, which has been used to create the current federal Leviathan, should be ditched and that the United States should return to the Articles of Confederation.

When were the Articles of Confederation the supreme law of the land in the United Ststes of America?

Was that prior to the constitution being ratified? I thought that was the “constitution” of the slavers in the southern states when they rebelled.

peace to you

 

[KenH]

Since the 10th Amendment is largely ignored these days, I advocate that the United States should return to the Articles of Confederation and the emaciated national government that it had. I think that doing so would make the 50 states about as close as we could get nowadays to each state being responsible for itself. Without a national government trying to control everything, and tax and tax and spend and spend, it would mitigate the issue of this one-size-fits-all national government power grabs.

 

[canadyjd]

Since the 10th Amendment is largely ignored these days, I advocate that the United States should return to the Articles of Confederation and the emaciated national government that it had. I think that doing so would make the 50 states about as close as we could get nowadays to each state being responsible for itself. Without a national government trying to control everything, and tax and tax and spend and spend, it would mitigate the issue of this one-size-fits-all national government power grabs.

Ok, but to “return” to the Articles of Confederation, the United States must have been governed by them at some point. When was the United States governed by the AOC?

peace to you

 

[KenH]

When were the Articles of Confederation the supreme law of the land in the United Ststes of America?

The Articles of Confederation was the law of the land from 1781-1789. Bait-and-switch was used to deceive the American people into agreeing to meet to revise the Articles and then the switch was made to totally replace them with a much more muscular national government with room to grow even larger and become the Leviathan we see today.

"Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the "consolidated government" proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a "splendid empire" that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people."

- excerpt from Roots of the Republic

(Edited to make change in my wording to "Bait-and-switch" from "Switch and bait).

 

[KenH]

I thought that was the “constitution” of the slavers in the southern states when they rebelled.

I am referring to the Articles of Confederation, not Confederacy.

 

[canadyjd]

The Articles of Confederation was the law of the land from 1781-1789. Switch and bait was used to deceive the American people into agreeing to meet to revise the Articles and then the switch was made to totally replace them with a much more muscular national government with room to grow even larger and become the Leviathan we see today.

"Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the "consolidated government" proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a "splendid empire" that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people."

- excerpt from Roots of the Republic

Thank you. Very informative.

My memory has returned on this issue. There were two main groups, one in favor of a more robust federal government and one against. I think the “checks and balances” of the three branches were the result that were suppose to keep misconduct at bay.

It seems like over the last 50 years or so, both major parties have few significant differences concerning foreign policies, monetary policy, deficit spending and an ever intrusive federal power into the lives of citizens.

You may be in to something here.

peace to you