Which sets a more dangerous precedent?

[goaded]

No anonymous opinions. Think it, own it.

Prosecuting a former president for crimes they committed

Not prosecuting a former president for crimes they committed

Don't know, see results

[Kaneki05]

When you become a leader you swear by the law to uphold your position for the people. Therefore once it becomes anything else yup they should just send you to prison.
A President is supposed to be a spoke person for the people and supposed to try benefit the country not themselves.
If such consequences were harsh you would see certain people not even want to be president, meanwhile the ones who will want to will not fear the consequences as they do not plan to commit such crime.

[goaded]

Yeah, the argument that Trump shouldn't be indicted or prosecuted for his crimes because if it happens "this will happen to every (meaning Democratic) president from now on" is ridiculous. You have to have evidence of a crime. Something Republicans have totally failed to achieve in years of "investigation" into Joe Biden.

[Twalli]

Nobody is above the law. There are certain things a president can do or needs to do that would be illegal for a private citizen, but anything that is not part of those duties should be taken into account once he or she leaves office.

[Anonymous]

Democracy is a fragile thing for most of history and still in most places on earth it does not exist because when you give someone a monopoly of force there is little to stop them form abusing it.

That means your veto (checks & balance) on his power over that force either work to prevent him from abusing such power in the first place or they won't prevent him from refusing to step down either and your screwed.

This is not a theoretical problem this happens all the time in democracies thou out history and all over the world.

So frankly the idea that you can control by "threat" a chief executive holding the cards of enforcement without the check of a veto on his use of said executive power. The same check which would have enabled you to prevent said abuse in the first place is ridiculously dangerous.

Its the kind of assumption an shortsighted idiot would make. Yet majorities in old democracies fall for it at the behest of power hungry politicans all the time simply because they are spoiled by more limited previously relatively well run systems

[goaded]

I think I might agree with what you wrote. I just have a nagging feeling you're making out that a smoothly running country is a bad thing...

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I can't even define a "smoothly running country". There is always some issue that needs to be delta with or at least we are told by the leaders who want to change things to "deal with it".

Otherwise I would define a smoothy running country as one which requires almost no administration, no changes to any law, no high level executive choices. This is something that either by greed & dishonesty of politicians or the unrealistic nature of many human made laws has yet to exist in recorded history at any scale.

If your referring to the relative calm in the age of liberty and abundance when laws are still largely reflecting the reality learned by prior ages. This is only a undesirable thing because of how it effects contemporary population which has less and less memory of the same ages and is itself all the more disconnected from it by reason of accumulated wealth and stability of the same systems.

It is precisely that stability and wealth which corrupts them leading to decline and ultimately slavery again. Thus the stability and wealth is not a good thing for children.

[goaded]

Oh, this is the stupid "bad times create strong men..." nonsense, isn't it?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded There is nothing nonsense about the fact that men who must deal with reality as it is are in that experience wiser from that experience.

[AviatorTom]

Prosecuting a former president for crimes committed while he was president sets a very dangerous precedent. Should we then prosecute Obama for giving the orders to kill Osama bin Laden, a civilian? Or Nixon for directing hostilities in Vietnam? And what about Lincoln, for directing Union soldiers to kill their fellow countrymen? A detailed look at every Presidency would reveal something "illegal" that the President did... should we prosecute them all?

There's a reason why the Constitution... and laws... specify the only way to punish a President is via impeachment, and only the Congress can do that. Several Constitutional scholars have pointed out that the DOJ's prosecution of Trump for Jan 6, as well as various DAs prosecution for hush money and trying to change election results, is at best questionable, and at worst completely illegal.

[Juxtapose]

^^ this 💯

[goaded]

You don't see any difference between illegal acts intended to protect the country and illegal acts intended to profit the person? Really?

And, no, the constitution and laws do not "specify the only way to punish a President is via impeachment". In fact, that was the very (flimsy) excuse made by several Republican senators to not vote to convict in Trump's second impeachment. Seven had the courage of their convictions to vote to convict.

[AviatorTom]

@goaded There is no difference, because any difference would be subjective, and subject to abuse. What if someone argued that Obama had Bin Laden killed to increase his chances of winning the next election, a personal gain? That would mean he could be prosecuted. Not good.

by the way, many other countries have similar limits on prosecution of their President or Prime Minister, this isn't unique to the US.

[goaded]

Nonsense. You can't seriously believe there's no difference between Obama killing Osama bin Laden (the architect of 9/11) or killing Mitt Romney (Obama's 2012 political opponent), surely?

This is just the fallacy of the false dilemma: "a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when there are many options or sides".

You (and Trump) are claiming that either a president must be prevented from committing any act outside the law, no matter how good for the country, or they should be legally allowed to commit every crime, no matter how heinous.

I don't expect to be prosecuted for driving 5mph over the speed limit, but I do expect to be prosecuted if I drive 100 past a school's gates as the kids are leaving.

[Twalli]

While you have a grasp of the pitfalls of holding a president's actions as POTUS accountable as a civilian, you fail to grasp what powers a person is given once elected. Those powers allow him to undertake actions that he could not as a civilian. He has the missile codes and could launch them. What Trump is being charged with are actions that are not in line with the powers that one is given while POTUS.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I voted the top one and here's why:

As the president, you're going to be doing illegal things. You just are, you're not working with clean people, you're not negotiating with people who play by the rules, there's always going to be situations when you're playing a game like that which force you to take risks.

I mean, half the stuff the president does with the Cia is probably illegal.

To prosecute a former president is almost like saying "it was OK then, it's a problem now"

It opens the door for people to retaliate. What happens when a president hurts a big company to stop them from dumping waste into the drinking water, and they fund the next president who comes into office and part of their deal was to retaliate?

Because that all politics is.

[goaded]

You don't see a difference between acts on behalf of the country and acts for their own benefit? Someone else suggested there's no difference between Obama having bin Laden or Mitt Romney killed.

Do you think any jury would convict Obama for the former?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

These guys are politicians. Making acts for the country seem like acts for one self and vice versa is how they compete with eachother.

There's no way of saying what a jury would have done. A jury certainly never got a chance to convict him for his part in fast and furious or his other deals for arming terrorist groups.

Is anyone going to jail for creating that monster Diddy? Is the director of the CIA going to be held accountable for taking part in the human trafficking and drugging of minors and women?

It's entirely impractical. I know we like the classic line in all the movies "nobody is above the law" but that's a load of crap. You can't manage and enforce something without being above it otherwise it'll be used against you by your enemies.

But to answer your question more directly, it would never go to trial and if it did, it would be completely compromised and paid off.

[JacobJordan]

If there is proof beyond reasonable doubt then conviction is the only way doesn't matter what position they held. Well it shouldn't but we have seen some heavy crimes committed by a lot of people and they get away with it. Simple as that. If you did the crime do the time. Again though has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt which is a difficult venture under normal circumstances a lot harder when it comes to elected officials given they are protected and restricted by more laws than the average person.

[Chazmatazz269]

The “innocent until proven guilty” concept seems to elude you. Short of being god, an accomplice, or an impossibly reliable witness, you can’t know that a defendant has committed a crime. Hell, with the quality of the US “justice system”, you can’t know that they committed the crime even after they’re convicted. Ell oh ell!

[goaded]

We're not in a court of law. That's the only time “innocent until proven guilty” applies, or there would be no investigations of crimes, would there?

Besides, Trump could have had his times in court months ago, but he's done nothing but delay his trials. Not the actions of an innocent man.

[Avicenna]

That assumes crimes were actually committed. But the prosecutions clearly show they weren't, or they were things that don't get prosecuted.

But it's always hilarious to see a foreigner who doesn't understand the US legal system show he's just a propagandist.

[Snakeyes7]

You left out the factor that said former president is running for reelection which was the very thing the left gave Trump shit for when he tried to investigate the Biden family's involvement in Burisma.

I guess it is ok when the left does it, right?

[goaded]

Four years later... still no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, four criminal indictments of Trump.

[DrPepper12]

Burisma: nothing burger

[Snakeyes7]

The investigation barely started for Biden.

[goaded]

It went on for 18 months and they found out... that he lends money to family members interest free! Woo!

[Snakeyes7]

Whatever happened to the "fire the prosecuter part or else you aren't getting the billion dollars" part that Biden was caught on tape saying?

[Snakeyes7]

"Fire the prosecutor or you won't get the billion dollars"

[goaded]

You mean the corrupt prosecutor (Shokin) the entire Western world wanted gone?

The prosecutor who answered Giuliani (on video) "Was there ever any specific act that any of these [Biden's] people performed?"

"Did they get a kickback?" he asked. "Did they get a bribe"?

Shokin says no.

The prosecutor whose removal made an investigation of Burisma MORE likely?

There's even less "there" there than Biden loaning his son money to buy a truck.

[DrPepper12]

That was US POLICY. We, as a nation, pursued that policy bipartisanly and WE wanted the corrupt prosecutor fired. It was policy, not a bribe. JFC! CONTEXT MATTERS! HANNITY SOUND BITES DONT!!

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded @drpepper If all this was the case, why did Trump get so much push-back from the establishment with their reasoning being that it is immoral to go after political opponents? If they felt that this was a waste of time, why didn't they let the courts shut Trump down like they were supposed to and let Trump embarrass himself?

[Snakeyes7]

*drpepper12

[goaded]

@Snakeyes7 He got push-back because they were talking about politically motivated invented investigations with no evidence of a crime ever being committed, not investigations of actual crimes.

Just say you're investigating Biden...

Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R[epublican] Congressmen...

Just find me 11,780 votes...

[DrPepper12]

Just watch the insurrection you caused on TV for three hours...

[Snakeyes7]

@DrPepper12 Excuse me? *I* caused it? All I said at the time was that there needs to be an investigation behind this strange happenings with the election. I never said that we need to storm the capital because it was a foolish thing to do especially with the mainstream media that foams at the mouth the moment the name "Trump" is heard ever since 2015. The people who damaged public property and fought with the cops deserve prison time but we are seeing people who weren't even fucking there get 20 years because they supported what they thought was just a peaceful protest. That is ten years longer than what a rapist would get.

We have more evidence that says that it was the latest glowie entrapment scheme, especially with the recent footage that came out last year, than otherwise. Is there any other explanation to why we were told that we were somehow almost overthrown by a bunch of wierdos that haven't fired a single shot?

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded And yet nothing came of any of it. You tried to get him on this stuff and failed.

Trump was well within his rights to call the election into question just as Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry were but yet Trump is the threat against democracy for doing it because the country saw something strange with the voter count?

Even if I am wrong about all of this, how does this justify all of these fake trials that have no basis in merit because they weren't criminal trials, and the one criminal trial he is in now has no basis. At most, he could get falsifying records for a misdemenor but the prosecutor is trying to upgrade that to a felony.

How is any of this not clearly trying to throw Trump in prison because the democrats know they can't win after the royal fuck up that is Joe Biden?

[goaded]

"And yet nothing came of any of it." Way to reverse the truth.

The only reason the trial hasn't happened yet is Trump's delay tactics in court. Nothing has "failed".

Trump's been indicted for "conspiracy to defraud the United States under Title 18 of the United States Code, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and conspiracy against rights under the Enforcement Act of 1870". That's the federal case to do with his attempting to steal the presidency.

Trump's current trial, where they're finally chosing the jury pool, is for the fraud to cover up Trump's election interference and finance crimes in New York. The falsifying business records would be a misdemeanor, but the cover up raises it to the level of a felony. Which is something everybody who's interested in the facts knows.

If Trump was clearly innocent of everything (or anything) he's been indicted for, he'd have wanted the trials over and done as quickly as possible, if only to save on lawyer's fees.

[Snakeyes7]

You did fail because you already tried him in the federal court but he got acquitted. That's why all the efforts are coming from the state courts.

You also have no reason to believe that there is any cover up. I think the left is just making shit up and hoping it sticks just to have their political rival imprisoned for daring to oppose them. There is no other reason why there is so much litigation going on right now.

If I were him, I would know damn well that those trials are nothing more than kangaroo courts. I wouldn't even have bothered showing up and go to the Supreme Court instead Look at what happened to one juror. Her identity got leaked and left because she felt that she could no longer be honest.

It is likely that she doesn't want to be known as the one who let the racist, fascist, orange man off the hook for a crime that everyone assumes that he committed. All while she is smack dab in the middle of NY to make things worse, a place that hates his guts so much that it is a miracle that Trump Tower hasn't been burned down by rioters.

[goaded]

"you already tried him in the federal court but he got acquitted" When? What case?

[goaded]

"You also have no reason to believe that there is any cover up." Other than the appeals court telling the Trump judge to stop overstepping her authority and impeding an investigation.

[goaded]

"she is smack dab in the middle of NY" The documents case is in Florida, not NY.

[Snakeyes7]

Why else are they trying him in the state courts? Because they failed to get him on the federal level. Who is the "Trump judge?" And I was taking about where the cover up trial was taking place

[goaded]

" Why else are they trying him in the state courts?"
Because he committed crimes in those (and other) states.

"Because they failed to get him on the federal level. Who is the "Trump judge?"
The federal trials are still pending in DC and Florida. The latter because of Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump and is not above abusing and exceding her authority (an appeals court said so). They have definitely not "failed".

"And I was taking about where the cover up trial was taking place"
The prosecutor and judge are both male in NY.

[DrPepper12]

Yeah, they weren't there but supported it. That's what RICO laws are for!

[DrPepper12]

Go on @Snakeyes7 were listening

[DrPepper12]

@goaded you're wasting your energy. This one is lost.

[goaded]

@DrPepper12 I'm sure he'll explain how ongoing trials have "failed" any minute now.

[Snakeyes7]

>Because he committed crimes in those (and other) states.

How do you know he did? What is the point of a trial if you know 100% that he committed those crimes in those states?

>The federal trials are still pending in DC and Florida. The latter because of Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump and is not above abusing and exceding her authority (an appeals court said so). They have definitely not "failed".

I am going to assume that Cannon did exactly as you said because I don't know the whole story and for all I know she was really being impartial and the left wants me to think that not giving Trump a kangaroo court is the same as letting him get away from a crime that we have not established that he committed otherwise the trial wouldn't be necessary.

What is taking DC so long? DC hates his guts. You'd think they would have been one of the first to say that he committed a crime. However New York is the next likely so I guess I cannot be too surprised. I mean the entire message of Leticia James is to take down Trump, as if NY doesn't have any other issues right now.

>The prosecutor and judge are both male in NY.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about a female jury memeber who has had her personal information leaked and quit because she is afraid of the consequences external to the trial itself if she chooses the wrong side.

Considering that the trial she was in was in NY, I would assume that she is worried about the possibility that the trial would convince her that Trump committed no crime. She wouldn't have to worry about that if she was in a place like Florida but in NY, a place that has had anti-trump rioters before, I think she has a good reason to worry.

[Snakeyes7]

@DrPepper12

The initial point of this trial is to determine if the RICO law has been violated, but to the NY courts, that is not good enough. They want to make sure they can actually throw him in prison, for reasons we can only speculate, so they accuse him of covering up something far more sinister, of which they have no evidence last time I checked.

Also, calm down dude. It has only been two days and I have a life outside of GAG.

[goaded]

The crimes were committed in those states, who else would have committed them?

"What is taking DC so long?"
Trump's lawyers delaying everything. They're currently claiming that the president should be allowed to order the military to perform a coup on their behalf, or assassinate political opponents. Literally. Apparently, the president can only be indicted if they've been impeached and convicted by the remaining lawmakers he hasn't had killed.

"I am talking about a female jury memeber"
Ah, OK. You really think she's afraid of people in her community rather than the Trump supporters with a track record of making death threats? The people who attacked the Capitol. The people who deny Trump has ever said an untrue word?

The NY trial is not a RICO trial, that's the Georgia one. The fact that Trump paid to keep Stormy Daniels quiet has already been established in court (Cohen went to prison for it), Trump was Individual-1 in that indictment (and political pressure was brought to bear to keep him out of it as much as possible). What's being tried now is the falsification of business records to cover it up.

[DrPepper12]

Pardoning Nixon was the WORST decision Ford made!!! Would have set a GOOD precedent!!

[goaded]

It might have avoided Iran-Contra and US torture camps.

[blueonblack22]

How about not prosecuting a sitting president because he is “too old and forgetful to be convicted by a grand jury” but not too old to actually be f*cking president?

[goaded]

Never happened. Biden wasn't prosecuted because he had “innocent explanations” that Hur “cannot refute” for still having the documents, also they were returned as soon as they were found, and the authorities were given instant free reign to search for more.

The rest was partisan bullshit.

[blueonblack22]

@goaded no It’s fact:

“ When then-special counsel Robert Hur released his February report on President Biden's handling of classified material, Hur assessed that a jury wouldn't be likely to convict Mr. Biden because he'd be seen as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." ”

www.cbsnews.com/.../

[blueonblack22]

@goaded and again why are you wasting your time posting about American politics? I wish I could move you into ghetto in a Democratic run major American city. Let you live around all the disgusting crap that’s happening..

I live in Colorado and I’m fortunate to live in a nice neighborhood. But my state has gone far left and now in Denver we have fentanyl junkies and overdoses, urban decay, skyrocketing crime (highest carjacking rate in the USA), illegals getting free housing with tax payer dollars. We lead the nation with inflation. All thanks both to local and federal ass backwards disgusting leftist policies.

You do NOT have a right to have an opinion on American politics. You are not qualified to vote and don’t have to deal with this bullshit.

Also I don’t know what part of Germany you are from but I do know for a fact Berlin and Leipzig (which I visited 2 years ago) was a LOT cleaner and safer then Denver.

[goaded]

Yes, that's the partisan propaganda part of the report. The fact is that they couldn't have proven Biden intentionally took and retained the documents.

If you think the report was 100% perfect, how about this part: "Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."

www.justsecurity.org/.../
www.justice.gov/.../...ert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

[goaded]

"You do NOT have a right to have an opinion on American politics"
Yes, I do. Whatever happened to "freedom of speech"?

[legman528]

I am all for punishing if it is a crime. But I'd like to see it applied consistently. Unfortunately, these things become political witch hunts and the media is also politicized.

[goaded]

Well, if a Democratic president ever commits election finance crimes and falsifies documentation to cover it up, steals a load of government documents, shows them to people with no security clearance, lies to the authorities about having them, hides them from searches, gets his lawyer to unintentionally lie for him, conspires with multiple people to steal the presidency by creating fake electors in multiple states, and encourages their supporters to attack the Capitol, I'm sure they'll be treated exactly the same.

[gorydetails]

Most dangerous is weaponizing the justice department to try to keep a rival political candidate from running. But if you dickheads haven't noticed, yet... every time the democrats try this shit, Trump gets even more popular.

[DrPepper12]

Suspend your ignorance for moment. What if he DID those crimes? Now what?

[gorydetails]

@DrPepper12 Oh you’re suddenly concerned about government officials committing crimes? Are you going to be consistent on that one?

[DrPepper12]

I always have been. See above ⬆️⬆️⬆️

[gorydetails]

@DrPepper12 Great. We should arrest Obama for killing an American Citizen without due process. Arrest Bush for numerous war crimes.

[goaded]

Why not? I guarantee one of them won't delay the trial for years. And that's not torturer Bush.

[gorydetails]

I'll wait for the charges to come up.

[exitseven]

The third choice should be Prosecuting A former president who happens to be the leading current candidate in an attempt to interfere with an election
That is the real threat to American democra y.

[goaded]

Not if he committed the crimes. Which he did.

[exitseven]

all crimes that nobody has ever been charged with before.

[goaded]

Lying to the FBI? Retaining classified government documents? Disclosing national security documents to people with no security clearance? Election interference? Obstruction of justice? They're "all crimes that nobody has ever been charged with before"?

[Dargil]

Prosecuting a former president for fabricated crimes he never committed.
Like now.

[goaded]

Cohen went to prison for this crime Trump "never committed".

[Dargil]

Trump won't.

[DrPepper12]

"fabricated" yet four grand juries of regular American citizens said there was enough for indictment. Go drunk, your home...

[Dargil]

@DrPepper12 Remember the first rule of debating. Name calling is a reflection of surrender. It makes your post unworthy of a response.

[goaded]

@Dargil Mind if I tag you every time I get insulted? You can tell them that they're in the wrong and their post is unworthy of a response. They never listen to me!

It shouldn't be more than a few times a day.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Definitely B, everyone has to be held to account for their actions.

[Juxtapose]

#1

It sets up the political system to be a lawfare hellhole otherwise.

[goaded]

Rather than a political system where the president is legally entitled to kill his political opponents? That's literally what Trump is arguing and his supreme court is considering.

This system takes investigators, prosecutors, juries of citizens to all agree that crimes have been committed and probably by Trump before it even gets to court years later.

[Juxtapose]

First of all, Trump would get impeached if he did that.

Second of all, I don't care. It's worked so far and I don't want to open up the can of worms that will make my country into a Banana Republic anymore than it already is. Prosecuting political opponents should never be normalized.

[goaded]

Did what? Nothing in that legal process involves the president.

Nobody's "Prosecuting political opponents", the legal system is holding Trump responsible for crimes he committed. Biden didn't even stop the investigations into his family that were started under Trump.

[WindAtMyBack]

It depends on whether their name is Donald Trump or Bill Clinton.

[goaded]

There's no difference in severity between lying about an affair and election fraud, mishandling national security documents, or attempting a coup. Right?

[WindAtMyBack]

Did you completely forget why the affair even came up?

[goaded]

Because the Republicans went on a fishing expedition, like they are today with Biden?

[goaded]

They caught a minnow back then, and nothing today.

[Juxtapose]

Wow that's so ironic hahaha 🤣

[OddBeMe]

We already pardoned one criminal Republican president and that’s been used as precedent for the current criminal Repub.

[DarkLegacy]

I choose the 2nd option

[In_Trance]

Doesn't matter either way