• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

brihard said:
I did not say faith; I said hope.
Click to expand...
A fair distinction.

I'm not holding my breath. These are the same people who said the president has broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their "official acts" while in office.
 
Altair said:
A fair distinction.

I'm not holding my breath. These are the same people who said the president has broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their "official acts" while in office.
Click to expand...
Of course they did. Its the fundamental principle keeping US presidents from spending 100% of their time defending themselves against criminal charges. Questionable drone assassinations alone would suffice.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Of course they did. Its the fundamental principle keeping US presidents from spending 100% of their time defending themselves against criminal charges. Questionable drone assassinations alone would suffice.
Click to expand...
You mean like drone strikes against US citizens?
 
Brad Sallows said:
Of course they did. Its the fundamental principle keeping US presidents from spending 100% of their time defending themselves against criminal charges. Questionable drone assassinations alone would suffice.
Click to expand...
Bull. 44 previous presidents were not plagued and stymied in their duties by that threat. Trump’s experience was unique because his multiple crimes and the context thereof were unique. If such a sweeping executive privilege were required to allow the president to govern that would have become clear and been acted upon a century or more ago.
 
Czech_pivo said:
You mean like drone strikes against US citizens?
Click to expand...
Presumably. There are plenty of other potential outrages that US courts would be competent to hear.

I can guess that most people who want to see Trump answering for "official acts" would feel differently about Reagan (eg. Iran-Contra) or Clinton (eg. Al Shifa) or Bush (eg. many things) or Obama (eg. also many things) or any future US president. For them, that would mean they hold a position based on political advantage, not principles. It should be obvious by now that selective lawfare is a stupid path to take, but there is no shortage of people capable not only of believing that their short-term ends should justify whatever means are necessary, but equally capable of being bewildered that they should not enjoy the beneficial end of a double standard.
 
brihard said:
Bull. 44 previous presidents were not plagued and stymied in their duties by that threat. Trump’s experience was unique because his multiple crimes and the context thereof were unique. If such a sweeping executive privilege were required to allow the president to govern that would have become clear and been acted upon a century or more ago.
Click to expand...
If the most resolute opponents of the president-of-the-day, whatever president, whatever day, believed they could tie him up in the courts, they would. Getting a president into court over a misuse of military force is a lot juicier than fraud or overwrought imaginings of revolution. A great many people are completely aware that the process is the punishment. 44 previous presidents served while a figurative fence still stood. Now it has been pushed down, and only the USSC stands in the way. "We've found the man; now we'll find a crime." It was foolish to essentially express that sentiment; it was foolish of everyone who heard it not to shun the speakers into oblivion. That shit will never go back into a horse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top