OkNot playing the ****ing ******* game where people try to make me say things does not mean what you said…
OkNot playing the ****ing ******* game where people try to make me say things does not mean what you said…
Ordering the military to do something is not murder. The time to challenge the legality of that order is before it is carried out. Shooting, stabbing, strangling someone yourself is.Was obummer ordering Bin Laden killed murder? His family thinks so. If the president was banging BL wife does that change the circumstances?
My take is that, as you indicated, impeachment conviction is first step, what then? The founders wanted to vest enough power the President could run the country but not be a permanent monarch…
Really?Impeachment is only possible when the person is still President.
That's one of the reasons I like the idea of Vivek for VP, or DeSantis for that matter - someone who will continue in the same direction without missing a stepHeh...
Yeah but when we're electing octogenarians the VP pick is a bit more...important than when we're electing a 55 year old. The odds of sudden illness, mental decline are one trip and fall away.
Except Vivek has no track record…other than talking…a lot.That's one of the reasons I like the idea of Vivek for VP, or DeSantis for that matter - someone who will continue in the same direction without missing a step
I just prefer Vivek because I think he could be relied upon to try to axe-murder the deep state whether VP or president, and he would function as a deterrent for attempts to sideline Trump because he would be even more aggressive
Sigh. I don't think he is suddenly going to start suiciding his enemies ala Clinton or enriching himself ala the Biden crime family, but perhaps two examples would sufficeThat's not what he's asking for though.
What does the law say?Sigh. I don't think he is suddenly going to start suiciding his enemies ala Clinton or enriching himself ala the Biden crime family, but perhaps two examples would suffice
1) Should not Trump as president be immune from prosecution of as a private citizen for the decision to order the targeted assassination of Soleimani? That would be an action taken as CinC that a private citizen could not? How about Obama and al-Awlaki? How about if somebody has to nuke the Works or Iran?
2) Should not governor Abbot be immune from prosecution for the drowning deaths of illegals attempting to breach the border, even though the argument could be made that the barriers he has placed in the Rio Grande might be implicated in the mishap? He has implemented a policy to try to bring order to the border but no one can foresee unintended consequences
You missed the point, the hit you over the head version is that Trump‘s governing is most likely what you were wanting before Trump came along but that isn’t good enough.
Like a starving man complaining about the color of the plate…
The sole remedy for illegal or unconstitutional actions by a president while in office is constitutionally specified as impeachment. Why do you suppose that is? If heads of state governments have sovereign immunity, what makes you think the head of the federal government does notWhat does "FULL IMMUNITY" mean to you? Maybe it means something to you than it would to others. Qualified immunity is one thing. Full immunity means (and he's mentioned this elsewhere) he wants to to be immune from any sort of accountability, whether his actions were legal or constitutional or not.
They have it, the constitution prescribed impeachment and treason.
Maybe if the people understood the power of the presidency better they might just work to get better candidates…
I believe the Westfall Act already states that federal employees cannot be sued for torts committed during the scope of their employmentWhat does the law say?
No elected official should be immune from any law that a private citizen is accountable for.
The federal statute commonly known as the Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, 28 U. S. C. §2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," §2679(d)(1), (2). Upon such certification, the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee, and the action is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the action commenced in state court, the Westfall Act calls for its removal to a federal district court, and renders the Attorney General's certification "conclusiv[e] ... for purposes of removal." §2679(d)(2).
What law? The next question is: does that law supersede the constitutional powers spelled out in the constitution?What does the law say?
No elected official should be immune from any law that a private citizen is accountable for.
I think if not impeached for any of those things, if they are indeed worthy of impeachment, as a private citizen, I think charges can be filed for what an elected leader did in office even if not impeached for it. But, I think courts can decide if he was doing it as part of his duties. Biden will not be impeached for selling the influence of his office of VP. And he probably sold influence as POTUS.Sigh. I don't think he is suddenly going to start suiciding his enemies ala Clinton or enriching himself ala the Biden crime family, but perhaps two examples would suffice
1) Should not Trump as president be immune from prosecution of as a private citizen for the decision to order the targeted assassination of Soleimani? That would be an action taken as CinC that a private citizen could not? How about Obama and al-Awlaki? How about if somebody has to nuke the Works or Iran?
2) Should not governor Abbot be immune from prosecution for the drowning deaths of illegals attempting to breach the border, even though the argument could be made that the barriers he has placed in the Rio Grande might be implicated in the mishap? He has implemented a policy to try to bring order to the border but no one can foresee unintended consequences
It actually is a perfect analogy. In the obummer aftermath, resigned to the inevitability of HRC, most of us including you, would have taken about anyone to hold that off, we got a guy that rose to the challenge and held that off.First, it's a bad analogy. If you saw me, the only way you'd think I'm starving is if GWP reported it. Second, the starving man/plate thing is not anything like the equivalent of what's actually happening here.
Like I said, I think there's some leeway to some extent, but the question is, was it in bounds of what a president can do while fulfilling the duties of the office. Mike's "the president can do anything" argument is silly. But, let's stay in the realm of reason. I think an example of getting close to the line is Obama bombing US citizens. There should be some adjudication that they are enemy combatants carrying out acts against the US. I think the president would be within his power for that. They get killed on the battlefield, they chose their side.What does the law say?
No elected official should be immune from any law that a private citizen is accountable for.
Still don’t believe the President can declassify whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants?I think he can make a legitimate "usage" argument for having the documents as part of his duties. He didn't hide the **** while in office. There's no duties to cover him for that. So I suspect if he's vulnerable to any charges, if true, he's vulnerable to that.
You think that, but what do you base that thinking on?I think amounts to actions not within the authority as POTUS.
See! You were doing fine, right up until you feel it's necessary to throw shade, and that shade is always structured toward questioning the judgement and acumen of the people you disagree with and to subtly support your own self-aggrandizementTrying to equate your analogy with my actual position, would be more like the starving man doesn't give a flying **** if there is even a plate, let along what color it is. I'd settle for the food on the ground if it satisfies a desperation for food. Likewise I'll settle for Trump given the lack of someone better, because even Trump, for all his faults, is better than Biden. This is a nose holding situation for people who don't believe in phantom images.
No, because you guys will not stop demanding it. The vast majority of the beefs here about Trump do not involve policy.Is it demanding "perfection" If one were to criticize DeSantis? I don't think those that do so are demanding it. Same applies to those that are critical of Trump.
Can we not stop this BS about demanding "perfection"?