Trump 2024 — The second term

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not playing the ****ing ******* game where people try to make me say things does not mean what you said…

Ok

 

[KLB]

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…

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.

Impeachment is only possible when the person is still President. Once out of office, they are open to face charges for actual personal crimes without impeachment.

In essence, a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime while in office. Once removed from office he should be able to be charged with crimes he personally committed.

I am not saying this to justify any of the nonsense Trump is facing right now.

 

[Ingomike]

Impeachment is only possible when the person is still President.

Really?

“this trial comes weeks after the end of his term, another first.”

Although since he was not convicted there was nothing for the courts to rule on…

Second Impeachment of Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump faces his second impeachment trial in the Senate on Feb. 9, when lawmakers will begin the process of considering whether to convict him on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

www.pbs.org

This is not to be interpreted that I support impeachment after a term is over.

 

[BugI02]

Heh...
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.

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

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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

Except Vivek has no track record…other than talking…a lot.

 

[BugI02]

That's not what he's asking for though.

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 Norks 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

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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

What does the law say?

No elected official should be immune from any law that a private citizen is accountable for.

 

[jamil]

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…

Really. This appears to confirm what GFGT said, that you already think Trump is without reproach, so any criticisms at all feel as trivial to you as a starving man preferring a different color plate.

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.

So let's get back to reality. The concrete world. The one where you claimed that people are demanding perfection. As it pertains to me, to make that stick, you need to find examples where I actually wanted perfection.

Trying 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.

 

[BugI02]

What 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.

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 not

 

[jamil]

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've address that.

 

[BugI02]

What does the law say?

No elected official should be immune from any law that a private citizen is accountable for.

I believe the Westfall Act already states that federal employees cannot be sued for torts committed during the scope of their employment

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).

 

[Ingomike]

What does the law say?

No elected official should be immune from any law that a private citizen is accountable for.

What law? The next question is: does that law supersede the constitutional powers spelled out in the constitution?

 

[jamil]

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

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.

I don't think criminal charges can be filed against a sitting POTUS, but once out of office, yes. Biden should not be allowed to get away with what amounts to treason, just because half the congress goes along with it, and the other half is too feckless to do anything about it.

Let the courts decide if Biden was just operating in service of the duties of his office, or if he actually committed crimes. Same with his abuse of power when he weaponized the DoJ against political enemies, including citizens. He can't make a legitimate argument for using his office to enrich his family, or, for weaponizing the DoJ against political enemies.

As it pertains to Trump, let the courts decide if all the things he's been charged with doing while in office, were in service of fulfilling the duties of the office. I think all of it was. Except if the most egregious charges relating to the documents are true, that he obstructed by moving **** around to inhibit an investigation. That's one of those unforced error things that he brought upon himself.

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.

 

[Ingomike]

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.

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.

You never seem to have any major policy complaints, just color of the plate type complaints. His tweets, his nicknames, his talking too much, the list of non-policy complaints here goes on…

 

[jamil]

What does the law say?

No elected official should be immune from any law that a private citizen is accountable for.

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.

But, bombing them without that, I think amounts to actions not within the authority as POTUS. So I think courts should decide whether the president was acting within his duty for the given allegation.

 

[KG1]

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"?

 

[Ingomike]

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.

Still don’t believe the President can declassify whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants?

 

[Ingomike]

I think amounts to actions not within the authority as POTUS.

You think that, but what do you base that thinking on?

I would have thought that ten years ago too but cannot seem to find what supersedes the constitutional authority. The reckoning comes down to when and what laws supersede constitutional presidential authority?

 

[BugI02]

Trying 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.

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-aggrandizement

And that is a 'nose-holding situation' for people who wonder just who the **** appointed you judge and jury. You should have just stopped after 'Biden'

 

[Ingomike]

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"?

No, because you guys will not stop demanding it. The vast majority of the beefs here about Trump do not involve policy.

Nitpicking non-policy is a form of demanding perfection…