Originally posted by mike brown
what I meant is that it's an inevitable fact that charging someone with a crime may affect their life/job/etc and yet they're not yet proven guilty cause in a good justice system they have a right to a fair trialIt's by no means inevitable that we have to grant the president immunity.... It's just a seemingly arbitrary law which I'm calling in to question what the proper reasoning for it is and have yet to receive a good answer... Not that said good answer doesn't exist
Perhaps this will help you:
The headnote:
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
Like I say and Mueller didn't withhold evidence... Only a ruling. So if the rule applies to him it presumably applies to any other proactive while the president is in office...
Here's a counter question for you... Why did he explicitly exonerate him on conspiracy/collusion but not obstruction? What was the distinction that led him to in one case declare the evidence was insufficient and in the other case make a point of saying that he wouldn't rule one way or the other?
Originally posted by Surturthat's only reiterating what the law is. I'm asking you guys if there's a good reason behind it and if so, what is it.
Perhaps this will help you:The headnote:
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
Originally posted by mike brown
Like I say and Mueller didn't withhold evidence... Only a ruling. So if the rule applies to him it presumably applies to any other proactive while the president is in office...Here's a counter question for you... Why did he explicitly exonerate him on conspiracy/collusion but not obstruction? What was the distinction that led him to in one case declare the evidence was insufficient and in the other case make a point of saying that he wouldn't rule one way or the other?
Obstruction is trickier. Either Trump colluded or he didn't.
Obstruction requires corrupt intent.
Originally posted by Surtur
Perhaps this will help you:The headnote:
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
Yeah, but those are just inconvenient silly details to the cult of anti-Trumpers. All they know is Trump hurt their wittle feelings by whipping Hillary and they want him gone by any means possible because they realize he can't actually be beaten in a fair election. If that means breaking, bending, or even just ignoring the pesky law that gets in their way then so be bit.
Hillary's defeat must be avenged!! 😂
Originally posted by mike brown
that's only reiterating what the law is. I'm asking you guys if there's a good reason behind it and if so, what is it.
How is this not a reason?
"would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
Sounds like a reason to me, you don't have to agree, but they do give a reason.
And there is a 39 page pdf file attached that goes into the arguments for and against it.
Originally posted by quanchi112
So you are saying he is above the law. Disgusting.
🙄 He said or implied no such thing, liar. If anyone is above the law then it's clear it's Hillary, not Trump. Unlike w/Trump, we have real, actual evidence she broke it and she paid no penalty for it.
Well, other than getting humiliated in an election she was supposed to "win easily." lol That was more like karma though. She still needs to pay for her crimes.
Here's a question . Say he literally murdered his wife during a state of the union... On live TV... We can't ****in charge him???
And if a president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.. but can't be charged while in office... How do the people impeaching him know he's guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?
Don't you people pretend to all understand this shit... Our system is a labyrinth of laws designed to protect the rich and powerful
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeAwwwww, yes he did. Hillary is not trump you hillbilly. You are so lost in this you cannot see anything logically or at its base.
🙄 He said or implied no such thing, liar. If anyone is above the law then it's clear it's Hillary, not Trump. Unlike w/Trump, we have real, actual evidence she broke it and she paid no penalty for it.Well, other than getting humiliated in an election she was supposed to "win easily." lol That was more like karma though. She still needs to pay for her crimes.
Originally posted by mike brown
Here's a question . Say he literally murdered his wife during a state of the union... On live TV... We can't ****in charge him???And if a president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.. but can't be charged while in office... How do the people impeaching him know he's guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?
Don't you people pretend to all understand this shit... Our system is a labyrinth of laws designed to protect the rich and powerful
Jesus dude I don't think it extends to frickin murder lol.
If you're so interested I legit provided you a link which has a pdf file that is nearly 40 pages that talks all about this and the arguments for it and against it.
Originally posted by mike brown
I'm not a lawyer so I don't honestly know if there is or not... Since the guy in charge of the investigation declined to rule on it that basically leaves it up in the air... Meaning when he's out of office another prosecutor could potentially take up the case.. or not.
You had all those names and you settled on MIKE.
Yeah...
Originally posted by SurturTo be fair, most heads of state are invulnerable. How can her majesty's prisons imprison her majesty.
And you say it's part of the justice system, but if the DOJ has a standing policy you don't indict a sitting president...well, you get that makes it part of the system too, yes?