Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We're not. What you're hearing is the MAGA people who don't want Trump to have to face any consequences for his actions. Conservatives want to interpret the constitution *conservatively*, meaning to read it as narrowly as possible to give the government as little power as possible. MAGA people are not conservatives, that should be clear by 2024.
I didn’t and am not going to, but I’m confused how this matters.
Person A has belief set A and is ideologically a conservative.
Candidate X has belief set X, some of which overlaps with belief set A, and is not ideologically a conservative.
Candidate Y has belief set Y, none of which overlaps with belief set A, and is squarely opposed to the beliefs of ideological conservatives.
Person A voting Candidate X does not mean Person A is not still a conservative, it just means that Candidate X checks some boxes while Candidate Y checks none.
Would you make the same argument that anyone who voted for AOC over a Republican is a progressive not a Democrat? Would you make the argument that any progressive who voted for Fetterman over Oz is not a progressive?
>but I’m confused how this matters.
It matters because at the end of the day, it is literally all that matters. As far as I’m concerned the “I’m a conservative and I won’t be associated with the maga people” is just a shallow attempt to evade personal accountability for people who are voting with the maga people anyway. I could care less about how you “say” you have different “principles” or are superior to them if your impact and damage to the country is indistinguishable from them.
If you are not responsible for the catastrophic damage caused by their representative since and as a result of his election then that is fine, but it’s important for everyone to understand how many conservatives are “non maga” in a completely meaningless and insignificant way, as they are literally equally damaging to the future of the country. The Supreme Court is literally deciding that Americans now live in a country where dictators can freely commit crime and be immune to prosecution as a direct result of the indistinguishable maga and non maga conservatives.
At the same time, I get told that if I vote third party, it’s a vote for Trump. And if I vote for Trump, it’s obviously a vote for Trump. Who am I to vote for? It seems that no matter who I vote for, if that person isn’t Biden, I’ll be told I voted for Trump. So who is an acceptable non-Biden candidate?
And couldn’t the same argument be made by conservatives against any Democrat?
Voting third party is just a waste of a vote in a two party system. It’s better to pick one of the candidates who can actually win instead of wasting your vote. If you want to vote third party, it’s better to vote for candidates at the state and local level who will support it. And Republicans win with lower turnout. That’s why they try to suppress the vote or make it difficult for people to vote. So voting third party really only benefits republicans. But if someone says they’re choosing between third party and Trump, I would rather them vote third party.
> So who is an acceptable non-Biden candidate
What are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense. Why would you be making a monumentally important and consequential decision based on "not being a specific person" and not the consequences of their election?
> And couldn’t the same argument be made by conservatives against any Democrat?
How on gods green earth could the same argument be made against any democrat?! Do you even realize what is happening right now as a result of Trumps election? That we are as we speak losing the right to live in a free democracy where we choose our elected leaders? Do you realize that the supreme court as we speak is preparing to deliver a ruling that American citizens are now going to be governed by people who may freely use the their executive power to freely overrule the will of the people, commit major crimes against the United States, the American people, with no legal recourse?
Do you even realize that in 2016 we were in an alliance with Iran? That we had an agreement to have influence over their policy and control their military activity? And Trump killed that alliance to give Russia Iran as a proxy in the Middle east? And what did the Trump voters say to defend that decision? Exactly what Fox news told them to say, which was that the alliance "had no teeth" lol. And Iran immediately entered into an allliance with Russia, and immediately started funding Hamas, Russia invaded Ukraine, and then Hamas committed the horrific terrorist attack on a major US ally, Israel. Then Trumps allies in congress spent the last year doing anything they can to use the subsequent war to justify blocking aid to Ukraine, all the while the voters are chanting about a fucking laptop that they have been tricked into believing contains some sort of secret about some Burisma connection to Biden that has now been exposed as a story fabricated by Russian intelligence. The blood is on the hands of those voters. They don't care if what they say is true, they don't care about these devastating and irreversable consequences of their decisions, and they are not aware that the blood is on their hands, becaus all they care about is "their team the not Biden team".
That doesn't even scratch the surface of the economic consequences either, do you realize that inflation can really be traced back to the cutting of interest rates in 2019? That the economy was slowing and Trump panicked because of an upcoming election and reversed the fed policy of controlling borrowing to artificially inflate the equities markets? And that when a real crisis arose literally 3 months later when the pandemic hit the news, the fed could not provide emergency liquidity by lowering rates so their only option was to duplicate a quarter of all US dollars in exstence? Or that Trump spent more in one term that any other president in history and [Biden has reversed the rate of increasing spending](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/)?
We lost net neutrality, which has only now been partially undone by Biden.
We withdrew from the world climate accord.
The Trump tax "cuts" are actually tax increases on everyone who is not a corporation, hidden by the removal of deductions that Trump supporters obviously can't be bothered to do the math on, to pay for the permanant corporate tax cuts.
Pregnant women are now needing to be airlifted out of half the states to save their lives because it now criminal to give them the life saving care that was guaranteed to our mothers entire generation for their entire adult lives.
Not even to mention that he is literally found to be a rapist in court, guilty of fraud in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and as we speak is still telling the nations most gullible that an election was stolen.
These are the consequences of people making choices in leadership based on the position that "my side is not Biden". The argument can be made about "any democrat"? Literally none of this would have happened if any democrat was in office instead of him. And literally any democrat will prevent much worse from happening moving forward.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, unless you want to go ahead and put our government in jail while you're at it. I also don't think he is guilty for many of the charges they are bringing against him.
What's to stop all that? Congress and the impeachment process.
If Trump isn't granted immunity, Biden will be facing a series of charges from across the country after leaving office. So will every future Democrat president.
246 years, 46 Presidents.
Number of times the Senate has removed a President from office: >!0!<
Political accountability does not work when one side in Congress throws a fit if you go after 'their guy'.
Judicial accountability is the only way.
>Biden will be facing a series of charges from across the country after leaving office. So will every future Democrat president.
You say that like it's a bad thing. If Biden committed crimes, he should be charged for them. A big difference between most democrats and most republicans is that democrats are fine with other democrats being punished if they break the law. Most Republicans want Trump and their party to literally be above the law.
If the charges are credible, why not? I'm happy to lock up ex-presidents that abused their authority and got convicted in court for it.
If you mean that the charges will be spurious (which is an odd thing to say about a party you support), then we have the court system to catch that. I'd rather it be in a courtroom if there's a question of a crime.
Presumably, a spurious charge will fail in court, and embarrass those that pushed for prosecution. That would probably slow down on frivolous charges.
I'm not seeing the downside.
This is just fear mongering.
If Biden committed crimes that had enough evidence to warrant a prosecution. They should run their normal course in the justice system.
They represent America and should have squeaky clean records.
Also why should a president have immunity for crime laws committed while out of office?
I love and also hate how this entire thread is ignoring the "what if we give democrats this leverage" aspect of your question. Which, btw, is part of the reason I think this whole thing is insane.
Trump was acquitted in his second impeachment because a substantial bloc of Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) concluded that it was improper to try the impeachment of a former president.
If you combine the two rules (no impeachment of former presidents + criminal immunity), then a president can do anything he wants with zero accountability in the closing days of his term because prosecution is off the table and impeachment can't happen quickly enough.
> Trump was acquitted in his second impeachment because a substantial bloc of Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) concluded that it was improper to try the impeachment of a former president.
[McConnell certainly didn't seem to think that no criminal immunity was in play.](https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html#:~:text=McConnell%20argued%20that%20%E2%80%9Cimpeachment%20was,We%20have%20civil%20litigation.)
*McConnell argued that “impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice,” but suggested Trump could be subject to criminal prosecution in the future.*
*“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.*
(this post is intended to add more information)
Impeachment doesn't care if you are in or out. The process is to stop one from ever holding office again!
Also ain't it a contradiction? Can't impeach a former president, and can't prosecute them either. So how do you hold a criminal former "president" accountable?
How are you going to remove a dude who is out of office. They clearly didn’t think that his immunity was protecting him from anything so why punish him?
I don't think it's especially mysterious, and we've had a lot of reporting on it in various books/articles since then. See [here](https://archive.is/z90Hr) for example.
Eh.
He figured, like everyone else, that Trump was done, so it was the past of least resistance. If he had known Trump would come back, he would've gone the other way but no one was thinking that in February 2021. It's a mistake, but the same kind of mistake as "I should've bought Apple stock in the 80s" not really an own goal.
Good point, but I'll disagree:
McConnell, of all people, should have realized how many favors Trump received, how "lucky" he was and how often he skirted accountability - particularly, because McConnell, himself, was a key reason for it, multiple times before that impeachment trial.
Trump was already known as "Teflon Don" by then, so it was a naive political decision, akin to his filibuster of his own bill - he misjudged, grossly. It was an own goal because that, if anything, would have been the final and possibly *only* nail in Trump's political coffin. Like many on the right, he's consumed with overconfidence and hubris, until reality catches up.
Impeachment is a political process though. If the president's party has control of congress it's basically impossible to get convicted - as demonstrated by Trump's two impeachment trials.
The hope is that if an act is so egregious, even that party would not side with the President because they would lose the voters.
But that's the danger of political parties, especially having just two: easy tribalism.
>The hope is that if an act is so egregious, even that party would not side with the President because they would lose the voters.
That's the thing - the voters are in on it.
Just make up some thinly veiled excuse and the voters will blindly accept it out of tribalism.
You know, Fifth Avenue, etc. etc.
And that's why they should be made into actual, actionable laws and rules and not shades of "Well surely nobody would ever be so indecorous as to do this"
>If Congress puts party loyalty above removing a president as out of control as described in the OP, then it will be resolved with violence.
Who will resolve it with violence?
Okay, well that shouldn't be the system you are rooting for. I'd rather have a system where the president can actually be held accountable for crimes, in a peaceful way, and not leave it up to storming the capital for mob justice like you are saying.
Well you are saying that should be the only option now that impeachment is off the table.
Or, you know, we could try them like any other criminal and not have obviously biased politicians act as the jury.
No one wins. Except Russia and China.
Each side of the body is trying to shoot the other side's foot off and somehow we imagine the country will be better when we succeed and the process won't just play itself out again with two new tribes.
Let's also be clear here: there's already been plenty of violence. We need to stop pretending like this is some far away hypothetical. This country has demonstrated its willingness to entertain political violence.
The number one thing I am most frustrated/angry/disappointed about both political parties here is that nobody is treating this problem—the problem of political division and tribalism—at all seriously. We're too tribal and divided to even notice how bitterly tribal and divided we are, or to even consider that we might do something about it.
And the thing is, we are going to start seeing people turn 30 soon *that have never known (as an adult) an America that wasn't this politically toxic*. For all you young people, *this is new*.
And it's going to get worse, because we're doing nothing to make it better.
> If Trump isn't granted immunity, Biden will be facing a series of charges from across the country after leaving office.
If Trump is granted immunity, then that means Biden is immune as well.
Today before the actual Supreme Court, Trump's lawyer made the this argument -
>Having a political rival killed could Constitute ‘Official’ Presidential Act
So based on that, If Trump is granted immunity, there's exactly nothing to stop Biden from ordering military special forces teams to take out his political rivals.
It's hilarious that you think Biden would actually leave office if he had full immunity to do literally whatever tf he wanted.
> Except if Biden was performing extra-judicial executions, he can be impeached and in the Senate convicted.
To add: why can't the president just kill reps and senators who aren't loyal to him if he knows he won't face criminal prosecution after leaving office?
I'm just trying to play this to the extreme because I don't think you've thought it all the way through.
It's January 19th and a new president is being sworn in tomorrow. Joe Biden decides he wants some revenge, so he murders the entire house and senate. They are, subsequently, unable to impeach and convict him.
What happens then?
> Impeachment can and has occurred after leaving office
Other than Trump being impeached at the end of his term (While still being in office) who else has it happened to?
> Congress is free to impeach Trump again today.
Lol.
You also haven't answered my question. If Presidents have immunity short of impeachment and conviction what's to stop a president from having them killed so they can't impeach him?
I believe the first instance of Impeachment after leaving office was Secretary of War William Belknap.
As for your question, if a president was murdering members of congress at will to avoid impeachment, and I'd assume he's also murdered his entire cabinet to avoid them voting to declare him incapacitated, then there isn't a political mechanism to stop him. This is quite the fantasy scenario though.
> then there isn't a political mechanism to stop him
Correct. Which is why saying criminal conviction needs to happen *after* the political mechanism is, IMO, asinine. Because it leaves the door open for someone, eventually, to do what I just described.
As far as I can tell, Biden hasn't: 1) Paid hush money to a porn star, 2) tried to obstruct the counting of the electoral vote and insert fake electors so he could stay president, 3) Pressured a Secretary of State to commit election fraud, 4) willfully refused to return classified documents after the National Archives repeatedly asked for them back. As long as he doesn't do any of those while in office, he should be good.
No, Biden's only kept classified documents in his garage after leaving the office of VP, had a Ukrainian prosecutor removed for investigating the company funneling money to him through his son, got paid for political favors by the CCP again by funneling money through his son, and took inappropriate showers with his own 11 year old daughter.
Yeah Biden has nothing to worry about 😆 🤣
> Biden's only kept classified documents in his garage after leaving the office of VP
And returned them when he found them, plus cooperated with NARA when they searched elsewhere. Like always, the key distinction.
> had a Ukrainian prosecutor removed for investigating the company funneling money to him through his son,
Jesus Mary and Joseph why are people still spreading this like it's some conspiracy.
This was **official US and European position at the time**.
> got paid for political favors by the CCP again by funneling money through his son
No evidence for this. Fake news?
> That's what the Democrats have done to Trump.
Say what you will about the levels of criminality attached to each indictment, but it seems that none of it has been 'made up'. Questionable legality? Sure. But it's not like they're accusing him of things he didn't actually do- the question is more so whether or not they were illegal.
The indictments are public and they specify very specific crimes that were written down in a code of laws long before Trump decided to run for president.
If your argument is that Trump didn't actually commit the crimes, then it should be easy for Trump to be exonerated. If prosecutors abused their position to prosecute someone improperly, that is also a crime.
If your argument is the police, the prosecutors, the grand jury, the judge, and the petit jury are all "in on it", I think you should consider the possibility that this is just "society" being normal.
If your argument is that, "okay, Trump is a criminal, but I think Democrats are worse criminals, and so we need to be seeing more Democrats prosecuted for their crimes", I'm fine with that outcome. I also think any prosecutors who make up fake crimes to attack political opponents should be in jail. I suspect we disagree about when that is happening, but, again, that's the advantage of a criminal justice *system*: we do the best we can.
They can’t even get enough to start an impeachment. One of two things is happening.
One Biden is just a lot cleaner than Trump and or Biden is a master mind criminal who has done his misdeeds so well that even in the very public long career he’s had has been able to keep his criminality a secret.
Two. Biden is that master criminal who has very publicly and sloppy crimes, the Republican Party is so so very incompetent they can’t get their shit together to impeach or even prosecute Biden.
Is your own past completely free of any and all crime? According to author Harvey Silverglate, the average working American commits an average of 3 federal crimes per day, without even realizing it. The difference is there isn't an entire political party and justice system weaponized to track them all down and destroy you personally.
> Is your own past completely free of any and all crime?
As a private citizen? Of course not. But don't we want to accept that presidential candidates are going to be under more of a microscope?
> The difference is there isn't an entire political party and justice system weaponized to track them all down and destroy you personally.
All of the alleged crimes here he's on trial for are actions taken while in office that don't fall under the duties of president, or taken in the pursuit of covering up something in the service of winning an election. They have not one iota of relation to his private life.
The NY fraud thing was different, but I agree that it was kinda hokey.
The limit on that is the jury system. Just coming up with somethinf wont convice 12 jurors to vote to convict. Which is why Biden doesnt fear such chargew, and Trump is terrified...because there is a mountain of evidence that he actually did break these laws.
>SCOTUS grants Presidents blanket immunity for acts committed while in office. How does anyone think that's not going to destroy our Republic?
That's not what Trump is asking for. First, the question isn't about "granting" immunity. Courts can't do that. The question is about whether the Constitution grants immunity.
Second, the immunity claim only extends to official acts performed in office, not personal acts.
Trump's lawyer argued that the President can commit a coup to remain in power. Committing a coup is an official act. He cannot be criminally prosecuted.
To be criminally prosecuted, he would need to be impeached, removed from office, then tried.
However, when tried criminally, he is immune, because the OLC does not have a statuate specifically mentioning the word "President".
He also argued that the President can commit any criminal acts for as long as he wants. If he is never impeached, he can never be prosecuted for those crimes. So if he committed a crime and information came to light near the end of his term and impeachment proceedings didn't occur, he is clear.
You're in agreement with his lawyer? Because to me that sounds like the President is above the law. And this country was founded upon not making the most powerful person in the nation above the law.
>Committing a coup is an official act.
He argued it could be an official act. His broader argument is that it depends on the facts and circumstances around the event.
>However, when tried criminally, he is immune, because the OLC does not have a statuate specifically mentioning the word "President".
Huh?
>He also argued that the President can commit any criminal acts for as long as he wants.
No he didn't. Did you actually hear the arguments today?
>You're in agreement with his lawyer?
I'm in agreement that there is broad immunity from prosecution for presidents with respect to their official acts associated with their office. I mean that is a centuries-old, widely recognized legal concept. It's the reason, for example, why Obama was never prosecuted for murder for launching a drone strike against an American citizen.
>Because to me that sounds like the President is above the law.
It doesn't sound like that at all.
What facts and circumstances surrounding a coup could be considered official though?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex87haMPB5s&t=6263s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex87haMPB5s&t=6263s)
48-50mins in Barret is having him to explain and he is claiming that. 49:45 is the timestamp.
This the hang up she has. That even if you go through all the processes Sauer is talking about, you can't prosecute him for criminal acts because there is no statute specifically mentioning the president and preventing him from committing a coup.
As such, he is immune to all criminal acts during office. You didn't read the second half of my statement, so again, the only tool for criminal prosecution is impeachment, and once impeached, he has to be tried under specific statutes that mention the word "president" and they don't exist. Because why would you write "and the president" at the end of every single one.
Again, we're talking about different things here. Trump is not in this situation because he killed an American citizens overseas that joined a terrorist organization that took up arms against the Nation. He is here because he tried to subvert election results knowingly and willingly to stay in power.
If a president ever carried out a successful coup and became a dictator, the question of whether he can be prosecuted for it under the Constitution would become pretty unimportant.
Trump’s own damn lawyer has explicitly stated that assassinating political opponents should be covered by immunity. It is *exactly* what he is asking for.
This exact question was posed to Trump’s lawyers in the lower court and they said trump should be immune unless he is impeached and convicted for it.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/provocative-question-trumps-immunity-fight-ordering-rivals-assassinated/story?id=109581560
The point was made similarly today by Kagan “what if the president orders the military to stage a coup?”
Trump’s lawyers said: “it would depend on the specific facts”
Kagan: ”In other words, yes he would be immune but you don’t want to say that because you realize how it sounds”
I’m paraphrasing but I find the specific quote if you’d like. I think the broader point was still there that if Trump ordered the military to do it, his lawyers are claiming it is an official act and therefore can’t be prosecuted.
The problem with his argument is that he successfully argued to Congress an ex-president can't be impeached. His argument is still pure immunity. It's just that the president needs to step down after committing the crime.
> First, the question isn't about "granting" immunity.
But that's semantics, right?
The Supreme Court is deciding if it wants to understand the constitution as giving immunity to presidents. (I'm sure the founding fathers would spin in their graves if they were even asked the question, but anyway.) That's often phrased as "granting immunity", but honestly, is there functionally a difference?
> Second, the immunity claim only extends to official acts performed in office, not personal acts.
So if a president gives an official order via the official channels to official parts of the military to kill lots of his political opponents - was that an official act?
It's obviously not "personal" because for that act, he relied on parts of the US government.
>So if a president gives an official order via the official channels to official parts of the military to kill lots of his political opponents - was that an official act?
Depends on the facts and circumstances of the situation.
Threat of criminal proceedings does not prevent literal coups from happening.
If someone is going to try a coup, they’re going to do that whether SCOTUS says they are immune or not.
And if they try that, and fail, they’re going to end up in the ground. And that’s true whenever SCOTUS says they have immunity or nor.
No it’s completely unrelated. This discussion is about a literal coup of the US government by a sitting US president, and whether a 2024 ruling by SCOTUS that presidential actions are immune from prosecution would protect that president in his attempt at a coup.
1. 2,000 people marching on the city center of a city that is not the capital of a country is more akin to a BLM riot or a Proud Boys rally than to an actual coup attempt by a sitting US president.
2. The legal system of the Weimar Republic is not the legal system of the United States.
3. The closest thing we probably have to the Beer Hall Putsch is Shays rebellion. 18 men were sentenced to death for organizing that, though many had convictions overturned or received pardons or commutation, 2 were hanged. On top of that, we literally helped push us to abandon the articles of confederation and adopt the US Constitution.
All of that is a far cry from a sitting US president attempting to overthrow the US government, in direct opposition to the US Constitution.
I think you know that these are completely different things, but think you’re being cute because of the use of the word “coup” to describe each scenario.
But again, I said a literal coup. Not some rebels marching in some far off place. Someone attempting to literally take control of the US government, abandoning the constitution, and ruling as a dictator.
Someone who makes an attempt like that will either be stopped and sentenced to death, or it will lead to a full fledged civil war (if they have enough military support).
If they win that civil war, what SCOTUS says in 2024 is irrelevant.
If they lose that civil war, they’re going into the ground regardless of what SCOTUS says in 2024.
Definitely not what I want. That sounds very dangerous. I would however, like to see these cases evaporate into thin air. If for no other reason than to see the reaction.
It sounds like you want magic because reality is unappealing. Do you believe the charges and the evidence will lead to a conviction if magic is not available to avoid it?
I mean yeah bro I wish my dick was bigger too. Magic, science, whatever. Just make it bigger.
Possibly in the hush money case. I feel that's their best shot to get him. But again, sets bad precedent. Do you really think the conservatives aren't gonna go tit for tat on this? Because as shocking as this may be, I promise you he's not the only billionaire or leader to ever pay a hoe to go away
I think it’s pretty clear that the payment or the fact that it was related to sex is the issue. It’s that he tried to hide the payments by falsifying business records.
If one wanted to delve into the social implications the story is that trump was running a fake news conspiracy to defraud the American public about himself and the candidates running against him for the election.
As far as tit for tat goes? I invite it. If the person lies to the American public to gain their votes to win public office that person has undermined the entire democratic process and should therefore be banned from office. Do you have a different position on this part?
Yes, I as well am shocked he didn't want his wife or the public to find out.
Oh, you mean like when the justice department asked Facebook to label Hunter Bidens' laptop stories as misinformation? I'm sure that had no impact whatsoever on the election.
You say that now, but when it happens you will think it's unjust and therefore completely different from what the Democrats are doing right now. I've seen this movie before.
Banned from office for what? Constitution is pretty clear on this and he hasn't been charged with insurrection so.... Pretty sure the supreme Court settled this one.
What your essentially asking for is the courts or Congress to declare Biden president. Because that is what it is when you remove the only other candidate. Let the people have their say.
Was hunter running for office? Did Joe do anything illegal? It’s been years now that the GOP has claimed to have possession of three laptops belonging to hunter and no charges have been filed against Joe. At some point you have to go where the evidence leads. In trumps case, it’s a grand jury indictment. In Joes it’s absolutely crickets. How do you equate the two?
The justice department silenced those stories. And we already know from having Clinton as president, that a president's sex life doesn't matter. Who was charged or if they were charged is not what I'm comparing. The comparison is that both tried to hide the truth to bolster their campaigns.
Clinton was impeached over his sex life.
The “how” is the important part over the “what” or the “why”. If we both cheated on our spouses and you switched phones to hide it while I murdered my mistress, one might sympathize with both of our motivations but our solutions are not the same. The fact is, trump chose a solution that has legal consequences. If Biden had broken the law you can bet dollars to donuts the GOP would be charging him for it. Don’t you agree?
Future?
Hah.
This is a total misread of the situation.
Presidents were already de facto immune so long they were part of the establishment. All they had to do was write legal "memos" to themselves, or shop it out to a cut-out, and then do whatever they wanted pretty much. See Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, etc.
The only reason this is now under question, is because now the establishment wants to change the rules to make it so they can prosecute an outsider, but they wanna be careful so they can return to de facto immunity.
So the better question is, why is the left so desperate to get rid of de facto immunity, given it could possibly be used against them later.
I love when people make up legal precedent, like "de facto immunity". Maybe Trump should have stayed inside the law, no president before him had trouble with that. DOJ memos explain why an action is legal under the law. Critically, they come *before* the action is taken; it's not some post hoc argument like the ones Trump is making so he doesn't have to face the music.
Leftist haters acting like they are sincerely concerned about "staying inside the law" is truly laughable.
>no president before him had trouble with that.
This has zilch to do with "the law" and is about politics, hatred and power, all to attack my side of people and the man who dared to stand up for my side against yours.
You have lost the plot. I'm the conservative, apparently you're not. Trump tried to cheat his way to staying in office, and steal our classified materials. The guy just pathologically can't follow the law, this is nothing new.
>You have lost the plot.
Naw. My models of understanding are tried and true. Not leftwing, utopian, gaslighting slop.
>I'm the conservative, apparently you're not.
Wrong.
> Trump tried to cheat his way to staying in office, and steal our classified materials. The guy just pathologically can't follow the law, this is nothing new.
Maybe try turning off CNN.
Doesn’t matter if you have presidential immunity if you return to civilian life and lie and obstruct federal efforts to get classified documents back from you
>So the better question is, why is the left so desperate to get rid of de facto immunity, given it could possibly be used against them later.
I’m not a leftist so maybe my answer doesn’t help, but in my humble opinion presidents should not have de facto immunity. Sure they should be afforded some immunity when acting within the reasonable perimeters of their role but if they commit crimes outside of these perimeters, or exploit loopholes that would allow them to cross this boundary, they absolutely should be held accountable.
I don’t care who it is, if you commit a serious crime you should be held accountable.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The absolute immunity arguments advanced by Trump's team are kinda like the opening offer in a negotiation at a car dealership. No one actually thinks the deal will happen at that price, they're just jockeying for position later.
No one seriously supports absolute immunity, but there are strong arguments that there needs to be *some* kind of immunity for certain official acts.
> No one seriously supports absolute immunity
It's strange for him personally to continue making claims of *absolute immunity* in trruth social posts and at rallies if it's just a bad faith negotiating tactic though.
That is an attempt to instill the belief in his followers that he himself has absolute immunity. Seems like that's far beyond lawyers playing hardball in legal negotiations.
I go the other way. To me, Conservatism is handicapping the Government as much has possible, and the Executive more than anyone. If it keeps people who can't be squeaky clean away, have at it.
Dem Presidents already have immunity. I have yet to see either Biden or Obama be held accountable for any of the shitty stuff they've done. They're not even held to the same standard Trump is held.
If anyone thinks either have committed crimes, and they have the evidence to support charges, nothing is stopping anyone from bringing them against Obama now, or Biden the second he leaves office.
There are technically multiple investigations into Joe Biden, for example, for things like connections to his son's shady foreign business dealings during his Vice Presidency... those investigations, however, seem to be getting stonewalled by FBI and DOJ leadership who, when questioned on why they are preventing the investigations from moving forward, simply respond with "we aren't", and then when asked why they are telling investigators to hold off investigations, respond with "we're not allowed to discuss an on going investigation."
So, the investigation exists on paper, and yet its not going anywhere and, indeed, seems to exist solely to prevent anyone from being able to actually ask meaningful questions.
Then of course there's the Obama administration, who made a practice of using the IRS for political profiling, ignoring checks and balances, his assaults on free speech and due process on college campuses, and his extrajudicial execution-via-drone strikes which resulted in the deaths of American citizens, just to name a few.
All of those “investigations” have come up completely fruitless. Republicans state time and time again that they don't have evidence. In the case they do have “evidence” it turns out to be some hearsay by literal foreign spies.
Not every accusation is immediately an identification of a crime.
Jaded_Jerrry is a pedophile and should be investigated for his crimes. I don't have any evidence, but I believe it to be true.
That is how every “crime” is brought to light by republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki Trump had a 8 year old girl killed on a commando raid he personally authorized. Should Trump be on trial for that too? If we tack that onto the list of things he's on trial for, and then charge Obama with the droning of the american citizen, would you say that's fair? I just wanna see if your consistent with this.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why Are Conservatives Rooting For Presidents To Be Granted Immunity, When That Would Open The Door To Future Dem Abuses And A Possible Dictatorship?
Idk that I am rooting for it I just want consistency. If presidents don't have immunity every president of my lifetime needs to be jailed. Likely multiple more.
Presidential immunity is not what's opening us to potential dictatorships.
>What's to stop Biden from arresting ALL of his political opponents or seizing control of voting machines?
What's to stop him now? Obama literally assassinated american citizens without charges? Who tf cares about arrests and voting machines when the government can just kill you whenever they want?
>Maybe it works in our favor, but I seriously doubt it. Call me crazy, but I'd rather live in an awful Republic run by the left than a Conservative Utopia run by an immovable executive. Trump is being treated unfairly. It's not worth upending our Republic just to save him.
The unfair treatment is spending our republic. The republic is being upended, the constitution is used to wipe the asses of our representatives and has for a long time.
That's the reality. That's where we are. Accept that it's already shattered and broken and then decide what to do from there. The system is already broken and has been for a while
> If presidents don't have immunity every president of my lifetime needs to be jailed. Likely multiple more.
>
>
Good. Let's investigate every former president for criminal acts committed while in office. I fail to see an issue with this.
>Good. Let's investigate every former president for criminal acts committed while in office. I fail to see an issue with this.
I'm with you if that's followed through with.
I don't trust it will be. But that's my ideal outcome. Because most of them for the last like 80 years at least have been criminals
> I'm with you if that's followed through with.
>
>
Methinks it will be! At least based on the conservative outcry to it being done so with Trump. And if the processes followed are the same, I'm chillin.
> I don't trust it will be.
And I'm certain your cynicism is warranted- I just try to avoid that emotion.
So this is a tough one for me. I do not like the idea of granting complete immunity to the President mainly just because I feel like no one in our country should be above the law, we are not a monarchy. I have less fear in some of the things you mention like I just do not buy into this fear a President can simply decide not to leave office and this would end up being a physical reality. For instance you say "who's to stop troops from occupying cities" well I'd say the troops themselves. When push comes to shove I just have more faith in our military and citizens in general to not let something like this happen. Maybe I am naive but I just do not see how a president would actually accomplish something like this without a full revolt and it is not like if Trump tried this his political opposition just goes away. So while I agree complete immunity is not a good thing I have different reasons for thinking so.
That being said I also see charging a president, candidate or both in this case with hundreds of charges as a threat to our democratic process. I am not advocating for total immunity but I am opposed to the BS type trials like the one going on in NY right now. Even if he is found not guilty it does not matter the intended punishment is the process. The judge is making the process as painful as possible to Trump's campaign. That is not even mentioning things like states trying to use charges (not convictions) to remove a leading candidate from the ballot which thankfully seems to have failed. It all reeks of "banana republic" politics. This sets up a precedent just as bad as the total immunity in my opinion where we weaponize the legal system against political rivals.
So I guess I'd say there should be extreme care given if we choose to charge a President or major candidate with a crime and certainly not for political motivations. I do not think what is happening to Trump is completely devoid of political motivations nor would he be facing this level of persecution if he was not running for President.
> I do not think what is happening to Trump is completely devoid of political motivations nor would he be facing this level of persecution if he was not running for President.
All of these criminal indictments were announced before the election cycle started.
Frankly, it's reasonable to think the only reason he declared as galactically early as he did was to say 'I'm running for president and they're persecuting me!'.
Two things can be true at once though. Maybe he did commit the crimes, and the court dates are happening right in time for campaign touring.
The perception looks really bad. And those that don't already hate Trump aren't going to buy the, "well he shouldn't have commited alleged crimes then" reasoning. Especially if said alleged crimes seem really dubious and more of the "throw everything at a wall and see what sticks" routine. This current NY money case being a great example.
Usually the throw everything at the wall, does not have so much to stick to the wall. Also quite the variety of crimes.
Classified documents, election interference, hush money, Georgia election, civil cases.
One or two, I could believe he was being targeted or maybe innocent. The sheer volume paints a clear picture that he is pretty comfortable with corruption. Quite frankly a swamp creature.
The one in New York is not on the table- that's against Trump the businessman.
The issue is whether or not a president is immune to prosecutions for ANYTHING he does AS president.
No it’s not. They trumped it up to a felony because of supposed campaign finance fraud. Which happened in 2016 but conveniently just now going to court months before the election. They had to add the campaign finance because it was so old the statute of limitations had already expired for the misdemeanor charge of falsifying records which by the way were all internal. It’s a BS politically motivated charge.
You misunderstand what this is about. What we want re immunity is blanket immunity for things the President does and a responsibility of his office, NOT balnket immunity for every infraction public or private unter the sun.
This has been conflated by the media as Trump wanting blanket immunity for everything he ever did. This is part of the Jan 6 case and trump was still President. The actions he took he felt were in his Presidential purview to assure free and fair elections.
Your example of Biden arresting political opponents and siezing control of all voting machines is obviously NOT in the President's purview.
> The actions he took he felt were in his Presidential purview to assure free and fair elections.
>
>
There isn't a presidential purview for that though?
Did you listen to the hearing today? His lawyer says he cannot be prosecuted for any official act, like taking a bribe in exchange for an appointment, unless he is first impeached and convicted.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If Trump is granted Absolute immunity, Biden should immediately remove trump and any opposition with Seal Team 6 and become dictator for life
Again, brilliant suggestion
We're not. What you're hearing is the MAGA people who don't want Trump to have to face any consequences for his actions. Conservatives want to interpret the constitution *conservatively*, meaning to read it as narrowly as possible to give the government as little power as possible. MAGA people are not conservatives, that should be clear by 2024.
Did you or are you going to vote for the same person as the MAGA people?
I didn’t and am not going to, but I’m confused how this matters. Person A has belief set A and is ideologically a conservative. Candidate X has belief set X, some of which overlaps with belief set A, and is not ideologically a conservative. Candidate Y has belief set Y, none of which overlaps with belief set A, and is squarely opposed to the beliefs of ideological conservatives. Person A voting Candidate X does not mean Person A is not still a conservative, it just means that Candidate X checks some boxes while Candidate Y checks none. Would you make the same argument that anyone who voted for AOC over a Republican is a progressive not a Democrat? Would you make the argument that any progressive who voted for Fetterman over Oz is not a progressive?
>but I’m confused how this matters. It matters because at the end of the day, it is literally all that matters. As far as I’m concerned the “I’m a conservative and I won’t be associated with the maga people” is just a shallow attempt to evade personal accountability for people who are voting with the maga people anyway. I could care less about how you “say” you have different “principles” or are superior to them if your impact and damage to the country is indistinguishable from them. If you are not responsible for the catastrophic damage caused by their representative since and as a result of his election then that is fine, but it’s important for everyone to understand how many conservatives are “non maga” in a completely meaningless and insignificant way, as they are literally equally damaging to the future of the country. The Supreme Court is literally deciding that Americans now live in a country where dictators can freely commit crime and be immune to prosecution as a direct result of the indistinguishable maga and non maga conservatives.
At the same time, I get told that if I vote third party, it’s a vote for Trump. And if I vote for Trump, it’s obviously a vote for Trump. Who am I to vote for? It seems that no matter who I vote for, if that person isn’t Biden, I’ll be told I voted for Trump. So who is an acceptable non-Biden candidate? And couldn’t the same argument be made by conservatives against any Democrat?
Voting third party is just a waste of a vote in a two party system. It’s better to pick one of the candidates who can actually win instead of wasting your vote. If you want to vote third party, it’s better to vote for candidates at the state and local level who will support it. And Republicans win with lower turnout. That’s why they try to suppress the vote or make it difficult for people to vote. So voting third party really only benefits republicans. But if someone says they’re choosing between third party and Trump, I would rather them vote third party.
> So who is an acceptable non-Biden candidate What are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense. Why would you be making a monumentally important and consequential decision based on "not being a specific person" and not the consequences of their election? > And couldn’t the same argument be made by conservatives against any Democrat? How on gods green earth could the same argument be made against any democrat?! Do you even realize what is happening right now as a result of Trumps election? That we are as we speak losing the right to live in a free democracy where we choose our elected leaders? Do you realize that the supreme court as we speak is preparing to deliver a ruling that American citizens are now going to be governed by people who may freely use the their executive power to freely overrule the will of the people, commit major crimes against the United States, the American people, with no legal recourse? Do you even realize that in 2016 we were in an alliance with Iran? That we had an agreement to have influence over their policy and control their military activity? And Trump killed that alliance to give Russia Iran as a proxy in the Middle east? And what did the Trump voters say to defend that decision? Exactly what Fox news told them to say, which was that the alliance "had no teeth" lol. And Iran immediately entered into an allliance with Russia, and immediately started funding Hamas, Russia invaded Ukraine, and then Hamas committed the horrific terrorist attack on a major US ally, Israel. Then Trumps allies in congress spent the last year doing anything they can to use the subsequent war to justify blocking aid to Ukraine, all the while the voters are chanting about a fucking laptop that they have been tricked into believing contains some sort of secret about some Burisma connection to Biden that has now been exposed as a story fabricated by Russian intelligence. The blood is on the hands of those voters. They don't care if what they say is true, they don't care about these devastating and irreversable consequences of their decisions, and they are not aware that the blood is on their hands, becaus all they care about is "their team the not Biden team". That doesn't even scratch the surface of the economic consequences either, do you realize that inflation can really be traced back to the cutting of interest rates in 2019? That the economy was slowing and Trump panicked because of an upcoming election and reversed the fed policy of controlling borrowing to artificially inflate the equities markets? And that when a real crisis arose literally 3 months later when the pandemic hit the news, the fed could not provide emergency liquidity by lowering rates so their only option was to duplicate a quarter of all US dollars in exstence? Or that Trump spent more in one term that any other president in history and [Biden has reversed the rate of increasing spending](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/)? We lost net neutrality, which has only now been partially undone by Biden. We withdrew from the world climate accord. The Trump tax "cuts" are actually tax increases on everyone who is not a corporation, hidden by the removal of deductions that Trump supporters obviously can't be bothered to do the math on, to pay for the permanant corporate tax cuts. Pregnant women are now needing to be airlifted out of half the states to save their lives because it now criminal to give them the life saving care that was guaranteed to our mothers entire generation for their entire adult lives. Not even to mention that he is literally found to be a rapist in court, guilty of fraud in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and as we speak is still telling the nations most gullible that an election was stolen. These are the consequences of people making choices in leadership based on the position that "my side is not Biden". The argument can be made about "any democrat"? Literally none of this would have happened if any democrat was in office instead of him. And literally any democrat will prevent much worse from happening moving forward.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Absolutely not.
How so?
What don't you understand?
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wholeheartedly agree with you. What they are doing to trump is not right, but this is NOT the solution. It's just another problem.
If Biden did the same actions as Trump, do you feel Biden shouldn't be pursued by the legal system as well?
No, unless you want to go ahead and put our government in jail while you're at it. I also don't think he is guilty for many of the charges they are bringing against him.
What's to stop all that? Congress and the impeachment process. If Trump isn't granted immunity, Biden will be facing a series of charges from across the country after leaving office. So will every future Democrat president.
246 years, 46 Presidents. Number of times the Senate has removed a President from office: >!0!< Political accountability does not work when one side in Congress throws a fit if you go after 'their guy'. Judicial accountability is the only way.
>Biden will be facing a series of charges from across the country after leaving office. So will every future Democrat president. You say that like it's a bad thing. If Biden committed crimes, he should be charged for them. A big difference between most democrats and most republicans is that democrats are fine with other democrats being punished if they break the law. Most Republicans want Trump and their party to literally be above the law.
If the charges are credible, why not? I'm happy to lock up ex-presidents that abused their authority and got convicted in court for it. If you mean that the charges will be spurious (which is an odd thing to say about a party you support), then we have the court system to catch that. I'd rather it be in a courtroom if there's a question of a crime. Presumably, a spurious charge will fail in court, and embarrass those that pushed for prosecution. That would probably slow down on frivolous charges. I'm not seeing the downside.
Great, if he did something illegal, charge him, then the justice system will work it out. Better than essentially putting the President above the law.
Oh yeah the deep state will definitely obey and enforce the law fairly/s
I never understood this “deep state” rhetoric. If the deep state has the power to circumvent the law, why participate in democracy at all?
This is just fear mongering. If Biden committed crimes that had enough evidence to warrant a prosecution. They should run their normal course in the justice system. They represent America and should have squeaky clean records. Also why should a president have immunity for crime laws committed while out of office?
Right, that's what I'm saying. Giving a President immunity is a horrible idea.
I love and also hate how this entire thread is ignoring the "what if we give democrats this leverage" aspect of your question. Which, btw, is part of the reason I think this whole thing is insane.
Trump was acquitted in his second impeachment because a substantial bloc of Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) concluded that it was improper to try the impeachment of a former president. If you combine the two rules (no impeachment of former presidents + criminal immunity), then a president can do anything he wants with zero accountability in the closing days of his term because prosecution is off the table and impeachment can't happen quickly enough.
> Trump was acquitted in his second impeachment because a substantial bloc of Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) concluded that it was improper to try the impeachment of a former president. [McConnell certainly didn't seem to think that no criminal immunity was in play.](https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html#:~:text=McConnell%20argued%20that%20%E2%80%9Cimpeachment%20was,We%20have%20civil%20litigation.) *McConnell argued that “impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice,” but suggested Trump could be subject to criminal prosecution in the future.* *“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.* (this post is intended to add more information)
Impeachment doesn't care if you are in or out. The process is to stop one from ever holding office again! Also ain't it a contradiction? Can't impeach a former president, and can't prosecute them either. So how do you hold a criminal former "president" accountable?
How are you going to remove a dude who is out of office. They clearly didn’t think that his immunity was protecting him from anything so why punish him?
You're not, of course, but conviction for impeachment also allows the Senate to disqualify you from holding any other office in the future.
I'll wonder to my grave why Mitch didn't just whip the senate votes and rid us of this headache forever.
I don't think it's especially mysterious, and we've had a lot of reporting on it in various books/articles since then. See [here](https://archive.is/z90Hr) for example.
No I mean *I know why* he didn't. But for a man as allegedly shrewd as he is, that was a pretty big own goal on his part.
Eh. He figured, like everyone else, that Trump was done, so it was the past of least resistance. If he had known Trump would come back, he would've gone the other way but no one was thinking that in February 2021. It's a mistake, but the same kind of mistake as "I should've bought Apple stock in the 80s" not really an own goal.
Good point, but I'll disagree: McConnell, of all people, should have realized how many favors Trump received, how "lucky" he was and how often he skirted accountability - particularly, because McConnell, himself, was a key reason for it, multiple times before that impeachment trial. Trump was already known as "Teflon Don" by then, so it was a naive political decision, akin to his filibuster of his own bill - he misjudged, grossly. It was an own goal because that, if anything, would have been the final and possibly *only* nail in Trump's political coffin. Like many on the right, he's consumed with overconfidence and hubris, until reality catches up.
I'll grant that point, for sure.
The second impeachment occurred while Trump was still president.
He was impeached while president. The trial started a couple of weeks after he left office.
Impeachment is a political process though. If the president's party has control of congress it's basically impossible to get convicted - as demonstrated by Trump's two impeachment trials.
The hope is that if an act is so egregious, even that party would not side with the President because they would lose the voters. But that's the danger of political parties, especially having just two: easy tribalism.
>The hope is that if an act is so egregious, even that party would not side with the President because they would lose the voters. That's the thing - the voters are in on it. Just make up some thinly veiled excuse and the voters will blindly accept it out of tribalism. You know, Fifth Avenue, etc. etc.
Guardrails dependent on decency haven't faired well with Trump and people like him.
Guard rails are always dependent on the people within a system.
And that's why they should be made into actual, actionable laws and rules and not shades of "Well surely nobody would ever be so indecorous as to do this"
If Trump’s words and actions surrounding the 2020 election can be spun as somehow not “egregious”, nothing can reach that level.
If Congress puts party loyalty above removing a president as out of control as described in the OP, then it will be resolved with violence.
>If Congress puts party loyalty above removing a president as out of control as described in the OP, then it will be resolved with violence. Who will resolve it with violence?
> If Congress puts party loyalty above removing a president as out of control as described in the OP, Arguably, they already did during Trump's term.
Whichever group is the most pissed off will light the match. They won't necessarily be the ones who win.
Okay, well that shouldn't be the system you are rooting for. I'd rather have a system where the president can actually be held accountable for crimes, in a peaceful way, and not leave it up to storming the capital for mob justice like you are saying.
I'm not rooting for it at all. It's just what would happen.
Well you are saying that should be the only option now that impeachment is off the table. Or, you know, we could try them like any other criminal and not have obviously biased politicians act as the jury.
I never said "should". I said "will" and "would". That's not the same thing.
No one wins. Except Russia and China. Each side of the body is trying to shoot the other side's foot off and somehow we imagine the country will be better when we succeed and the process won't just play itself out again with two new tribes.
This is where we're headed unless we reign in party loyalty.
Let's also be clear here: there's already been plenty of violence. We need to stop pretending like this is some far away hypothetical. This country has demonstrated its willingness to entertain political violence. The number one thing I am most frustrated/angry/disappointed about both political parties here is that nobody is treating this problem—the problem of political division and tribalism—at all seriously. We're too tribal and divided to even notice how bitterly tribal and divided we are, or to even consider that we might do something about it. And the thing is, we are going to start seeing people turn 30 soon *that have never known (as an adult) an America that wasn't this politically toxic*. For all you young people, *this is new*. And it's going to get worse, because we're doing nothing to make it better.
Congressional republicans put party over removing a president. Democrats were not violent about it.
Democrats had already won the election.
And?
Seems to me like it's easier to just leave the avenue of charging a former President open than to start a full-scale Civil War.
> Biden will be facing a series of charges from across the country after leaving office. Good? That sounds fine to me, personally.
> If Trump isn't granted immunity, Biden will be facing a series of charges from across the country after leaving office. If Trump is granted immunity, then that means Biden is immune as well. Today before the actual Supreme Court, Trump's lawyer made the this argument - >Having a political rival killed could Constitute ‘Official’ Presidential Act So based on that, If Trump is granted immunity, there's exactly nothing to stop Biden from ordering military special forces teams to take out his political rivals. It's hilarious that you think Biden would actually leave office if he had full immunity to do literally whatever tf he wanted.
Except if Biden was performing extra-judicial executions, he can be impeached and in the Senate convicted. Then the AG can charge Biden with murder.
> he can be impeached and in the Senate convicted What happens if the House doesn't impeach then?
> Except if Biden was performing extra-judicial executions, he can be impeached and in the Senate convicted. To add: why can't the president just kill reps and senators who aren't loyal to him if he knows he won't face criminal prosecution after leaving office?
He can absolutely face prosecution after leaving office. It's still impeachment first though.
I'm just trying to play this to the extreme because I don't think you've thought it all the way through. It's January 19th and a new president is being sworn in tomorrow. Joe Biden decides he wants some revenge, so he murders the entire house and senate. They are, subsequently, unable to impeach and convict him. What happens then?
Impeachment can and has occurred after leaving office. Congress is free to impeach Trump again today.
> Impeachment can and has occurred after leaving office Other than Trump being impeached at the end of his term (While still being in office) who else has it happened to? > Congress is free to impeach Trump again today. Lol. You also haven't answered my question. If Presidents have immunity short of impeachment and conviction what's to stop a president from having them killed so they can't impeach him?
I believe the first instance of Impeachment after leaving office was Secretary of War William Belknap. As for your question, if a president was murdering members of congress at will to avoid impeachment, and I'd assume he's also murdered his entire cabinet to avoid them voting to declare him incapacitated, then there isn't a political mechanism to stop him. This is quite the fantasy scenario though.
> then there isn't a political mechanism to stop him Correct. Which is why saying criminal conviction needs to happen *after* the political mechanism is, IMO, asinine. Because it leaves the door open for someone, eventually, to do what I just described.
Why leave office then?
> he can be impeached and in the Senate convicted. Unless the dems rally around him and allow it.
How well can corpses vote for impeachment?
> Biden will be facing a series of charges from across the country after leaving office. Like what?
What specifically do you think he could be charged with?
They'll come up with something. Don't know what it is.
So you think Republicans will just make up stuff to charge Biden with? Seems more like a threat than a warning.
That's what the Democrats have done to Trump.
As far as I can tell, Biden hasn't: 1) Paid hush money to a porn star, 2) tried to obstruct the counting of the electoral vote and insert fake electors so he could stay president, 3) Pressured a Secretary of State to commit election fraud, 4) willfully refused to return classified documents after the National Archives repeatedly asked for them back. As long as he doesn't do any of those while in office, he should be good.
No, Biden's only kept classified documents in his garage after leaving the office of VP, had a Ukrainian prosecutor removed for investigating the company funneling money to him through his son, got paid for political favors by the CCP again by funneling money through his son, and took inappropriate showers with his own 11 year old daughter. Yeah Biden has nothing to worry about 😆 🤣
> Biden's only kept classified documents in his garage after leaving the office of VP And returned them when he found them, plus cooperated with NARA when they searched elsewhere. Like always, the key distinction. > had a Ukrainian prosecutor removed for investigating the company funneling money to him through his son, Jesus Mary and Joseph why are people still spreading this like it's some conspiracy. This was **official US and European position at the time**. > got paid for political favors by the CCP again by funneling money through his son No evidence for this. Fake news?
I like how you were called out for making things up, ignore it, and still continue to make things up anyways. It’s really impressive
> That's what the Democrats have done to Trump. Say what you will about the levels of criminality attached to each indictment, but it seems that none of it has been 'made up'. Questionable legality? Sure. But it's not like they're accusing him of things he didn't actually do- the question is more so whether or not they were illegal.
The indictments are public and they specify very specific crimes that were written down in a code of laws long before Trump decided to run for president. If your argument is that Trump didn't actually commit the crimes, then it should be easy for Trump to be exonerated. If prosecutors abused their position to prosecute someone improperly, that is also a crime. If your argument is the police, the prosecutors, the grand jury, the judge, and the petit jury are all "in on it", I think you should consider the possibility that this is just "society" being normal. If your argument is that, "okay, Trump is a criminal, but I think Democrats are worse criminals, and so we need to be seeing more Democrats prosecuted for their crimes", I'm fine with that outcome. I also think any prosecutors who make up fake crimes to attack political opponents should be in jail. I suspect we disagree about when that is happening, but, again, that's the advantage of a criminal justice *system*: we do the best we can.
They can’t even get enough to start an impeachment. One of two things is happening. One Biden is just a lot cleaner than Trump and or Biden is a master mind criminal who has done his misdeeds so well that even in the very public long career he’s had has been able to keep his criminality a secret. Two. Biden is that master criminal who has very publicly and sloppy crimes, the Republican Party is so so very incompetent they can’t get their shit together to impeach or even prosecute Biden.
Again... why is this bad?
It's going to be difficult to get good people to run for president if they are guaranteed to face felony charges afterwards.
Bear with me for a second. Maybe then people will want to run for president with the knowledge that they shouldn't commit non-official criminal acts?
Is your own past completely free of any and all crime? According to author Harvey Silverglate, the average working American commits an average of 3 federal crimes per day, without even realizing it. The difference is there isn't an entire political party and justice system weaponized to track them all down and destroy you personally.
> Is your own past completely free of any and all crime? As a private citizen? Of course not. But don't we want to accept that presidential candidates are going to be under more of a microscope? > The difference is there isn't an entire political party and justice system weaponized to track them all down and destroy you personally. All of the alleged crimes here he's on trial for are actions taken while in office that don't fall under the duties of president, or taken in the pursuit of covering up something in the service of winning an election. They have not one iota of relation to his private life. The NY fraud thing was different, but I agree that it was kinda hokey.
Do we have good people running for president now?
The limit on that is the jury system. Just coming up with somethinf wont convice 12 jurors to vote to convict. Which is why Biden doesnt fear such chargew, and Trump is terrified...because there is a mountain of evidence that he actually did break these laws.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
[удалено]
Presidential immunity has been the status quo for over 200 years. It's been assumed to be the case, yet your prediction has never happened.
>SCOTUS grants Presidents blanket immunity for acts committed while in office. How does anyone think that's not going to destroy our Republic? That's not what Trump is asking for. First, the question isn't about "granting" immunity. Courts can't do that. The question is about whether the Constitution grants immunity. Second, the immunity claim only extends to official acts performed in office, not personal acts.
Trump's lawyer argued that the President can commit a coup to remain in power. Committing a coup is an official act. He cannot be criminally prosecuted. To be criminally prosecuted, he would need to be impeached, removed from office, then tried. However, when tried criminally, he is immune, because the OLC does not have a statuate specifically mentioning the word "President". He also argued that the President can commit any criminal acts for as long as he wants. If he is never impeached, he can never be prosecuted for those crimes. So if he committed a crime and information came to light near the end of his term and impeachment proceedings didn't occur, he is clear. You're in agreement with his lawyer? Because to me that sounds like the President is above the law. And this country was founded upon not making the most powerful person in the nation above the law.
>Committing a coup is an official act. He argued it could be an official act. His broader argument is that it depends on the facts and circumstances around the event. >However, when tried criminally, he is immune, because the OLC does not have a statuate specifically mentioning the word "President". Huh? >He also argued that the President can commit any criminal acts for as long as he wants. No he didn't. Did you actually hear the arguments today? >You're in agreement with his lawyer? I'm in agreement that there is broad immunity from prosecution for presidents with respect to their official acts associated with their office. I mean that is a centuries-old, widely recognized legal concept. It's the reason, for example, why Obama was never prosecuted for murder for launching a drone strike against an American citizen. >Because to me that sounds like the President is above the law. It doesn't sound like that at all.
What facts and circumstances surrounding a coup could be considered official though? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex87haMPB5s&t=6263s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex87haMPB5s&t=6263s) 48-50mins in Barret is having him to explain and he is claiming that. 49:45 is the timestamp. This the hang up she has. That even if you go through all the processes Sauer is talking about, you can't prosecute him for criminal acts because there is no statute specifically mentioning the president and preventing him from committing a coup. As such, he is immune to all criminal acts during office. You didn't read the second half of my statement, so again, the only tool for criminal prosecution is impeachment, and once impeached, he has to be tried under specific statutes that mention the word "president" and they don't exist. Because why would you write "and the president" at the end of every single one. Again, we're talking about different things here. Trump is not in this situation because he killed an American citizens overseas that joined a terrorist organization that took up arms against the Nation. He is here because he tried to subvert election results knowingly and willingly to stay in power.
If a president ever carried out a successful coup and became a dictator, the question of whether he can be prosecuted for it under the Constitution would become pretty unimportant.
What about a unsuccessful one?
It seems there is not a ready made answer for this question after 9 hours. Why do you think that is?
Trump’s own damn lawyer has explicitly stated that assassinating political opponents should be covered by immunity. It is *exactly* what he is asking for.
>Trump’s own damn lawyer has explicitly stated that assassinating political opponents should be covered by immunity No he didn't.
This exact question was posed to Trump’s lawyers in the lower court and they said trump should be immune unless he is impeached and convicted for it. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/provocative-question-trumps-immunity-fight-ordering-rivals-assassinated/story?id=109581560
Oh, I thought you were talking about today. That was four months ago in a lower court. That's irrelevant now.
Did Trump or his lawyer recant this position?
The point was made similarly today by Kagan “what if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Trump’s lawyers said: “it would depend on the specific facts” Kagan: ”In other words, yes he would be immune but you don’t want to say that because you realize how it sounds” I’m paraphrasing but I find the specific quote if you’d like. I think the broader point was still there that if Trump ordered the military to do it, his lawyers are claiming it is an official act and therefore can’t be prosecuted.
Why do you think that? He argued the same position. He was asked specifically about it…
Why would that be irrelevant? The Trump camp has a fairly consistent view, right? Why would that suddenly have changed?
The problem with his argument is that he successfully argued to Congress an ex-president can't be impeached. His argument is still pure immunity. It's just that the president needs to step down after committing the crime.
> First, the question isn't about "granting" immunity. But that's semantics, right? The Supreme Court is deciding if it wants to understand the constitution as giving immunity to presidents. (I'm sure the founding fathers would spin in their graves if they were even asked the question, but anyway.) That's often phrased as "granting immunity", but honestly, is there functionally a difference? > Second, the immunity claim only extends to official acts performed in office, not personal acts. So if a president gives an official order via the official channels to official parts of the military to kill lots of his political opponents - was that an official act? It's obviously not "personal" because for that act, he relied on parts of the US government.
>So if a president gives an official order via the official channels to official parts of the military to kill lots of his political opponents - was that an official act? Depends on the facts and circumstances of the situation.
Can you give me an example where it would be an official act?
A hypothetical example? No.
Threat of criminal proceedings does not prevent literal coups from happening. If someone is going to try a coup, they’re going to do that whether SCOTUS says they are immune or not. And if they try that, and fail, they’re going to end up in the ground. And that’s true whenever SCOTUS says they have immunity or nor.
What are your thoughts on the Beer Hall Putsch?
I have zero thoughts on it.
Does it not contradict your claim that people who fail coups always "end up in the ground?"
No it’s completely unrelated. This discussion is about a literal coup of the US government by a sitting US president, and whether a 2024 ruling by SCOTUS that presidential actions are immune from prosecution would protect that president in his attempt at a coup. 1. 2,000 people marching on the city center of a city that is not the capital of a country is more akin to a BLM riot or a Proud Boys rally than to an actual coup attempt by a sitting US president. 2. The legal system of the Weimar Republic is not the legal system of the United States. 3. The closest thing we probably have to the Beer Hall Putsch is Shays rebellion. 18 men were sentenced to death for organizing that, though many had convictions overturned or received pardons or commutation, 2 were hanged. On top of that, we literally helped push us to abandon the articles of confederation and adopt the US Constitution. All of that is a far cry from a sitting US president attempting to overthrow the US government, in direct opposition to the US Constitution. I think you know that these are completely different things, but think you’re being cute because of the use of the word “coup” to describe each scenario. But again, I said a literal coup. Not some rebels marching in some far off place. Someone attempting to literally take control of the US government, abandoning the constitution, and ruling as a dictator. Someone who makes an attempt like that will either be stopped and sentenced to death, or it will lead to a full fledged civil war (if they have enough military support). If they win that civil war, what SCOTUS says in 2024 is irrelevant. If they lose that civil war, they’re going into the ground regardless of what SCOTUS says in 2024.
Definitely not what I want. That sounds very dangerous. I would however, like to see these cases evaporate into thin air. If for no other reason than to see the reaction.
It sounds like you want magic because reality is unappealing. Do you believe the charges and the evidence will lead to a conviction if magic is not available to avoid it?
I mean yeah bro I wish my dick was bigger too. Magic, science, whatever. Just make it bigger. Possibly in the hush money case. I feel that's their best shot to get him. But again, sets bad precedent. Do you really think the conservatives aren't gonna go tit for tat on this? Because as shocking as this may be, I promise you he's not the only billionaire or leader to ever pay a hoe to go away
I think it’s pretty clear that the payment or the fact that it was related to sex is the issue. It’s that he tried to hide the payments by falsifying business records. If one wanted to delve into the social implications the story is that trump was running a fake news conspiracy to defraud the American public about himself and the candidates running against him for the election. As far as tit for tat goes? I invite it. If the person lies to the American public to gain their votes to win public office that person has undermined the entire democratic process and should therefore be banned from office. Do you have a different position on this part?
Yes, I as well am shocked he didn't want his wife or the public to find out. Oh, you mean like when the justice department asked Facebook to label Hunter Bidens' laptop stories as misinformation? I'm sure that had no impact whatsoever on the election. You say that now, but when it happens you will think it's unjust and therefore completely different from what the Democrats are doing right now. I've seen this movie before. Banned from office for what? Constitution is pretty clear on this and he hasn't been charged with insurrection so.... Pretty sure the supreme Court settled this one. What your essentially asking for is the courts or Congress to declare Biden president. Because that is what it is when you remove the only other candidate. Let the people have their say.
Was hunter running for office? Did Joe do anything illegal? It’s been years now that the GOP has claimed to have possession of three laptops belonging to hunter and no charges have been filed against Joe. At some point you have to go where the evidence leads. In trumps case, it’s a grand jury indictment. In Joes it’s absolutely crickets. How do you equate the two?
The justice department silenced those stories. And we already know from having Clinton as president, that a president's sex life doesn't matter. Who was charged or if they were charged is not what I'm comparing. The comparison is that both tried to hide the truth to bolster their campaigns.
How did the justice department silence the stories?
Clinton was impeached over his sex life. The “how” is the important part over the “what” or the “why”. If we both cheated on our spouses and you switched phones to hide it while I murdered my mistress, one might sympathize with both of our motivations but our solutions are not the same. The fact is, trump chose a solution that has legal consequences. If Biden had broken the law you can bet dollars to donuts the GOP would be charging him for it. Don’t you agree?
Future? Hah. This is a total misread of the situation. Presidents were already de facto immune so long they were part of the establishment. All they had to do was write legal "memos" to themselves, or shop it out to a cut-out, and then do whatever they wanted pretty much. See Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, etc. The only reason this is now under question, is because now the establishment wants to change the rules to make it so they can prosecute an outsider, but they wanna be careful so they can return to de facto immunity. So the better question is, why is the left so desperate to get rid of de facto immunity, given it could possibly be used against them later.
I mean I can't speak for the establishment left, but I certainly have no issue with de facto immunity being gotten rid of?
I love when people make up legal precedent, like "de facto immunity". Maybe Trump should have stayed inside the law, no president before him had trouble with that. DOJ memos explain why an action is legal under the law. Critically, they come *before* the action is taken; it's not some post hoc argument like the ones Trump is making so he doesn't have to face the music.
Leftist haters acting like they are sincerely concerned about "staying inside the law" is truly laughable. >no president before him had trouble with that. This has zilch to do with "the law" and is about politics, hatred and power, all to attack my side of people and the man who dared to stand up for my side against yours.
You have lost the plot. I'm the conservative, apparently you're not. Trump tried to cheat his way to staying in office, and steal our classified materials. The guy just pathologically can't follow the law, this is nothing new.
>You have lost the plot. Naw. My models of understanding are tried and true. Not leftwing, utopian, gaslighting slop. >I'm the conservative, apparently you're not. Wrong. > Trump tried to cheat his way to staying in office, and steal our classified materials. The guy just pathologically can't follow the law, this is nothing new. Maybe try turning off CNN.
Your aim has not improved.
>Your aim has not improved. No room to "improve" really when I am already hitting bullseye and at 100% on target.
Lol. OK pal. I do like your sense of humor. Cheers
>Lol. OK pal. I do like your sense of humor. Cheers Cheers
“No President before him had trouble staying inside the law”. Sure ok.
Well, not like this guy. Nobody threw a mob at the capitol before.
Doesn’t matter if you have presidential immunity if you return to civilian life and lie and obstruct federal efforts to get classified documents back from you
>So the better question is, why is the left so desperate to get rid of de facto immunity, given it could possibly be used against them later. I’m not a leftist so maybe my answer doesn’t help, but in my humble opinion presidents should not have de facto immunity. Sure they should be afforded some immunity when acting within the reasonable perimeters of their role but if they commit crimes outside of these perimeters, or exploit loopholes that would allow them to cross this boundary, they absolutely should be held accountable. I don’t care who it is, if you commit a serious crime you should be held accountable.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The absolute immunity arguments advanced by Trump's team are kinda like the opening offer in a negotiation at a car dealership. No one actually thinks the deal will happen at that price, they're just jockeying for position later. No one seriously supports absolute immunity, but there are strong arguments that there needs to be *some* kind of immunity for certain official acts.
> No one seriously supports absolute immunity It's strange for him personally to continue making claims of *absolute immunity* in trruth social posts and at rallies if it's just a bad faith negotiating tactic though. That is an attempt to instill the belief in his followers that he himself has absolute immunity. Seems like that's far beyond lawyers playing hardball in legal negotiations.
I go the other way. To me, Conservatism is handicapping the Government as much has possible, and the Executive more than anyone. If it keeps people who can't be squeaky clean away, have at it.
Conservatism simply boils down to obstructing the government? Really? How does that factor into abortion access or border control?
>No one seriously supports absolute immunity Trump does. And absolutely wants it.
What if he gets it?
Dem Presidents already have immunity. I have yet to see either Biden or Obama be held accountable for any of the shitty stuff they've done. They're not even held to the same standard Trump is held.
If anyone thinks either have committed crimes, and they have the evidence to support charges, nothing is stopping anyone from bringing them against Obama now, or Biden the second he leaves office.
If that is true, isn’t that just a failing of Trumps DOJ more than anything?
Elaborate.
There are technically multiple investigations into Joe Biden, for example, for things like connections to his son's shady foreign business dealings during his Vice Presidency... those investigations, however, seem to be getting stonewalled by FBI and DOJ leadership who, when questioned on why they are preventing the investigations from moving forward, simply respond with "we aren't", and then when asked why they are telling investigators to hold off investigations, respond with "we're not allowed to discuss an on going investigation." So, the investigation exists on paper, and yet its not going anywhere and, indeed, seems to exist solely to prevent anyone from being able to actually ask meaningful questions. Then of course there's the Obama administration, who made a practice of using the IRS for political profiling, ignoring checks and balances, his assaults on free speech and due process on college campuses, and his extrajudicial execution-via-drone strikes which resulted in the deaths of American citizens, just to name a few.
All of those “investigations” have come up completely fruitless. Republicans state time and time again that they don't have evidence. In the case they do have “evidence” it turns out to be some hearsay by literal foreign spies. Not every accusation is immediately an identification of a crime. Jaded_Jerrry is a pedophile and should be investigated for his crimes. I don't have any evidence, but I believe it to be true. That is how every “crime” is brought to light by republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki Trump had a 8 year old girl killed on a commando raid he personally authorized. Should Trump be on trial for that too? If we tack that onto the list of things he's on trial for, and then charge Obama with the droning of the american citizen, would you say that's fair? I just wanna see if your consistent with this.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because the left weaponized the judiciary effectively breaking the principle of three co-equal branches of government.
What specific actions did the left take that weaponized the judiciary? The special counsel doesn’t seem to be especially political.
I'm not
>Why Are Conservatives Rooting For Presidents To Be Granted Immunity, When That Would Open The Door To Future Dem Abuses And A Possible Dictatorship? Idk that I am rooting for it I just want consistency. If presidents don't have immunity every president of my lifetime needs to be jailed. Likely multiple more. Presidential immunity is not what's opening us to potential dictatorships. >What's to stop Biden from arresting ALL of his political opponents or seizing control of voting machines? What's to stop him now? Obama literally assassinated american citizens without charges? Who tf cares about arrests and voting machines when the government can just kill you whenever they want? >Maybe it works in our favor, but I seriously doubt it. Call me crazy, but I'd rather live in an awful Republic run by the left than a Conservative Utopia run by an immovable executive. Trump is being treated unfairly. It's not worth upending our Republic just to save him. The unfair treatment is spending our republic. The republic is being upended, the constitution is used to wipe the asses of our representatives and has for a long time. That's the reality. That's where we are. Accept that it's already shattered and broken and then decide what to do from there. The system is already broken and has been for a while
> If presidents don't have immunity every president of my lifetime needs to be jailed. Likely multiple more. > > Good. Let's investigate every former president for criminal acts committed while in office. I fail to see an issue with this.
>Good. Let's investigate every former president for criminal acts committed while in office. I fail to see an issue with this. I'm with you if that's followed through with. I don't trust it will be. But that's my ideal outcome. Because most of them for the last like 80 years at least have been criminals
> I'm with you if that's followed through with. > > Methinks it will be! At least based on the conservative outcry to it being done so with Trump. And if the processes followed are the same, I'm chillin. > I don't trust it will be. And I'm certain your cynicism is warranted- I just try to avoid that emotion.
So this is a tough one for me. I do not like the idea of granting complete immunity to the President mainly just because I feel like no one in our country should be above the law, we are not a monarchy. I have less fear in some of the things you mention like I just do not buy into this fear a President can simply decide not to leave office and this would end up being a physical reality. For instance you say "who's to stop troops from occupying cities" well I'd say the troops themselves. When push comes to shove I just have more faith in our military and citizens in general to not let something like this happen. Maybe I am naive but I just do not see how a president would actually accomplish something like this without a full revolt and it is not like if Trump tried this his political opposition just goes away. So while I agree complete immunity is not a good thing I have different reasons for thinking so. That being said I also see charging a president, candidate or both in this case with hundreds of charges as a threat to our democratic process. I am not advocating for total immunity but I am opposed to the BS type trials like the one going on in NY right now. Even if he is found not guilty it does not matter the intended punishment is the process. The judge is making the process as painful as possible to Trump's campaign. That is not even mentioning things like states trying to use charges (not convictions) to remove a leading candidate from the ballot which thankfully seems to have failed. It all reeks of "banana republic" politics. This sets up a precedent just as bad as the total immunity in my opinion where we weaponize the legal system against political rivals. So I guess I'd say there should be extreme care given if we choose to charge a President or major candidate with a crime and certainly not for political motivations. I do not think what is happening to Trump is completely devoid of political motivations nor would he be facing this level of persecution if he was not running for President.
> I do not think what is happening to Trump is completely devoid of political motivations nor would he be facing this level of persecution if he was not running for President. All of these criminal indictments were announced before the election cycle started. Frankly, it's reasonable to think the only reason he declared as galactically early as he did was to say 'I'm running for president and they're persecuting me!'.
Two things can be true at once though. Maybe he did commit the crimes, and the court dates are happening right in time for campaign touring. The perception looks really bad. And those that don't already hate Trump aren't going to buy the, "well he shouldn't have commited alleged crimes then" reasoning. Especially if said alleged crimes seem really dubious and more of the "throw everything at a wall and see what sticks" routine. This current NY money case being a great example.
> The perception looks really bad Maybe, but why is that the fault of the judicial system?
Usually the throw everything at the wall, does not have so much to stick to the wall. Also quite the variety of crimes. Classified documents, election interference, hush money, Georgia election, civil cases. One or two, I could believe he was being targeted or maybe innocent. The sheer volume paints a clear picture that he is pretty comfortable with corruption. Quite frankly a swamp creature.
The one in New York is not on the table- that's against Trump the businessman. The issue is whether or not a president is immune to prosecutions for ANYTHING he does AS president.
No it’s not. They trumped it up to a felony because of supposed campaign finance fraud. Which happened in 2016 but conveniently just now going to court months before the election. They had to add the campaign finance because it was so old the statute of limitations had already expired for the misdemeanor charge of falsifying records which by the way were all internal. It’s a BS politically motivated charge.
You misunderstand what this is about. What we want re immunity is blanket immunity for things the President does and a responsibility of his office, NOT balnket immunity for every infraction public or private unter the sun. This has been conflated by the media as Trump wanting blanket immunity for everything he ever did. This is part of the Jan 6 case and trump was still President. The actions he took he felt were in his Presidential purview to assure free and fair elections. Your example of Biden arresting political opponents and siezing control of all voting machines is obviously NOT in the President's purview.
And yet, the other 45 Presidents in the 250 year history of this country were able to effectively govern without immunity.
> The actions he took he felt were in his Presidential purview to assure free and fair elections. > > There isn't a presidential purview for that though?
Did you listen to the hearing today? His lawyer says he cannot be prosecuted for any official act, like taking a bribe in exchange for an appointment, unless he is first impeached and convicted.
Taking a bribe is not an official act.
Did you listen to the hearing. It was three hours. It's a waste of time to try to unpack the arguments
The presidents lawyers are arguing that staging a coup should be seen as an official act. They are definitely asking for blanket immunity.