• @mwguy
    link
    02 months ago

    If it’s any consolation I hope I’m wrong too. But historically, when it comes to government overreach; I’ve been disappointingly correct.

    • @Riccosuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      12 months ago

      Prosecuting someone for reckless criminal behavior that continues to have massive real world consequences, jeopardizes our national security, and undermined the will of millions of voters is not “government overreach”.

      Literally any other person who was accused of these same crimes would have been in jail awaiting trial the first day after an indictment. Cut the shit, and just say you want the president to be above the law. I wouldn’t take you any more seriously, but at least you would be being honest…

      • @mwguy
        link
        02 months ago

        Cut the shit, and just say you want the president to be above the law.

        The President is above the law. That’s why the impeachment process exists. That’s why Obama and Bush (and Trump) can’t be prosecuted for spying on every single American citizen. It’s why they can’t be taken to court for manslaughter for the Innocents they kill extrajudicially.

        Their decisions have consequences and unless they rise to the level of impeachment their immune from them. That’s how the law is written, that’s how it’s been consistently interpreted.

        • @Riccosuave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          The President is above the law. That’s why the impeachment process exists.

          Wrong. The impeachment process exists to remove a president from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. If the President was truly above the law as you suggest, then there would have been no reason for Ford to pardon Nixon. You are making up post-hoc rationalizations for your psychotic ramblings because being an ignorant troll must get your dick hard.

          There is literally no constitutional basis to suggest that the framers intended for the President to be permanently immune from legal prosecution. What you are attempting to describe is the determination of what context fits within the perimeter of Presidential authority. The President of the United States does not have authority over State elections. Therefore, none of Trump’s conduct on January 6th or in his attempts to overthrow the election were within his purview as President.

          I am now done with this conversation, and I am blocking you. You are not a serious individual who is worthy of my time, or anyone else’s for that matter. Please seek help for your delusional thinking and fascist apologism.

          • @mwguy
            link
            English
            02 months ago

            There is literally no constitutional basis to suggest that the framers intended for the President to be permanently immune from legal prosecution.

            That’s objectively untrue. There’s clearly a basis.