• mwguy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    I mean you say that, but imagine the case here was more suspect (which it could be) and targeted against a different former President for political reasons. It can’t be that difficult to imagine such a case.

    Trump should absolutely be prosecuted for his actions up to and including J6; but the prosecutions need to happen via the impeachment process, not in individual state and federal court rooms.

    • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I meant what I said. Nobody is above the law, and the impeachment process is not a replacement for criminal prosecution. Kindly take your opinion, and shove it up your ass where it belongs…

      • mwguy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The impeachment process is the proper way to prosecute crimes committed by the holder of the Presidency while they’re the President. Impeachment is a criminal proceeding.

          • mwguy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 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
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 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
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 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
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 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
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 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.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      What happens when he just has Democrats in the senate executed? You can’t be prosecuted if you can just kill the prosecutors without repercussions.

      • mwguy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Which is why you need an impeachment as punishment for it can include being barred from holding public office.

          • mwguy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            That particular scenario isn’t a well protected for scenario in the US Constitution. In theory Capitol Police should be able to protect individual senators and congressfolk. But we did see how that broke down on J6.

            This however enforces the reality that Trump should have been impeached with earnest when he was the second time (and honestly Congress should have listened to James Comey when he handed them an impeachment for Obstruction of Justice on a silver platter instead of fumbling it).