A candidate can be found to have broken the law in their attempt to win election to the Presidency, but by virtue of winning the Presidency he or she is immune from prosecution for that crime. Isn’t that essentially what’s been established, regardless of whether the crime can be proven (because it won’t, because he’s President).
FBI believed Trump was closely involved in hush-money scheme, unsealed documents show
It should go without saying that it doesn’t matter that what the FBI believed is fact; it only matters that there will be no investigation resulting in criminal prosecution, no matter how strong a case could be brought against him.
Also, can we please implement this rule in professional cycling, where only the losers get tested and penalized for doping? I’d probably start watching the Tour again.
A candidate can be found to have broken the law in their attempt to win election to the Presidency, but by virtue of winning the Presidency he or she is immune from prosecution for that crime. Isn’t that essentially what’s been established, regardless of whether the crime can be proven (because it won’t, because he’s President).
FBI believed Trump was closely involved in hush-money scheme, unsealed documents show
It should go without saying that it doesn’t matter that what the FBI believed is fact; it only matters that there will be no investigation resulting in criminal prosecution, no matter how strong a case could be brought against him.
Also, can we please implement this rule in professional cycling, where only the losers get tested and penalized for doping? I’d probably start watching the Tour again.
A bunch of people on both sides, in Congress, in the previous administration, as well as a number of judges, have been given a pass for obviously criminal activity. To only look at the current administration without having given the previous administrations, Congress or the Judiciary the same scrutiny is hypocrisy and selective observations rather than an honest view of the situation.
It’s not a matter of giving people a pass. It’s the newly established standard, to my knowledge, that the President is immune from prosecution of a crime committed in helping him obtain that office and thus immunity.
That’s not getting a pass, and neither is your whattaboutism.
A candidate can be found to have broken the law in their attempt to win election to the Presidency, but by virtue of winning the Presidency he or she is immune from prosecution for that crime. Isn’t that essentially what’s been established, regardless of whether the crime can be proven (because it won’t, because he’s President).
FBI believed Trump was closely involved in hush-money scheme, unsealed documents show
It should go without saying that it doesn’t matter that what the FBI believed is fact; it only matters that there will be no investigation resulting in criminal prosecution, no matter how strong a case could be brought against him.
Also, can we please implement this rule in professional cycling, where only the losers get tested and penalized for doping? I’d probably start watching the Tour again.
A bunch of people on both sides, in Congress, in the previous administration, as well as a number of judges, have been given a pass for obviously criminal activity. To only look at the current administration without having given the previous administrations, Congress or the Judiciary the same scrutiny is hypocrisy and selective observations rather than an honest view of the situation.
That’s quite the large steaming pile of whataboutism. You managed to type all that out and not even remotely address the question asked.
Do you find it concerning or would you only comment on it if we change the name Trump to someone with a (D) next to their name?
It’s not a matter of giving people a pass. It’s the newly established standard, to my knowledge, that the President is immune from prosecution of a crime committed in helping him obtain that office and thus immunity.
That’s not getting a pass, and neither is your whattaboutism.
He can be impeached. The Constitution was designed with that mechanism.
Impeachment is a political process, not an independent legal mechanism. It’s entirely dependent on how people feel, not objective fact and rule of law. That’s the point.
It’s not a matter of giving people a pass. It’s the newly established standard, to my knowledge, that the President is immune from prosecution of a crime committed in helping him obtain that office and thus immunity.
That’s not getting a pass, and neither is your whattaboutism.
He can be impeached. The Constitution was designed with that mechanism.
Yeah… your use of the word ‘can’ is comical.
Sure, he can be impeached. But even if he got caught having sex with Putin then wiped his ass with the American flag then lied about it even though we all saw the video shudder, we know that he wouldn’t be impeached. A bunch of people would all tell us why that’s not really a big deal and that we have TDS and should just get over it.
A candidate can be found to have broken the law in their attempt to win election to the Presidency, but by virtue of winning the Presidency he or she is immune from prosecution for that crime. Isn’t that essentially what’s been established, regardless of whether the crime can be proven (because it won’t, because he’s President).
FBI believed Trump was closely involved in hush-money scheme, unsealed documents show
It should go without saying that it doesn’t matter that what the FBI believed is fact; it only matters that there will be no investigation resulting in criminal prosecution, no matter how strong a case could be brought against him.
Also, can we please implement this rule in professional cycling, where only the losers get tested and penalized for doping? I’d probably start watching the Tour again.
A bunch of people on both sides, in Congress, in the previous administration, as well as a number of judges, have been given a pass for obviously criminal activity. To only look at the current administration without having given the previous administrations, Congress or the Judiciary the same scrutiny is hypocrisy and selective observations rather than an honest view of the situation.
If your point is that previous other “obviously criminal activity” was passed on and that to cease passing with this individual is then hypocritcal, who gets to break the hypocrisy? A point could be made that cleansing should start at the top and proceed unchecked until all are punished. I say let’s bring the Domino Theory back. Someone has to be first to fall and then let them all fall.
A candidate can be found to have broken the law in their attempt to win election to the Presidency, but by virtue of winning the Presidency he or she is immune from prosecution for that crime. Isn’t that essentially what’s been established, regardless of whether the crime can be proven (because it won’t, because he’s President).
FBI believed Trump was closely involved in hush-money scheme, unsealed documents show
It should go without saying that it doesn’t matter that what the FBI believed is fact; it only matters that there will be no investigation resulting in criminal prosecution, no matter how strong a case could be brought against him.
Also, can we please implement this rule in professional cycling, where only the losers get tested and penalized for doping? I’d probably start watching the Tour again.
A bunch of people on both sides, in Congress, in the previous administration, as well as a number of judges, have been given a pass for obviously criminal activity. To only look at the current administration without having given the previous administrations, Congress or the Judiciary the same scrutiny is hypocrisy and selective observations rather than an honest view of the situation.
If your point is that previous other “obviously criminal activity” was passed on and that to cease passing with this individual is then hypocritcal, who gets to break the hypocrisy? A point could be made that cleansing should start at the top and proceed unchecked until all are punished. I say let’s bring the Domino Theory back. Someone has to be first to fall and then let them all fall.
He’s ok with that, as long as you start with the next DEM president.