A Double Standard?

[Revoltingest]

Why you Liberal loving Conservative supporter

You gotta learn capitalization rules, Smokey.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's easy to deny a forest, if one focuses upon a single tree.

Indeed. Which is my point exactly.

And also why for decades now I have no patience for anything from the USA's right-wing. They do not respect their own ability to argue, so why should I? Or anyone really?

 

[We Never Know]

No, the president represents that nation's will, both within itself and to the world. That's his/her actual job. It's the job of the whole executive branch of government.

Ok lets go with that....

As president the are supposed to set a good example. When they aren't setting good examples, they shouldn't be representing the nation.

 

[PureX]

I see.
But there's a big problem with having a special
lesser legal standard just for Presidents.

There's an even bigger problem with using the letter of the law to abuse and subvert it's intention. Which is what was going on with Clinton. It was the politically motivated grand jury that should have been put on trial, not Clinton (in that instance).

Ordinary citizens must take the 5th. For if they
lie, they go to prison. Setting Presidents above
the law that applies to the rest of us has corrupting
consequences.

These were extraordinary circumstances. Requiring an extraordinary response (forgiveness).

This situation is what inspired Trump
to flout the law, & even attempt insurrection (IMO).

Trump needed no "inspiration" to flout the law. He's been doing it all his life. He learned long ago that the laws don't apply to the rich. And that the rich can simply bully their way to the top.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's an even bigger problem with using the letter of the law to abuse and subvert it's intention. Which is what was going on with Clinton. It was the politically motivated grand jury that should have been put on trial, not Clinton (in that instance).

These were extraordinary circumstances. Requiring an extraordinary response (forgiveness).

Trump needed no "inspiration" to flout the law. He's been doing it all his life. He learned long ago that the laws don't apply to the rich. And that the rich can simply bully their way to the top.

Spoken like a true Democrat.

 

[Jose Fly]

I recall that the left defended Bill Clinton's crimes, ie, lying
to a grand jury, suborning perjury, as justified because it
was only about sex, & that he was protecting his family.

More accurately, some "on the left" defended it. Others didn't.

It could be said that Trump paid hush money that was
only about sex, & that he was protecting his family (yes,
I actually heard that from the right).

No, he paid the hush money to keep it from coming to light right before the election. The payment was made 2 weeks before election day.

Should both be prosecuted? Or if only Trump, why
give a pass to one Prez committing crimes, but not
to another?

That's for a DA or AG to decide. As has been noted, Clinton's perjury occurred while he was a sitting President, whereas Trump's cover up occurred while he was a private citizen. Further, Clinton eventually settled with Paula Jones in 1998, which effectively ended the case. A DA could presumably wait another 2 years and prosecute him after he left office, but I'm not sure what would've come of it. It would have been prosecuting a person for lying about an affair in a civil suit that was settled 2 years prior.

Trump's case is a bit different. According to the narrative (as told by Daniels, Trump's "fixer" Cohen, and some documents), Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet, after which Trump reimbursed Cohen through an LLC Cohen had just set up, so as to hide the payment and not have it fall under campaign finance regs.

As far as which case is worse, if one deserves prosecution while the other doesn't, or if they both do, that's a subjective matter. But as far as the facts of the cases, they are pretty different and involve different laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

More accurately, some "on the left" defended it. Others didn't.

By now, we should all recognize that unless
specifically preceded with "all on the" the
"left" refers to a group tendency, not every
individual member.

No, he paid the hush money to keep it from coming to light right before the election. The payment was made 2 weeks before election day.


That's for a DA or AG to decide. As has been noted, Clinton's perjury occurred while he was a sitting President, whereas Trump's cover up occurred while he was a private citizen. Further, Clinton eventually settled with Paula Jones in 1998, which effectively ended the case. A DA could presumably wait another 2 years and prosecute him after he left office, but I'm not sure what would've come of it. It would have been prosecuting a person for lying about an affair in a civil suit that was settled 2 years prior.

Trump's case is a bit different. According to the narrative (as told by Daniels, Trump's "fixer" Cohen, and some documents), Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet, after which Trump reimbursed Cohen through an LLC Cohen had just set up, so as to hide the payment and not have it fall under campaign finance regs.

As far as which case is worse, if one deserves prosecution while the other doesn't, or if they both do, that's a subjective matter. But as far as the facts of the cases, they are pretty different and involve different laws.

Interesting....would any crime committed by a sitting
President be impermissible to prosecute afterwards?

 

[SomeRandom]

Sex scandals, eg, Risky Business, wide stances in toilet stalls
are indeed great theater here. But sometimes sex scandals
entail crimes, eg, lying to authorities, which is a crime that
sends many ordinary civilians to prison.
A problem is that Presidents are treated as above the law.
And their crimes are excused by their apologists for the
reasons they had, eg, avoiding sex scandals.

Whilst I would certainly agree with that.
Sex scandals belong in tabloid trash magazines. Entertaining to be sure. But unless it’s something actually illegal, why care?

But I do agree that presidents should not be above the law.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting....would any crime committed by a sitting
President be impermissible to prosecute afterwards?

I don't think any are impermissible to prosecute. IOW, it's not a question of "can you", it's a question of "do you feel it's worth it" (which is the question for any prosecutor). For example, an AG in Georgia has convened a grand jury to look into Trump's attempts to persuade election officials in GA to "find" him votes and flip the election to him. That all occurred while he was President.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whilst I would certainly agree with that.
Sex scandals belong in tabloid trash magazines. Entertaining to be sure. But unless it’s something actually illegal, why care?

But I do agree that presidents should not be above the law.

One legal tool that's too seldom used by people....
Just shut the **** up.
Silence is a good default because it usually isn't a crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think any are impermissible to prosecute. IOW, it's not a question of "can you", it's a question of "do you feel it's worth it" (which is the question for any prosecutor). For example, an AG in Georgia has convened a grand jury to look into Trump's attempts to persuade election officials in GA to "find" him votes and flip the election to him. That all occurred while he was President.

Therein lies a big problem...
Partisans seldom think it's worth prosecuting their own.
But hoo boy...do they ever want the other side in cuffs.
Law should be blind to Pub vs Dem.
And more politicians should be in prison...it would send
a message to their fellows to keep their noses clean.

 

[Jose Fly]

Therein lies a big problem...
Partisans seldom think it's worth prosecuting their own.

I don't believe there's a shortage of cases where a Dem NY AG prosecuted NY Dems. NY politics are notoriously corrupt.

But hoo boy...do they ever want the other side in cuffs.
Law should be blind to Pub vs Dem.
And more politicians should be in prison...it would send
a message to their fellows to keep their noses clean.

That's pretty much the case, to varying degrees, in just about every country. The rich, powerful, and connected are more able to evade consequences than regular folks.

 

[Heyo]

One legal tool that's too seldom used by people....
Just shut the **** up.
Silence is a good default because it usually isn't a crime.

:useful:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I recall that the left defended Bill Clinton's crimes, ie, lying
to a grand jury, suborning perjury, as justified because it
was only about sex, & that he was protecting his family.
It could be said that Trump paid hush money that was
only about sex, & that he was protecting his family (yes,
I actually heard that from the right).

Should both be prosecuted? Or if only Trump, why
give a pass to one Prez committing crimes, but not
to another?

Caution:
Before tempers flare, & feces fly...I'll state clearly
that this is not a defense of Trump. I want him
prosecuted for crimes, especially related to the
Jan 6 insurrection.
Further, if Trump is arrested, he should be hand
cuffed, just as the little people are. Politicians
shouldn't be above the justice system that afflicts
the masses.

I see the two situations as somewhat different, but only because Trump actually directed money that he can't rightfully claim to be his own to be paid for someone's silence. That's a bigger crime -- in my personal view -- than lying.

That said, it seems clear that Clinton did lie to a Grand Jury, did suborn perjury, and while he couldn't be indicted while a sitting President (I don't happen to agree with that * -- that's partly what a VP is for, to fill in), he should have been charged and tried later. In my opinion.

* I'd really like somebody to explain to me if a sitting President did, as Trump suggested, shoot somebody to death in plain sight on Fifth Avenue, why they could not and should not be indicted. I'll bet if it actually happened, we'd find that rule is not quite as firmly entrenched as many people suppose.

 

[SomeRandom]

One legal tool that's too seldom used by people....
Just shut the **** up.
Silence is a good default because it usually isn't a crime.

I thought you Americastanis said
“Plead the fifth!”

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I wonder this:
is it normal that people care about a President's sex life?
I couldn't care less.
It is not normal. Whether it is Bill Clinton, Trump, Bush, Reagan and so on.
Americans do care whether Obama is the perfect family man, who has never cheated on his wife.
As if this were something politically relevant.

You can be the most faithful husband in the world and still be a traitor to the West you are supposed to represent.

Agree. We Canadians, and most Europeans I know, don't really care much about who politicians are sleeping with. In fact, the only person I care about sleeping with anybody is me -- and that just happens to be with my partner alone, because I like it that way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Spoken like a true Democrat.

But not entirely incorrect...

 

[Wu Wei]

You gotta learn capitalization rules, Smokey.

wHy YOu ExtreME lEFt RIgHt exTREMist

 

[Revoltingest]

:useful:

It's like the advice that a good lawyer gives
to anyone being questioned by cops....

 

[Revoltingest]

I see the two situations as somewhat different, but only because Trump actually directed money that he can't rightfully claim to be his own to be paid for someone's silence. That's a bigger crime -- in my personal view -- than lying.

Lying to whom...that's an issue

That said, it seems clear that Clinton did lie to a Grand Jury, did suborn perjury, and while he couldn't be indicted while a sitting President (I don't happen to agree with that * -- that's partly what a VP is for, to fill in), he should have been charged and tried later. In my opinion.

There ya go!

* I'd really like somebody to explain to me if a sitting President did, as Trump suggested, shoot somebody to death in plain sight on Fifth Avenue, why they could not and should not be indicted. I'll bet if it actually happened, we'd find that rule is not quite as firmly entrenched as many people suppose.

The lack of prosecution of Presidents & other high officials
creates exactly the climate where Trump feels he can do
as he pleases, even committing insurrection to stage a
coup to over-turn an election. It's that Teflon suit they
all wear that must be stripped from them. Let'm wear
only a good Republican (or Democrat) cloth coat.

Only the geezers here will get those references.