Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't get the privilege and special treatment as President. Afterall it isn't an actual law that you can't indict a sitting President (and apparently neither the President elect), it's just an opinion and tradition that they shouldn't.
Yes, I dislike criticising people using such terms.
I totally agree with this.
While I agree with that statement in general, I also understand why, in most democratic countries, members of Parliament and the administration are immune from regular prosecution.
I think it would send a serious anti-corruption message to start holding them accountable. They too are humans, they too are citizens of the state, they too should be subject to the same laws they want to enact upon others and held accountable for violations just as we would (this also means extensive court reforms to purge it of being a pay to win system).
I would say the thing th sheilds all the lawyers who worked on the federal cases against Trump is their honesty and good work. Ther is no way that following due process and the law that will get any of them in trouble. What Trump aims to do is subject them to investigations on false accusations which will cause these people disruptions, stress, and money for lawyers. The dilemma is that the criminal president can't be sued since he will be ordering his corrupt DOJ to do his dirty work. These workers coulkd later sue the DOJ for much the same thing Trump has sued the DOJ for $100 million. The difference is that Trump actually committed crimes, and his DOJ doing the corrupt things he's accusing the current DOJ of doing. Such irony.
There is nothing to pardon. Actual crimes would have had to have been committed, and then the pardoned acknowledge guilt. I don't see that being a good thing for lawyers to even fake. Oddly that itself could be fraud itself. They did nothing wrong, and that needs to be the stand.
Trump is protected by the legal system. It takes time to bring a case to trial. Rushing the case to trial would be illegal itself. Smith unfortunately has to follow the law. Trump is an expert at abusing the law. This is how he "won" most of the cases brought against him before he became President. He learned how to abuse the legal system and make it very difficult for cases to be brought against him. I simply cannot understand the mentality of the MAGA voter. They believe all of Trump's lies and cannot see how they will be very negatively affected by his policies. No one will escape from the damage that Trump does to America except for the uber-rich.
That's all excusable because he owned the libs. That's what he ran on, everything else is window dressing.
The system was OK before that SCOTUS ruling. Members of Congress were protected against frivolous lawsuits and Congress itself would handle serious allegations, or retract the immunity. Unfortunately, that only works as long as you don't have a majority of criminals in Congress.
The fact that that doesn't happen is what makes me angry. I understand the rationale behind dropping the cases without prejudice, but fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
They would **** their own pants in hopes of offending a liberal with the smell.
Agreed, but those frivolous suits can be very damaging in terms of time and money.
I'm pretty sure Trump issued some pardons for possible future crimes. I looked it up at the time and apparently it's OK. Whether it would stand appeal to the current SCOTUS is another question.
