jakee

What is the lesson from history that tells you that? The lesson I learned from history is that Nixon thought he could do whatever he wanted with no legal repercussions and because he was proved right, now Trump thinks he can do whatever he wants with no legal repercussions. Maybe it's time to show future Presidents that they do have to follw the law. This is nonsense. It's not about personal revenge, it's about protecting and reinforcing the very system of government, and making it understood that the President is not a temporary monarch but an elected citizen within a political framework shaped by laws they have to follow. YOU keep forgetting that 70 million people voted for Trump, and they'll be willing to vote for him or someone like him again if they have the chance. That's why political laws have to be enforced. Deciding to reset the precedent that the President can do whatever he wants with no consequences because you're wishing and hoping that it'll make his supporters calm down and vote for someone normal next time is the height of naivety. See, just so naive. Who's 'we'? Did you vote for Trump this time round? No, then you're not part of their 'we'. You're a guy on the sidelines telling them they voted unintelligently. I'm sure they'll be very easily persuaded by that! What you want will simply empower Trump or someone like him to do more damage from the White House. He won't think that, he'll think he was the best President ever. And he'll genuinely believe it, because his tens of millions of hardline supporters, Fox news, Newsmax, OAN etc will keep telling him he was the best President ever.

So again, I really want you to explain to me why - since you think many Presidents are corrupt - you want to send the message to future Presidents going in that they can get away with whatever corruption they want and never have to face the consequences afterwards. Seriously, why is that a good thing? It was worse for the country as a whole because the statement "if the President does it it is not illegal" was never disproven. That's why Trump uses it again today. He could do that anyway. Hoping that Trump quietly goes away if you leave him alone isn't the big picture, it's not even a big picture. It's a really small picture, ok? Safeguarding the integrity of the office is the big picture. In a system of checks and balances you can't simply refuse to use the checks because it might annoy some people into supporting another guy you don't like. What is best for America is the person in the most powerful office in the land knowing there are rules he has to follow. That is not what you have now.

Biden shouldn't have any involvement in who the various Federal law enforcement agencies investigate or who Federal prosecutors decide to charge.

That's a goal post shift. You'd have been free of him regardless. But has the country made any move towards respecting opposing views or working together in bipartisan cooperation? So why insist that doing the same thing again is how to make it happen? That's what you have when you insist that the President can't be prosecuted. Seriously, think about it for a moment. If you insist that the President is not subject to prosecution by the independent judiciary, the only way to hold the President accountable is through a partisan political body. Please, please make a genuine attempt to explain to me why relying on the political dog and pony show as the only possible way to sanction a President who acts illegally is a better method of making both sides feel like they can work together than if you let federal investigators and the court system do the same job they do for everyone else? Come on, it makes no sense. You know it makes no sense. The actions you advocate will not help bring two opposing sides together and they will leave the system weaker. Honestly what you are planning is to do absolutely nothing to fix the damage done or weaknesses exposed in the system by Trump, and instead cross your fingers and hope that no one else so feckless is elected again to take those actions even further. Right - but your friend who posts on Facebook won't be in that book, will he? And people who don't already personally know and trust Bubba wouldn't be convinced even if he was in the book, would they? So despite the reaction of your FB friends, Bubba is still almost entirely impeachable as a source.

Why are you so proud that your legal system is so ineffectual?

That's an easy goal. The country will move on from this moment regardless. That's how time works. If the goal is to protect the integrity of the political system, and show future incumbents that they actually do have an obligation to follow the laws that govern their office then political crimes absolutely should be prosecuted. It's been 46 years since Nixon's pardon - how's that approach been working for you? Sorry, but 'unimpeachable sources' is a pie in the sky, fantasy land pipedream. The Mueller investigation was run by a Republican who was put in place by a Republican who was appointed by Trump, and pretty much everyone on the right still thinks it was a Democrat party hatchet job. And take the impeachment - what better source could you possibly have than Lt Col Vindman, who pretty much everyone on the right now thinks is a traitor whose true loyalty lies with Ukraine? Seriously - you tell me who the liberals could ever talk to who wouldn't instantly be dismissed as some form of biased liar simply because they talked to the liberals? That's irrelevant to the question of whether he should go on trial.

To be honest I really would like to know why, given that you think many Presidents are corrupt, that it is a good and useful thing for them to know going in to office that they will be allowed to get away with that corruption free of any punishment. But if you don't want to answer that, it speaks for itself.

First, no they weren't. Nixon had been elected twice already, he couldn't be elected again. That argument of yours doesn't apply. Second, so what? It was just as wrong not to prosecute Nixon as it would be not to prosecute known crimes of Trump. One could easily argue that not prosecuting Nixon helped lead shape the system which allowed Trump to get away with all his shit. Let's just take a moment to appreciate the absurdity of this line of argument. You contend that plenty of US Presidents are grossly corrupt - and you use that to support your position that US Presidents should be immune to the legal consequences of corruption? Or to put it another way, because many Presidents are corrupt, you want to make sure that all incoming Presidents will know that they too can be as corrupt as they want and get away scot free? Is that seriously how you think a robust system of government should work? It's not just a personal payoff, it's the law. It's not just the law, it's imposing some form of standards on those who hold elected or appointed office in the Executive branch. The US claims to be a government of checks and balances. Trump claims that the President has the power to do whatever he wants. Which viewpoint do you think should be proved right? Irrelevant, the one has nothing to do with the other. Explain how Trump being prosecuted, convicted and not pardoned could possibly have an impact on the timeframe of a vaccine rollout, for example. You're contradicting yourself multiple time within the same post. Trump is obviously not a lesson to us all, you pointed out already that he got 70 million votes. Again, run a poll right now for greatest ever President and he would win. Run it in 4 years time with Trump still walking free holding rallies and he'd win that too. Then, it is considered an admission of guilt by people who understand the process. How much faith do you have in the comprehension of reality by hardline Trump supporters? Finally, since you jst said he wants one, how bad could it be? If a pardon is a demonstration of guilt, a conviction and sentencing is a demonstration of guilt plus an actual punishment. How is guilt alone worse than guilt and consequences?

So how do you make sure that happens? You think it's possible to make a deal with him to quietly go away in exchange for leaving him alone? Get real. He's just as addicted to the spotlight as he ever was and he still has tens of millions of ardent followers. Consider this - in the UK if you carry out a poll of worst ever Prime Ministers Mrs Thatcher would probably be in the top 2. If you carry out a poll of best ever Prime Ministers then guess what? Top 2 again! If you carry out the same poll in the US towards the end of Biden's Presidency it would not surprise one bit if Trump would be voted both best ever and worst ever. It's completely feasible for him to run again, be nominated again and have a good chance of winning again. It's better to charge, convict and sentence criminals than it is to create an uber privileged group of elite political leaders who know they are above the law.

Michael Cohen was convicted and went to prison for something Trump told him to do, paid him to do, and would also have been indicted for if he hadn't been protected by being President at the time. The Mueller report found things he would have been indicted for if he didn't have the protection of being President at the time. So you tell me how it worked out.

Good thing too. While this half-arsed coup attempt seems doomed to fail, it's almost more because the people trying it are utterly incompetent than your system of government being strong enough to repel it. if Trump had ever bothered employing anyone who knew what they were doing you guys would be in serious trouble right now.

Hmm. So your country has long pursued a more purely capitalist system with a smaller and less effective safety net of social programs than most western nations you describe as socialist, and the result is that you have generated a massive intractable underclass? Do you not think that, maybe, you want to change your ideas about how to deal with that?

Yeah, right

So you posted a random story you have no interested in with the intention of making people think you supported it so you could pop up and criticise them for it? My question is why bother posting something when the only purpose is to demonstrate that you are a dishonest troll? What do you get out of that? I’m genuinely curious.

No, he got it because some people thought they could use him to influence his dad. So what? Since, unlike the Trump clan, his dad had given him neither a position in government nor control over any part of his private financial dealings there was nothing illegal about Hunter taking the job and the money. And since he didn’t in any way influence his dad, there is no suggestion of anything shady or unethical on the part of the relevant person in the story, President Elect Biden.

Woooow. So you think that encouraging people to understand that there are multiple viewpoints on any issue means only allowing politically correct viewpoints to be recognised? Damn, when your teachers indoctrinated you they did a fucking brilliant job.

When the topic is about how to deal with members of a belligerent death cult, and the poster has previously made clear his own opinions on how to deal with members of a belligerent death cult, the poster's perceived feelings are therefore on topic.

No, nothing like that. Hunter, all on his own, leveraged his name to take advantage of a couple of business opportunites presented to him with no active help or involvement of his dad. It may be distasteful and you might be jealous of him but there's nothing legally wrong with it, and certainly nothing from the President-Elect, the guy who's actually relevant. What nasty stuff done by the Clinton foundation? If you're so far down the Republican misinformation rabbit hole that you're falling for the old 'they all do the same thing' line there's really no helping you. It'd be good for you if you could recognise you're just a useful stooge for the republican elite, but I don't hold out much hope.

If he is guilty he'll be convicted as easily as someone who isn't guilty and wasn't convicted? How did that seem like a coherent point to you? No one is. But you are trying to bestow immunity on your political fellows.

Way to non-sequitur bro. Sorry to burst your bubble but Biden isn't pardoning him.

There's something in the forum rules about that. If you post something without comment I'm going to assume you support the thing you posted, simple as that. And it's clear that you do.

Politicians being genuinely accountable to the law instead of existing in a class above it is for the good of the country. No, going to prison would be more humiliating.

More? Did you not just say it was being done really fast?

I can't imagine how lost and alone Trump's defeat must be making him feel to inspire this bizarre flurry of posts.

So yet again you support the cancel culture, demand politically correct speech, and want to punish someone for what they said because "some pussy's feewings got hurt".