In our polarized society where we say 'no one is above the law' while rationalizing the illegal/unconstitutional behavior of the leaders we support or love, how does our society prosecute our Presidents in a way that The People will consider just?

in our current situation ... presidents should be immune to just about everything b/c even the Supreme Court can't be trusted to rule in favor or law over party affiliation.

Like every empire which preceded ours our society has been corrupted. Sorry for the doom and gloom, but there's no turning back. We will eventually fail as every great empire has.

how about we elect presidents who aren't compete ****bags?

We could start with equal application of the law. And actually following it.

None of what you think about Trump has anything to do with what the dims are doing to him.

How would you convince our polarized society that the application is equal?

Rocky Rider said:

---

Like every empire which preceded ours our society has been corrupted. Sorry for the doom and gloom, but there's no turning back. We will eventually fail as every great empire has.

---

Yep, it was a solid, albeit short, run. Liberalism kills everything it touches.

evestor1 said:

---

in our current situation ... presidents should be immune to just about everything b/c even the Supreme Court can't be trusted to rule in favor or law over party affiliation.

---

So more of the two tier justice system? Hell no

Predmid said:

---

how about we elect presidents who aren't compete ****bags?

---

Maybe when we get rid of the criminal in office today we should do that.

hoopla said:

---

How would you convince our polarized society that the application is equal?

---

You cannot convince psychotic degenerates (modern liberals) of anything. It's a perverted religion to them.

Throw them both in Levinworth, let them share a cell.

Biden is above the law.

There is tons of **** on him and they don't care, and they go after Trump for political persecution.

It's a bunch of bull**** and it needs to stop now.

Once you're in one of the key positions, the impeachment process is supposed to be that shield you gain


Assuming an honest legislature, this is an easy thing to accomplish and removes vectors for blackmail.


Imagine some random Hawaii DA indicting trump for conspiracy to commit murder (justified by saying the commander in chief essentially paid someone to murder someone else) for the real reason being the da didn't like trump. You could hold some serious undue influence if any random DA actually thought he could arrest the president once he left office.

hoopla said:

---

In our polarized society where we say 'no one is above the law' while rationalizing the illegal/unconstitutional behavior of the leaders we support or love, how does our society prosecute our Presidents in a way that The People will consider just?

---

Only a standard of Justice based on Biblical law and justice can fairly determine the guilty/innocence of a political leader.

However..... it's a pretty good bet that people who are willing to support the murder of innocent children in the womb and that support child mutilation and child groomers have no interest in applying an objective and consistent moral standard at all.

Trump won't get a fair trial or an impartial just in DC. He'll likely lose on appeal in DC circuit as well. It'll take the Supreme Court to over turn it. If course the left will say he bought the court with 3 appountees, or they'll renew the call appointees, expand and pack the court.

Either way that would all take until 2025 at the earliest.

The last presidential candidate to face charges? Unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court. Same prosecutor that Garland is using.

Easy! At the end of every term, the politicians who can prove that they did not waste tax payer $ or commit treason get to keep their heads. Everyone else gets a French haircut.

Such a thing cannot be done anymore. People judge the guilt of the person (or whether or not they care) based on the letter by the name.

The problem is that we elected a man that was very open to the idea of not transitioning the presidency. Who even now still comments about throwing out the Constitution. Who even now has majority support from the Republican party as the next nominee.

Elect immoral people, you get bad results and you endanger the future of the country and the constitutional order. That's why me and many others became NEVER TRUMPERS after Jan 6, despite having previously voted for him.

hoopla said:

---

How would you convince our polarized society that the application is equal?

---

I would probably start with not violating citizens' constitutional rights on social media when talking about things the left finds inconvenient. I might also consider not constantly lying to the press about little things like Russia and laptops. Then, I would make sure things like government documents are dealt with the same regardless of the party of the document-holder.

None of those things are happening. But you know that.

shiftyandquick said:

---

The problem is that we elected a man that was very open to the idea of not transitioning the presidency.

---

And yet he did, despite the opposition party violating his constitutional rights throughout his presidency.

They question now becomes can we delay the inevitable longer?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

The problem is that we elected a man that was very open to the idea of not transitioning the presidency.

---

And yet he did, despite the opposition party violating his constitutional rights throughout his presidency.

---

He did so reluctantly yes. He tried to foment a mob, he tried to persuade the VP to go along with his plan to install alternate fake fraudulent electors. So I don't think he should get "full credit" for his transition.

He's the closest we have come to having a true despot, arguably.

No

See also Gerald Ford

tried to foment a mob by telling them to peacefully demonstrate and let their voices be heard? alternate electors like democrats have planned after four other previous elections? that crossed the line for you to make you just fine with political prisoners like that? ..because we've seen far worse riots called fiery but mostly peaceful before and we've seen alternate electors before and it was fine then when the cause was (d)ifferent.

He was already impeached over Jan 6th and acquitted in the Senate.

But now there is a thorny issue that SCOTUS has not addressed before. Namely can a former president be prosecuted for things he did while President, or is there Presidential immunity at play?

Durkin Nowitzki said:

---

They question now becomes can we delay the inevitable longer?

---

Agree. I'll never give up the fight, but I know how this ends. It'll eventually unravel like a cheap sweater.

The only way Joe Biden can be prosecuted justly at this point is if he is admitted into a nursing home.

hoopla said:

---

In our polarized society where we say 'no one is above the law' while rationalizing the illegal/unconstitutional behavior of the leaders we support or love, how does our society prosecute our Presidents in a way that The People will consider just?

---

The way it is now. For the most part the prosecution is a matter of public record or will be. The prosecution states it's case, the defendant defends himself if possible. Once both sides are heard it's up to a jury or judge for decision of guilt.

Political trials should have juries taken from a national pool and party affiliation should match national demographics. 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, and 4 unregistered or third party supporters.

Republicans simply can't get a fair trial in New York or DC for example.

Great Point. If Trump is convicted of anything what prevents future Presidents (Biden included) from not be convicted of acts they commit while in office? Trump is charged with a lot of "Conspiracies" so what prevents Biden or his staff from being indicted for colluding with social media companies to limit First Amendment rights?

As much as we know the Left and MSM and everybody in DC hates Trump, if he gets convicted I think it opens up a pandoras box of future legal issues. I'm sure any conviction will go the SCOTUS eventually and by God think of the issues that will create.

evestor1 said:

---

in our current situation ... presidents should be immune to just about everything b/c even the Supreme Court can't be trusted to rule in favor or law over party affiliation.

---

Goof Lord, go back to your crack pipe

TheTruthsLastHope said:

---

hoopla said:

---

In our polarized society where we say 'no one is above the law' while rationalizing the illegal/unconstitutional behavior of the leaders we support or love, how does our society prosecute our Presidents in a way that The People will consider just?

---

The way it is now. For the most part the prosecution is a matter of public record or will be. The prosecution states it's case, the defendant defends himself if possible. Once both sides are heard it's up to a jury or judge for decision of guilt.

---

DDub74 said:

---

Great Point. If Trump is convicted of anything what prevents future Presidents (Biden included) from not be convicted of acts they commit while in office? Trump is charged with a lot of "Conspiracies" so what prevents Biden or his staff from being indicted for colluding with social media companies to limit First Amendment rights?

As much as we know the Left and MSM and everybody in DC hates Trump, if he gets convicted I think it opens up a pandoras box of future legal issues. I'm sure any conviction will go the SCOTUS eventually and by God think of the issues that will create.

---

I honestly don't know because SCOTUS has not addressed this issue.

The entire indictment is limited to times wherein Trump was still POTUS. And the 2020 election results were in the news and the American people were upset. Was it odd for him to comment under those circumstances? Was it somehow illegal?

The indictment omits any discussion of those issues. Again, IDK the answer but the question is there. Because if it is, Biden's use of the DOJ against his political opponent means he will be indicted and charged for that, right? He gave an interview to the NY Times saying he was disappinted that Garland was not moving quickly enough against Trump. Once again, interfering in an election.

hoopla said:

---

How would you convince our polarized society that the application is equal?

---

Treat Joe Biden's years-long management of classified records the same way you are treating Trump's deal at Mar-a-Lago.

You raid Trump's house. Raid Biden's properties in the same exact manner.

Don't give Biden several months before you show up seeking the classified documents he's been holding for decades.

Wonder if they checked Joe's shower?

Treat him the exact same way you treat Trump, and you will not have a significant part of the country questioning your motives.