Should Trump Be Prosecuted?

I am not the one putting lipstick on the pig. You are doing this however - by putting a fellow who smacks his wife on the same level as mass rape of a targeted group of women during war time.

I get that both are bad - and you are welcome to claim that one is no different than the other - I just do not agree.

 

That makes no sense, I did no such thing and posted nothing of the kind, you're making crap up. Donald Trump stands accused of multiple sex crimes AND has committed multiple war crimes in the Middle East and other crimes against humanity (did what he could in his power as President to deliberately spread this deadly virus). And I understand he will never be accused of committing war crimes because then his predecessors would also have to be accused and many in Congress including Biden would also have to be accused of complicity.

Well yeah but that does not mean you need to invent nonsense about me in an effort to prop up your personal philosophy. That is marginalize (or dismiss) war crimes and crimes against humanity and give the monster-in-chief the benefit of the doubt in the process.

 

It was my family and other heroes in America who kept the Jewish people from complete annihilation in Europe. Your family's life and your life was paid for with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American patriots. And yet here you are pissing all over American principles.... the very principles that you owe your own existence to.

In America, we DO NOT go after our political opponents after they have left power. It is one of the bedrock principles of our Republic. We recognize attacks on political opponents after they have left office as a 3rd world move and the tell-tale sign that you live in a banana republic, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or Communist China.

 

Your claim that Trumps sexual misdeeds - amounts to war crimes is unsupported bunk - your attempts to support this bunk have failed.

and what crimes in the middle east are you referring to - you are moving the goalposts here all of a sudden .. as is you bringing up covid.

If you wish to move on that is fine - your sex claim is in bunk bin - now to the ME ... tell me about Trumps crimes there which merit "war crimes" designation.

 

Sorry I did no such thing. American ideology and principles were established in our founding document (the Declaration of Independence) and Americans law is dictated by the Constitution. And the Constitution incorporates among other things, all international treaties that the US government is a signatory to (Article VI - Supremacy Clause). And these treaties are quite specific about war crimes and crimes against humanity. The US government is a signatory to the Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Convention, among others. The Bill of Rights is also quite specific in terms of protecting all individual rights. American involvement in World War II does not give the US government carte blanche to commit genocide and other crimes against humanity. It does not give the US government carte blanche to commit mass murder of innocent populations through multiple wars of aggression, torture, indefinite detention and other crimes against humanity.

American ideology is all about the rule of law. Without it it's no different than a banana republic. If heinous crimes committed by anyone, especially those in power, are unchecked, they will always be unchecked, used as precedent and grow exponentially.

If you're a real American, as I am you would know all this and espouse those values.

 

Go back and read for comprehension, you are confused or just don't understand. The crimes you are referring to are a crime against humanity, not war crimes. In addition to these crimes Donald Trump has also committed war crimes.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and extrajudicial assassinations.

Nope, the crimes Donald Trump has committed are breathtaking. The deliberate and intentional spread of this deadly virus is yet another crime against humanity perpetrated by this abomination.

 

Your childish remark aside, your reply doesn't refute the premise being replied to, which is that the president can be sued ( my rebuttal was to someone who said that the president cannot be, which I disproved ) your comment, therefore, is off point.

 

Not at all.

I didn't say Bill didn't commit a crime. Reread my post, I actually acknowledged that he did. But, to add to the comment, I felt that his crime didn't warrant jail, just things of the nature of formal rebuke, sanction, disbarment ( which did happen ) fines, etc. The reason I felt that was because his 'lying to congress' was about sex, not about his duties as president. Men lie about sex, hell, they would lie to God, Himself, about sex, let alone congress. While I don't condone lying to congress, congress should be focused on his duties as president, not his private life. His criminality on sexual misconduct with Flowers, etc., is another matter outside his presidency.

 

Absolutely, where it seems the founding fathers assumed presidents would be men of honor, many of the time honored traditions have been violated, and so a thorough review of his presidencies, the weaknesses of the system he revealed, should be legislated upon so that they won't be repeated ( such as giving contempt of congress more teeth ).

 

The president is the executive branch. Oversight comes from outside, not inside.

I just gave you incontrovertible proof why you are wrong.

You have chosen to ignore it.

 

By an independent agent, such as the SDNY.

 

This is becoming picayune, but you said he committed a crime of lying to congress which I rebutted that he did not commit any such crime of lying to congress. I further pointed out that his crime was perjury with a federal judge and a grand jury; congress had nothing to do with it, other than he was impeached in part for it.

 

Uh....I respect Mueller, not Trump's DOJ or Trump's OLC.

 

NO one said winning the election was a crime, get over it.

 

Fine, I forgot the details of said perjury. it doesn't alter my point that I don't think he deserved jail for it. My other points stand.

 

You are saying that, I'm not ( political weapon ).

Anyone who alleges a crime on an internet forum is expressing an opinion, that's a given and a point that really doesn't need to be made.

Letting Trump get away with his vast array of criminal conduct ( of course it would have to be investigated first , and it is being investigated ) would be a travesty of justice. The Clintons have been investigated for some 25 ****ing years, let them go.

 

Congress has no oversight of the executive branch per se, and no personal oversight over the president at all. Congress' oversight of the executive branch is to assure the executive branch is carrying out the legislation that congress passed accurately and appropriately. They have no personal oversight over any individual in the executive branch.

 

Regarding:

Congress has no oversight of the executive branch per se

That is a misleading statement ( the part that says 'no' ).

Congressional oversight is spelled out here:

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/parliamentary-oversight/unitedstates.php

Congressional oversight of the executive branch has existed since the earliest days of the United States Congress. Major processes related to congressional oversight include the investigative, impeachment, confirmation, appropriations, authorization, and budget processes.

And here is the congressional oversight manual.

https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB2015102393.xhtml

No one is suggesting congress is the president's 'boss'.

 

Yes you did

Prosecuted for what and be specific, what crime?

 

Oversight is direct supervision. Hence "sight" in the word oversight.

Congress relies on Whistle-blowers to a large extent because they cannot oversee anything. In fact 'executive privilege' prevents any real oversight. Congress is a check on the executive branch, they don't oversee anything. They are a check on the executive branch that's it.

Your evidence is some random sight that misused the word oversight. Throughout history the branches have had checks on each other.

 

Talk about a double standard. First perjury and subornation of perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice are prosecuted on a daily basis. Bill committed all three and while serving as President ALL felonies. He was sanctioned by the court to the tune of $90,000 and plea bargained the criminal prosecution as he left office, he was allowed to do so by the independent prosecutor because he had already paid the $90,000 to the court and the $900,000 to the defendant in the case in which he committed those felonies and he lost his license to practice law for 5 years. It was NOT before Congress, that was Hillary who lied about her private secret email server had been thoroughly vetted and approved by State Department cybersecurity and legal counsel, that was a flat out lie.

The ONLY reason both didn't go to jail over Whitewater/Castle Grande/Madison Savings was that of the 4 key witnesses two went to jail refusing to testify, the infamous Webb Hubbell taped prison conversations telling his wife he just needed to roll over on more time, Susan McDougal waiting out the Clinton pardon the last day he was in office and I don't recall the left proclaiming that was a travesty of justice, and two others Jim McDougal and Vince Foster dying under suspicious circumstances before they could testify.

Like what?

 

He got what he deserved, then. But, that being said, he left with a 65% approval rating. Most forgave him. Bill is a likeable guy, despite his flaws. Trump, on the other hand, is a sociopath.

She was no spring chicken but I never believed she should have been 'locked up' over it.

I don't know if that is the only reason or if that is the reason or if there is a reason. Three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. She was pardoned but she did serve 18 months in prison prior to that pardon for refusing to testify.

Oh, I dunno....maybe....

“Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” and “Coercion of political activity.” (his treatment of Zelensky, and the Senate didn't get him off the hook on the criminal side of this act).
Fraud ( during his presidency, Trump settled three lawsuits for fraud)
Contempt Of Congress (if this isn't a crime, it should be)
Illegal charity/embezzlement (spent charity funds for personal use, legal bills, etc )
Racketeering (his entire family is involved in many of his schemes, we're in RICO territory, no doubt)
Bank Fraud/finance crimes ( being investigated currently )
Money laundering ( these are being investigated )
Felony campaign finance violations/hush money defrauding the United STates
(named as 'individual-1' in the Cohen indictment )
Witness intimidation (disparaging comments on Vindman, Yovanovich, and others, during hearings--noting that the president has 65 million twitter followers, so a clear cut case of witness intimidation could easily made, per Yovanovich testimony on this)
Obstruction of justice (estimates are at least four counts per Mueller Report )
Perjury ( you don't have to be under oath to commit purjury to an FBI officer, he lied to Mueller, which was confirmed
by deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, under oath. And it's a slam dunk he'll perjure again, if he is deposed, called to testify, etc).
Sexual Assault, Rape ( 25 women have accused him, some are bound to hold up in court )
Tax evasion (currently being investigated )
Ultra Vires ( calling a national emergency when there wasn't one )
Criminal Conspiracy ( handing classified info Russians in the oval office, though this is more of an impeachable offense, as president can declassify )

For starters. I mean, compared to Trump, the Clinton's were amateurs. You send pros to jail, amateurs you fine, sanction, take their license, do community service, etc.

 

Congress relies on whistleblowers to a lesser, not greater, extent, though they are valuable, despite when we have a president attempting to intimidate them.

"Oversight" is the designated term applied to Congress's function with regard to the executive branch.

The 'random sites' you are attempting to trivialize are GOVERNMENT websites, the functions and duties defined therein, all of which thoroughly debunk your assertion that 'congress does not give oversight to the executive branch'.

No one is suggesting that 'oversight' equals 'being higher in the chain of command', which you appear to be implying, which is your misunderstanding of how the term is applied with regard to congress.

 

yes, but that is not what you said, I do think Trump should be prosecuted for the crimes he committed

 

What crimes? Lib butt hurt?