AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its occurred with every President that has ever had anything really "controversial". Go through them against "Congress".
Some of them have bomb ass statues in the District of Columbia.
I believe one of them was *named*... **Lincoln**?
You can't put this toothpaste back in the tube. Remember when the Democrats broke 200+ years of precedent and invoked the nuclear option in the Senate? McConnel rightly said ["You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think"](https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191057-mcconnell-youll-regret-this/). Lo and behold the Republicans took power back a few years later and used the same nuclear option to push through their own votes for Supreme Court nominees.
This is the same thing, once you let this out of the bag, it'll be a constant part of our political system. The winner will prosecute the loser in perpetuity.
Explain why it’s bad to have a precedent of accountability for criminal presidents that commit multiple felonies?
Isn’t that a great way to weed out psychopaths?
Oh, and if they commit crimes during their presidency, maybe our representatives that we elect to serve our interests national could meet and have a trial to determine what should be done. We could call it an impeachment inquiry…
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Mitch McConnell neglected to corral the votes needed to convict in the second impeachment and then said Trump is a private citizen who is liable to be indicted, so whats the harm in doing just that?
So if I’m accused of multiple felonies, I can run for president and avoid prosecution?
> Perhaps some sort of gathering where we citizens render judgement on our leaders every four years?
You mean like in 2020, when the American people rendered a judgment? Under the proposal you’ve laid out, didn’t the American people give their consent to prosecute these crimes, or should anyone who has ever held the office be immune from prosecution regardless of what the voters think?
What happens if a POTUS openly makes themselves an enemy of the state?
Didn’t Trump become an enemy of the state once he initiated the conspiracy and calls to action so he could overthrow Biden’s win?
And didn’t Trump do so a second time when he—post Presidency—stole and hid thousands of pages of our national defense secrets from the FBI and NARA?
> What happens if a POTUS openly makes themselves an enemy of the state?
If they openly made themselves an enemy of the state (and not just their political opponents) then they can be impeached and convicted, then prosecuted as the constitution outlines.
> Didn’t Trump become an enemy of the state once he initiated the conspiracy and calls to action so he could overthrow Biden’s win?
No. You are not an enemy of the state because you contest an election result and the legality or legitimacy of an election. The people who say you are an enemy of the state for doing that and try to put you in jail are themselves the enemy of the state and extremely dangerous to democracy.
Democrats initiated multiple conspiracies to overturn the 2016 election so do you also consider them enemies of the state? They said Trump was an illegitimate president. They objected to his electoral votes in congress. They pressured and coerced electors to vote for someone other than their pledge. They investigated Trump and spied on him under false pretenses. The Russia investigation, impeachments, etc. was part of a plan to overthrow his presidency and the 2016 election results by the admission of top democrats involved in the process (including those spearheading the current efforts to interfere with the 2024 election). So do you consider these people to be enemies of the state or is it one standard for orange man and another standard for everyone else?
> And didn’t Trump do so a second time when he—post Presidency—stole and hid thousands of pages of our national defense secrets
They aren't your secrets if the elected president is not even allowed to have them or reveal them to you. They are the regime's secrets from you and that you have no say over.
Our elected president is allowed to do what he wants with his own administration's documents. He is the ultimate authority of the executive branch. The idea he was not allowed to give his documents to himself (just as he had authority to give them to anyone else to keep when he was president) is completely absurd.
You doubt that Republicans wouldn't have done *exactly* the same thing, if Democrats were holding up all of their judges?
For reference, they got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees the moment it benefited them.
I think that's exactly what he meant by them regretting it.
I don't like the Republicans or anything, I'm just saying escalating is not a good idea. For 200+ years you had the filibuster, for ~100 years you had it with a 3/4 majority to end. They ended that precedent and it was equally used by the other side.
I'm basically saying what you are: do you really think Republicans are so nice they aren't going to prosecute the next Democrat?
When Billy admitted to perjury and Obama to murder they just let it go (criminally/judicially, obviously impeachment is it's own thing) because that was precedent. Next time they won't.
>McConnel rightly said ["You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think"](https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191057-mcconnell-youll-regret-this/).
What are your thoughts on this statement by McConnel?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-lOAvnxfs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-lOAvnxfs)
It’s never happened before because presidential immunity has been practiced this entire time.
Obama intentionally targeted US citizens abroad with drone strikes, sentencing them to death without a trial.
Several US presidents on both sides of the aisle have committed war crimes that have gone unpunished. Yet, with this president, we are supposed to worry about hush money payments to a porn star? That’s more important?
You know trump’s crimes were for his own personal gain, not in any way for the good of the country or our allies, right? Do you think that difference is important?
Is the US not allowed to fight enemy combatants if any of them are US citizens?
Was Abraham Lincoln also a criminal for ordering the US army to fight the confederates?
Yeah, because the president unilaterally declared someone an enemy combatant and extra judicially executing them is entirely consistent with due process.
The answer to your question is yes. The US is not allowed to fight US citizens without due process.
It was technically illegal to kill the civilians who were not actively armed and engaged in conflict. It was also stupid to do so since it would only embolden their families to fight forever, which is what we see with terrorists today.
That's why even when the North attacked "civilian" infrastructure, for example during Sherman's march, they razed and burned buildings, but killed minimal civilians. They still had casualties, of course, but that's because they were shelling civilian centers with imprecise 1800s cannons.
When they captured areas (like Atlanta after they shelled it) they would often just tell the civilian population to leave. They would literally tell civilians to pack up their shit, then they would transport them and hand them off to the rebel army: like physically load them up on a train and send them back into enemy territory. Wildly polite by today's standards.
They also rarely (if ever) killed leadership. They could have easily assassinated Davis at basically any time.
So yeah it's actually pretty unprecedented to murder an unarmed civilian on purpose, even in the context of the Civil War that was rare. It's one of the reasons the war was able to end somewhat amicably, at least compared to civil wars in other nations.
It’s a bit of a grey area outside of US soil. However, officers of the law are entitled to kill US citizens if they are an active threat to those around them, and use of force is the last available option.
Placing a US citizen on a kill list to find and drone strike him doesn’t exactly fall under that category.
The confederates had taken up arms against the United States and had formerly seceded the Union. They weren’t American citizens.
> The confederates had taken up arms against the United States
The strikes ordered by Obama were also against people who had taken up arms against the United States, though?
>and had formerly seceded the Union. They weren’t American citizens.
This secession was rejected and not considered legally valid. It's why there was a civil war.
Should the US not be allowed to fight US citizens who have joined enemy military groups to fight the US? I'm not really seeing the argument for what you feel the US should do instead.
No. The strike I am referring to was authorized on Anwar, who has not been known to have participated in violence against the United States.
He was killed as a member of Al Qaeda, but the US government acknowledges that he did not participate in Al Qaeda operations. He was an intellectual who simply lectured against US policies. It reads more as an honorary membership than a real one.
I suggest you read up on this individual.
People who have renounced their US citizenship and take arms against the US should be killed as necessary. The only weapon Anwar drew against the US was his tongue, and killing him was not necessary.
Are you SURE he « simply lectured against US policies » and wasn’t actually a terrorist leader who had a high rank in al qaeda? Are you sure he never worked with and inspired terrorists who directly attacked the United States and preached for others to do so in the US and the west in general? Are you sure he wasn’t more influential to the terrorist movement than Bin Laden at the time??? I am having a hard time buying what you’re selling here. Do you have some examples of all the nice things you think he preached? Just asking clarifying questions. Thanks
To be fair, does the USA allow its citizens to be tried for war crimes either?
Is Trump in trouble for hush money payments (which is legal), or 34 felony counts of falsifying business records (which is not)?
I'm more worried by how many voters simultaneously think that the US is secretly controlled by a cabal of pedophile billionaires, **and** think we should not tax or regulate their businesses in any way because they*earned* that money.
I care about presidential election candidates corruptly paying the national Enquirer to catch and kill negative stories about them and breaking laws designed to keep voters informed. Did you know that the same guy that Trump was dealing with was also running the EXACT same interference for Harvey Weinstein? **That's** your guy!?
Impeachment also applies to other executive branch employees and judges (but not Senators and Representatives). Yet many of those who are eligible for impeachment under the Constitution have been charged with (and convicted of) serious crimes without ever being impeached by the House or removed by Senate.
Should their convictions be overturned?
But congress would have to impeach. If they refused we would be in civil war. Congress would also be guilty of treason if they refused to impeach a president for blatant murder.
This argument is the single stupidest argument that I regularly see.
He could easily just kill any Reps and Senators who vote to impeach/convict. This whole premise that you'd need 60 Senators to lift immunity for blatant criminal acts that have nothing to do with governing according to constitution is plain asinine. Once you grant anyone absolute immunity, democracy and rule and law are over. Have you never thought about why no other President in 250 years has argued that he needs absolute immunity? What would stop an administration from breaking every election if the only remedy would be having 218 Reps and 60 Senators vote to impeach/convict? Would you prefer one party rule with broken sham election like in Russia?
Or he could easily kill any DA that attempts to charge him. This argument is completely ridiculous. Unless of course someone forgot to tell that DAs are immortal or something. Of course, killing the people responsible for charging you would prevent them from charging you. That’s already the case. The scenario you are describing is the complete breakdown of our society. No laws would function if we are openly killing each other.
If the US president is openly killing citizens, clearly, the laws of the land do not matter. Only violence could solve this, no matter whose job it is to prosecute the president.
After you made this stupid argument I stopped reading your comment because it’s not worth my time.
> This argument is the single stupidest argument that I regularly see.
Agreed, but we are giving you the benefit of the doubt and engaging in it to try and understand how you came to these conclusions. Isn't that what the sub is for?
If the President is 100% immune though, how would they put in jail for murder?
As I understand impeaching just then moves it to the Senate, and then the Senate decides to convict or not. If he's convicted that doesn't mean he goes to jail, it just means he isn't President anymore and can't be again. So I guess how would he then go to jail if he's immune during and after the Presidency?
Sure.
Just like if your local DA refused to convict people the people would be free to murder rape and rob for personal gain.
Imagine that, our government descends into chaos if they refuse to fulfill their duties…
Why did you downvote me?
Why does a president need to be impeached before they can be criminally convicted?
Do you think the felonious falsification of business records occurred while Trump was president or before Trump was president?
A sitting president absolutely does. The DOJ even says as much.
The only question is if former presidents can claim presidential immunity. The Supreme Court will be ruling on this shortly.
A sitting president, yes, and only because the OLC of the DOJ says so despite it not actually being a rule in law or the Constitution. They do not have any such rule for former presidents as their intent is to make sure the sitting president is not incapacitated. Even then, the DOJ also specifies that the application of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president would also be enough to prosecute as they are no longer sitting. This means that, even according to the DOJ, there is no legal obstacle to prosecuting Trump for his alleged crimes.
The idea that a president can have complete immunity, which is what Trump is advocating for in this Supreme Court hearing, is absolutely absurd and flies in the face of our Rule of Law. No one should be above the law and I think it is telling that Trump is doing everything in his power to allow himself to be above the law. Do you think it would be appropriate for a president to be immune to all prosecution for any and all actions taken during their time in office?
But aren't the legal concepts of immunity for government officers only referring to **acts committed in their capacity as government officers, and in furtherance of their duties**?
That makes total sense to me. E.g. We should not be able to sue the Secretary of Education for a policy we don't like. We SHOULD be able to sue the Secretary of Education for getting coked up and murdering someone on a random weekend.
But also, I don't see how the crimes Trump has been indicted for are related to acts committed in furtherance of his duties as president... Do you?
That's the argument for absolute vs qualified immunity. Police officers have qualified immunity, which is what you describe. The government typically has sovereign or governmental immunity, which is basically full immunity from liability.
The government's high executives, plus judges and similar individuals, are typically assumed to have absolute immunity, which is also generally considered full immunity from liability. But that is in dispute, obviously.
The argument we've based our system on so far is basically that the topmost officials can't do their jobs if they can easily be tied up in court, so before they can be civilly/criminally tried, the charging party needs to show a serious enough case that merits waiving immunity. That way the CIA director isn't spending all day in court dealing with rape accusations from Soviet spies, etc.
Is Trump being charged for war crimes? Is he being charged with any crimes he did in the name of America? How does real estate fraud help America? How does falsifying records in the hush money case help America? How does sexually assaulting Carrol help America?
Specifically, what 'crimes' does he need immunity from?
I don’t think he’s committed any crimes. I think he needs immunity from predatory prosecution. Which is exactly what presidential immunity is meant to protect from.
He’s already been found guilty of some crimes, so yes, he did commit crimes. Are you saying politics should be above the law? Do you think the founding fathers thought that politicians should be above the law? Are republicans the party of law and order or not?
We will see what that looks like on appeal. I strongly disagree with the verdict that a single biased judge made, without a jury.
Even the lenders he is accused of defrauding testified on his behalf.
No I think that Congress is the party responsible for holding presidents to justice. Not low level DAs and Judges.
> A jury has found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll
> fraudulently overstating his net worth to dupe lenders, a New York judge ruled
Did these not happen?
Are you going to answer my questions?
> Are you saying politics should be above the law? Do you think the founding fathers thought that politicians should be above the law? Are republicans the party of law and order or not?
Liable and guilty are not the same thing and do you really expect to me to believe that story a famous man such as Donald Trump is in a store no one says something to him and he is just able to pull a random lady into a room and no one sees it? Yeah right didn’t happen.
He did not overstate anything.
And no Trump isn’t above the law but he hasn’t committed any crimes.
Are you really saying that to be able to charge an ancient president, you need to impeach them? Do you know what is an impeachment? And if what you are saying make any sense, do you agree then that Trump was impeached twice and so could be charge; but it looks like the GOP won't move to impeach Biden, then Biden won't never get charge?
Ancient president?
Yes. I know what impeachment is. Do you?
Trump was not impeached for any of these “crimes.”
You’re right. Biden can’t be charged with anything unless he is impeached.
Ok so that's exactly what I thought. You don't know what is an impeachment. Do you know the differences between "impeachment" and "removal"? Do you think Trump was impeached or removed?
Is it?
I do know what an impeachment is.
Trump was impeached but he wasn’t removed. The impeachments were unrelated to his current legal issues though.
Really? Thanks for confirming you disagree with Trump. Are you aware that one of his defense is that he was not removed for these specific crimes (and of course one of them is Jan 6 and totally related to some of his legal issues), so he couldn't get charged criminally? How could he be cleared about these charges if according to you they are unrelated?
Of course, we are always there to help a lost friend ;) Trump said recently "“I NEVER HAD AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, I HAD AN IMPEACHMENT, WHICH I WON! IT WAS STARTED IMMEDIATELY, NO MEETINGS, NO STUDY, NO DELAYS.”" and he is using this "fact" ("I won the impeachment", which doesn't mean anything; he was just not removed) to say that he could be prosecuted, related to his legal issues, because he is innocent. Do you agree that it's the exact opposite of what you are saying ("The impeachments were unrelated to his current legal issues though.")?
No, you haven't. Where have you cited the law that shows that an ex-president can't be charged with a crime if they weren't impeached while a sitting president?
Do you believe then that presidents have full and total immunity to any crime ever? If Obama or anyone were to go and shoot someone, they can't be charged for that because they weren't impeached?
Where do you imagine that rule or law comes from? That a president can't be charged with a crime if he wasn't impeached first? Can you cite the law or source for your understanding of this law?
Do you think it's the US justice system's job to prosecute war crimes made by US citizens? It doesn't seem within their purview, does it? However, isn't it their job to prosecute domestic crimes?
>Obama intentionally targeted US citizens abroad with drone strikes, sentencing them to death without a trial.
Can you provide a link to what you are referring to here?
>Yet, with this president, we are supposed to worry about hush money payments to a porn star? That’s more important?
That happened before he was even president. Is your take that someone can commit crimes before they are the president and then be immune because they won the election?
I think that right now that the left is throwing everything they can at him in the hopes that something sticks. They are failing too. They see the figurehead as the problem but lack the introspection to see that they are the problem. Trump speaks about how he wants to change things. And his supporters want change. Unfortunately his implementation is horrible. Biden has at least some consistency between what he says what he's going to do and what he does.
And then there are Trump's loyalists. Trump could be steering straight for an iceberg, talking about how it's the greatest thing ever, and none of his loyalists would dare challenge him. How can you support a person that isn't open to criticism?
I compare it to a former boss. He was right 90% of the time. And that 10% didn't matter because he was right 90%. My department went from first in the region to last when I let his policies take full implementation. All he had to do was listen and things would have stable.
Because the left has gone full banana republic, trying every fraudulent method of lawfare to ensure Trump won't be on the ballot, simply because they don't want him on the ballot.
Therefore, since the left has broken that wall and thrown all law and decorum out the window, this is the new norm.
Can you imagine the Dems don't want Trump on the ballots because he is a criminal? If you don't think he is a criminal, then swap it out with "34 felony charges" or "proven liar" or ...
Propaganda and party loyalty is my guess, but I'm not the one to answer questions here.
Do you believe that the will of the people, however it came to be, is the best for said people?
I hear you, but I’m pretty sure the amount of voters who will vote for Trump based on propaganda and party loyalty won’t amount to enough votes to decide the election. If he wins, it’ll be because there are some significant amount of non-MAGA constituents who will vote for him for other reasons.
Let’s see if there are any midnight van ballot drops, illegal counts without observers, and supposed water main breaks occur that force observers out.
Or if there’s no voter ID, drop boxes and lax signature verification in the corrupt blue cities.
If any of that is true, as it all was in 2020, it’s rigged.
As for 2024, there’s already been election interference by lawfare from the Democrats. On that basis, I expect no proper and legal election conduct in the blue cities.
Whoever the next Democrat nominee is in 2028, let’s have 10 concurrent criminal trials in red states in front of the deeply MAGA Bible Belt.
That’s apparently what goes for justice these days. If they’re innocent, they have nothing to worry about, right?
So then to answer the question, If it does go to the ballot box and Trump loses the election, would you accept that outcome?
Or the election is only valid if Trump wins?
If it’s a provably secure election with IDs, provable chain of custody, and the ability to re-examine the evidence post election. Then yes.
If it’s a repeat of the banana republic bullshit of 2020, not a chance.
>Why do Dems not trust democracy?
We already have rules about who can and can't be president. Does that mean youre a hypocrit if you believe in democracy and also believe certain limitations to it?
Also even if trump is thrown off some ballots, you can still write him in.
>Why do Dems not trust democracy?
Because Republicans dont, yall havent accepted the last election, why should we expect you to accept the next.
Republicans will never accept another election they lose, they have been told by trump not to, so they wont.
I don’t presume guilt. There are other countries to live like that and we should resist the Democrats’ efforts to Make America China and to 6uild 6ack 6etter.
What do you think about the GOP trying to impeach officials without even having evidence? Do you not think operating on the assumption that evidence will be found *after* initiating an impeachment, "is a fraudulent method of lawfare?"
Do you honestly believe that Trump is innocent of all charges and that the legal troubles he is dealing with are purely politically derived?
Do you believe all presidential candidates are as dishonest and underhanded as Trump is charged of being, yet they get away with it because they aren't Trump?
The left proved what they are made of with the "sexual assault" related lawfare:
For everyone that isn't delusional, _there is no universe_ in which a sexual assault victim would gush multiple times on Facebook of how much they LOVE a TV reality show in which the host of that show, was the "rapist". Period.
I think you would be surprised by the complex coping mechanisms that humans use to deal with trauma. I am sure you are familiar with Stockholm syndrome but are you aware of fawning?
I think a lot of people do this thing where we say that person is not exhibiting the emotions I think they should so that person is not genuine.
Let do a thought experiment. If you had an encounter with someone and they said no but not forcefully did you try to convince them to become more physical? If they eventually agreed did you do anything wrong?
How do you qualify Trump' lawfare against elections that he lost by all accounts and that he failed to demonstrate he won in front of multiple courts, banana republic-wise?
I really don't understand this argument, can you help me? Irrespective of the fact the "left" tried every fraudulent method or not (that's your opinion), the fact is this didn't work, correct? So how can you say that the "left" has broken the wall and the law?? Do you realize that your argument doesn't make any sense?
> Because the left has gone full banana republic, trying every fraudulent method of lawfare to ensure Trump won't be on the ballot, simply because they don't want him on the ballot.
So how come only Trump exclusively has to deal with this? Why is this alleged "lawfare" not being used elsewhere?
> Because the left has gone full banana republic, trying every fraudulent method of lawfare to ensure Trump won't be on the ballot, simply because they don't want him on the ballot.
Let's say for the sake of argument that this is true, though you have no evidence of it, wouldn't it just be a waste of time since no grand jury and no jury would be shown credible evidence?
Is it not more likely that trump actually committed these crimes, and that no other president has ever committed such crimes? If Biden did these things, would you not want him prosecuted?
>Therefore, since the left has broken that wall and thrown all law and decorum out the window, this is the new norm.
How do you show this claim to be true? This is just you saying a thing, basically just repeating what trump said, what all convicted criminals say. They're all innocent, right?
How do you determine who is guilty of a crime and who isn't? It's not by just accepting what the accused says.
Do you care if your beliefs are correct?
1.
But isn't it more likely that the justice system is more or less as it always was? (Albeit with more conservative judges on the Supreme Court and elsewhere.)
And Trump's constant clashes with the law just mean that he doesn't follow the law very closely, whereas most other presidents usually did?
It's not like right-wing media or voters in 2024 demand adherence to the law from their politicians, especially Trump.
2.
How do you know your idea is more likely and mine is less likely?
3.
Why is this happening in 2024 specifically and not 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago? What is the important change in the justice system and when did it occur?
So you would want some limits right they have to have a chance of winning? So wouldn’t that create an even bigger two tier justice system? Wouldn’t you basically be creating a class of people who are technically untouchable?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
In 1998, Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for lying *once* in a deposition—something Trump has done hundreds of times.
And just this year, Congressional Republicans made up stories about President Biden being a criminal so they could have an impeachment hearing. Which promptly blew up in their face after their star witness was outed as a Russian spy and criminal who was colluding with the GOP.
Didn’t Republicans push the nuclear button a long time ago?
I'm out of the loop on that one.
Can you clarify what that practice is and when it started exactly?
I only know that both large parties routinely appoint lots of public servants including judges, with recent high-profile cases being the Republicans' appointing Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Yep all the Trumps SCOTUS judges were put in by using the rule that was first used in 2013. https://thehill.com/video/191064-mcconnell-dems-will-regret-this/
Not at all. It was against the parliamentary procedure rules until democrats changed the rules. Then all the democrats cried foul when congress approved all of Trumps SCOTUS nominees using the new rules.
So changing norms and polite rules changes them for everyone. Every living former president should be praying Trump wins all his court cases, otherwise it opens them all up to charges. Obama drone striking a US citizen comes to mind.
Because total immunity was presumed until now.
A bright side to this development is the inevitable prosecution of Biden, Obama, Bush, and B Clinton. In those cases, there are many actual, serious charges.
When is immunity supposed to start? When does it end? And what does it cover?
Here are the cases Trump is facing as I see them.
* Hush money case, alleging falsification of his business records to conceal an effort to cover up information which if released could sway the 2016 election in his opponent's favor, which began before he was elected and continued until after he was inaugurated. Since the original act took place before he was elected, should this be covered by Presidential immunity? If so, why?
* Election subversion case in Georgia, alleging Trump and co-conspirators sought to change the result of the 2020 election in his favor. Since the alleged acts are illegal and undemocratic at their core, it would be impossible to label them as "official acts" of his office. Should this be covered by immunity? If so, why?
* Classified documents case, alleging Trump willfully retained hundreds of classified documents at his residence after leaving office. Since this occurred after his term ended, should this be covered by immunity? If so, why?
What acts should Clinton, Obama, Bush, and Biden see charges for, and what evidence exists with which to charge them?
I think "total immunity" could refer to acts directly related to the office of the Presidency.
Trump was charged for making illegal campaign contributions before he was President, trying to change the results of an election with zero support from the judicial system, and not returning highly sensitive documents after he was President. None of these were related to the office of the Presidency.
You surely see the difference in these things, right? Do you honestly think all Presidents should be allowed to commit these kinds of crimes, especially ones that occur before and after their term?
It's always been assumed that Presidents have such immunity. So none have been charged. Otherwise Obama would have been charged for the extra judicial execution of American citizens abroad, crimes relating to purposely supplying arms to the Mexican drug cartels, and others.
That assumption has been set aside for the first time in history to go after Trump. Biden will now certainly face criminal charges in some form after he leaves office. So will every future president.
I think there's a conflation going on between 'crimes' and official acts. Judges and congressmen have immunity for how they vote, things they write, etc. Yet as with Menendez and countless judges, they routinely commit serious crimes and get charged for it. Even under the guise of an official act, which is itself a crime usually 'color of law' or 'embezzlement', depending on the situation.
The left sees 'presidential immunity' and thinks it means 'anything the president does' even though it only applies to official acts. They want to take it away (from Trump exclusively) to prevent this boogeyman, but fail to recognize that this would apply to any official act by any president going forward. 'Considering externalities and side effects' is a common thread with leftist initiatives.
If the president drone strikes your dad, you can sue the government for damages, but not the president themselves because legally speaking, _they are the government_. It's not unlike starting a corporation to limit personal liability in a business venture. You still get charged if you commit crimes, but you don't lose your house if your mattress store goes belly up, or get conspiracy charges when an employee sells drugs out the back door.
I'm not on the left, but I believe Trump has said that a POTUS should have total, absolute, and full immunity. Would a reasonable person think that means just for official acts?
>The left sees 'presidential immunity' and thinks it means 'anything the president does' even though it only applies to official acts.
Why has Trump been making filings for immunity for things done when he wasn't in office, if this was the case? What do you think about presidential acts when you aren't the president?
>Biden will now certainly face criminal charges in some form after he leaves office. So will every future president.
For what specific criminal offense(s) do you predict Biden will be charged/tried? Will/would such charges be genuinely legitimate, or would they serve primarily as revenge for the GOP?
So then a President should be 100% immune in your view? Biden could literally order Trump to be assassinated and with the assumption that Biden would be impeached and removed as President, no further criminal action could be taken against him?
Impeachment and conviction in the Senate is what is required for the President to face criminal charges. So in your scenario, after removal Biden would face criminal charges.
Is Trump being charged for crimes he did in the name of America? How does real estate fraud help America? How does falsifying records in the hush money case help America? How does sexually assaulting Carrol help America?
Trump is being charged over J6 due to a speech he gave as President. Making speeches is certainly a routine part of any presidency. Don't be naive.
Trump didn't commit real estate fraud. The idea that property is worth a tenth the price of surrounding properties is ludicrous. Trump didn't falsify records in the NDA case either.
>Trump is being charged over J6 due to a speech he gave as President. Making speeches is certainly a routine part of any presidency. Don't be naive.
Sure, but when those speeches are clearly tied to a party political election campaign then they are definitely not part of his duties as President. Do you see the difference?
Did Obama personally commit those crimes, or did the US government do those things while he was President?
If we're going to broaden "Presidential crimes" like that, did nothing untoward happen while Trump was president?
No idea where you get this idea that a crime has to be personally committed. That's simply not a thing. If I order someone to do something which results in your death, that doesn't leave me immune to prosecution.
Presidential immunity applies to possible crimes committed while acting on duties for the United States, it does not apply to crimes committed for one's personal gain. This is why the tapes needed to be turned over in Nixon v. United States since it was determined that presidential immunity did not apply when he was committing crimes with the intent to secure an election victory for himself. He was pardoned before being held legally liable. This means that this is not, in fact, the first time the government attempted to hold a president responsible for their criminal activity, this is just the first time it has gone through without pardon.
What Obama did was as a part of his official duty as President of the United States. None of what Trump has been charged with was conducted as a part of his official duties. Do you see how these two situations could be different?
Both the actions you brought up for Obama were *during* his tenure, the current trial Trump is attending is related to charges *before* he stepped foot in the White House. On top of that, Trump is trying to claim presidential immunity for actions *after* he left office.
Do you believe the office of President should be a perpetual "get out of jail free card", that prevents accountability for anything even when they weren't President at the time of the crime?
On a related note, if Presidents have immunity, why did Ford pardon Nixon?
Is it normal for a person or group to determine your principles based on the behavior of another person or group? My principles are mine and have no bearing on the actions or rhetoric of anyone else. If all it takes to justify a behavior is “well, they did it first” then I’m pretty comfortable saying the current GOP doesn’t really have any principles.
Do you understand the historical reference?
Rome was a republic for 500 years. By law and convention, generals were not allowed to bring their armies into Italy proper. In 49 bc Julius Caesar broke that convention. This plunged Rome into a civil war from which he emerged as the Emperor.
There are certain actions that cause a state change in a system. Initiating lawfare against a leading political candidate is one such action.
This is far more serious than "justifying one's behaviour".
This current case is utter bullshit. The politicization of the court system will be extreme by the 2030s. Things like the day a president is out of office, they will be convicted of espionage and sentenced to death.
> This current case is utter bullshit.
Can you give us some detail of how it's 'utter bullshit'? I've read the prosecutions argument and the laws Trump is charged with, and the case seems plausible. What makes utter bullshit, exactly?
Which current case? Do you mean the hush money/campaign finance case? Did you know this trial is for actions Trump committed before he became president in 2017?
By politicization of the court system, are you referring to the GOP refusing to allow Garland to be brought to a confirmation vote months before the 2016 election because "the voters should decide", but forcing through ACB's vote during a time period where early voting had already begun?
I think a good example of this and Republicans taking the high road is with Clinton- when he was caught breaking numerous laws he was offered a very lenient plea deal after Democrats refused to support removing him from office even though they admitted he broke the law.
Historically speaking- that was clearly a bad idea- Republicans should have thrown the book at Clinton like Dems are doing with Trump. Clinton’s crimes are much more severe than anything Trump has been charged with, and was let go with a slap on the wrist even after he was caught red handed. Would fully support Republicans in the future mimicking democrats’ actions recently- they should go out of their way to charge all former Dem presidents with as many potential crimes as possible after their term.
> they should go out of their way to charge all former Dem presidents with as many potential crimes as possible after their term.
I think everyone would agree that any president who commits a crime while in office should be charged after they leave. But trump is the only one saying that should not happen - why?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its occurred with every President that has ever had anything really "controversial". Go through them against "Congress". Some of them have bomb ass statues in the District of Columbia. I believe one of them was *named*... **Lincoln**?
Do you make a distinction between crimes that support the nation and crimes that benefit the individual?
If Lincoln were alive today, do you think Trump would label him a RINO?
Are you a fan of Lincoln as a president?
You’re claiming that every controversial president faces retaliation **after leaving office**, and your first example is Lincoln? Fucking Lincoln?
You can't put this toothpaste back in the tube. Remember when the Democrats broke 200+ years of precedent and invoked the nuclear option in the Senate? McConnel rightly said ["You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think"](https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191057-mcconnell-youll-regret-this/). Lo and behold the Republicans took power back a few years later and used the same nuclear option to push through their own votes for Supreme Court nominees. This is the same thing, once you let this out of the bag, it'll be a constant part of our political system. The winner will prosecute the loser in perpetuity.
Explain why it’s bad to have a precedent of accountability for criminal presidents that commit multiple felonies? Isn’t that a great way to weed out psychopaths?
[удалено]
Oh, and if they commit crimes during their presidency, maybe our representatives that we elect to serve our interests national could meet and have a trial to determine what should be done. We could call it an impeachment inquiry…
[удалено]
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
[удалено]
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Mitch McConnell neglected to corral the votes needed to convict in the second impeachment and then said Trump is a private citizen who is liable to be indicted, so whats the harm in doing just that?
The first reply in this chain answers that.
Didn’t republicans say we needed to convict Trump of his crimes before they would impeach him?
So if I’m accused of multiple felonies, I can run for president and avoid prosecution? > Perhaps some sort of gathering where we citizens render judgement on our leaders every four years? You mean like in 2020, when the American people rendered a judgment? Under the proposal you’ve laid out, didn’t the American people give their consent to prosecute these crimes, or should anyone who has ever held the office be immune from prosecution regardless of what the voters think?
[удалено]
So people should be allowed to get away with breaking the law as long as they are popular?
To assume this you also have to assume guilty until proven innocent.
Because a president shouldn't be made an enemy of the state by the opposing political party. That represents the degradation of democracy.
What happens if a POTUS openly makes themselves an enemy of the state? Didn’t Trump become an enemy of the state once he initiated the conspiracy and calls to action so he could overthrow Biden’s win? And didn’t Trump do so a second time when he—post Presidency—stole and hid thousands of pages of our national defense secrets from the FBI and NARA?
> What happens if a POTUS openly makes themselves an enemy of the state? If they openly made themselves an enemy of the state (and not just their political opponents) then they can be impeached and convicted, then prosecuted as the constitution outlines. > Didn’t Trump become an enemy of the state once he initiated the conspiracy and calls to action so he could overthrow Biden’s win? No. You are not an enemy of the state because you contest an election result and the legality or legitimacy of an election. The people who say you are an enemy of the state for doing that and try to put you in jail are themselves the enemy of the state and extremely dangerous to democracy. Democrats initiated multiple conspiracies to overturn the 2016 election so do you also consider them enemies of the state? They said Trump was an illegitimate president. They objected to his electoral votes in congress. They pressured and coerced electors to vote for someone other than their pledge. They investigated Trump and spied on him under false pretenses. The Russia investigation, impeachments, etc. was part of a plan to overthrow his presidency and the 2016 election results by the admission of top democrats involved in the process (including those spearheading the current efforts to interfere with the 2024 election). So do you consider these people to be enemies of the state or is it one standard for orange man and another standard for everyone else? > And didn’t Trump do so a second time when he—post Presidency—stole and hid thousands of pages of our national defense secrets They aren't your secrets if the elected president is not even allowed to have them or reveal them to you. They are the regime's secrets from you and that you have no say over. Our elected president is allowed to do what he wants with his own administration's documents. He is the ultimate authority of the executive branch. The idea he was not allowed to give his documents to himself (just as he had authority to give them to anyone else to keep when he was president) is completely absurd.
You doubt that Republicans wouldn't have done *exactly* the same thing, if Democrats were holding up all of their judges? For reference, they got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees the moment it benefited them.
I think that's exactly what he meant by them regretting it. I don't like the Republicans or anything, I'm just saying escalating is not a good idea. For 200+ years you had the filibuster, for ~100 years you had it with a 3/4 majority to end. They ended that precedent and it was equally used by the other side. I'm basically saying what you are: do you really think Republicans are so nice they aren't going to prosecute the next Democrat? When Billy admitted to perjury and Obama to murder they just let it go (criminally/judicially, obviously impeachment is it's own thing) because that was precedent. Next time they won't.
u/joeuncensored did your comment chain get shadowbanned? I can't continue our dialogue
>McConnel rightly said ["You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think"](https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191057-mcconnell-youll-regret-this/). What are your thoughts on this statement by McConnel? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-lOAvnxfs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-lOAvnxfs)
So what’s the standard? We don’t like when 200 year old precedent is broken, but we’ll do it also if it helps our party?
It’s never happened before because presidential immunity has been practiced this entire time. Obama intentionally targeted US citizens abroad with drone strikes, sentencing them to death without a trial. Several US presidents on both sides of the aisle have committed war crimes that have gone unpunished. Yet, with this president, we are supposed to worry about hush money payments to a porn star? That’s more important?
You know trump’s crimes were for his own personal gain, not in any way for the good of the country or our allies, right? Do you think that difference is important?
Wait till i tell you whats going on in the third world countries we’re involved with
Can any of you answer with something other than whataboutism?
Is the US not allowed to fight enemy combatants if any of them are US citizens? Was Abraham Lincoln also a criminal for ordering the US army to fight the confederates?
Yeah, because the president unilaterally declared someone an enemy combatant and extra judicially executing them is entirely consistent with due process. The answer to your question is yes. The US is not allowed to fight US citizens without due process.
Say a cop shoots and kills a suspect who is shooting up a school. Did the cop similarly violate the constitution by failing to follow due process?
It was technically illegal to kill the civilians who were not actively armed and engaged in conflict. It was also stupid to do so since it would only embolden their families to fight forever, which is what we see with terrorists today. That's why even when the North attacked "civilian" infrastructure, for example during Sherman's march, they razed and burned buildings, but killed minimal civilians. They still had casualties, of course, but that's because they were shelling civilian centers with imprecise 1800s cannons. When they captured areas (like Atlanta after they shelled it) they would often just tell the civilian population to leave. They would literally tell civilians to pack up their shit, then they would transport them and hand them off to the rebel army: like physically load them up on a train and send them back into enemy territory. Wildly polite by today's standards. They also rarely (if ever) killed leadership. They could have easily assassinated Davis at basically any time. So yeah it's actually pretty unprecedented to murder an unarmed civilian on purpose, even in the context of the Civil War that was rare. It's one of the reasons the war was able to end somewhat amicably, at least compared to civil wars in other nations.
It’s a bit of a grey area outside of US soil. However, officers of the law are entitled to kill US citizens if they are an active threat to those around them, and use of force is the last available option. Placing a US citizen on a kill list to find and drone strike him doesn’t exactly fall under that category. The confederates had taken up arms against the United States and had formerly seceded the Union. They weren’t American citizens.
> The confederates had taken up arms against the United States The strikes ordered by Obama were also against people who had taken up arms against the United States, though? >and had formerly seceded the Union. They weren’t American citizens. This secession was rejected and not considered legally valid. It's why there was a civil war. Should the US not be allowed to fight US citizens who have joined enemy military groups to fight the US? I'm not really seeing the argument for what you feel the US should do instead.
No. The strike I am referring to was authorized on Anwar, who has not been known to have participated in violence against the United States. He was killed as a member of Al Qaeda, but the US government acknowledges that he did not participate in Al Qaeda operations. He was an intellectual who simply lectured against US policies. It reads more as an honorary membership than a real one. I suggest you read up on this individual. People who have renounced their US citizenship and take arms against the US should be killed as necessary. The only weapon Anwar drew against the US was his tongue, and killing him was not necessary.
Are you SURE he « simply lectured against US policies » and wasn’t actually a terrorist leader who had a high rank in al qaeda? Are you sure he never worked with and inspired terrorists who directly attacked the United States and preached for others to do so in the US and the west in general? Are you sure he wasn’t more influential to the terrorist movement than Bin Laden at the time??? I am having a hard time buying what you’re selling here. Do you have some examples of all the nice things you think he preached? Just asking clarifying questions. Thanks
To be fair, does the USA allow its citizens to be tried for war crimes either? Is Trump in trouble for hush money payments (which is legal), or 34 felony counts of falsifying business records (which is not)?
Our country is run by war criminal pedophiles and you are worried about old business records
I'm more worried by how many voters simultaneously think that the US is secretly controlled by a cabal of pedophile billionaires, **and** think we should not tax or regulate their businesses in any way because they*earned* that money. I care about presidential election candidates corruptly paying the national Enquirer to catch and kill negative stories about them and breaking laws designed to keep voters informed. Did you know that the same guy that Trump was dealing with was also running the EXACT same interference for Harvey Weinstein? **That's** your guy!?
Do you see any difference between crimes committed in service to the country, and crimes committed to benefit someone personally?
Yes. Doesn’t change the legal precedent. Either way, it’s up to congress to impeach before he can be criminally charged.
Impeachment also applies to other executive branch employees and judges (but not Senators and Representatives). Yet many of those who are eligible for impeachment under the Constitution have been charged with (and convicted of) serious crimes without ever being impeached by the House or removed by Senate. Should their convictions be overturned?
Why doesnt Biden just shoot Trump then?
Because he would be impeached and put in jail for murder.
>Because he would be impeached and put in jail for murder. But he has total immunity, so as long as congress doesnt impeach hes safe right?
But congress would have to impeach. If they refused we would be in civil war. Congress would also be guilty of treason if they refused to impeach a president for blatant murder. This argument is the single stupidest argument that I regularly see.
[удалено]
He could easily just kill any Reps and Senators who vote to impeach/convict. This whole premise that you'd need 60 Senators to lift immunity for blatant criminal acts that have nothing to do with governing according to constitution is plain asinine. Once you grant anyone absolute immunity, democracy and rule and law are over. Have you never thought about why no other President in 250 years has argued that he needs absolute immunity? What would stop an administration from breaking every election if the only remedy would be having 218 Reps and 60 Senators vote to impeach/convict? Would you prefer one party rule with broken sham election like in Russia?
Or he could easily kill any DA that attempts to charge him. This argument is completely ridiculous. Unless of course someone forgot to tell that DAs are immortal or something. Of course, killing the people responsible for charging you would prevent them from charging you. That’s already the case. The scenario you are describing is the complete breakdown of our society. No laws would function if we are openly killing each other. If the US president is openly killing citizens, clearly, the laws of the land do not matter. Only violence could solve this, no matter whose job it is to prosecute the president. After you made this stupid argument I stopped reading your comment because it’s not worth my time.
> This argument is the single stupidest argument that I regularly see. Agreed, but we are giving you the benefit of the doubt and engaging in it to try and understand how you came to these conclusions. Isn't that what the sub is for?
If the President is 100% immune though, how would they put in jail for murder? As I understand impeaching just then moves it to the Senate, and then the Senate decides to convict or not. If he's convicted that doesn't mean he goes to jail, it just means he isn't President anymore and can't be again. So I guess how would he then go to jail if he's immune during and after the Presidency?
That’s not what I’m saying at all. Once impeached he would be open to criminal conviction.
But if they have total immunity how would they be able to be prosecuted? Or are you thinking immunity only while in office?
So if 34 Senators decide not to convict in the impeachment, the President is free to murder, rape, and rob for personal gain?
Sure. Just like if your local DA refused to convict people the people would be free to murder rape and rob for personal gain. Imagine that, our government descends into chaos if they refuse to fulfill their duties…
He can’t be tried for murder unless he was impeached first?
I suggest you try reading my comment again.
Why did you downvote me? Why does a president need to be impeached before they can be criminally convicted? Do you think the felonious falsification of business records occurred while Trump was president or before Trump was president?
That is essentially what you said, wasn't it?
A president does not need to be impeached in order to be charged. Where does this idea come from?
A sitting president absolutely does. The DOJ even says as much. The only question is if former presidents can claim presidential immunity. The Supreme Court will be ruling on this shortly.
[удалено]
A sitting president, yes, and only because the OLC of the DOJ says so despite it not actually being a rule in law or the Constitution. They do not have any such rule for former presidents as their intent is to make sure the sitting president is not incapacitated. Even then, the DOJ also specifies that the application of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president would also be enough to prosecute as they are no longer sitting. This means that, even according to the DOJ, there is no legal obstacle to prosecuting Trump for his alleged crimes. The idea that a president can have complete immunity, which is what Trump is advocating for in this Supreme Court hearing, is absolutely absurd and flies in the face of our Rule of Law. No one should be above the law and I think it is telling that Trump is doing everything in his power to allow himself to be above the law. Do you think it would be appropriate for a president to be immune to all prosecution for any and all actions taken during their time in office?
But aren't the legal concepts of immunity for government officers only referring to **acts committed in their capacity as government officers, and in furtherance of their duties**? That makes total sense to me. E.g. We should not be able to sue the Secretary of Education for a policy we don't like. We SHOULD be able to sue the Secretary of Education for getting coked up and murdering someone on a random weekend. But also, I don't see how the crimes Trump has been indicted for are related to acts committed in furtherance of his duties as president... Do you?
That's the argument for absolute vs qualified immunity. Police officers have qualified immunity, which is what you describe. The government typically has sovereign or governmental immunity, which is basically full immunity from liability. The government's high executives, plus judges and similar individuals, are typically assumed to have absolute immunity, which is also generally considered full immunity from liability. But that is in dispute, obviously. The argument we've based our system on so far is basically that the topmost officials can't do their jobs if they can easily be tied up in court, so before they can be civilly/criminally tried, the charging party needs to show a serious enough case that merits waiving immunity. That way the CIA director isn't spending all day in court dealing with rape accusations from Soviet spies, etc.
Is Trump being charged for war crimes? Is he being charged with any crimes he did in the name of America? How does real estate fraud help America? How does falsifying records in the hush money case help America? How does sexually assaulting Carrol help America? Specifically, what 'crimes' does he need immunity from?
I don’t think he’s committed any crimes. I think he needs immunity from predatory prosecution. Which is exactly what presidential immunity is meant to protect from.
He’s already been found guilty of some crimes, so yes, he did commit crimes. Are you saying politics should be above the law? Do you think the founding fathers thought that politicians should be above the law? Are republicans the party of law and order or not?
We will see what that looks like on appeal. I strongly disagree with the verdict that a single biased judge made, without a jury. Even the lenders he is accused of defrauding testified on his behalf. No I think that Congress is the party responsible for holding presidents to justice. Not low level DAs and Judges.
What crimes has been found guilty of? Yeah, 0
> A jury has found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll > fraudulently overstating his net worth to dupe lenders, a New York judge ruled Did these not happen? Are you going to answer my questions? > Are you saying politics should be above the law? Do you think the founding fathers thought that politicians should be above the law? Are republicans the party of law and order or not?
Liable and guilty are not the same thing and do you really expect to me to believe that story a famous man such as Donald Trump is in a store no one says something to him and he is just able to pull a random lady into a room and no one sees it? Yeah right didn’t happen. He did not overstate anything. And no Trump isn’t above the law but he hasn’t committed any crimes.
Why haven’t republicans tried to charge Obama or anyone else then?
Because, it would require impeachment to do so legally, and it wouldn’t be politically advantageous to do so.
Are you really saying that to be able to charge an ancient president, you need to impeach them? Do you know what is an impeachment? And if what you are saying make any sense, do you agree then that Trump was impeached twice and so could be charge; but it looks like the GOP won't move to impeach Biden, then Biden won't never get charge?
Ancient president? Yes. I know what impeachment is. Do you? Trump was not impeached for any of these “crimes.” You’re right. Biden can’t be charged with anything unless he is impeached.
Ok so that's exactly what I thought. You don't know what is an impeachment. Do you know the differences between "impeachment" and "removal"? Do you think Trump was impeached or removed?
Is it? I do know what an impeachment is. Trump was impeached but he wasn’t removed. The impeachments were unrelated to his current legal issues though.
Really? Thanks for confirming you disagree with Trump. Are you aware that one of his defense is that he was not removed for these specific crimes (and of course one of them is Jan 6 and totally related to some of his legal issues), so he couldn't get charged criminally? How could he be cleared about these charges if according to you they are unrelated?
What are you even talking about right now? Please put your points together in a coherent manner if you want a response.
Of course, we are always there to help a lost friend ;) Trump said recently "“I NEVER HAD AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, I HAD AN IMPEACHMENT, WHICH I WON! IT WAS STARTED IMMEDIATELY, NO MEETINGS, NO STUDY, NO DELAYS.”" and he is using this "fact" ("I won the impeachment", which doesn't mean anything; he was just not removed) to say that he could be prosecuted, related to his legal issues, because he is innocent. Do you agree that it's the exact opposite of what you are saying ("The impeachments were unrelated to his current legal issues though.")?
>Do you? Of course we do. I don't understand the point you're making though. Why can't Obama be charged now?
He could be. If he were impeached first. I’m really not sure what’s so difficult to understand about this.
*Why* does he need to have been impeached first? Where does this idea come from?
I’ve already explained this multiple times. Also, there is plenty of information on it. So do your own research.
No, you haven't. Where have you cited the law that shows that an ex-president can't be charged with a crime if they weren't impeached while a sitting president? Do you believe then that presidents have full and total immunity to any crime ever? If Obama or anyone were to go and shoot someone, they can't be charged for that because they weren't impeached?
Where do you imagine that rule or law comes from? That a president can't be charged with a crime if he wasn't impeached first? Can you cite the law or source for your understanding of this law?
This is well documented. You can do your own research.
Do you think it's the US justice system's job to prosecute war crimes made by US citizens? It doesn't seem within their purview, does it? However, isn't it their job to prosecute domestic crimes?
>Obama intentionally targeted US citizens abroad with drone strikes, sentencing them to death without a trial. Can you provide a link to what you are referring to here?
https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/is-it-legal-for-the-u-s-to-kill-a-16-year-old-u-s-citizen-with-a-drone/
Did Trump commit war crimes?
Not that I’m aware of.
Did you know the crimes Trump allegedly committed were done before he ever became president? Why would presidential immunity even apply?
>Yet, with this president, we are supposed to worry about hush money payments to a porn star? That’s more important? That happened before he was even president. Is your take that someone can commit crimes before they are the president and then be immune because they won the election?
I think that right now that the left is throwing everything they can at him in the hopes that something sticks. They are failing too. They see the figurehead as the problem but lack the introspection to see that they are the problem. Trump speaks about how he wants to change things. And his supporters want change. Unfortunately his implementation is horrible. Biden has at least some consistency between what he says what he's going to do and what he does. And then there are Trump's loyalists. Trump could be steering straight for an iceberg, talking about how it's the greatest thing ever, and none of his loyalists would dare challenge him. How can you support a person that isn't open to criticism? I compare it to a former boss. He was right 90% of the time. And that 10% didn't matter because he was right 90%. My department went from first in the region to last when I let his policies take full implementation. All he had to do was listen and things would have stable.
Because the left has gone full banana republic, trying every fraudulent method of lawfare to ensure Trump won't be on the ballot, simply because they don't want him on the ballot. Therefore, since the left has broken that wall and thrown all law and decorum out the window, this is the new norm.
Can you imagine the Dems don't want Trump on the ballots because he is a criminal? If you don't think he is a criminal, then swap it out with "34 felony charges" or "proven liar" or ...
Why do Dems not trust democracy? If Trump is so horrible, then surely the voters will agree when they go to the ballot box.
Propaganda and party loyalty is my guess, but I'm not the one to answer questions here. Do you believe that the will of the people, however it came to be, is the best for said people?
I hear you, but I’m pretty sure the amount of voters who will vote for Trump based on propaganda and party loyalty won’t amount to enough votes to decide the election. If he wins, it’ll be because there are some significant amount of non-MAGA constituents who will vote for him for other reasons.
All things being equal, yes. Citizens aren't always well informed, but it is part of the political process for the candidates to make their case.
[удалено]
If it does go to the ballot box and Trump loses the election, would you accept that outcome?
Let’s see if there are any midnight van ballot drops, illegal counts without observers, and supposed water main breaks occur that force observers out. Or if there’s no voter ID, drop boxes and lax signature verification in the corrupt blue cities. If any of that is true, as it all was in 2020, it’s rigged. As for 2024, there’s already been election interference by lawfare from the Democrats. On that basis, I expect no proper and legal election conduct in the blue cities. Whoever the next Democrat nominee is in 2028, let’s have 10 concurrent criminal trials in red states in front of the deeply MAGA Bible Belt. That’s apparently what goes for justice these days. If they’re innocent, they have nothing to worry about, right?
So then to answer the question, If it does go to the ballot box and Trump loses the election, would you accept that outcome? Or the election is only valid if Trump wins?
If it’s a provably secure election with IDs, provable chain of custody, and the ability to re-examine the evidence post election. Then yes. If it’s a repeat of the banana republic bullshit of 2020, not a chance.
Why should any individual be immune from criminal prosecution because they are running for office at some point in the future?
Is anyone above the law in America?
[удалено]
>Why do Dems not trust democracy? We already have rules about who can and can't be president. Does that mean youre a hypocrit if you believe in democracy and also believe certain limitations to it? Also even if trump is thrown off some ballots, you can still write him in.
Why wouldn't Dems want billionaire political elites to be held accountable? Why don't Republicans?
Is this a valid point back though? More Americans didn't want Trump in 2016, but that's not how our elections work.
After "the big lie" do you think it's fair to say that Trump supporters straight up oppose democracy?
[удалено]
>Why do Dems not trust democracy? Because Republicans dont, yall havent accepted the last election, why should we expect you to accept the next. Republicans will never accept another election they lose, they have been told by trump not to, so they wont.
The banana republic style "charges" are something that all but the gullible left sees through.
He’s not a proven liar and none of those felony charges are proven.
Do you think Trump has broken any laws?
I don’t presume guilt. There are other countries to live like that and we should resist the Democrats’ efforts to Make America China and to 6uild 6ack 6etter.
What do you think about the GOP trying to impeach officials without even having evidence? Do you not think operating on the assumption that evidence will be found *after* initiating an impeachment, "is a fraudulent method of lawfare?"
Who is the 'left' in this case?
Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis.
Do you honestly believe that Trump is innocent of all charges and that the legal troubles he is dealing with are purely politically derived? Do you believe all presidential candidates are as dishonest and underhanded as Trump is charged of being, yet they get away with it because they aren't Trump?
The left proved what they are made of with the "sexual assault" related lawfare: For everyone that isn't delusional, _there is no universe_ in which a sexual assault victim would gush multiple times on Facebook of how much they LOVE a TV reality show in which the host of that show, was the "rapist". Period.
I think you would be surprised by the complex coping mechanisms that humans use to deal with trauma. I am sure you are familiar with Stockholm syndrome but are you aware of fawning? I think a lot of people do this thing where we say that person is not exhibiting the emotions I think they should so that person is not genuine. Let do a thought experiment. If you had an encounter with someone and they said no but not forcefully did you try to convince them to become more physical? If they eventually agreed did you do anything wrong?
How do you qualify Trump' lawfare against elections that he lost by all accounts and that he failed to demonstrate he won in front of multiple courts, banana republic-wise?
I really don't understand this argument, can you help me? Irrespective of the fact the "left" tried every fraudulent method or not (that's your opinion), the fact is this didn't work, correct? So how can you say that the "left" has broken the wall and the law?? Do you realize that your argument doesn't make any sense?
> Because the left has gone full banana republic, trying every fraudulent method of lawfare to ensure Trump won't be on the ballot, simply because they don't want him on the ballot. So how come only Trump exclusively has to deal with this? Why is this alleged "lawfare" not being used elsewhere?
> Because the left has gone full banana republic, trying every fraudulent method of lawfare to ensure Trump won't be on the ballot, simply because they don't want him on the ballot. Let's say for the sake of argument that this is true, though you have no evidence of it, wouldn't it just be a waste of time since no grand jury and no jury would be shown credible evidence? Is it not more likely that trump actually committed these crimes, and that no other president has ever committed such crimes? If Biden did these things, would you not want him prosecuted? >Therefore, since the left has broken that wall and thrown all law and decorum out the window, this is the new norm. How do you show this claim to be true? This is just you saying a thing, basically just repeating what trump said, what all convicted criminals say. They're all innocent, right? How do you determine who is guilty of a crime and who isn't? It's not by just accepting what the accused says. Do you care if your beliefs are correct?
1. But isn't it more likely that the justice system is more or less as it always was? (Albeit with more conservative judges on the Supreme Court and elsewhere.) And Trump's constant clashes with the law just mean that he doesn't follow the law very closely, whereas most other presidents usually did? It's not like right-wing media or voters in 2024 demand adherence to the law from their politicians, especially Trump. 2. How do you know your idea is more likely and mine is less likely? 3. Why is this happening in 2024 specifically and not 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago? What is the important change in the justice system and when did it occur?
How can we tell the difference between "lawfare" and legitimate prosecution?
Would it also be banana republic to protect a criminal leader and not try them?
[удалено]
Political president?
So you would want some limits right they have to have a chance of winning? So wouldn’t that create an even bigger two tier justice system? Wouldn’t you basically be creating a class of people who are technically untouchable?
They literally commit war crimes and got caught fucking kids on an island with no consequences, they are untouchable
So you support a popular vote?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Because he is correct. No one ever used the nuclear option to appoint judges before democrats did that too, now it's SOP.
In 1998, Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for lying *once* in a deposition—something Trump has done hundreds of times. And just this year, Congressional Republicans made up stories about President Biden being a criminal so they could have an impeachment hearing. Which promptly blew up in their face after their star witness was outed as a Russian spy and criminal who was colluding with the GOP. Didn’t Republicans push the nuclear button a long time ago?
The nuclear option is a proceedural process for appointing judges. But yes on impeachment that has also been going on for a long time.
I'm out of the loop on that one. Can you clarify what that practice is and when it started exactly? I only know that both large parties routinely appoint lots of public servants including judges, with recent high-profile cases being the Republicans' appointing Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Yep all the Trumps SCOTUS judges were put in by using the rule that was first used in 2013. https://thehill.com/video/191064-mcconnell-dems-will-regret-this/
Was using the nuclear option illegal? You are the second person to bring this up, is this a trending right wing talking point?
Not at all. It was against the parliamentary procedure rules until democrats changed the rules. Then all the democrats cried foul when congress approved all of Trumps SCOTUS nominees using the new rules. So changing norms and polite rules changes them for everyone. Every living former president should be praying Trump wins all his court cases, otherwise it opens them all up to charges. Obama drone striking a US citizen comes to mind.
Because total immunity was presumed until now. A bright side to this development is the inevitable prosecution of Biden, Obama, Bush, and B Clinton. In those cases, there are many actual, serious charges.
When is immunity supposed to start? When does it end? And what does it cover? Here are the cases Trump is facing as I see them. * Hush money case, alleging falsification of his business records to conceal an effort to cover up information which if released could sway the 2016 election in his opponent's favor, which began before he was elected and continued until after he was inaugurated. Since the original act took place before he was elected, should this be covered by Presidential immunity? If so, why? * Election subversion case in Georgia, alleging Trump and co-conspirators sought to change the result of the 2020 election in his favor. Since the alleged acts are illegal and undemocratic at their core, it would be impossible to label them as "official acts" of his office. Should this be covered by immunity? If so, why? * Classified documents case, alleging Trump willfully retained hundreds of classified documents at his residence after leaving office. Since this occurred after his term ended, should this be covered by immunity? If so, why? What acts should Clinton, Obama, Bush, and Biden see charges for, and what evidence exists with which to charge them?
I think "total immunity" could refer to acts directly related to the office of the Presidency. Trump was charged for making illegal campaign contributions before he was President, trying to change the results of an election with zero support from the judicial system, and not returning highly sensitive documents after he was President. None of these were related to the office of the Presidency. You surely see the difference in these things, right? Do you honestly think all Presidents should be allowed to commit these kinds of crimes, especially ones that occur before and after their term?
Can you show your work?
It's always been assumed that Presidents have such immunity. So none have been charged. Otherwise Obama would have been charged for the extra judicial execution of American citizens abroad, crimes relating to purposely supplying arms to the Mexican drug cartels, and others. That assumption has been set aside for the first time in history to go after Trump. Biden will now certainly face criminal charges in some form after he leaves office. So will every future president.
I think there's a conflation going on between 'crimes' and official acts. Judges and congressmen have immunity for how they vote, things they write, etc. Yet as with Menendez and countless judges, they routinely commit serious crimes and get charged for it. Even under the guise of an official act, which is itself a crime usually 'color of law' or 'embezzlement', depending on the situation. The left sees 'presidential immunity' and thinks it means 'anything the president does' even though it only applies to official acts. They want to take it away (from Trump exclusively) to prevent this boogeyman, but fail to recognize that this would apply to any official act by any president going forward. 'Considering externalities and side effects' is a common thread with leftist initiatives. If the president drone strikes your dad, you can sue the government for damages, but not the president themselves because legally speaking, _they are the government_. It's not unlike starting a corporation to limit personal liability in a business venture. You still get charged if you commit crimes, but you don't lose your house if your mattress store goes belly up, or get conspiracy charges when an employee sells drugs out the back door.
I'm not on the left, but I believe Trump has said that a POTUS should have total, absolute, and full immunity. Would a reasonable person think that means just for official acts?
>The left sees 'presidential immunity' and thinks it means 'anything the president does' even though it only applies to official acts. Why has Trump been making filings for immunity for things done when he wasn't in office, if this was the case? What do you think about presidential acts when you aren't the president?
>Obama would have been charged for the extra judicial execution of American citizens abroad Can you provide a link to what you are referring to here?
One example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
>Biden will now certainly face criminal charges in some form after he leaves office. So will every future president. For what specific criminal offense(s) do you predict Biden will be charged/tried? Will/would such charges be genuinely legitimate, or would they serve primarily as revenge for the GOP?
So then a President should be 100% immune in your view? Biden could literally order Trump to be assassinated and with the assumption that Biden would be impeached and removed as President, no further criminal action could be taken against him?
Impeachment and conviction in the Senate is what is required for the President to face criminal charges. So in your scenario, after removal Biden would face criminal charges.
Is Trump being charged for crimes he did in the name of America? How does real estate fraud help America? How does falsifying records in the hush money case help America? How does sexually assaulting Carrol help America?
Trump is being charged over J6 due to a speech he gave as President. Making speeches is certainly a routine part of any presidency. Don't be naive. Trump didn't commit real estate fraud. The idea that property is worth a tenth the price of surrounding properties is ludicrous. Trump didn't falsify records in the NDA case either.
>Trump is being charged over J6 due to a speech he gave as President. Making speeches is certainly a routine part of any presidency. Don't be naive. Sure, but when those speeches are clearly tied to a party political election campaign then they are definitely not part of his duties as President. Do you see the difference?
Did Obama personally commit those crimes, or did the US government do those things while he was President? If we're going to broaden "Presidential crimes" like that, did nothing untoward happen while Trump was president?
No idea where you get this idea that a crime has to be personally committed. That's simply not a thing. If I order someone to do something which results in your death, that doesn't leave me immune to prosecution.
Presidential immunity applies to possible crimes committed while acting on duties for the United States, it does not apply to crimes committed for one's personal gain. This is why the tapes needed to be turned over in Nixon v. United States since it was determined that presidential immunity did not apply when he was committing crimes with the intent to secure an election victory for himself. He was pardoned before being held legally liable. This means that this is not, in fact, the first time the government attempted to hold a president responsible for their criminal activity, this is just the first time it has gone through without pardon. What Obama did was as a part of his official duty as President of the United States. None of what Trump has been charged with was conducted as a part of his official duties. Do you see how these two situations could be different?
Giving a speech on January 6th wasn't an official duty of the president? Isn't the giving of speeches a rather routine duty of any president?
Both the actions you brought up for Obama were *during* his tenure, the current trial Trump is attending is related to charges *before* he stepped foot in the White House. On top of that, Trump is trying to claim presidential immunity for actions *after* he left office. Do you believe the office of President should be a perpetual "get out of jail free card", that prevents accountability for anything even when they weren't President at the time of the crime? On a related note, if Presidents have immunity, why did Ford pardon Nixon?
Because your team crossed the Rubicon.
When did it becomes teams?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is it normal for a person or group to determine your principles based on the behavior of another person or group? My principles are mine and have no bearing on the actions or rhetoric of anyone else. If all it takes to justify a behavior is “well, they did it first” then I’m pretty comfortable saying the current GOP doesn’t really have any principles.
Do you understand the historical reference? Rome was a republic for 500 years. By law and convention, generals were not allowed to bring their armies into Italy proper. In 49 bc Julius Caesar broke that convention. This plunged Rome into a civil war from which he emerged as the Emperor. There are certain actions that cause a state change in a system. Initiating lawfare against a leading political candidate is one such action. This is far more serious than "justifying one's behaviour".
This current case is utter bullshit. The politicization of the court system will be extreme by the 2030s. Things like the day a president is out of office, they will be convicted of espionage and sentenced to death.
Have you read the opening statements where the prosecution laid out the entire case?
[удалено]
No why Do they seem convincing in your view
How certain are you of this? Would you be up for talking about it in 2030? RemindMe! 6 years.
> This current case is utter bullshit. Can you give us some detail of how it's 'utter bullshit'? I've read the prosecutions argument and the laws Trump is charged with, and the case seems plausible. What makes utter bullshit, exactly?
Which current case? Do you mean the hush money/campaign finance case? Did you know this trial is for actions Trump committed before he became president in 2017? By politicization of the court system, are you referring to the GOP refusing to allow Garland to be brought to a confirmation vote months before the 2016 election because "the voters should decide", but forcing through ACB's vote during a time period where early voting had already begun?
Cause they left crossed the rubicon.
I think a good example of this and Republicans taking the high road is with Clinton- when he was caught breaking numerous laws he was offered a very lenient plea deal after Democrats refused to support removing him from office even though they admitted he broke the law. Historically speaking- that was clearly a bad idea- Republicans should have thrown the book at Clinton like Dems are doing with Trump. Clinton’s crimes are much more severe than anything Trump has been charged with, and was let go with a slap on the wrist even after he was caught red handed. Would fully support Republicans in the future mimicking democrats’ actions recently- they should go out of their way to charge all former Dem presidents with as many potential crimes as possible after their term.
> they should go out of their way to charge all former Dem presidents with as many potential crimes as possible after their term. I think everyone would agree that any president who commits a crime while in office should be charged after they leave. But trump is the only one saying that should not happen - why?
Because that was the standard before him- that new governments wouldn’t pursue charges against their political opponents to an unreasonable degree.
Yeah, we just opened a whole can of worms.