Serendipity Records
Well-known member
You mean it's all true and can't find a single argument against it all. Otherwise -- feel free to find one thing that is false and provide references.
Should a POTUS (any POTUS) be granted immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office?
- Thread starter PorterhouseMusic
- Start date
Serendipity Records
Well-known member
Soo important to elect Biden...
Serendipity Records
Well-known member
According to you it's already quite obvious. How come it seems that half the US is willing to elect such an obvious criminal we wonders. Triumph of democracy bb! rofl
Seeker of Rock
The One and Only
That’s why I respect your intelligent responses.
Yeah meant for Lou but you keep things real, and that is respectable
Last edited:
You have to get the best criminal for the job.
60's guy
Well-known member
What is necessary for Congressional impeachment proceedings to begin? Lying to Congress while under oath during a Congressional investigative hearing was exactly why Clinton was impeached. It was, and still is, as simple as that. The Democrat controlled Senate verdict was "Not Guilty" as in not guilty of lying under oath during a Congressional hearing. Clinton wasn't up on charges for receiving a hum job in the Oval Office.
More than once here, you have stated that you believe that any politician (or citizen) who has committed a verifiable crime is not above the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
Here's my question:
Do you think that the Senate made an unbiased decision when they deemed Bill Clinton not guilty of lying under oath to Congress?
Answer my question!!!! LOL
leddy
Well-known member
A simple majority in the house starts the process.
Correct. To reiterate, the senate vote is not the same as jury trial. Juries are selected for their impartiality, and their identities are not known unless they choose to make them known. Therefore, a senate vote is subject to political influence, as I’m sure you know.
Affirmative.
No, as I’ve stated, I think an unbiased vote in the senate is impossible. It’s really a vote to decide if they should be removed from office, rather than a vote of guilt or innocence.
I’m still not sure why we’re discussing Bill Clinton. Please clear that up, thank you.
Serendipity Records
Well-known member
I'm still not sure why we're discussing Donald Trump...
If it's a question of him being able to become next President, well, let The People decide. Somehow I think that will be less "politically influenced", as you say, than a trial in NYC...
Dave Matthews
Dave's not here
Because he's a threat to US democracy.
leddy
Well-known member
There’s a simple way he could have avoided all the legal messes he’s in.
For myself, I've been invited by business associates to commit fraud and I declined. I’ve hired accountants to do my taxes and never lied to them or asked them to do anything illegal. I’ve never committed sexual assault. Wouldn’t you know it, I’ve never been arrested or even sued? Hell, I’ve never even been audited. Crazy.
60's guy
Well-known member
Wrong answer. A simple majority of biased opinions in the House cannot initiate impeachment proceedings until first having heard testimony from all parties within investigation conducted by the judiciary committee. Similar to Grand Jury procedures. Correct me if I am wrong.
That is sheer bull crap! The Senate IS the jury.
You're not sure why we're discussing Bill Clinton? I'm discussing it because more often than not the Senate, (jury) continually fails to determine the guilt or innocence of a member of their party.
How old are you? Do you remember Watergate? Nixon didn't orchestrate the break in. What he did, though, stupidly enough, was orchestrate a cover up. That was a crime. Members of the Republican party advised Nixon to resign before he would be (as you stated) either be removed from office or be judged guilty.
My dad was a Nixon fan. I wasn't. We'd argue with each other. My dad passed 40 years ago. I can only imagine what our conversations would be like today in the era of Biden v Trump. My dad insisted that it was awesome that Nixon opened the door with China. Yeah dad, that's worked out quite well.
leddy
Well-known member
Ok…I was unaware you were expecting a full essay.
It’s not bull crap if you read and understand what I said. The senate functions as the jury, but there’s differences compared to a courtroom. The key one being that the senate can’t really be impartial. Go back and read my post without deleting parts.
We’re saying the same thing. Why are you so agitated?
I can’t help but think you’ve got me confused with someone else. I’m not sure why you are telling me about Nixon now.
Again, go back and read my post without deleting parts.
Last edited:
Serendipity Records
Well-known member
So, what can be really impartial? A NYC jury?
leddy
Well-known member
More impartial, anyway.
60's guy
Well-known member
If I were expecting to receive an essay I would have asked Grimtraveler a question (no disrespect to Grim intended). Snarky response on my part? For sure. It's like looking in a mirror, ain't it?
I agree with you that the Senate is incapable of functioning as an impartial jury, seemingly accepted and expected by everyone, in contrast to the notion that every potential jurist in every courtroom throughout this country has to demonstrate his or hers impartiality prior to being seated on a panel of jurists. Personally, I think that once a POTUS has been impeached by the House the Senate should be bypassed, leaving the judgment of guilt or innocence to be decided upon by the Supreme Court. What ya think?
Read my post and feel to delete parts.
leddy
Well-known member
Whatever dude. I try my best to give back what I’m given. Plenty of people here I can totally respect and get along with even if we disagree. If you see me be a dick to BP, that doesn’t reflect on how I feel about you.
What does that gain us? The current SC pretty much demonstrates that they’re subject to corruption too (Clarence Thomas). If you’re a conservative, I’d think you’d want to avoid changing the constitution.
60's guy
Well-known member
Have I ever said that I see you as being a dick? You haven't.
Okay. I understand now. It's the current SC of imbalance of liberal v conservative opinions that frightens you. Yes?
leddy
Well-known member
I can play this game too. You want the SC to have more power because the current imbalance benefits you, even though you just got done telling me it’s more impartial?
Impeachments are rare, and their process is spelled out in the constitution. This discussion is pointless.