Do you agree with this statement

[Zincwarrior]

It was absolute for every president UNTIL Trump.

Why did Nixon need a pardon?

 

[martybegan]

so as long as their party control Congress there is nothing that a POTUS can do that they could be charged for.

Does not sound like a free country to me

The other option is every President facing countless charges the second he leaves office.

Biden could be prosecuted for not securing the border, protecting his son from charges, murdering Gazans by supplying Israel, Murdering Russian Soldiers by supplying Ukraine, etc etc etc.

 

[Lesh]

Since any average person could easily do the job of the potus, everyone should be held to the same standards. Let's not make the job out to be harder than it really is.

Wow

 

[Godboy]

Why did Nixon need a pardon?

Because he was a republican.

 

[martybegan]

Why did Nixon need a pardon?

Nixon didn't need a pardon, he got one as part of the deal for him resigning instead of putting the country through an impeachment.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Because the President was not immune.

 

[Independent thinker]

A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function. Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term end. Even events that 'cross the line' must fall under total immunity, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad.

I look at it like this: I see now why a president does have full immunity so that partisan politics can't try taking a president or an ex-president running for president out with a bunch of kangaroo investigations and charges. It must go through impeachments and they purposely set the bar high on that so the same partisan politics can't take someone out. Ultimately, the voters are supposed to decide at election time and that is why the dems have resorted to trying to take Trump off the ballot, because they want to suppress votes on a massive scale in order to win an election because they haven't been able to do it by malicious prosecution in the courts.

 

[Godboy]

The other option is every President facing countless charges the second he leaves office.

Biden could be prosecuted for not securing the border, protecting his son from charges, murdering Gazans by supplying Israel, Murdering Russian Soldiers by supplying Ukraine, etc etc etc.

How about for conspiring with Trump prosecutors? How about his backdoor moves to get Hunter off the hook? How about for ignoring immigrations laws, or for violating the constitutional rights of millions with his mass censorship campaign? How about for cocaine in the White House, or how about for not controlling his dangerous dogs that bite everyone? How about for ecoterrorism when he blew up that pipeline?

 

[JGalt]

No, it's a thread demonstrating Trump, his lawyers, and supporters are wrong.

Presidential immunity is not 'absolute.'

Good! Then we can try Barack Obama for murder and war crimes in the drone strike that killed the 16-year-old son of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, as well as his first strike on Yemen that killed 55 people including 21 children, 10 of which were under the age of five. Additionally, there were 12 women, five of them pregnant, who were also among those who were murdered in this strike. These blundered acts of murder by not only President Obama, but the U.S. government, are morally reprehensible.

Then we can move on to Joe Biden, who committed quid pro quo while dealing with Ukraine while he was Vice President. As well as all those classified documents he had scattered all over the place. Vice Presidents have no business being in possession of classified documents.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The other option is every President facing countless charges the second he leaves office.

Biden could be prosecuted for not securing the border, protecting his son from charges, murdering Gazans by supplying Israel, Murdering Russian Soldiers by supplying Ukraine, etc etc etc.

Outside of protecting his son from charges, the rest break no US law. And if Biden is doing that, he should be punished if he is alive when he leaves office.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I look at it like this: I see now why a president does have full immunity so that partisan politics can't try taking a president or an ex-president running for president out with a bunch of kangaroo investigations and charges. It must go through impeachments and they purposely set the bar high on that so the same partisan politics can't take someone out. Ultimately, the voters are supposed to decide at election time and that is why the dems have resorted to trying to take Trump off the ballot, because they want to suppress votes on a massive scale in order to win an election because they haven't been able to do it by malicious prosecution in the courts.

If the leader of a country is above the law, that country will not remain free for long.

 

[martybegan]

How about for conspiring with Trump prosecutors? How about his backdoor moves to get Hunter off the hook? How about for ignoring immigrations laws, or for violating the constitutional rights of millions with his mass censorship campaign? How about for cocaine in the White House, or how about for not controlling his dangerous dogs that bite everyone? How about for ecoterrorism when he blew up that pipeline?

All of that and more. And nothing would make me happier than making him spend his dying days defending against those lawsuits, but it's simply not Constitutional unless he is first impeached, and then removed from office specifically for those reasons.

 

[JoeB131]

He knowingly executed a 16 year old minor US citizen with no trial, no jury.

You mean the 16 year old who was staying at a terrorist training camp?

That was a legal execution under the legislation giving the president authority to strike at any Al Qaeda facilities.

Next.

 

[kaz]

If the President's action is to machine gun the Republican members of Congress, thats not a real recourse.

Yes, clearly if the President machine guns the Senate our concern is to ensure the smooth transfer of power. On another subject, how many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

That actually sounded good to you, vermin? Wow ....

 

[Foxfyre]

A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function. Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term end. Even events that 'cross the line' must fall under total immunity, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad.

There is some truth in this as the malicious of the opposition could keep the President perpetually in court by suing or prosecuting for all manner of things, most of which would probably be manufactured. The President should not be immune to removal from office for bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors in his job though which is why the Constitution includes provision for impeachment.

The Democrats misused that provision and denied President Trump due process when they misused it which even high ranking Democrats have admitted.

The Republicans in my opinion were wrong to impeach Bill Clinton for crimes unrelated to his job as President which, by most standards, did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. At least Clinton did actually commit crimes--perjury, obstruction of justice--as was affirmed by a New York judge, the Arkansas Bar, the Supreme Court.

 

[martybegan]

Outside of protecting his son from charges, the rest break no US law. And if Biden is doing that, he should be punished if he is alive when he leaves office.

One can find laws they broke, just like is being done with Trump.

Find me the person, and I can find you the crime.

 

[JoeB131]

The Pardon was part of the deal with him Resigning instead of being Impeached, so it never was clarified.

Wasn't the Paula Jones stuff from BEFORE he was President?

Impeachment and Removal means there isn't blanket Immunity.

Actually, no it wasn't. Ford ONLY issued the pardon AFTER prosecutors started talking about going after Nixon after he left office.

The part that got him in legal trouble (Lying about the Blow Job) was AFTER he was president.

Impeachement and removal is a practical impossibility if your party ignores all evidence. In fact, Mitch's argument for the Second Impeachment was that since Trump had already left office, there was no need to impeach him because he was liable for civil and criminal charges once out of office.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Yes, clearly if the President machine guns the Senate our concern is to ensure the smooth transfer of power. On another subject, how many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

That actually sounded good to you, vermin? Wow ....

Thats the argument. If the judges agree, its the end of our Democracy, immediately.

 

[JoeB131]

Nixon didn't need a pardon, he got one as part of the deal for him resigning instead of putting the country through an impeachment.

Nope. A pardon was never part of the resignation deal. It was only issued after the Special Prosecutor started talking about filing charges after Nixon resigned.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One can find laws they broke, just like is being done with Trump.

Find me the person, and I can find you the crime.

still seems better than the leader of the country being above the law, perhaps we would get better conduct from our presidents