There are more of us than there are of them

[Berzerker]

"I don't watch Fox News, instead I watch journalists who take money from the Russian government and who work for Russia Today, that's how I know the U.S. government is lying about Russia."

The US government lied about Trump. Would you prefer journalists paid by weapons makers who profit from war? Mueller cleared Trump of conspiracy so Dore, Mate and Greenwald were right. Were you? Unless you think the US government always tells the truth and Russia always lies, then its possible for truth tellers to appear on both countries media platforms. Dont look now but there's a commie under your bed.

 

[Lexicus]

The US government lied about Trump. Would you prefer journalists paid by weapons makers who profit from war? Mueller cleared Trump of conspiracy so Dore, Mate and Greenwald were right. Were you? Unless you think the US government always tells the truth and Russia always lies, then its possible for truth tellers to appear on both countries media platforms. Dont look now but there's a commie under your bed.

Mueller did not clear Trump of conspiracy.

 

[Patine]

Mueller did not clear Trump of conspiracy.

Well, de facto, U.S. elected government officials are immune to justice and due process anyways, despite committing high crimes like corruption, abuse of office and the trust, abuse of authority, abdicating their oath of office, war crimes, extra-constitutional overreach, and treason and sedition against their and people ALL THE TIME, and seditiously hiding all evidence against them in obstruction of justice files labeled "classified for national security purposes." These elected officials get a separate judicial process, called 'impeachment,' which has ABSOLUTELY NOTIHNG to due, whatsoever, with due process or justice, and ignores all accountability to their constituents, but relies instead on just favour-calling, nepotism, political vendettas, and closing of political ranks instead - utter non-justice. And, the whole separate system is UTTERLY and COMPLETELY inappropriate, and even an insult and a spit in the face, to the concept of the leadership of the Republic, but is HIGHLY reminiscent of the old British nobility who, when indicted of a crime, could only be tried before their peers in the House of Lords, because the common courts had no power or competence over them. It's time to extend the system of criminal justice every other American is under to the Swamp! And yes, I am saying, that local police SHOULD be able to walk into the President's office and clap them in irons and take them to the local jail to await trial in the common courts on reasonable suspicion of a crime, and have all relevant government documents handed over and opened as evidence in said trial. Nothing else would be appropriate for the head of a Republic, as opposed to many less accountable forms of government.

 

[Lexicus]

Mueller's investigation was impotent from the start, because Mueller knew the President could not be indicted, and so he decided he couldn't explicitly accuse the President of having committed crimes because there would be no court trial and it wouldn't be fair.

US elected officials are not de facto immune, but the President is sure as hell de facto immune when the body that is supposed to remove him is controlled by a party that is in thrall to his cult of personality.

 

[Patine]

Mueller's investigation was impotent from the start, because Mueller knew the President could not be indicted, and so he decided he couldn't explicitly accuse the President of having committed crimes because there would be no court trial and it wouldn't be fair.

US elected officials are not de facto immune, but the President is sure as hell de facto immune when the body that is supposed to remove him is controlled by a party that is in thrall to his cult of personality.

The U.S. President is NOT a monarch or theocrat. Thus, the Constitutional need of his impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate, and otherwise complete immunity to all common courts and criminal procedures AND also being the Head-of-State of a Republic presents a 240-year-old Constitutional contradiction in terms - that can only be resolved one of two ways - either the U.S. President, and all Federal elected officials are fully subject to the same criminal law as every other citizen, OR there is no Republic! Unless that is resolved, the U.S. Constitution has a legal contradiction so grave that, effectively, it has not been the legal governing document for the last 240 years, but a criminal, illegitimate "Costra Nostrum" has governed the nation while placating the people by feeding them a pack of lies!

 

[Lexicus]

Every Republic in existence has some version of the concept of sovereign immunity.

 

[Patine]

Every Republic in existence has some version of the concept of sovereign immunity.

Except Plato's book, that first defined and coined the term, "Republic."

It's still inappropriate, and only encourages and empowers criminal governments, and should end. There is no JUSTIFIABLE reason for it.

 

[Lexicus]

Except Plato's book, that first defined and coined the term, "Republic."

You know the title of that in the original Greek translates to "The Polity" tho right? The Romans coined the term Republic, Res Publica, the Public Thing.

And the Romans most certainly had the concept of sovereign immunity. I forget the details but the consuls (and I believe also the holders of the other magistracies conferring imperium) were certainly immune from any prosecutions while in office.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Every Republic in existence has some version of the concept of sovereign immunity.

And ours isn't even established on firm legal footing, making things pretty muddy. It all relies on Nixon-era memos that were crafted specifically to protect Nixon and relies on Justice Department employees acquiescing to them. The courts have somewhat held up the memos, but it's not an area of the law that has been thoroughly explored and ruled on.

And because of this, those memos go right out the door rhetorically when the GOP is out of power but magically go back in full force when they're back in.

 

[Lexicus]

And ours isn't even established on firm legal footing, making things pretty muddy. It all relies on Nixon-era memos that were crafted specifically to protect Nixon and relies on Justice Department employees acquiescing to them. The courts have somewhat held up the memos, but it's not an area of the law that has been thoroughly explored and ruled on.

And because of this, those memos go right out the door rhetorically when the GOP is out of power but magically go back in full force when they're back in.

I believe that the Justice Department doctrine makes the President into a de facto monarch for what it's worth. It is absurd that the President could literally commit murder and the Justice Department would be unable to indict him.

 

[Patine]

I believe that the Justice Department doctrine makes the President into a de facto monarch for what it's worth. It is absurd that the President could literally commit murder and the Justice Department would be unable to indict him.

The President does commit murder. All the time. Every single U.S. President after Herbert Hoover has thousands, if not millions, of murders on their hands. They just don't personally take the murder weapon themselves, go up to the victims, and personally pull the trigger. But in THESE kinds of case, the precedents of the Nuremberg, ICT-Y, and ICT-R tribunals (all three fully supported by the U.S. Government) says you don't have to do so personally to be criminally fully libel.

 

[Lexicus]

The President does commit murder. All the time. Every single U.S. President after Herbert Hoover has thousands, if not millions, of murders on their hands. They just don't personally take the murder weapon themselves, go up to the victims, and personally pull the trigger. But in THESE kinds of case, the precedents of the Nuremberg, ICT-Y, and ICT-R tribunals (all three fully supported by the U.S. Government) says you don't have to do so personally to be criminally fully libel.

Actually this is a good time to lament how dumb it is that Trump is being impeached over this small potatoes stuff and not for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Of course quite a few of the people in Congress today would have to impeach themselves too...

 

[sophie]

Actually this is a good time to lament how dumb it is that Trump is being impeached over this small potatoes stuff and not for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Of course quite a few of the people in Congress today would have to impeach themselves too...

Matt Taibbi made precisely this point in the most recent episode of Useful Idiots:

 

[rah]

The same was said over Clinten's BJ.
Once you have a target you keep going down the ladder till you find anything that will stick.
Which doesn't mean it's not valid.

 

[El_Machinae]

The President does commit murder.

Obama straight up ordered the execution of a US citizen.

There are lessons here, in politics. It's easier to get a pass for 'making a hard decision', if you're of the team that (correctly or incorrectly) is more associated with being against such things.

Reagan can regulate sulfur and nitrogen oxides
Clinton can pass a crime bill cranking up punishment
Bush runs massive deficits
Obama executes someone without due process
Trump passes a crime bill modifying punishments

Each of those things would have caused way more howling if it were done by the other side. Republicans would be able to pass a carbon tax, if they actually cared. Democrats could increase the military budget. Etc.

 

[Patine]

Obama straight up ordered the execution of a US citizen.

There are lessons here, in politics. It's easier to get a pass for 'making a hard decision', if you're of the team that (correctly or incorrectly) is more associated with being against such things.

Reagan can regulate sulfur and nitrogen oxides
Clinton can pass a crime bill cranking up punishment
Bush runs massive deficits
Obama executes someone without due process
Trump passes a crime bill modifying punishments

Each of those things would have caused way more howling if it were done by the other side. Republicans would be able to pass a carbon tax, if they actually cared. Democrats could increase the military budget. Etc.

Are you saying Bush is ONLY indictable for massive deficits? He's the biggest war criminal AND the biggest violator of the U.S. Constitution in my lifetime (and I'm 44 this January). And, when may I ask, is the U.S. Government, supposedly fighting "Terror" going to bring to justice one of the worst terrorist organizations - by the stated current definition of a terrorist organization distributed by the U.S. Department of State, in fact - in the post-WW2 era - the Central Intelligence Agency?

 

[Sommerswerd]

You know the title of that in the original Greek translates to "The Polity" tho right? The Romans coined the term Republic, Res Publica, the Public Thing.

And the Romans most certainly had the concept of sovereign immunity. I forget the details but the consuls (and I believe also the holders of the other magistracies conferring imperium) were certainly immune from any prosecutions while in office.

Correct, and this in fact was the very issue at the core of Julius Caesar's quest to become Dictator-for-life, culminating in his assignation. Caesar's numerous enemies in the Roman Senate wanted him tried and convicted of various crimes, including unpaid debts, bribery etc., but so long as he remained in office he had sovereign immunity and couldn't be convicted of anything. So he kept running for various elected offices, Praetor, Counsul, etc., taking advantages of various loopholes in the term-limits laws to switch from one office to the other and then back to the other again (similar to what Putin was doing). Eventually when he ran out of loopholes he just had himself declared Dictator-For-Life. Ultimately they literally had to kill him to get him out of office.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Each of those things would have caused way more howling if it were done by the other side. Republicans would be able to pass a carbon tax, if they actually cared. Democrats could increase the military budget. Etc.

Don't look now, but that is... quietly... exactly how they've always been running the government... through a semi-choreographed farce with bait-and-switches and carefully crafted facades of supposed party platforms. One side rants and raves about how much they are against something, then uses their reputation as political cover to do exactly that, whenever they determine that its "best for the country". Then they get voted out and the other side comes in, based on another set of promises, which they quietly abandon, in favor of doing some other thing that goes against their reputation/platform, again based on some nebulous "best for the country" determination.

 

[Patine]

Don't look now, but that is... quietly... exactly how they've always been running the government... through a semi-choreographed farce with bait-and-switches and carefully crafted facades of supposed party platforms. One side rants and raves about how much they are against something, then uses their reputation as political cover to do exactly that, whenever they determine that its "best for the country". Then they get voted out and the other side comes in, based on another set of promises, which they quietly abandon, in favor of doing some other thing that goes against their reputation/platform, again based on some nebulous "best for the country" determination.

Turno Pacifico?

 

[Patine]

Are you saying Bush is ONLY indictable for massive deficits? He's the biggest war criminal AND the biggest violator of the U.S. Constitution in my lifetime (and I'm 44 this January). And, when may I ask, is the U.S. Government, supposedly fighting "Terror" going to bring to justice one of the worst terrorist organizations - by the stated current definition of a terrorist organization distributed by the U.S. Department of State, in fact - in the post-WW2 era - the Central Intelligence Agency?

I notice @El_Machinae's I made my above post in response to got three like, but this one didn't get acknowledged at all. Do people here REALLY believe that Bush is ONLY guilty of driving up the debt in terms of high crimes in office, and nothing else as high, very serious crimes in office go, and the CIA is a legitimate and above board organization that can be trusted as the one of the main implements fighting "terrorism," and don't deserve to, themselves, be dragged in as "terrorists?"