If only there was some indication that hinted at what was just being discussed,
but alas there isn’t.
So if a sitting president started shooting people in the White House, he wouldn’t immediately be arrested, but instead, they would wait for an impeachment hearing to get rid of him? I don’t believe that, do you?
Not to take this discussion off topic, but I do not agree with your assessment. The Bill of Rights essential states what the Government cannot do. Rather than enumerating positive rights, the Constitution asserts negative rights–freedom of speech, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, and a fair trial.
This. Although I would say no one is above the law, but the law is flawed, and those flaws extend outward into the practice and perception of the law and as a result some people appear to be above the law. In reality anybody can exploit those flaws if they have enough money and influence, it’s still an equal opportunity system. Any child could grow up to be a corrupt president of the United States some day and manipulate the law to avoid the consequences of their actions.
A couple years ago, I met the FBI agent who led the investigation that brought down Jordan Belfort (the Wolf of Wall Street guy). He is actually more like Joe Pesci than Kyle Chandler (which would have been awesome, but I digress).
He was saying that one of the problems with these sort of investigations is that they take years and often overlap multiple DA administrations. And with each new DA, they have different priorities.
But I think it speaks to how if you have enough money and wealth, you can hid your criminal wrongdoing or make applying the law such a pain in the ass it isn’t worth it unless you do something horrible.
Trump mostly gets away with stuff because he’s good at being a pain in the ass and the crimes he is charged with are mostly esoteric financial stuff most people don’t understand.
I think I got it now.
The law really is for the little people not for the moneyed class.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Hillary Clinton.
That’s not exactly a new concept. Trump, in particular, poses a different problem in that it is difficult to explain to Trumpers the difference between prosecuting a criminal and using the power of the government to punish your political rival. They are incapable of understanding the difference, the same way they fail to understand the difference between election fraud, and childish whining about losing fair and square.
Generally because the SDMB is made up of relative smart, sane, literate people. Generally.
It’s simply due to bias: if Trump had did what Hillary did, Dopers would calling for his head.
Me? I think both Trump and Hillary should be in prison. But I tend to look at things objectively…
And especially with white-collar crime, the DAs and LEAs often have to face a public pressure about “go get the ‘real’ criminals” i.e. prioritize those who are robbing or shooting or making my streets unsafe. Sure, nail those corrupt fat cats, but they are not going anywhere and at best they’d be making a deal to land in Club Fed so why rush.
Right. Going after the fat cats is high-effort, slow results. And while some highly placed types may fold and cop a plea right away just so that they may protect assets and keep their delicate selves away from true hard time, others will be more confident that they are in a position to make the LEAs say it’s not worth the trouble.
Impeachment removes presidents from office?
The camera-hungry fools he uses to scare the shoeless rubes and keep his donation grift going aren’t the real lawyers keeping him out of jail.
What exactly are you claiming that “Hillary did” that was illegal? With specific charges and reliable cites, please.
So many conservatives at this point have just made up their minds that Hillary MUST have done something really lock-her-up bad, because that’s an axiom of conservative folklore by now, but they can’t substantiate any allegations of actual lawbreaking.
Being a Clinton in the first degree with conspiratorial intent to remain so.
An impeachment conviction is the only way to remove a sitting president. The shorthand of using the term impeachment to mean the whole process is pretty standard, if technically incorrect. It doesn’t have to result in removing the president, but it’s the only way to do so.
I think there are two ways to go with this question when the OP puts in Donald Trump as the example.
Are rich people above the law meaning that if you can afford top attorneys are you de facto less likely to be charged or, if charged, less likely to be convicted than the rest of us? And even if convicted get a lighter sentence? Empirically I think that in the US we would have to agree to that.
Or is it about Trump qua President being above the law? Nixon held to a theory (forgive me but I can’t remember the name of it or who came up with it but I don’t think it is the Unity Theory) that yes, the President as the executor of US Law is above the law similar to how The Monarch of the United Kingdom is above the law since the law is carried out in their name. Remember he said, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal”. So by that theory Trump (and all of the other presidents) are above the law in their official capacity of President. Two things though, even if true they are not above state law and I believe that this theory has been pretty well refuted.
I think it was conspiring with Vince Foster to traffic kids through a pizza place to Bengazi with the records kept on an unsecured mail server.
What laws has Trump broken? Trump is probably 100 times cleaner than Dirty Joe Biden and his dirty son Hunter!!!
Here’s the issue with what you got here. While there may be something about Hunter, it’s speculation at best, and that speculation is mostly/totally hearsay by one side that stands to benefit from said hearsay, but nothing has been presented to us.
Same thing with Trumps claims of the other sides election fraud - where is the evidence, where is your lawyers pressing forth with a case of mass voter fraud anywhere? All such claims, though filed, were never put forth in front of a judge, all such claims of mass voter fraud were withdrawn by team Trump at the bench and minor things were perused instead. I’m sorry, I may as well be in the show me state and that’s where Trump never once came through. And that’s a big problem. He seems to want blind obedience and refuses to present evidence he says he has. I say put up or shut up, shit or get off the pot and show us what you got.
And the red flag that what he accused the other side of doing (election fraud), he got caught doing himself. We can first hand ourselves see some of Trump’s crimes, such as attempted election fraud. We can hear Trump’s own voice demanding that votes be ‘found’ for him and mentioning prison to the person Trump was talking to. This is just one example.