The same system we’ve been using for 250 years.
If it was Lincoln would have been taken out by a bunch of slavers who conveniently moved to DC and sat on a jury finding him guilty of conspiring with the moon to destroy the sun.
Is there a point you are trying to make here?
It's pretty obvious. If you can convict anyone in any office with a jury selected from the inhabitants of Washington DC (where all federal office holders go or interact with) then all you need to do to control the entire federal government is populate Washington DC with insanely biased zealots.
What happens then when it just so happens that the forces which promote larger subsidies and bureaucratic sprawl dictate the local population? What happens when the political issue then comes to be the bureaucratic sprawl vs the average citizen?
If what you say was true, then the slavers missed an easy opportunity to subvert Lincoln.
The fact is it wouldn't have worked. Lincoln had supreme court justices put under house arrest. Anyone who tried to summon him to face charges in DC would have found themselves in an army stockade, and that's exactly what Trump should have done and should do at the earliest opportunity. It is after all, war by other means.
No congressmen, Senator, or judge has ever faced prosecution? Wow that’s news to me.
Not for official acts without impeachment.
I’m sure there are plenty of examples
Well if you're sure then there must be examples.
are you ascribing to the theory that if someone acts in “an official capacity” then they are and should be immune from prosecution even if their act was entirely motivated by personal gain?
You are just making up legal doctrine which does not exist in law or precedent. (much like qualified immunity or standing when they were introduced)
Nobody swears to execute their duties "so long as there is no personal gain" nor has Trump been accused of any crime where personal gain is claimed to be a factor. "entirely motivated by personal gain" is also thought crime territory.
What does have a long history of precedent is judges not handing questions of fact to juries when the Prima facie there is no way to prove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is not possible to prove any official duty was done solely for personal gain (except confession) since by definition performing as an office holder is motivation a reasonable person could not discount.
In other words you could never prove Trump didn't think the election was stolen (except by confession), and if he thought it was stolen it was his duty to try and fix it as best he could.
Or how about if a VP decided to use the power of US foreign policy for the sole purpose of getting a foreign prosecutor fired just to protect his son? Is that individual (rightfully) immune?
You are the one who cares about "sole motivations", not me. "A motivation" is enough.
Biden was (things change) de facto immune. Whether I agree with it or not is entirely besides the point. What matters is that if the left-tribe thinks they can tip the table and keep playing, they should take care about the number of "me"s they are creating. Polls say there are already too many.
Ask a slaver. This isn't about reality but who decides.
This is a debate site so it’s supposed to be about examining rational thought, but you’d have to offer some for that conversation to take place.
This is the reality: The purpose of the impeachment clause which implies immunity from other forms of prosecution is to prevent small pockets of radicals from having veto power over the federal government. Even if the first radicals to try were morally right, all other factions would then need to engage in the same form of warfare which would lead to a legitimacy crises the federal government would not survive.
The first radicals could have been the slavers. You could very easily find jury pools in the south that would hang Lincoln after 23 seconds of deliberation and no evidence. They didn't control the institutions required to pull that off, they thought secession was the path of least resistance. Yet if they had tried the supreme court would certainly have ruled exactly I describe above and if there was any danger that they did not Lincoln would have 'persuaded' one or two justices.
The pocket of radicals right now are DC and Manhattan. Atlanta GA is also a very biased location but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a hung jury.
The deep blue inner cities are the plantations of the modern era. Authority is not given to them to decide the fate of the nation. Anyone who pretends they have that authority is the de jure aggressor in the next civil war.
Talking about what Trump really did or should have done, and what the laws do imply when consistently applied is something I have done and will do again, but that does not change the fact that this nation will not endure for three cycles where candidates are vetoed by juries and judges doubted my hundreds of millions. It may not survive one such cycle.
That is why the constitution exists. To separate powers. To enumerate responsibilities and checks. It doesn't guarantee justice, it tries to ensure stability so that justice can eventually come about without wars. Still it fails at that because sometimes people care more about what they see as justice than the continued existence of the federal government.
I am one such person. So were the slavers. So were the abolitionists. I do not delude myself or try to gaslight others though. I know I can't just throw the constitution over my shoulder and then in the next breath demand somebody obey one particular part of it when it benefits me. That is what the left tribe is doing right now and it isn't working.
Reality is Trump didn't violate any laws that everybody else didn't violate 10 times worse.
How many people have taken classified documents from the WH (including nuclear secrets), refused to give them back, lied to the FBI about having them, moved the documents to evade detection, and ordered the evidence of all of this to be destroyed… and wasn’t prosecuted?
People have taken classified documents hold. They would have refused if asked, as Clinton refused. It's not a lie to not tell the FBI exactly what you have, Clinton refused to give a description. Moving documents isn't evasion if they're personal property.
Hilary also ordered evidence destroyed (based on the same quality of evidence).
In a single marriage I exceeded the so called "crimes" of Trump.
My position is that no crime should be immune, and I can’t believe that’s even controversial.
It's a fallacy of a complex question. Immunity (or the immunity actually implied by various constitutions) is about who can prosecute and who the defendant must be. Not whether crime is legal or not.
I understand immunity against civil litigation because in some positions, actions that will adversely impact someone is not avoidable. Imagine if every time a police officer made a wrongful arrest the officer could be sued personally - no one would want the job.
Speaks more to the flaws in civil litigation than any genuine need for immunity.
But this doesn’t mean officers get to use their badge as a license to murder someone.
Plenty of judges and prosecutors have said exactly that, according to a significant political faction.
Now imagine if this protection were to suddenly disappear for certain unpopular officers.... say a whistleblower? That's what this is. That's what this is about. I don't particularly care if the system is perfect or just, all that matters is that it was designed to work a certain way and poking dissident shaped holes in the filter and thinking it will end there is the act of someone looking to start a civil war (or brainwashed and/or stupid as is more often the case)
As if assessing a persons motivations is not one of the most basic elements of human nature that we all engage in and use to formulate opinions about people we meet every single day of our lives.
As if there aren't 250,000 people in the united states right now who think a significant number of democrats are child raping baby eating demons.
As if they can't form a township somewhere.
As if they can't elect their own prosecutor to charge every democrat they can list.
That's how millions of us view these "91 charges".
What legal doctrine that you acknowledge would stop them?
But every crime requires evidence to be prosecuted
Like the crime Trump was supposedly trying to obscure by labeling payments to Cohen as "legal expenses"
if you don’t have it you’ve got nothing. That’s how it should work.
but it isn't. A finite number of people made that choice for all of us. You better hope the supreme court (and other appellate) crush this shit before there is no turning back.
There are those who said the simple fact that the FBI investigate Hilary before an election was interference. This? This is and will forever be interference, but if those responsible are defeated at every turn and face harsh sentences the genie might just be put back into the bottle.
