• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jailing the opposition

The article is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen when a president commits crimes while in office.
Yes. Impeachment


Tell me where it says criminal penalties CAN NOT be applied
 
Im not asking for "evidence", I'm asking you to specify what "felonies" you keep blurting about.
Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report to Congress alleged that President Clinton committed perjury, obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses and abused power. Of the 11 counts laid out by Starr, five allege that Clinton lied under oath in his Jan. 17 deposition in the Paula Jones case and again in his Aug. 17 grand jury testimony
 
Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report to Congress alleged that President Clinton committed perjury, obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses and abused power. Of the 11 counts laid out by Starr, five allege that Clinton lied under oath in his Jan. 17 deposition in the Paula Jones case and again in his Aug. 17 grand jury testimony
So again, the review that I linked to explains that BC was sufficiently prosecuted, and you are admitting "the felonies" were a part of the Paula Jones case after denying they were.

And here I thought you had actually something outside of the IC prosecution.
 
So again, the review that I linked to explains that BC was sufficiently prosecuted, and you are admitting it was a part of the Paula Jones case after denying they were.

And here I thought you had actually something outside of the IC prosecution.
Nope. Not by the DOJ

He was never charged
 
The constitution is pretty clear about the prosecution of presidential high crimes and misdemeanors.

I don't know about the Constitution, but this view is affirmed by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel and was the reason given by Mueller as to why he didn't recommend that Trump be indicted for obstruction of justice.
 
I don't know about the Constitution, but this view is affirmed by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel and was the reason given by Mueller as to why he didn't recommend that Trump be indicted for obstruction of justice.
While he was President. After that he is open game
 
post examples comparing more severe outcomes. your comparison to Trump's present situation is unreasonable, opposite the usual outcome.





versus the absurdly uneven outcome you're advocating for Trump, opposite the usual,





Link to archived image of this article,
June 11, 2023
By Oona A. Hathaway
Ms. Hathaway is a professor of law and political science at Yale University and former special counsel to the general counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense.

If trump is to be prosecuted this way, then we need to revisit Clinton and impeach and indict Biden...

and possibly Pence.

by all means, lets start making politicians take responsibility for their actions.
 
Nope. Not by the DOJ

He was never charged
Um, the DOJ doesn't prosecute sitting POTUS's, this has been explained before, and you are using this as a whatabout to avoid admitting that the IC did involve the "felonies" you keep yapping about.

Further, Questar already explained the issue of double prosecution concerning the IC vs DOJ.
 
Back
Top Bottom