It is not hard to imagine a conservative local prosecutor trying to charge President Biden with, say, failing to adequately guard the border.
“This presents the opportunity for potentially thousands of state and local prosecutors to investigate and charge a president without the impediment imposed by D.O.J.’s policy against indicting sitting presidents,” said Stanley M. Brand, a former House counsel whose firm represents a couple of Trump associates in the investigation into the mishandling of classified documents.
44 thoughts on “No, it’s not hard to imagine at all”
Comments are closed.
Of course they will try, but the difference will be that Trump was obviously and flagrantly committing felonies with the mistaken understanding that he was immune from consequences. Sure, Republicans will abuse their power, but they are already doing that.
Can you clearly explain the specific felony you think Trump committed?
I admit I am having a hard time understanding it.
Is it that he paid Stormy Daniels using his own money and that was an illegal campaign contribution?
o But I thought it was established that candidates can spend as much of their own money as they wish on a campaign.
o What about other personal expenditures that are linked to a campaign? For example, say a candidate buys a gun or contributes to Planned Parenthood out of personal funds?
Did John Edwards make any payments to Rielle Hunter? Were they out of personal or campaign funds? Did they get the same scrutiny as Trump's payments?
This is far from clear cut.
In contrast, does anyone still bother denying that Bill Clinton committed perjury? Why was he not prosecuted?
Clinton was prosecuted and indicted by the House when he was impeached (perjury and obstruction) in December, 1998. Senate let him off, since most of them were surely guilty of similar crimes themselves, but the charges were prosecuted.
In the article Kevin linked to, it noted that Clinton also pled guilty, paid a fine, and surrendered his law license on his last day in office avoiding a prosecution.`
"Impeached" =/= "prosecuted".
We dont know the specifics of the indictments, but your commentary/leading questions are misleading/incorrect.
-The issue here is other private persons and companies making campaign donations along. Trump did not pay off these women with his own personal money.
- Other personal expenditures arent relevent to the prosecution of illegal campaign donations and fraudulent business recordss.
- John Edwards was acquitted because it wasnt established that the payments were related to his campaign efforts. The payments were certainly scrutinized given that charges were filed. Contrasting with the Trump case where people who were involed have testified under oath that this was to benefit the Trump campaign.
Yes, and the irony is that if Trump had paid her off with his own personal money, he probably would have skated, but the supposed multi-billionaire was too cheap to do that.
Sigh. Do you ever do anything but misfire, MF? No, Clinton most decidedly did _not_ commit perjury.
I see others have already tried to debunk your claims - Trump didn’t use his own money, he used his company’s and then the company claimed it was “legal fees” is the most damning difference between Trump and any other politician who did the same “pay off my mistress” scheme.
But I notice all are lacking the final argument:
Fck off troll. You’re not arguing in good faith and so there’s no reason for anyone to treat you with respect or civility.
I just want to make sure it's clear that "MF" is not an honest person.
Well sure if constituents think that’s a good use of their taxes and local resources, knock yourself out, cons. Arent some of those bozos already investigating Hunter or local officials who refused to overturn the presidential election?
Mr. Rand’s comment would also apply if Trump had walked down 5th Avenue with a samurai sword beheading children.
the children, of course, would be blamed for getting in the way of the blade.
Trump was not the sitting president when the crimes in the grand jury purview were committed, unless there are more conspiracy/cover up charges for later behavior we're not yet aware of, so local prosecutor bringing charges against a sitting president are irrelevant, especially considering this precedent was respected with Trump.
Making the case that a former president cannot be prosecuted for crimes is another matter completely, especially in regards to crimes committed not only committed before becoming sitting president, but as a conspiracy to defraud the United States of America in the very campaign to become president.
Lots of absurd things are being said, but the only precedent being respected here is do the crime, do the time, and equal protection under the law, considering Cohen was tried, convicted and did time for the same crime (at least some of them that are being brought against Trump).
You don't get a permanent get-out-of-jail-and-consequence free card because you once were president, for behavior before or after your term (or even during if particularly wanton), though the chances Trump does any actual prison time are slim, due to Secret Service constraints (and he has to be convicted too of course).
For the record, the crimes related to the hush money payments happened before and during his presidency. Trump signed checks to Stormy Daniels in the Oval Office, per Lanny Davis, citing published news articles.
That said, we're all just guessing what's in the indictment.
And none of the crimes Trump is accused of and being investigated were choices of policy.
This is just such nonsense.
Absolutely! If a local prosecutor charged Biden for falsifying financial records or hiding classified documents or reckless driving or whatever, the only question would be is...did he do it? If so, the prosecution is warranted.
Charging him for acting as President on dubious legal grounds would obviously be bogus. It would be bogus to charge Trump for instituting the Muslim ban or whatever would be equally bogus.
But if they did the crime...
Charging the junior Bush with torture would absolutely not be bogus.
I would think the Supreme Court, especially the current one, would have objections to that happening.
The International Criminal Court, on the other hand, does not have to observe any traditions of ours regarding presidential immunity. It's never too late.
In 2012, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others, were tried and convicted in abstentia for war crimes by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, an alternative to the ICC. The Commission is not recognized by the UN, however, and has no power to enforce sentences.
The difference is that Biden is still actively President, while Trump is not. More likely is that some prosecutor will try to go after Hunter Biden.
Hunter has always been fair game if a prosecutor actually has sufficient evidence to bring a case, which so far is nowhere near established.
Also many heads at Customs and Border will roll as they have failed their mission.
The president has absolute immunity from charges that have to do with how he is performing his official duties.
Sort of like qualified immunity.
I think more like impeachable offenses vs statutory crimes. In theory impeachment is supposed to be the remedy for political crimes like malfeasance or misfeasance or nonfeasance, because they're all about performance of the role. I think that's reflected in the DOJ policy of standing in for officials who get sued civilly for job-related statements and actions. Qualified immunity is what trump thinks he has, but for his entire life and not just since he was president.
Disagree strongly. Bush Jr. authorized and directed torture, a crime against humanity and one which the United States has accepted a treaty obligation to prosecute, as part of his "official duties". Bush Jr. should be prosecuted for torture and imprisoned for the rest of his misbegotten life.
Yes, this whole discussion is rather silly. Nobody can sue or prosecute the president for policy decisions. Personal matters are different.
The scenario that Stanley Brand describes in that hideous Peter Baker article is virtually impossible. It's just made-up b.s. to get people worried about the "consequences" of a local prosecutor indicting the high-and-mighty Donald F. Trump. The only thing to worry about are the consequences of failing to prosecute a figure like Trump. That would be a disastrous precedent.
"The only thing to worry about are the consequences of failing to prosecute a figure like Trump. That would be a disastrous precedent."
Exactly. I'm hoping (against evidence of past behavior...) that the reasonably sane commentariat makes this point unmistakably clear. Our cold civil war is fully engaged, there's no turning back. That's a given, and the sooner recalcitrant Democrats and liberals internalize this reality the better. Regardless, drawing the line with TrumpCo, and triggering the inevitable backlash, is an unavoidable necessity if we want to keep our republic. Bush was bad, real bad, but this is worse.
Got to give to the orange one. He shoots for the stars.
Perhaps, but things like accepting bribes or obstruction of justice or many other acts can't be construed as official duties.
If the GOP is about anything, it is revenge. They will impeach and indict every Dem President they can going forward.
Bingo. They've become the revanchist, readtionary party. Their only "policy" is doing whatever makes the Lefties cry.
Not the betting type but I would lay odds that some eager-beaver red-state prosecutors, local or state, and with or without backing from one of the nutball legal foundations, will try to file criminal charges on Biden before mid-year. The difference between being actually *in* office as opposed to *no longer* being in office and therefore being an ex-president is one of those nuance things that w bush told us gopers just don't do.
You might think it's plain as day that the example given, border security, is in the line of official duties and therefore subject to impeachment but not criminal charges. And who'd be surprised to see MJT and Boebert and Gosar and Gaetz push a resolution on that, a group that a local prosecutor might ordinarily not want to upstage but could be tempted to ignore in a bid for the big spotlight that would come with daring to do something that's always been off the table.
Can it fly? I'm so old I remember when SCOTUS said to go right ahead and file the first civil suit ever pursued against a sitting president; after all it isn't like the guy can't easily spare an hour or two for a deposition and what other harm could a personal action do to him, being just personal and all. And that SCOTUS was much more D-friendly than this one.
Short answer: by the All-Star break we should expect about 20 criminal cases to be filed, and imho it's about 70-30 that this SCOTUS will give them the green light. But surprise, it'll magically turn red the second the gop gets the White House. (I'm not cynical, just observant.)
I doubt the GOP will ever hold the White House again.
How long before Democrats run a candidate like Hillary again though? Anything's possible.
You mean someone actually qualified to be President of the United States? Unlike TFG...
I think he means someone wearing a skirt.
But, but, but .. she wore PANTSUITS the entire campaign! Really unflattering, baggy, weirdly solid-colored pantsuits.
I'm pretty sure "failing to guard the border" cannnot be found in the USC.
And your point is?
Since the President is Commander in Chief, if one illegal gets into the country he has failed to defend the country and should get charged. So something like that.
There is a Federal Judge in Texas who would love o handle the case.
I don't see the risk of this happening on account that prosecutors risk disbarment and such jurisdictions would be on the hook for other penalties.
Pingback: First Charge, Trump Scare, Martyr, Rally, Ron v Mickey, Guns, Forgiveness – FairAndUNbalanced.com
"Adequately" is the operative word here -- and I defy republicans of any sort to demand that theirs is the only possible interpretation.
You realize this was already the plot of an Ally McBeal episode all those years ago?
S1 Episode 16 had Fish point out that Clinton vs Paula Jones was incorrectly decided for precisely this reason, that it opened the floodgates to any and every random case against the president.
You could regard this as prescient, or you could argue that since we've gone over twenty years without it being a real problem, perhaps it's an over-exaggerated concern. Unclear to me which is which.
Maybe there haven't been many because Rs wore themselves out trying to dream up any kind of barely plausible civil action against Obama so they had to give it up?
Actually, though, I think they found it was more effective, and cheaper, to drive up Obama's negatives by just lying about Obamacare. Plus they learned how to use it for fundraising so it was a bonanza twofer, and no court fees or expenses.
What about the other presidents since Clinton? They've all been Rs and one thing we can all be sure about is that the Ds wouldn't have been coordinating any civil suits against them, no matter how valid. And when the individual went ahead with her case against trump, not only did his toady at DOJ claim he libeled as an official action (making him invulnerable on that issue), our current AG seems to agree.
So like so many other things in our politics, this only goes one way.
If I saw that episode I'd long since forgotten about it, sorry. They weren't the only ones who saw it that way, though, and it might yet turn out to be an opening for Rs against Biden.