One of the many scandals Clintons should be in Jail for
18 Oct 2016, 10:57 pm
Aristophanes wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
This is all very laughable, just like the "jail Dick Cheney and Bush" screams from last decade. Read your constitution, elected officials have immunity, it would take a constitutional amendment to change it-- good luck on that.
So they can murder anyone and get away with it?
If they did it while in office, yes, normal court proceeding can't do jack. That's why there's the "impeachment" process-- it's a much harder/higher standard to prove than a normal court. And yes, it's in the Constitution.
The Constitution wrote:
The Senators and Representatives […] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Legislative immunity: it means that the President can't imprison legislators he doesn't like. It is not a free pass to commit any crime.
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
20 Oct 2016, 1:41 pm
Aristophanes wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
This is all very laughable, just like the "jail Dick Cheney and Bush" screams from last decade. Read your constitution, elected officials have immunity, it would take a constitutional amendment to change it-- good luck on that.
So they can murder anyone and get away with it?
If they did it while in office, yes, normal court proceeding can't do jack. That's why there's the "impeachment" process-- it's a much harder/higher standard to prove than a normal court. And yes, it's in the Constitution. There is a reason for it though: in past civilizations one of the political tools used was to jail and/or execute your political opposition, giving immunity while holding office theoretically prevents this.
If she gets elected, her being impeached would be a small consolation.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
20 Oct 2016, 1:44 pm
Adamantium wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
Darmok wrote:
Younger folks here don't have any memory of Hillary Clinton's long history. This somewhat famous essay by William Safire was published in the New York Times exactly 20 years ago, in 1996, and nothing has changed:
That Hillary Clinton sometimes lies is not in doubt. She is a politician.
That does not in any way indicate that she has committed crimes.
I keep seeing non-criminal acts listed as evidence that she is a criminal. It seems to make sense to people on the right, but it really doesn't make sense.
I am also seeing made-up versions of thoroughly investigated events (the private email server, Benghazi, etc.) as supposed reasons that she is a criminal. Were that the case, the hyperpartisan investigators on the congressional teams in the multiple investigations of those events would have shown the supposedly criminal conduct in their findings--but it just did not happen.
Reality rather than partisanship is why people don't think she is a criminal.
The supposed evidence of her criminality only seems like evidence to her partisan detractors. They cannot produce evidence to support a real criminal charge against her, so they come up with rubbish like "she killed 500,000 Iraqi children" and "Benghazi!"
We know her and Obama supported ISIS through the Saudis. I guess that's not a crime either.
We don't know any such thing. That is a lie spun by the professional trolls of the far right who have chosen to conflate any anti Assad position with support for Isis. It's a bs analysis.
OK, you didn't know that. But now you do...
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
20 Oct 2016, 1:45 pm
Adamantium wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
Darmok wrote:
Younger folks here don't have any memory of Hillary Clinton's long history. This somewhat famous essay by William Safire was published in the New York Times exactly 20 years ago, in 1996, and nothing has changed:
That Hillary Clinton sometimes lies is not in doubt. She is a politician.
That does not in any way indicate that she has committed crimes.
I keep seeing non-criminal acts listed as evidence that she is a criminal. It seems to make sense to people on the right, but it really doesn't make sense.
I am also seeing made-up versions of thoroughly investigated events (the private email server, Benghazi, etc.) as supposed reasons that she is a criminal. Were that the case, the hyperpartisan investigators on the congressional teams in the multiple investigations of those events would have shown the supposedly criminal conduct in their findings--but it just did not happen.
Reality rather than partisanship is why people don't think she is a criminal.
The supposed evidence of her criminality only seems like evidence to her partisan detractors. They cannot produce evidence to support a real criminal charge against her, so they come up with rubbish like "she killed 500,000 Iraqi children" and "Benghazi!"
We know her and Obama supported ISIS through the Saudis. I guess that's not a crime either.
We don't know any such thing. That is a lie spun by the professional trolls of the far right who have chosen to conflate any anti Assad position with support for Isis. It's a bs analysis.
OK, you didn't know that. But now you do...
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
20 Oct 2016, 2:09 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
They weren't 'protesters', they are the same rent-a crowd types we've seen over the years. Libya has been decimated for the benefit of the US and Israel and it's given the rise to ISIS, where as they weren't there before. This has also meant thousands more refugees and people able to take advantage of getting through Libya without control. Perhaps we should have taken Gaddafi's offer to stop this.
They were protesting. Anyone who protests is a protestor. QED.
How exactly do you think that stopping Gaddafi "benefited Israel"?
I have no sympathy for Gaddafi or anyone who sympathises with him. He was a very evil man who killed thousands. I don't like what's happened to Libya since his death but that doesn't mean I have to condone a tyrant. Standing by while he slaughtered his civilians would have been indefensible. The best case scenario would be another Syria.
They are just the same payed proxies that did the same work in Syria.
Anyone in the region who isn't a US/Israeli puppet is on the hit list. Gaddafi had been hostile to Israel. A lot of it has to do with oil pipelines and oil reserves. Can't have some nationalist who lets the people of the country have any of its benefits. It's like decades ago when Iran's democratically elected leader nationalised the oil and was then removed by the US and a puppet dictator was installed. The US and Israel both have vested interests in the countries being decimated. Basically it's the "Greater Israel Project" in motion http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-is ... st/5324815
We didn't removed Gaddafi because he was a bad person. The West supports the worst state in the region, Saudi Arabia.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
20 Oct 2016, 2:10 pm
Was it these civilians that were killed in 'Libya'?
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Would I get jail time for this? |
01 Feb 2024, 1:58 pm |
| Nevada judge creates ABA program to keep teens out of jail |
16 Feb 2024, 10:29 am |
