100
Trump guilty on all counts in New York criminal trial
(www.foxnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
100 points (93.9% liked)
Conservative
358 readers
72 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
When this topic arose, I thought a felony would preclude you from office. I was a bit surprised it does not.
I agree with your assessment as to why it shouldn't, but I still found it a tad surprising.
It’s because it should, ethically.
It makes no sense that you could be restricted from holding office because of one minor crime but not from a worse one.
A minor crime doesn't preclude you either. I believe you are talking about impeachment which is a different topic entirely. Impeachment is a political process and has nothing to do with criminal law.
Nope, not impeachment. Misdemeanor, which is lesser than a felony.
I have no clue what you are referencing since that isn’t a requirement to be elected for president. High crimes and misdemeanors is about impeachment.
I understand it’s not laid out in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement that Presidents not be criminals, but the only reason a President can be impeached for them is because a criminal president is a short step from a tyrant.
While it doesn’t prevent them from running for President, the framers clearly understood that we cannot tolerate having a criminal as President.
I'm not sure you understand impeachment. It is a political process that has nothing to do with criminal charges. I am not sure the point you are trying to make because you seem to be conflating unrelated things.
I think you’re just refusing to see the logic that because impeachment is intended to charge an official for conduct and present the possibility that they may deserve to be removed from office, it only makes sense that acts which are cause for impeachment are ones we don’t want our officials doing.
So if a President commits a crime and is impeached, it is possible they may be removed from office for that crime.
So if the President then does a worse crime as a public citizen does it not stand to reason that they’re probably not a good fit for the job?
It’s only as political a process as the sitting congress wants it to be. It was intended as a legitimate consequence for a potential tyrant.
I'm sad that I completely forgot 34 was also impeached multiple times. What a shit show.