3 ms·

>In practice, that's pretty close to just saying no President should ever be investigated. It would be if you missed my context, which is about applying this i

>In practice, that's pretty close to just saying no President should ever be investigated. It would be if you missed my context, which is about applying this in a non-uniform way. That is if FBI goes after both Obama as a bomber of children and Trump as a <whatever the warrant was for>, then it would lend a little more credence towards a true effort to work in an unbiased fashion. Purely going after your adversary but none of the warcrimes of other presidents just comes off as politically motivated. Maybe it's not, but it certainly seems quite possible. Again IMO it undermines the nation more to convict people for political motivation rather than it does to let some criminals go free. If the option is politically motivated prosecution or none at all I would definitely prefer "none being investigated" -- but I think that would be a false dichotomy. >I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office. I mean that already exists, it's called congress, and they didn't convict Trump.

kadoban 4y ago
> It would be if you missed my context, which is about applying this in a non-uniform way. That is if FBI goes after both Obama as a bomber of children and Trump as a <whatever the warrant was for> I don't know of any actual US crimes that Obama is legitimately suspected of. War actions are generally treated quite differently compared to non-war actions. With all likelihood, the US drone campaign is only evil, not illegal. The FBIs actions here are uniform exactly because there is probable cause enough to start an investigation of Trump and not of Obama. What actual crime would Obama be investigated for, and what warrant would be gotten? A search warrant was issued for Trump because he _already_ was caught keeping classified documents that he wasn't allowed to keep, and whatever followup they're doing based on that. > > I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office. > I mean that already exists, it's called congress, and they didn't convict Trump. Congress isn't primarily an investigative body, they're not special prosecutors, they cannot charge people with crimes, and they cannot do a whole bunch of things that actual law enforcement can. Also, impeachment only has two possible punishments, removal from office and forbidding future office. They also kind of suck in general at being non-political, by nature of how Congress works. For example, the J6 committee investigation really should have been a special prosecutor of some sort, but they couldn't get it done because the Republicans simply refused.
- notch656a 4y ago
  >I don't know of any actual US crimes that Obama is legitimately suspected of. War actions are generally treated quite differently compared to non-war actions. With all likelihood, the US drone campaign is only evil, not illegal. 18 U.S. Code § 2441. Not enough to convict, but definitely enough for PC. If an agent claiming a dog sniffing me was enough for a federal judge to serve a search warrant against me (true story), then by uniformity principle an order followed by blown up dead droned kids should be enough PC to investigate Obama. >A search warrant was issued for Trump because he _already_ was caught keeping classified documents that he wasn't allowed to keep, and whatever followup they're doing based on that. Sure again I don't doubt there was PC to get a warrant for Trump involving something. Again the issue is the possibility of using criminal system for targeted political persecution, in this case of the immediate historical adversary of the sitting lead of the branch in which the FBI sits. >Congress isn't primarily an investigative body, they're not special prosecutors, they cannot charge people with crimes, and they cannot do a whole bunch of things that actual law enforcement can. Also, impeachment only has two possible punishments, removal from office and forbidding future office. >They also kind of suck in general at being non-political, by nature of how Congress works. For example, the J6 committee investigation really should have been a special prosecutor of some sort, but they couldn't get it done because the Republicans simply refused. Point taken, I can see the merits you note here and agree a less political system could be useful for investigating presidents.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    > 18 U.S. Code § 2441. Not enough to convict, but definitely enough for PC. I don't really see it, but I'm not a lawyer either. Either way, I'd be very fine with it being investigated. > If an agent claiming a dog sniffing me was enough for a federal judge to serve a search warrant against me (true story) Ugh, sorry that happened to you. The war on drugs has been just the worst thing for law enforcement in this country.

kadoban 4y ago

> It would be if you missed my context, which is about applying this in a non-uniform way. That is if FBI goes after both Obama as a bomber of children and Trump as a <whatever the warrant was for> I don't know of any actual US crimes that Obama is legitimately suspected of. War actions are generally treated quite differently compared to non-war actions. With all likelihood, the US drone campaign is only evil, not illegal. The FBIs actions here are uniform exactly because there is probable cause enough to start an investigation of Trump and not of Obama. What actual crime would Obama be investigated for, and what warrant would be gotten? A search warrant was issued for Trump because he _already_ was caught keeping classified documents that he wasn't allowed to keep, and whatever followup they're doing based on that. > > I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office. > I mean that already exists, it's called congress, and they didn't convict Trump. Congress isn't primarily an investigative body, they're not special prosecutors, they cannot charge people with crimes, and they cannot do a whole bunch of things that actual law enforcement can. Also, impeachment only has two possible punishments, removal from office and forbidding future office. They also kind of suck in general at being non-political, by nature of how Congress works. For example, the J6 committee investigation really should have been a special prosecutor of some sort, but they couldn't get it done because the Republicans simply refused.

notch656a 4y ago
>I don't know of any actual US crimes that Obama is legitimately suspected of. War actions are generally treated quite differently compared to non-war actions. With all likelihood, the US drone campaign is only evil, not illegal. 18 U.S. Code § 2441. Not enough to convict, but definitely enough for PC. If an agent claiming a dog sniffing me was enough for a federal judge to serve a search warrant against me (true story), then by uniformity principle an order followed by blown up dead droned kids should be enough PC to investigate Obama. >A search warrant was issued for Trump because he _already_ was caught keeping classified documents that he wasn't allowed to keep, and whatever followup they're doing based on that. Sure again I don't doubt there was PC to get a warrant for Trump involving something. Again the issue is the possibility of using criminal system for targeted political persecution, in this case of the immediate historical adversary of the sitting lead of the branch in which the FBI sits. >Congress isn't primarily an investigative body, they're not special prosecutors, they cannot charge people with crimes, and they cannot do a whole bunch of things that actual law enforcement can. Also, impeachment only has two possible punishments, removal from office and forbidding future office. >They also kind of suck in general at being non-political, by nature of how Congress works. For example, the J6 committee investigation really should have been a special prosecutor of some sort, but they couldn't get it done because the Republicans simply refused. Point taken, I can see the merits you note here and agree a less political system could be useful for investigating presidents.
- kadoban 4y ago
  > 18 U.S. Code § 2441. Not enough to convict, but definitely enough for PC. I don't really see it, but I'm not a lawyer either. Either way, I'd be very fine with it being investigated. > If an agent claiming a dog sniffing me was enough for a federal judge to serve a search warrant against me (true story) Ugh, sorry that happened to you. The war on drugs has been just the worst thing for law enforcement in this country.