7 ms·

I'd agree, if "no immunity from law" was applied equally.

defrost 2y ago
I'm not from the US. Can you give an example of another US President who was charged for a criminal offence outside of their term of office and declared to be immune from prosecution? Or one who was investigated and then publicly not charged because they were deemed to be immune (for crimes outside of their term in office)?
- leereeves 2y ago
  Why limit it to outside their term of office? Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President. Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. He was also accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women, and never charged in any of those cases. The Democrat voters I knew at the time (including myself) knew quite well that he was guilty of perjury and sexual harassment, and probably sexual assault as well, but didn't care. We felt that the investigation was politically motivated, and that having him in office was more important than enforcing the law.
  - mandeepj 2y ago
    > Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. Didn't every Republican senator do the same to save Trump from Impeachment despite clearly calling insurrection?
    - leereeves 2y ago
      No, that's incorrect. But I'm tired of looking up sources for facts that clearly aren't appreciated here, so I'll let you look it up.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Because US Presidents have immunity (limited) for official acts commited while in office. Donald Trump was convicted for acts outside of term in office as POTUS, the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts outside of their term in office.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      The key there is official acts. Falsely testifying about Clinton's relations with a subordinate (Monica Lewinsky) was not an official act, and he didn't have immunity. He was granted immunity by the Republican investigating him, Robert Ray, for reasons that AFAIK were never made clear. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01-clinton_01-19 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01... https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clinton-accepts-immunity-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin...
      - frumper 2y ago
        He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchange for that, he would be immune from being prosecuted any further on that matter. It's quite plain in the article you linked.
        leereeves 2y ago
        Far less than the penalties he would have suffered had he been charged and (inevitably) convicted. The question wasn't what the deal was, but why the prosecutor would offer such a sweet deal.
        frumper 2y ago
        Every deal is more lenient than maximum or even typical penalties. Why else would people take them if not?
  - mcphage 2y ago
    Look, if you want to toss Bill Clinton in jail for any or all of those offenses—go right ahead. I don’t think many Democrats would complain or shed a tear. If that’s the price for holding criminals responsible, then it’s one I’ll gladly pay.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      Easy to say now, when you know it won't (can't) happen, and even if it did, it would have no effect on governing the nation. As defrost said well: "the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts [for which they didn't have immunity as President]". Other POTUS's have, so, it was unfair. Changing that may be a good idea, or it may simply lead to more abuse of power as the party in office investigates its enemies. I guess we'll find out.
      - mcphage 2y ago
        It's pretty easy to say, full stop.
        leereeves 2y ago
        Yet no Democrats said it when it was a real possibility, and would have mattered. Despite your erroneous thoughts, many Democrats complained.
        whoknowsidont 2y ago
        You are literally holding the judicial process hostage and throwing proportionality out the window to make some contrived, disingenuous point. People are not willing to entertain this non-sense. He means it when any reasonable person would burn Bill Clinton just to avoid the catastrophe conservatives would bring upon this country by making the law useless. Trust it. And fix your perspectives. They're dangerous.
        leereeves 2y ago
rat87 2y ago
Yes if it was applied equally Trump would have been sitting in jail long ago.

I'm not from the US. Can you give an example of another US President who was charged for a criminal offence outside of their term of office and declared to be immune from prosecution? Or one who was investigated and then publicly not charged because they were deemed to be immune (for crimes outside of their term in office)?

leereeves 2y ago
Why limit it to outside their term of office? Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President. Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. He was also accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women, and never charged in any of those cases. The Democrat voters I knew at the time (including myself) knew quite well that he was guilty of perjury and sexual harassment, and probably sexual assault as well, but didn't care. We felt that the investigation was politically motivated, and that having him in office was more important than enforcing the law.
- mandeepj 2y ago
  > Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. Didn't every Republican senator do the same to save Trump from Impeachment despite clearly calling insurrection?
  - leereeves 2y ago
    No, that's incorrect. But I'm tired of looking up sources for facts that clearly aren't appreciated here, so I'll let you look it up.
- defrost 2y ago
  Because US Presidents have immunity (limited) for official acts commited while in office. Donald Trump was convicted for acts outside of term in office as POTUS, the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts outside of their term in office.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    The key there is official acts. Falsely testifying about Clinton's relations with a subordinate (Monica Lewinsky) was not an official act, and he didn't have immunity. He was granted immunity by the Republican investigating him, Robert Ray, for reasons that AFAIK were never made clear. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01-clinton_01-19 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01... https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clinton-accepts-immunity-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin...
    - frumper 2y ago
      He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchange for that, he would be immune from being prosecuted any further on that matter. It's quite plain in the article you linked.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        Far less than the penalties he would have suffered had he been charged and (inevitably) convicted. The question wasn't what the deal was, but why the prosecutor would offer such a sweet deal.
        frumper 2y ago
        Every deal is more lenient than maximum or even typical penalties. Why else would people take them if not?
- mcphage 2y ago
  Look, if you want to toss Bill Clinton in jail for any or all of those offenses—go right ahead. I don’t think many Democrats would complain or shed a tear. If that’s the price for holding criminals responsible, then it’s one I’ll gladly pay.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Easy to say now, when you know it won't (can't) happen, and even if it did, it would have no effect on governing the nation. As defrost said well: "the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts [for which they didn't have immunity as President]". Other POTUS's have, so, it was unfair. Changing that may be a good idea, or it may simply lead to more abuse of power as the party in office investigates its enemies. I guess we'll find out.
    - mcphage 2y ago
      It's pretty easy to say, full stop.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        Yet no Democrats said it when it was a real possibility, and would have mattered. Despite your erroneous thoughts, many Democrats complained.
        whoknowsidont 2y ago
        You are literally holding the judicial process hostage and throwing proportionality out the window to make some contrived, disingenuous point. People are not willing to entertain this non-sense. He means it when any reasonable person would burn Bill Clinton just to avoid the catastrophe conservatives would bring upon this country by making the law useless. Trust it. And fix your perspectives. They're dangerous.
        leereeves 2y ago

rat87 2y ago

Yes if it was applied equally Trump would have been sitting in jail long ago.