Welcome to General Chat - GAW Community Area
This General Chat area started off as a place for people to talk about things that are off topic, however it has quickly evolved into a community and has become an integral part of the GAW experience for many of us.
Based on its evolving needs and plenty of user feedback, we are trying to bring some order and institute some rules. Please make sure you read these rules and participate in the spirit of this community.
Rules for General Chat
-
Be respectful to each other. This is of utmost importance, and comments may be removed if deemed not respectful.
-
Avoid long drawn out arguments. This should be a place to relax, not to waste your time needlessly.
-
Personal anecdotes, puzzles, cute pics/clips - everything welcome
-
Please do not spam at the top level. If you have a lot to post each day, try and post them all together in one top level comment
-
Try keep things light. If you are bringing in deep stuff, try not to go overboard.
-
Things that are clearly on-topic for this board should be posted as a separate post and not here (except if you are new and still getting the feel of this place)
-
If you find people violating these rules, deport them rather than start a argument here.
-
Feel free to give feedback as these rules are expected to keep evolving
In short, imagine this thread to be a local community hall where we all gather and chat daily. Please be respectful to others in the same way
I was thrown for a loop on the presidential immunity case. I expected them to rule against Prez immunity and then the plan would be to go after past presidents. So, does this ruling mean POTUS can commit crimes while in office? Murder US citizens for instance (as the MSM are suggesting)? I am hoping someone can clarify because I want to see Bush, Clinton, Obama prosecuted for the crimes they committed while serving. Also, what about the crime of treason? Is POTUS immune from treason laws? Thanks fellow Frogs!
If the Potus killed US citizens for some made up decision, he would not be acting under and official Presidential policy. He would NOT be immune. TREASON...Noone is immune from TREASON. If it is proven that Bush had knowledge of 911 and did nothing about it... I would say that is a Treasonous act, so no immunity. Clinton lied and got nothing for having sex in office and should be held accountable, but all of his and Hillary's Clintoncides and Arkancides should come back to bite them; so no Immunity. And Obama, by giving Iran pallets of money and him and Eric Holder with the gun running should both be held accountable.
I'm old enough to remember a month and a half ago when we were all celebrating that the precedent was now set that former presidents can be charged with crimes. Now they are immune? What is the constitutional basis for this immunity?
(IF) the President is acting to Protect the People, such as war or taking out the Leader of Isis who calls his men to kill us off, then he has Immunity because he is doing his job for us as we elected him to do.
(IF) the President is acting on his own such as, killing a man or having a man killed because he is sleeping with his wife, then NO he has no Immunity because he is acting for himself and NOT what he was elected into office to do.
It has always been known that (IF) there is no Immunity, then We the People could arrest the President and put him on trial simply for doing his job such as taking out Bin Laden. This would mean that NO PERSON would want to run for President as they would NEVER be able to Do what is Needed to Protect the country and our people. This is what Presidential Immunity is all about.
The idea for Qualified immunity goes back to English Common law that the Crown, and by extension agents of the Crown, could not be prosecuted under the Crown's laws because they were for all purposes the law. In the case of the English, this is what we call Absolute immunity.
In recognition that the system we have is not one of lifetime kings, Qualified immunity comes about so you can't hold someone personally liable for civil issues through the actions of them in office. That's why the Supreme court ruled that it's not absolute in protection, only "qualified actions" under the authority of the office, not personal or private actions by the individual are covered.
Thank you. So, are you saying its for civil immunity and not criminal?
Sounds like they are immune from all those crimes now at least in the criminal justice system. See, this is very confusing. Presidents are now above the law and are allowed to conduct criminal acts against other citizens. They can say we are at war against disinfo and start killing american journalists and anons now, right?
This is what the LEFTISTS want to do. As of Biden's speech about the Immunity, he and the other Former Presidents all know about the Immunity. They are changing the narrative in order to continue sending President Trump to court for 'so called' crimes he committed while in office. However, since the SCOTUS has defined what Presidential Immunity is, now Biden can NOT use LawFare on Trump and continue having him appear in court. They want Presidential Immunity for themselves and all the other Former Presidents; just not for Trump. They play their little games however they wish to play it and change the rules in the middle.
Exactamundo... TREASON - like what a "Renegade" would do...
Amen.
This might help…
Viva Frei
https://youtu.be/3HeH81Xaykg
Thanks. I actually already watched that, but it didnt really address the questions or claims made by MSM. I don't think I'm in favor of Presidential immunity and would like to know what the constitution says. (Light bulb:) Oh, so i guess if the POTUS commits a crime he can be impeached and convicted that way. Is that correct? So confused...
It’s not that confusing - lawsuits can be brought …
If acting as President - No
If acting Personally “while” President - Yes
If a person doesn’t have Presidential immunity - while being President- than how can you run a country and make decisions without second guessing every move you make based on a “possible” law suites. It just doesn’t work that way 🤷♀️
However; having a pedo party at the White House in NOT covered under Presidential immunity - because it’s “Personal” use of said property - for illegal means.
I mean seriously- we shouldn’t even be having this conversation- IF - past Presidents weren’t such scum bags. But here we are.
If it weren’t for Biden’s corrupt DOJ persecuting his political opponent, this case would not have even made it to SCOTUS 🤷♀️
THATS THE WHOLE POINT!
But MSM will twist the narrative
AS PER USHE!
What about Obama drone striking a US citizen? Immunity? What about GW Bush defrauding the people of the United States (in their 'official capacity')?
It is very important to understand the facts correctly rather than listen to mainstream propaganda.
The SCOTUS just clarified what actions are immune and what aren't
The immunity applies only to actions committed in official capacity. So no, you cant murder people or have pedo parties in the WH and claim immunity.
It remains very unclear. For instance, in his official capacity, George W Bush committed war crimes and acts of treason, is he immune from prosecution? Is this only for criminal law maybe this is how we move these matters to the military courts?? I don't know... Just so many questions and few answers.
Yeah official acts are immune through normal court system. The court even acknowledged that past presidents have committed crimes in their official capacity.
And no, this ruling makes no mention afaik regarding military courts. I think that option is always. there, and falls under the Military Law