Bingo. Plus, why would he want to give Donald Trump more attention? Let the State of NY and others widdle into him nothingness. If the DOJ has a reason to seek him out, they will. The DOJ is not Biden's command squad.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
NBC News: Biden hopes to avoid divisive investigations of Trump, "just wants to move on" and prefers unity; Plans to not interfere with the DOJ
- Thread starter Deleted member 31923
- Start date
Bingo. Plus, why would he want to give Donald Trump more attention? Let the State of NY and others widdle into him nothingness. If the DOJ has a reason to seek him out, they will. The DOJ is not Biden's command squad.
honestly. Best to leave it to the DOJ and the states (especially). Other than inciting followers it will cement the idea of a coup and jailing your political opponent. Don't even have Biden touch this.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Just giving Trump and his cronies a "we're good, let's move on" is the shittiest response bar from pardoning him.
Though, of course, it was expected from Biden. Democrats being fucking cowards are nothing new.
Giving them a pass won't end this, it will only galvanize them further. People who think that things are just "going back to normal" are in for a rude awakening. It didn't work with the Confederacy and it won't work now.
Just giving Trump and his cronies a "we're good, let's move on" is the shittiest response bar from pardoning him.
Though, of course, it was expected from Biden. Democrats being fucking cowards are nothing new.
Giving them a pass won't end this, it will only galvanize them further. People who think that things are just "going back to normal" are in for a rude awakening. It didn't work with the Confederacy and it won't work now.
look he's going to get prosecuted biden is not going to engage or push for it at all, he's trying to avoid it looking like a witchhunt
Yeah this is the basic gist here. There's nothing stopping the DOJ from doing it independently of Biden, and the POTUS shouldn't have the ability to do it anyway, or else you'll just get corrupt presidents investigating political opponents willy-nilly.
All that said, there really do need to be laws stronger than "gentlemen's agreements" going forward that explicitly call out this shit so it can be brought up in court at a later date without having to worry about some sort of bias - it would simply be against the law.
There are. Problem is the only lawful body empowered by the Constitution to hold a sitting President accountable is Congress. Once Donald Trump becomes a citizen again, he becomes beholden to the laws of his residence state, and any state with a provable grievance against him.
Oh I know once he becomes a civilian there are things like that in place. I meant more when they are holding office. Like that stupid OLC memo that keeps coming up as the guidance for the inability to charge a sitting president with a crime.
If Mueller had guts he would have brought that memo in court. Though, with the 5-4 at the time, supreme court might've enshrined it.
Yeah, once a President is in office, every level of law basically defers to Congress as the structure to hold a President accountable. And we saw how that went. The House did its job, Senate Republicans simply didn't.
This is a conservative legal theory, but it never really been tested in courts.
There is a justice department policy not to indict sitting president, but I donno, not sure we need to keep treating that shit like gospel, it can be changed on day 1 of the Biden administration.
It would ultimately still fall to congress. Jan saw how that would go.
It can I suppose, but why would Biden change it for himself? The reason why it's generally accepted that way is because the burden to change it would require both the executive, and the legislative be to willing cede some of their constitutional power to other regulatory and/or state agencies.
I'm sure you can imagine how unlikely that would be.
I think that's the problem, and that's why it had stayed in place since Nixon.
And you know what, I'm not even saying I have a super well formed opinion about how exactly a sitting president should interact with our justice system. It just feel that if we really want to go with "If the president does it, that means it's not illegal", we should at least have a public debate about it, rather then just letting a few unelected lawyers write a memo about it 50 years ago.
The constitution say nothing about it. We have legal room to maneuver here, and as far as I know there is little if any legal precedents on this.
It's quite a bit different than "if the President does it, that means it's not illegal." It's closer to "no matter what the President does, only Congress can do something about it while he's President."
They functionally seem to be the same thing when the President's party insulates him in the only structure that has practical power to check him.
That was just how Nixon articulated that legal doctrine, I was just doing a thing.
It will really depend on his AG and what states like NY do with their investigation but "just moving on" is a huge mistake. The government, the legal system, the political system, and our country need to learn from the crimes and inhumanity of the Trump administration and put new safeguards in place to prevent future abuses of power. You can't learn from the very recent, soon to be past if you just "move on" from it.
Already breaking rank. The death toll in NYC was horrifying. The people who live in NYC and New Jersey aren't going to stand for inaction.
yall be like "you're asking for the president to abuse his power and overstep his boundaries!" like that isn't what the fuck Trump been doing since he got in office.
I think this question is very political, and an important one at that.
Trump without doubt broke federal laws in blatant, vulgar ways, I doubt anyone here will disagree.
Some people think a president cannot be indicted in court for something that happened while he was in office.
Some people think that they can, but it's a bad idea politically to go after Trump.
Some people want him indicted.
I think this is a political question, the constitution don't have no answers there.
If Trump isn't held accountable, President Carlson, President Trump Jr, President Cotton, etc WILL do and achieve worse using Trump's playbook.
This is precisely the thing Biden needs to be saying, especially once Trump gets done with his federal pardon spree, Biden's wishes go out the door anyway. Leave it up to an independent DOJ, if they even can do shit after the pardons, and more importantly, the states. Last thing a local state jury needs in their mind is Biden declaring how he is gonna lock up his political enemy. Leave that shit to Trump.
I don't think anyone suggest Biden render him to gitmo.
It's about whether or not we try to prosecute Trump and his cronies for their very obvious crimes.
He'll still get his day in court no matter what.
Really we've seen a lot of this in this thread and many people have carefully repudiated (some of) them, but it's gotten tired and at this point I'll just urge you both to stop being intellectually lazy and maybe also read/think through this thread critically
Though that's true, I would also hasten to point out that the President officially has no command over the electoral process, but Donald Trump has very clearly exerted undue influence on it through his Twitter tantrums.
The President's official position on things does matter, even when he doesn't have command authority over them. That position is a cue for people who are in positions of authority on how they are expected to behave.
I really cant grasp how people are getting this out of what was said.
Are we now so used to the president using the DOJ as his personal toy that we EXPECT this??
Im going to say this again, and slower so it sinks in.
It is NOT the sitting presidents job to go after a former president. Biden's stance is the CORRECT one. He will not interfere. He will let them do their job and operate independently.
Trust me on this... Trump WILL be targeted, as well he should be. But, I think the state of NY gets him first.
Only thing intellectually lazy is not willing to understand how federal pardons correlate with the DOJ's ability to function, and how maybe tainting a very large state jury pool with further vitriol could work counter to any sort of justice you might seek.
If that's the case, then Biden shouldn't be saying anything one way or the other.
Edit: And call me skeptical that Trump will face any consequences. Bush didn't. Neither did Nixon.
Last edited:
Its only being said because the question is being asked to him.
I think tour younger self was wise beyond your years :)
Bush administration officials lied to Congress through their teeth, and it led to horrific violence and death.
And I don't know if anything could have ever deter Trump from breaking the law, this shit is in his DNA, but I got to believe that if we actually held any of those fuckers accountable on any level maybe it would have gave some pause to some Republicans before they so readily went and break the law for Trump.
Pretty sure nothing else would.
Oh ok
Honestly not sure what you're speaking to here. I was specifically referring to the strawman you both used to characterize people's concerns, as if everyone wants him to "abuse his power" or "declare how he is going to lock up his political enemy". Hands off is fine, but maybe the President-elect might have some influence and effect while openly communicating/feeling/deciding that he doesn't want investigations dividing the country or distracting from his presidency.
Expecting Dems to ever hold Repubs accountable is stupid, they are not interested in that.
This is what my main concern is. If we don't hold someone accountable the presidency will become a den of corruption
