At an event in 2008 at the University of Minnesota Law School, Judge Brett Kavanaugh talks about his belief that U.S. presidents should be exempt from prosecution.
No. Whoever the president is needs to be cognizant of what he or she does and the ramifications of. Granting them immunity while in office sends the wrong message. It is way past time we hold politicians, celebrities, and people in positions of power and authority to the standard the rest of us have to abide by. No special privileges at all.
Immunity does not mean that they do not have ramifications. It defers the ramifications until after office. The reason behind giving any President immunity during their time in office is to prevent partisan attacks which would only serve as a distraction. The President can very well be charged with crimes after they leave office and, in reality, they are given less protections than citizens in that the prescriptive period to bring forth charges does not begin to run until the President is out of office. Justice Kavanuagh, in this speech, is saying that the same protections should be extended to civil matters - deferring the case until after the President’s term(s) end(s). It’s not about a double standard, it’s about removing targets from peoples’ backs because you have to understand that there is a district attorney someone in this nation that would have tried to prosecute President Obama for “lying on his birth certificate to enter an election.” The same situation is occurring now where a democratic district attorney is trying to leverage his position by saying he may bring charges; therefore, he needs the President’s tax returns. That is not how investigations are supposed to work and they haven’t even alleged an actual New York State crime. They have speculated that the Trump Organization may or may not have reported hush money payments. Well, sorry, but that is a valid contract. Money in exchange for not saying anything is a valid contract as long as it isn’t accepted under threat of violence or duress or fraud. They never make those allegations so it is clear that the DA intends to get the tax returns and either release them to the public or give them to the Democrats in Congress, which is inappropriate. Democratic pundits have continually stated, “most Presidential candidates have released their tax returns.” Well, I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but a main tenet of a free country is that neither you or I have to do what everyone else does as long as it is within the law, but we also have due process rights and privacy rights when it comes to speculative investigations. In conclusion, there should be an extension of the Presidential immunity to civil cases to end these insane and unwarranted attacks on our democracy. We must follow the rules established in the Constitution if our society is to continue being a free country. If we allow the Democrats to it this time, the Republicans will do it when we have a duly elected Democratic President.
Aaron M. While I tend to agree. Regarding the current situation. The TrumpRegime cannot be permitted to argue that the entire executive branch of government is covered by the ‘executive privilege’ umbrella. Taxpayers are paying for him to argue that the constitution is unconstitutional.
Aaron M. Your comment is sound, but unfortunately sounds biased. Rules change. If we followed every rule and never allowed room for “improvement” we’d still have the 3/5ths compromise along with every other fascist ideal both democrats, republicans, federalists, anti federalists, have fought for and against for the past few hundred years. Amendments and rewrites, in itself is the freedom of which makes our REPUBLIC great. We are not a democracy we are a republic that practices democracy. As for these attacks being insane, was it insane to have impeachment hearings for Clinton Or Johnson? How about the investigations on Nixon? Insane would be barging in on closed door investigations. Insane would be using your power as President to cheat your way through another election and cheat the majority of people. Your use of the word insane is over dramatic and mirrors the irrationality of major polarized media news outlets. Both sides. While being the president of the United States is a tough job, that notion of “Extending presidential immunity” directly causes contention with article 2 section 4 of the constitution. Madison, the father of said constitution, argued for section 4 and published many federalist papers that eventually helped delegates ratify the entire constitution, while Hamilton wanted George Washington to be a monarch. After the articles of confederation were done away with, and with the help of Madison, the US constitution was ratified. Your freedoms. In conclusion, Article 2 section 4 ensures that the president is doing what’s best for the people. All of them. Even the polarized ones. It allows legislators to “represent” their constituents and apply due process. Speculative investigations is due process, and every investigation anywhere throughout the history of the American judicial branch starts with speculation. And judiciary quicker to act. This is the house. If there is nothing to hide, it should not go to the senate.
Dear 2023, It just got much worse, courtesy of this guy and a few other other hand-picked people who were involved at least as far back as the 2000 "Brooks Brothers" riot, and possibly before. Sorry, 2024
No. Whoever the president is needs to be cognizant of what he or she does and the ramifications of. Granting them immunity while in office sends the wrong message. It is way past time we hold politicians, celebrities, and people in positions of power and authority to the standard the rest of us have to abide by. No special privileges at all.
Immunity does not mean that they do not have ramifications. It defers the ramifications until after office. The reason behind giving any President immunity during their time in office is to prevent partisan attacks which would only serve as a distraction. The President can very well be charged with crimes after they leave office and, in reality, they are given less protections than citizens in that the prescriptive period to bring forth charges does not begin to run until the President is out of office. Justice Kavanuagh, in this speech, is saying that the same protections should be extended to civil matters - deferring the case until after the President’s term(s) end(s).
It’s not about a double standard, it’s about removing targets from peoples’ backs because you have to understand that there is a district attorney someone in this nation that would have tried to prosecute President Obama for “lying on his birth certificate to enter an election.” The same situation is occurring now where a democratic district attorney is trying to leverage his position by saying he may bring charges; therefore, he needs the President’s tax returns. That is not how investigations are supposed to work and they haven’t even alleged an actual New York State crime. They have speculated that the Trump Organization may or may not have reported hush money payments. Well, sorry, but that is a valid contract. Money in exchange for not saying anything is a valid contract as long as it isn’t accepted under threat of violence or duress or fraud. They never make those allegations so it is clear that the DA intends to get the tax returns and either release them to the public or give them to the Democrats in Congress, which is inappropriate. Democratic pundits have continually stated, “most Presidential candidates have released their tax returns.” Well, I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but a main tenet of a free country is that neither you or I have to do what everyone else does as long as it is within the law, but we also have due process rights and privacy rights when it comes to speculative investigations.
In conclusion, there should be an extension of the Presidential immunity to civil cases to end these insane and unwarranted attacks on our democracy. We must follow the rules established in the Constitution if our society is to continue being a free country. If we allow the Democrats to it this time, the Republicans will do it when we have a duly elected Democratic President.
Aaron M.
While I tend to agree.
Regarding the current situation. The TrumpRegime cannot be permitted to argue that the entire executive branch of government is covered by the ‘executive privilege’ umbrella. Taxpayers are paying for him to argue that the constitution is unconstitutional.
Aaron M.
Your comment is sound, but unfortunately sounds biased. Rules change. If we followed every rule and never allowed room for “improvement” we’d still have the 3/5ths compromise along with every other fascist ideal both democrats, republicans, federalists, anti federalists, have fought for and against for the past few hundred years. Amendments and rewrites, in itself is the freedom of which makes our REPUBLIC great. We are not a democracy we are a republic that practices democracy.
As for these attacks being insane, was it insane to have impeachment hearings for Clinton Or Johnson? How about the investigations on Nixon? Insane would be barging in on closed door investigations. Insane would be using your power as President to cheat your way through another election and cheat the majority of people. Your use of the word insane is over dramatic and mirrors the irrationality of major polarized media news outlets. Both sides.
While being the president of the United States is a tough job, that notion of “Extending presidential immunity” directly causes contention with article 2 section 4 of the constitution. Madison, the father of said constitution, argued for section 4 and published many federalist papers that eventually helped delegates ratify the entire constitution, while Hamilton wanted George Washington to be a monarch.
After the articles of confederation were done away with, and with the help of Madison, the US constitution was ratified. Your freedoms.
In conclusion, Article 2 section 4 ensures that the president is doing what’s best for the people. All of them. Even the polarized ones. It allows legislators to “represent” their constituents and apply due process. Speculative investigations is due process, and every investigation anywhere throughout the history of the American judicial branch starts with speculation. And judiciary quicker to act. This is the house. If there is nothing to hide, it should not go to the senate.
@@angangieangela5216
The Biden crime family are the ones that were found with cocain in the white house.
Dear 2008,
Yikes.
Best, 2023.
Dear 2023,
It just got much worse, courtesy of this guy and a few other other hand-picked people who were involved at least as far back as the 2000 "Brooks Brothers" riot, and possibly before.
Sorry,
2024