![Wave Cry :wavecry:](./images/smilies/wavecry.gif)
Hope and prayers are given in this horrific aftermath of such violence but it's not enough. We need to move on to reasonable solutions, including expanding into mental health reasons behind these attacks.
Re-institutionalize the violently mentally ill and start licensing the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. Drug offenses should disqualify anyone from purchasing any gun what so ever. Neither side of this debate should be comfortable with the solutions to this issue.GeekyPornCritic wrote: ↑4 years agoMe and one of my uncles were talking about these tragedies last night. We need to do more than just pray. We need to make major changes to gun laws. There is no justifiable reason for guns such as AK-47-style assault rifle to be legal and sold in gun stores. These types of weapons should be prohibited. Our country needs common sense gun laws.
These types of shootings will continue until to proper action is taken.
Trump is a regular citizen by law. Being the president doesn't change his status as a US citizen.Bert wrote: ↑4 years agoYou start with a culture that fetishizes guns. Add a powerful lobby group (the NRA) that buys off politicians on behalf of firearm manufacturers to keep gun laws lax. Add to that volatile mix a president who continuously posts racist messages attacking non-white groups. Then finish off the (molotov) cocktail of hate with groups like Q-anon that propagate crazed conspiracy theories. End result: Mass shootings galore.
Here's a question for next year - what's going to happen when Trump starts polling badly in the presidential election? The man is powerfully motivated to win; not only would losing harm his gargantuan yet exquisitely fragile ego, he may also face indictment for obstruction of justice as soon as he is a regular citizen. He will undoubtedly cry "rigged" and appeal to his moronic base for action. If I was American I'd be looking to take an extended vacay out of country in the months leading up to the 2020 vote in November.
The problem expands further than the mentally ill. There are horrible people in this country. Some of these shooters are not mentally ill. Some are racist such as Dylann Roof.chase251 wrote: ↑4 years agoRe-institutionalize the violently mentally ill and start licensing the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. Drug offenses should disqualify anyone from purchasing any gun what so ever. Neither side of this debate should be comfortable with the solutions to this issue.GeekyPornCritic wrote: ↑4 years agoMe and one of my uncles were talking about these tragedies last night. We need to do more than just pray. We need to make major changes to gun laws. There is no justifiable reason for guns such as AK-47-style assault rifle to be legal and sold in gun stores. These types of weapons should be prohibited. Our country needs common sense gun laws.
These types of shootings will continue until to proper action is taken.
Agreed and let find out the facts, before throwing out blameDrDominator9 wrote: ↑4 years ago![]()
Hope and prayers are given in this horrific aftermath of such violence but it's not enough. We need to move on to reasonable solutions, including expanding into mental health reasons behind these attacks.
The Mueller Report outlines 10 instances of obstruction of justice and literally states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. So you are completely, you know, wrong.GeekyPornCritic wrote: ↑4 years agoTrump is a regular citizen by law. Being the president doesn't change his status as a US citizen.
Our justice system has serious problems. Trump can be indicted on charges at any moment. The president is not above the law or shielded from the law.
You are very wrong in this case. The Muller Report does not define the law. Also, The Muller Report does not create laws. If a sitting president cannot be indicated, then you have thousands of problems. That would mean the president could steal, kill, rape, and commit other crimes without punishment as long as he is the sitting president.Bert wrote: ↑4 years agoThe Mueller Report outlines 10 instances of obstruction of justice and literally states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. So you are completely, you know, wrong.GeekyPornCritic wrote: ↑4 years agoTrump is a regular citizen by law. Being the president doesn't change his status as a US citizen.
Our justice system has serious problems. Trump can be indicted on charges at any moment. The president is not above the law or shielded from the law.
Do you realize the Department of Justice's policy is not the law? It is not a fact that the president is immune to indictment. It is just a legal opinion. A legal opinion is not a fact. It is an opinion. Legal counsel can give all the advice in the world, but cannot graduate the advice is the correct method.Bert wrote: ↑4 years ago"During his congressional testimony on Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller noted that part of his decision to refrain from considering an indictment of President Donald Trump was attributed to a long-standing Justice Department policy: According to the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime.
“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said.
The OLC policy itself is relatively straightforward: Most recently reevaluated in 2000, it argues that the executive branch would be incapacitated by a criminal prosecution:
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
Quoted from a July 24th piece in Vox.
The source is unimportant because the facts are indisputable. According to the Justice Department a sitting president cannot be indicted. Trump knows this, and he knows that if he ceases to be president in January of 2021 he may very well be charged with obstruction of justice. Feel free to dispute these facts until you are blue in the face, but what is true does not change regardless of what you say.
Would this hypothetical murderous president be allowed to remain in office by Senators from his own party refusing to vote him guilty in an impeachment trial?DrDominator9 wrote: ↑4 years agoYou're right in your facts, Bert, but I sure wish I knew why that memo is treated like the Holy Grail. I get the legal concept but there are certain crimes which you'd think would, excuse the pun, trump that policy of non-indictment. Murder comes to mind. Would the president have to be impeached and voted out of office before he could be tried for murder?
May as well be, cause it's DOJ policy: that they can't indict sitting president.GeekyPornCritic wrote: ↑4 years agoDo you realize the Department of Justice's policy is not the law?
Huh? No one said president is immune to or from impeachment. Oh look, it's in the Constitution that Legislature can impeach president.It is not a fact that the president is immune to impeachment.
...that happens to be DOJ policy. How'd that happen? Oh right. The memo.It is just a legal opinion.
...that is DOJ policy and that's the fact. Unfortunate.A legal opinion is not a fact. It is an opinion.
And yet it's DOJ Policy anyway.Legal counsel can give all the advice in the world, but cannot graduate the advice is the correct method.
Not all legal experts like jazz. Doesn't affect the policy.Not all legal experts agree with this opinion for many reasons as I started in a previous post.
Highly doubtful. Even the current Senate would vote him out for this. And then he'd be indicted the same day he's booted out.Trump can commit a mass shooting and avoid punishment for months or years.
Yes, mass shooting is a criminal act. Indictable. And re: government officials: impeachable.That's a violation of the constitution.
Weird statement of the day. The Supreme Court doesn't interpret the law as fact, they interpret the law. What it means if it isn't clear and needs...wait for it.....interpreting.Only the Supreme Court can interpret the law as fact.
And if there's never a case about the issue, it won't be. So we're back to: it's DOJ policy. Ta dah!This matter has not been settle by the Supreme Court.
You are right, in my local paper which is the Boston Glob, there have been several editorials blaming Trump for the shootings and claim white supremaicsts are a national problem. We don't even know the OH shooter's motivation yet.lionbadger wrote: ↑4 years agoyes but let's be honest it's America so there will be 3 days of some people saying "it's the democrats" and some people saying "it's the republicans" (two parties that look identical to anyone outside th US) and then absolutely fuck all is going to get done and we'll have this same thread in a week when another shopping centre/kindergarden/hospital gets shot up by some terrorist loon
It is clear from your post that you don't even understand the difference between being indicted and being impeached. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. As for your opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council memo, there are something like 800 former federal prosecutors who signed a public letter on the matter. Here's a quote from the letter:GeekyPornCritic wrote: ↑4 years agoDo you realize the Department of Justice's policy is not the law? It is not a fact that the president is immune to impeachment. It is just a legal opinion. A legal opinion is not a fact. It is an opinion. Legal counsel can give all the advice in the world, but cannot graduate the advice is the correct method.
theScribbler wrote: ↑4 years agoHuh? No one said president is immune to or from impeachment. Oh look, it's in the Constitution that Legislature can impeach president.
I understand the difference of an indictment and impeachment. I typed the wrong word by mistake. Please forgive my typo. The language from the post was clearly referring to an indictment.
Legal opinion is not a fact. The DOJ's policy is based on a legal opinion from a legal counsel. Legal counsel does not define and rule the law. You are ignoring these facts.Bert wrote: ↑4 years agoSo, on the one side, 800 lawyers who have worked as United States federal prosecutors - one the other side, GeekyPornCritic.
So yes, a sitting president is above the law. There is a political process to remove him from office - impeachment - after which he could be indicted, but he cannot be indicted while president. That is the present reality. You can protest all you like, but it won't change the facts.
This whole argument stems from one statement in my initial post - "he may also face indictment for obstruction of justice as soon as he is a regular citizen." That is what sent you off on this legalistic tantrum, and yet that statement is clearly true.
Wow! That's one of the most illogical statements in this discussion.
Weird quote of the day. You just repeated what I said. Are you okay?theScribbler wrote: ↑4 years agoWeird statement of the day. The Supreme Court doesn't interpret the law as fact, they interpret the law. What it means if it isn't clear and needs...wait for it.....interpreting.
I advise you to actually research this topic. How do you know the future? What if a future president rapes and murders a staff member? Surely something must be done to indict him or her.theScribbler wrote: ↑4 years agoAnd if there's never a case about the issue, it won't be. So we're back to: it's DOJ policy. Ta dah!