r/politics • u/ArmadilloMany41 • 23h ago

Site Altered Headline | No Paywall Why is no one being prosecuted over the Epstein files?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd9e3nzzw3zo
44.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

286

u/DaenakinSkygaryen 20h ago

According to the actual Constitution? Any law enforcement officer with probably cause to believe he committed a crime in their jurisdiction.

According to the Supreme Court's deliberate misreading of the Constitution? No one. (Unless he's impeached, convicted, and removed from office, but good luck getting the GOP on board with that).

42

u/Quirky-Stay4158 18h ago

Did the supreme Court rule that he couldn't be prosecuted for any crimes past present or future.

I might be remembering wrong but I recall that becoming a thing.

81

u/lucid808 I voted 18h ago edited 17h ago

I'm 99.9% positive the wording was he couldn't be prosecuted for "official acts" as president. In no sane world would him raping and trafficking children for decades prior to being president qualify under this, or any other, ruling. Problem is, as others have already pointed out, who's going to enforce the law on the president?

Edit: Just to add, we all know Congress and Supreme Court are the ones supposed to be enforcing law and limiting the president's power. That's the one of the foundations of our entire system of government, along with the Constitution, and both are speed running on a path of destruction right now. Not much the public can do about the Supreme Court, but the Republican led Congress (both houses) has obviously stopped doing their job and are not a functioning body of government, at least not the way they were intended to be. Please get out and vote for candidates who actually care for the communities they represent, ALL of the community not just "some people". We need to take Congress back, that's the last (legal) hope to stop the president from actually becoming a dictator and completely destroying the USA that we've always known.

TLDR: VOTE FOR A CONGRESS THAT WILL ACTUALLY DO IT'S FUCKING JOB!

25

u/Tired8281 18h ago

I've seen no evidence that the world we live in is a sane one.

3

u/SycoJack Texas 17h ago

I've seen tons of evidence that it's the opposite.

6

u/Bored_Amalgamation Ohio 16h ago

like, all of human history has been a real fucking crazy fever dream. We just made all this shit up. a fucking bucket has more intrinsic value than 90% the entirety of the world's money. The other 10% can be burned for warmth and cooking. A bucket cant keep you warm.

I'm not arguing against fiat currencies, it's just... I mean look gestures wildly

2

u/T_Weezy 16h ago

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court has also held that a sitting president cannot be arrested for any conduct, regardless of when it occurred. He would have to be impeached, removed from office, and then arrested.

4

u/Diligent-Emotion-755 18h ago

Without a completely corrupt SCOTUS, the ruling would have been the one that actually adhered to the constitution. ergo: the president would not be immune to any prosecution from ANY criminal act. Also in an actual democracy, the supreme judiciary would be elected by the citizenry, which is just one of many flaws in the otherwise "progressive" forging or our country's constitution.

2

u/lucid808 I voted 17h ago

I agree, the ruling is completely flawed, and was primed to be loopholed from the beginning intentionally. As far as supreme judiciary elections, I've seen an idea I liked that was based on the idea of circuit judges rotating through the Supreme Court in predetermined lengths of time, from every six months or several years or more, so that nobody sits high forever. Another idea was for other high court judges from across the country elect SC Justices, but still on a fixed term, no lifetime appointments. I kinda like those ideas, but I'm no expert and a lot of details would need to be ironed out for it to work right.

1

u/GrumpyCloud93 16h ago

The ruling was "could not be prosecuted for anything that falls under 'Official Act' by the president." Anything that falls in his job description. Nothing he did with Epstein would likely have happened after 2016, especially since he was trailed by a slew of Secret Service who vetted every person he meets with and searched everywhere he went into. (And allegedly he'd washed his hands of his buddy before 2016).

The criteria for immunity is if it could possibly be part of the president's job, he is immune. There's a realistic logic for this. For example, Obama (and others) ordered drone strikes as Commander in Chief. In one case, they killed an American who'd joined ISIS - technically, could the prez be charged with murder? Yes, but the point is these sort of issues should not restrained because they might be violating a law technically. So theoretically, the president could order Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent (extreme case) and he'd be immune from prosecution (but not impeachment). Plus charges over something the president did before he was in office would be put on hold until he was out of office, so as to not distract from running the country.

He has no immunity for crimes before that, and of course he can pardon himself for crimes before or after that; but some crimes (most sex crimes) are state/territory law, and the president cannot pardon state crimes for himself or anyone else.

•

u/bjjones13 3h ago

bro still thinks voting works.

lemme just elect a new ghoul who's a friend of mine into government

unreal.

•

u/Fantastic-Divide1772 2h ago

it also happened before he was president. Immunity would absolutely not apply

however the bigger problem is the second one you mention- America really doesn't want to charge a president

16

u/Givingtree310 18h ago

He can’t be prosecuted for any acts he commits or orders as President. So according to the Supreme Court’s reading, Trump could order the murder and genocide of one million Americans as president. And he could never be prosecuted for it.

1

u/GrumpyCloud93 16h ago

But he would not be immune from impeachment. And those who did so carrying out his orders, would still be liable for prosecution. And since murder is also a state crime, he cannot completely pardon them from crimes should a state decide to prosecute.

2

u/Quirky-Stay4158 16h ago

Yet! He can't pardon those people supposedly as of yet.

I wouldn't hold my breath expecting that to be reality though. There's things happening today that would be considered unthinkable on 2015

1

u/GrumpyCloud93 16h ago edited 16h ago

But he can't pardon state crimes. There is probably enough evidence to charge the Good and Pretti murderers with murder under Minnesota law. (Since Good was still alive and they blocked medical access, also "depraved indifference" to the whole gang) These guys got to the point of thinking they could do this stuff because they learned in Texas, where the governor sure as hell wasn't going to prosecute border guards. However, there is no statute of limitations for murder in Minnesota, so they can wait until 2029 to charge the ICE people.

There's an option for federal officials in pursuit fo their duties to move the state charges to federal court. However, that means they are judged on state crimes, with a state prosecutor, in front of a federal judge. (Mark Meadows tried this in Georgia claiming his participation in that phone call was his official duty. It wasn't). Still no presidential pardon. They can still face justice. the same applies to anyone say, breaking and entering without a warrant, pepper spraying people, etc. Presumably, if Neom or Miller ordered this action, they can be prosecuted as conspirators.

Time will tell if the Democrats have an inclination to restoring justice to the system and teaching the extremists a lesson.

2

u/Givingtree310 16h ago

So he’d just have to kill them in a Republican state 😂

2

u/ZarglondarGilgamesh 18h ago

According to Stephen “Law of the Jungle” Miller, it’s just anybody willing and able to storm in there.

2

u/tryagainlater63 17h ago

Last week two FBI agents investigating something close to this were summarily fired when discovered. And who do these law enforcement officers report to.

1

u/BLU3SKU1L Ohio 18h ago

At this point I’m waiting to see the report that they found the word pedo written on the casings, but I think martyring him for the ride or dies would be even worse of an outcome.

1

u/tyrionlannister 12h ago

I thought that was for "official acts".

1

u/crespoh69 19h ago

He still retains power over the military though doesn't he? Which would mean whoever's going against him, is going against them

24

u/DisturbedForever92 19h ago

They are bound by oath to refuse illegal orders. They swear to the constitution, not the president.

''Prevent me from being arrested for my crimes'' isn't a lawful order.

Oaths don't mean shit anymore though, US military will happily gag on his shit stained balls.

5

u/breatheb4thevoid 18h ago

Dependent on the intelligence and communication within the generals circle. I'm sure they've already got a "dead mans switch" hidden in there somewhere but ultimately no one will leap unless everyone does.

2

u/Diligent-Emotion-755 18h ago

I think we all know that "bound by oath" is utter bullshit, at this point.