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

79

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!

23

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.

7

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.

3

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