Why did it take all that effort just to get this satisfactory answer?

Because of the well documented nature of the person you were dealing with.

---

* To arrest a Nixon, Clinton, Trump, et al. Nixon, Clinton, Trump. et al, would first have to be Impeached/Convicted.

Are you sure about that? Maybe you better have a read on Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Now that you read and understood the unanimous decision are you sure he can't be arrested?

---

Unless criminal charges are forthcoming. I have not asked for the resignation of Conners or Frankin,

What I have stated. Is that I hold President Trump in complete disgust for not attacking Moore.

Why did it take all that effort just to get this satisfactory answer?

I posted and then repeated my disgust with Trump regarding Moore.

Edit: https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=82264#1903652

And you accuse me of not reading your posts?

Why do you believe it was the Trump and Moore part that confused me and not the rest of your position? Why do you think I spoke up and asked for clarification?

Oh yes, the OANN is well known as just another fake news outlet for Trump's views just like Breibart. LOL

One America News Network

Roy Moore sexual misconduct report controversy

In November 2017, in the wake of a Washington Post report on accusations that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore had molested or made inappropriate sexual contact with a number of women under the age of 18 (including a 14-year old), One America News aired a segment citing a false rumor by an anonymous Twitter account that the Washington Post had offered $1,000 to Roy Moore's accusers.[28][29] One America News described the tweet as a "report" and described the tweeter as a "former Secret Service agent and Navy veteran".[29] The Twitter account had a history of tweeting falsehoods and conspiracy theories; the Twitter account has also made repeated and inconsistent lies about its identity, including appropriating the identity of a Navy serviceman who died in 2007.[29]

After it was revealed that the story was a hoax, One America News did not retract its report.[28]

But then again, I can see why those with very questionable ethics and morals would believe anything that came out of that site as they sink further down the social sewer. ;-)

Cheers.

Unless criminal charges are forthcoming. I have not asked for the resignation of Conners or Frankin,

What I have stated. Is that I hold President Trump in complete disgust for not attacking Moore.

Why did it take all that effort just to get this satisfactory answer?

I posted and then repeated my disgust with Trump regarding Moore.

Edit: https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=82264#1903652

And you accuse me of not reading your posts?

Why do you believe it was the Trump and Moore part that confused me and not the rest of your position? Why do you think I spoke up and asked for clarification?

You were the one who equated Moore with Trump.

"If an elected official is accused of sexual harassment and should step down from public office as a matter of course, such as the case with Al Franken or Judge Roy Moore, why does the same not hold true for Donald Trump?"

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=82264&postid=1903528#1903528

Remember?

There's no equation of Moore and Trump. There's an equation of sexual harassment. Sorry if you couldn't see that. Perhaps asking for clarification next time would help the conversation along.

Too bad you didn't read it. It references Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) which clearly states so.
Wiki for the legalese challenged
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald wrote:

The court emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official (or unofficial) acts while in office.

Unless criminal charges are forthcoming. I have not asked for the resignation of Conners or Frankin,

What I have stated. Is that I hold President Trump in complete disgust for not attacking Moore.

Why did it take all that effort just to get this satisfactory answer?

I posted and then repeated my disgust with Trump regarding Moore.

Edit: https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=82264#1903652

And you accuse me of not reading your posts?

Why do you believe it was the Trump and Moore part that confused me and not the rest of your position? Why do you think I spoke up and asked for clarification?

You were the one who equated Moore with Trump.

"If an elected official is accused of sexual harassment and should step down from public office as a matter of course, such as the case with Al Franken or Judge Roy Moore, why does the same not hold true for Donald Trump?"

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=82264&postid=1903528#1903528

Remember?

There's no equation of Moore and Trump. There's an equation of sexual harassment. Sorry if you couldn't see that. Perhaps asking for clarification next time would help the conversation along.

Then don't place Moore in the same sentence as Trump or Frankin.

A women accusing Moore of Rape when she was 14 is harassment and the same as Trump or Frankin? Stalking, yes stalking young girls and being banned from a mall and having Police keep Moore under observation when young girls are present. Is the same as Frankin and Trump?

Guessing we disagree.

I placed them in the same sentence because you were asking for Moore to drop out (and for Trump to condemn him) and I couldn't see why you don't feel the same way toward Trump. Didn't we just go through this?

Unless criminal charges are forthcoming. I have not asked for the resignation of Conners or Frankin,

What I have stated. Is that I hold President Trump in complete disgust for not attacking Moore.

Why did it take all that effort just to get this satisfactory answer?

I posted and then repeated my disgust with Trump regarding Moore.

Edit: https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=82264#1903652

And you accuse me of not reading your posts?

Why do you believe it was the Trump and Moore part that confused me and not the rest of your position? Why do you think I spoke up and asked for clarification?

You were the one who equated Moore with Trump.

"If an elected official is accused of sexual harassment and should step down from public office as a matter of course, such as the case with Al Franken or Judge Roy Moore, why does the same not hold true for Donald Trump?"

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=82264&postid=1903528#1903528

Remember?

There's no equation of Moore and Trump. There's an equation of sexual harassment. Sorry if you couldn't see that. Perhaps asking for clarification next time would help the conversation along.

Then don't place Moore in the same sentence as Trump or Frankin.

A women accusing Moore of Rape when she was 14 is harassment and the same as Trump or Frankin? Stalking, yes stalking young girls and being banned from a mall and having Police keep Moore under observation when young girls are present. Is the same as Frankin and Trump?

Guessing we disagree.

I placed them in the same sentence because you were asking for Moore to drop out (and for Trump to condemn him) and I couldn't see why you don't feel the same way toward Trump. Didn't we just go through this?

Where was I asking for Moore to drop out? He has a Right to Run and the voters have the right to defeat him.

I was only referring to Trump not attacking Moore.

Didn't we just go through this?

Nope. That's new too. I couldn't see why you'd want Trump to attack Moore but not have Moore drop out of the race. Again, a position you hold but you don't bother to explain until much later. Sorry again that it takes this much effort just to have a conversation with you.

Too bad you didn't read it. It references Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) which clearly states so.
Wiki for the legalese challenged
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald wrote:

The court emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official (or unofficial) acts while in office.

"Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982),[1] was a Supreme Court of the United States court case that dealt with immunity from suit of government officials performing discretionary functions when their action did not violate clearly established law."

Too bad you haven't expanded your search for the truth beyond wikipedia.

Read the entire decision here as posted by Cornell Law University. Yes it is very, very long. And mostly referred to Civil Actions and after a President leaves Office.

However, when it comes to Presidential Immunity while in Office and prior to any Impeachment.

"A rule of absolute immunity for the President will not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against misconduct on the part of the Chief Executive. [n38] There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment. [n39] In addition, there are formal and informal checks on Presidential action that do not apply with equal force to other executive officials. The President is subjected to constant scrutiny by the press. Vigilant oversight by Congress also may serve to deter Presidential abuses of office, as well as to make credible the threat of impeachment. [n40] Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature. [p758]"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/731

Too bad you didn't read the opening clause of that ...

In defining the scope of an official's absolute privilege, this Court has recognized that the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity's justifying purposes. Frequently our decisions have held that an official's absolute immunity should extend only to acts in performance of particular functions of his office.

Precisely what was said in Jones. So if say murder isn't an act in performance of particular functions of his office he is subject to arrest and trial. [It's why shrub ran to lawyers to get opinions that his targeted actions were official business] Jones goes on the state that where the Judicial function does not overlap the executive function, privilege does not exist. A trial is not an executive function. Hence the civil suit went forward. Same applies to a criminal one.

About the only thing it ends up saying is he couldn't be jailed while awaiting trial, he would be out of own recognizance.

Next we will be hearing from an "always tRumper" that Sexual Harassment is a function of POTUS I suppose.

Sorry again that it takes this much effort just to have a conversation with you.

I frequently wonder if that isn't the intention.

For weeks now there is a movement called #metoo.
Strange that nobody here has mentioned about it.
Here you can read about it everyday in every news media.
For instance SVT (Swedish equivalent to British BBC).

#metoo soon brings together all industries in Sweden - here is the list
#visjungerut, # concession law, #tystnadtagning - it is now a long list of industries that, through their own hashtag, organize themselves and allow anger after decades of sex abuse and harassment to mull deeply across every social platform in Sweden. Here we summarize them all.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.svt.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2Fmetoo-samlar-snart-alla-branscher-i-sverige-har-ar-listan&edit-text=&authuser=0

Sorry again that it takes this much effort just to have a conversation with you.

I frequently wonder if that isn't the intention.

I came to a conclusion a long while back that Clyde doesn't know how to have a conversation with anyone so I gave up replying to his silly posts. ;-)

Cheers.

a follower of Moore no doubt http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42157810

Certainly dA 'EMPOWERED' Leaders of Australia; Canada; and EU Know ALL 'Bout this 'Stuff'.

Thank Heaven fO.....

Oh Maurice. Who Knew? Who Knows Now?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/11/29/everyone-knew-matt-lauers-sexual-harassment-lair-nbc-eager-keep-happy

Helluva Lotta Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

a follower of Moore no doubt http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42157810

A follower? To what?
I don't get it.
Do you mean Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore?
But Al Franken do the same.
And your precious new president (and prevoius ones) do the same.
Heck. Every man with some power or having a position are doing the same whatever country that is.

Nope. That's new too. I couldn't see why you'd want Trump to attack Moore but not have Moore drop out of the race. Again, a position you hold but you don't bother to explain until much later. Sorry again that it takes this much effort just to have a conversation with you.

I believe it is up to the voters to decide if they should vote for Moore, I wouldn't.

Which has nothing to do with my beliefs regarding Trump's refusal to attack Moore.

BTW: I do understand the inability of Secular Ideologues and Religious Fanatics to understand anyone who does not fit into their narrow and shallow world of ideas. They are, what they are.

... or it could just be bad assumptions on my part due to an inability on your part to properly express your ideas and positions. Then again, what you just said about secular ideologues and religious fanatics who can't seem to understand anyone who doesn't fit into their shallow worldviews seems to fit yourself to a T, so keep on showing us how it's done. You're doing great!

I properly express my opinions.

Your inability to understand and sometimes 'mistakenly' misstate what I said. Or repeatedly asking questions that have been answered and not remembering what you posted. Has been continuously observed.

Yeah you do! You express your opinions so well that nobody here has ever misunderstood what you're saying. Since you are the most eloquent speaker on this forum, I must bow my head in shame now that you've busted me since your record and reputation speaks for itself.

I was only referring to Trump not attacking Moore.

You expect one non-convicted sexual predator to verbally attack another non-convicted sexual predator?

What planet do you live on?
They normally congregate together on the dark side, presumably for more and more explicit locker room talk etc.

I was only referring to Trump not attacking Moore.

You expect one non-convicted sexual predator to verbally attack another non-convicted sexual predator?

What planet do you live on?
They normally congregate together on the dark side, presumably for more and more explicit locker room talk etc.

I thought they swapped techniques at those gatherings.

I was only referring to Trump not attacking Moore.

You expect one non-convicted sexual predator to verbally attack another non-convicted sexual predator?

What planet do you live on?
They normally congregate together on the dark side, presumably for more and more explicit locker room talk etc.

I thought they swapped techniques at those gatherings.

Probably and more...
It's why I put the etc. in there, so that others could put their own lurid imaginings in there.