Should a President’s decision-making authority differ from a policeman’s authority in regards to “reasonable search?”
The Chicago Tribune article titled: What if it were Barak Obama on trial in the Senate, ended with this statement.
“So, a last query. Shouldn’t we have a high standard for a President of the United States as for a high school principal?”
King Solomon
Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. (Ecclesiastes 1:17)
The Purpose of This Post
Is to compare President Trumps authority to an average policeman regarding whether he should make a decision to prevent a criminal action potentially being in progress or just look the other way, or do whats right?
What’s My Point?
For example, consider this following statement ruling by the Supreme Court.
“ In answer to this limited question, the Court said it was not. It ruled that when an American policeman observes “unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous”, it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the policeman to conduct a “stop-and-frisk” of the people he suspects.”[14]
In other words, should the President of the United States be concerned about the son of a previous Vice President being paid $50,000 a month as arranged by Joe Biden who on tape admitted to doing what President Trump is being accused of doing. Or should he just look the other way as perhaps President Obama did and not question why $50,000 a month was being paid to his Vice President son possibly from the USA taxpayers giving $450 million dollars a year by Congress, or do what’s right ?
And if that is not a problem, why do they need USA taxpayer money if they can afford to pay their board members the same amounts?
In My Opinion
I still remember pondering whether or not to stop someone when I was an Auxiliary policeman or just turning my head and wonder if I should have stopped and frisked them, or do whats right/
If Interested
Read the Source Links below.
You Decide
Ever wonder how many times the members of Congress have looked the other way during their terms of office under Obama?
Should Trump be impeached or given a medal for asking the Ukraine Prime Minister “to do us (taxpayers) a favor?”.
If Trump is impeached for the reasons of being concerned about taxpayer’s funds, will it promote future Presidents to “turn the heads” and just let Governments do whatever they want with taxpayer money?
Or should we allow Presidents to have high standards about taxpayer’s money same as a policeman?
If King Solomon had to judge this impeachment, would he consider the charges madness and folly or a “chasing the wind” by his accusers?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Source Links
Chicago Tribune
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Feature Image – Words of Advice – Never be afraid to do whats right. https://purplerays.wordpress.com/2020/01/20/new-week-inspiration%e2%9d%a4%ef%b8%8f%e2%98%80-never-be-afraid-to-do-whats-right/
Rudy u Martinka 
Intent, Rudy. Trump has pretty much established himself as impulsive and motivated entirely by personal bias or personal interests. whether you imagine it otherwise or not… that’s his modus operandi. His sincerity and intent is always in question because that’s who he is. This constant comparing to the intentions of the Clintons and Obama is way off the mark. Obama and Clinton were not self-serving or self-ingratiating in their policy decisions. Trump makes NO decision unless it helps him personally in some way.
If Trump wanted to “police” Ukraine’s internal corruption… or, let’s call it what it really is.. investigate the Bidens for whatever his imagination was set on doing, he could very easily have not interfered with the Congressionally mandated aid at the moment, and just threatened, or implied a threat, to future aid. He would have stayed out of trouble.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
Same as a policeman would have stayed out of trouble is precisely my point.
Do you really believe there was no intent of self serving on the part of Biden’s obtaining 50 G a month?
Regards and goodwill blogging
LikeLike
Again with the Biden deflection. I personally don’t care about Biden and/or his son messing in Ukraine. They have both acknowledged the optics were poor and given no one to date has bothered to investigate because the link to anything directly illegal is far fetched…. I’m ok with that. It’s you Conservatives with always the conspiracy theories. This isn’t about the Bidens.. it’s about Trump wanting dirt on Biden and holding up the aid until Zilinsky announced he was launching an internal investigation. Frankly, who cares if Biden’s kid got 50k a month… and who cares if Barisma was paying that much thinking/hoping that the kid might be an edge to get more D.C. influence through the old man. The fact seems that nothing came of the connection… and if Biden’s kid got away with getting 50k a month because of some misguided hope of influence that never happened.. well, hey.. good for him. Doesn’t change Trump’s INTENT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You said….
“Can you or anyone prove Trump knowingly intended to commit a crime when he or she has a reasonable cause to question that a crime has or was being committed?”
1. Rule of reasonableness based on past performance and understanding Trump’s behavioral predispositions… where would Trump even get reasonable cause to even imagine a “crime” was being committed by the Bidens? All he or anyone ever knew… Biden’s kid got a job with Barisma that paid his son well… and the optics suggested that Barisma might be trying to get favor with Biden and his Washington connections.
2. Biden threatening to hold Obama Ukraine aid in order to get the Ukraine president to oust their chief attorney has already been proven to have been an effort underwritten by any number of European nations providing aid to Ukraine in order to end this guy’s corruption of his office. Biden was fulfilling Obama policy.
3. Trump as “corruption crime fighter” is a bit tainted when you see how many of his ex-associates were indicted by Mueller, et al and convicted for crimes of corruption right under Trump’s nose.
4. If Congress is all that concerned about Biden and his kid then investigate them. But it has nothing to do in what Trump has proven to have done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug
Apples or Oranges, the chicken or the egg, which came first?
If you can answer the above questions, you probably can understand the main point of the present impeachment trial, which in my opinion, is a laughable display to the world how foolish American politicians, supposedly leaders o the greatest Nation in the world are being displayed to entertain viewers around the world.
The only problem is are they displaying themselves as wise or foolish?
Thanks for your blog inspiring comments.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Regarding your observation on the impeachment…
“The only problem is are they displaying themselves as wise or foolish?”
That result will unfold by the voters on the short term, and history on the long term.
On the surface, and given the polls are showing something inside 75% of the public wants to see witnesses, and the likelihood that the Dems across the board are going to roast the GOP for the “sham” Senate trial up until voting day, whether Trump wins a second term or not… the Senate GOP just lost to the Dems. If that happens… and Trump wins… a Dem Congress is sure to impeach him again in the second term and he’s booted out.
But who knows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
Your right, no one knows.
Frankly though, your comment made me smile because it reminded me of an old Disney song verse. When you wish upon a stsr….
It is kind of amusing.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Doug,
Can you or anyone prove Trump knowingly intended to commit a crime when he or she has a reasonable cause to question that a crime has or was being committed?.
When A is being paid an exorbitant amount from B who admitted extorting C to pay A perhaps using the funds from D, would that cause E to have reasonable cause to ask B if he was indeed extorted to pay using the funds from D.
Or is it best to just fire the policeman E.
I wonder if using intent to fire Trump when reasonable cause is present will not hold up in the Supreme Court because of Trump had reasonable cause.
Now if you are confused with my logic using A, B, C, D, E,’s involved, , just think how confused a jury of a bunch of politicians who every day extort from each other to get things done adds to the reasonable cause to wonder how any of the jury can juidge Trump on a charge of intent.
Then consider that A agreed to stop being paid by B only after E asked a reasonable question. Does that imply A knew the C was extorted using funds from D (Dumb or fool taxpayers,)
Regards and goodwill blogging.
PS Doug
To help you understand the ABCDEF, perhaps this explanation appeared in the Chicago Tribune today?
LikeLike