Should Trump be indicted for illegal exercise of Medicine?

This is interesting. In Brazil, a country that has a constitution that is very similar to the United States' (it was modeled upon ours), a Senate investigative committee is sending to the Attorney General, a request to indict Brazil's sitting president Jair Bolsonaro as a charlatan that illegally exercised Medicine by recommending Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin to the population when the WHO considers these medications as ineffective for Covid-19, and when the president holds no medical degree. It's a felony with sentence guidelines of 3 months to 2 years in prison + a fine.

Of course the link will have to be in the local language, Portuguese (which I speak - but you all can use Google Translate if you want to make sure I'm not making this up).

https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/c...313047fe5efe2e2e940c4b51317374371jrw3o8n.html

Hm... I remember one Donald J. Trump who last I checked did not possess a medical degree and a valid license to exercise Medicine, saying on national TV (which can be easily proven given that the White House by law has to keep the transcripts, and they are available - I believe it was on April 4 or April 6 2020 - I've seen this transcript in the past) more than once that day, in reference to Hydroxychloroquine, words to the effect of "Just take it; you have nothing to lose" (I paraphrase as I don't have the transcript in front of me right now, but that's pretty close; I remember, given that I did watch live that press conference and remember my shock when I heard him saying so). There is no question that the phrase constitutes medical advice.

OK, so apparently in Brazil a sitting president can be indicted... Apparently here it's not done (or so a DoJ memo says, as per the Mueller investigation)... but that guy Donald J. Trump is currently a regular citizen so he could perfectly be indicted for that. LOL. I'd love to see it.

Opinions?

 

We are not Brazil. Wow.

 

What fear these political hacks for a treatment that could reduce the virus and, hence, their power and control. Brazil is no better than we are.

 

we just vote the idiots out, we do not hold them accountable

 

Sounds like Brazil also has useless political grandstanding. Who knew?

 

Did Joe Biden recently get a medical degree that we're not aware of?

Speaking of actual malpractice, how about Fraud Fauci, MD? When are we prosecuting him? He funded this disease.

 

Well, Trump only personally recommended Hydroxychloroquine, which had several studies that showed promise. In fact, several countries used it as a treatment option. Any other nonsense you want to spout is left wing partisan bullshit. But, Trump did mention the vaccines numerous times as being close to being ready. You know, the very same vaccines we have now, the very same vaccines the left told us not to get if Trump recommended because they were "rushed". They spent a year telling us not to get the Trump rushed vaccine. Now that is malpractice.

 

Glenn Kirshner has started a letter to all attorney generals in every state calling for a criminal investigation into the Trump administration handling of the pandemic response

 

It was only added after it became politicised by Trump and it has caused thousands of deaths. We knew from tests with SARS 1 that it worked in vitro but not in vivo

 

No, we aren't; that's why I pointed to a major difference (the sitting president thing) and asked for opinions. Still, like I said, in terms of judicial principles and constitutional structure, they are very similar to us, given that they largely copied our constitution (with some differences and local adaptations, of course) when they had their constitutional assembly in 1988. So, it's a pertinent example, given a similar system. Brazil is a collection of states with significant autonomy like ours, they have house representatives for the states, a couple of senators per state, a presidential system, a supreme court, impeachment is in the house by simple majority than tried in the senate by two thirds majority, their military has the same structure - Minister of Defense, Joint Chiefs, etc. - and so on and so forth; all very similar to here.

Sure, we have profound differences in terms of GDP, industrial development, distribution of wealth, and so on, but that has nothing to do with the organization of their legislative, judiciary, and executive powers. One major difference: they have no electoral college. The president is elected by simple majority of the popular vote. And they have a real multi-party system with several major parties instead of only two major ones like we have here.

Anyway, other similarities are striking... the rightist president there, Jair Bolsonaro, is nicknamed The Tropical Trump and has adopted many similar attitudes during his term - anti-Chinese, nationalistic, for fossil fuels and energy independence, for guns for the people, and he approached the pandemic the same way: it's a hoax, it's a little flu, it will go away, no need for masks, no need for lockdowns, much better is to take hydroxychloroquine, etc., etc.

The pandemic in Brazil is also the most similar case as compared to the USA, as they are the country in the world with the second biggest death toll, currently at some 565,000 deaths.

So, yeah, my thread is pertinent.

 

Brazil has started a CPI (Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito or Parliamentary Investigative Committee) precisely to look into the Bolsonaro Administration's response to the pandemic, including, with criminal implications. For example, they are considering an indictment for a bribery scandal involving an attempt to buy the Covaxin vaccine made by India, at inflated prices ten times above the going rate, with a kickback for officials of the Ministry of Health.

 

You are blinded by your biases. NO president can speak as a "private citizen" while they are seated in the White House.

 

Well… The WHO doesn’t hold legal standing in America so I’m not sure why that was a part of your post unless it actually adds to an indictment. But trump never as far as I know said people should use it. If I remember correctly he advised doctors to try it and suggested it had some interesting results

 

Yes, he did. Look it up. In all words. He said to the people "take it, you have nothing to lose." Do you want to hear it directly from the horse's mouth? Here:

As for Brazil, they quoted the WHO to say that the international scientific community doesn't support these medications. Just as an argument. As for the legal part, they did make a point that ANVISA, the Brazilian FDA, does not recommend hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for Covid-19 so the president acted against the federal agency that is in charge of regulating approved and authorized medications.

 

I understand what you're trying to convey but there are important details missing.

1. A US POTUS can't be indicted or arrested while holding that position (that is why he so desperately wanted to win on re-election). Further, a seated POTUS has access to representation by our Department of Justice. It would have to be determined that his actions/words were made as the POTUS versus a private citizen, but he would most likely have the backing of legal resources (tax payer money) to represent him until or if the presiding judge determines if he was speaking at POTUS or a private citizen.

2. Absence of Malice

There has to be some level of maliciousness involved in order to prove "harm" (basically, something "quantifiable. As we've seen in the court cases involving rioters on 01/06/2021, it's not *enough* to say "I did this because President Trump told me to.". Yes, the question of his INTENT matters but it's rather subjective and left to the presiding judge to determine.

There is some wiggle room among legal experts about what that entails. This refers to the "malice" question. [In other words, did the speaker willfully and maliciously make statements knowing they would cause harm?" This is why so many Trump apologists dismiss what he said about Hydroxychloroquine and his words on January 6, 2021.

3. As a private citizen...(as you mentioned)

This area is muddled by Trump claiming that he won the 2020 election. To date, he continues to refer to himself and release statements as "45th President of the United States".

He doesn't seem to realize it but this distinction is extremely important. He can't just try to insolate himself from prosecution by saying that he is a private citizen. As long as he claims that the election was lost and based on widespread election fraud, he is, in essence saying that he should have *protection* under the law because he is the rightful POTUS. Those are two separate issues: Representation as the leader of USA OR private citizen. It can NOT be both ways.

 

Interesting points.

 

No legal standing but we are not talking about that we are talikg about research recommendations and THAT has significant standing

 

I say sure, indict the hell out of him. SO LONG AS the entire trial is broadcast on livestream and public television. ALL arguments, witnesses and evidence shall be included. Otherwise, hell no.

 

We can arrange that roll: so how many other trials are conducted this way?

 

Hmmm Would “reckless indifference” be applicable instead of malice?

 

Can you please post in English?

 

Recent studies prove these treatments along with zinc and vitamin D are effective yet WHO is not interested in sponsoring any studies. In fact each of these separate treatments studied alone all help. In a Belgium study Hydroxychloroquine alone showed a 30% effectiveness in reducing deaths. Unlike the other studies they used the accepted dosage.

Now ask yourself why the WHO is not interested in studying these treatments. A clue is they are all very cheap.

 

A president's words count.

 

Your thread would be be relevant if the United States had a similar law. You’re pretty much grasping at this point.

 

The WHO’s research recommendations still hold no water in decisions of a president. Why was the WHO brought up? I’m obviously confused lol