If You Agree That Trump Has Presidential Immunity, Then Biden has the Right to Lock Trump Up

[Harpy Eagle]

And you don’t think we can do the same? Election denial? We could have a bus load of democrats heading for prison for that.

What are you waiting for?

 

[gtopa1]

I think the trump worshippers don't see how trump has shot himself in the foot like Barney Fife. His team is arguing about presidential immunity while Trump is whining about Biden prosecuting his political opposition. If the president has immunity, Biden is the president and Biden can imprison trump and eveybody associated with trump.

TODAY.

Read the full brief asking the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s presidential immunity claim​

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team urged the Supreme Court on Monday night to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with scheming to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The brief from prosecutors was submitted just over two weeks before the justices take up the legally untested question of whether an ex-president is shielded from criminal charges for official actions taken in the White House.

Read Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s full brief to the Supreme Court here:

You may well be correct, but then the House can impeach him and the Senate CONVICT IF he goes too far. Of course the USSC gets to decide if it's constitutional or not.

Greg

 

[Dragonlady]

You and Lesh would love that wouldn’t you?

The WORLD would love that Mac.

 

[iku]

Good for you!

prove you are capable.

 

[iku]

The WORLD would love that Mac.

I wouldn't love that.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes it is. It is Trumps argument in front of the Supreme Court.

False.

 

[SavannahMann]

False.

You are hilarious my friend. The argument from Trump to the Supremes is exactly that. The President has Absolute Immunity.

The argument is that the Constitution says the President must be Impeached, and Removed from Office, before he can be Prosecuted.

 

[j-mac]

You are hilarious my friend. The argument from Trump to the Supremes is exactly that. The President has Absolute Immunity.

The argument is that the Constitution says the President must be Impeached, and Removed from Office, before he can be Prosecuted.

Just so I understand, you’re not satisfied that a former President is being judicially harassed, during an election, for electoral advantage. You want to see a sitting President arrested DURING his/her presidency…? Is that right?

 

[SavannahMann]

Just so I understand, you’re not satisfied that a former President is being judicially harassed, during an election, for electoral advantage. You want to see a sitting President arrested DURING his/her presidency…? Is that right?

The question of prosecution while in office is long settled. The entire case, and I’m surprised you don’t know that, revolves around post presidential actions.

As far as I can tell, Trump’s problems are from Trump’s own actions. Let’s begin with New York.

If Trump had paid for the NDA’s with cash from his personal account nobody would have been able to do anything about it. Instead he paid from business accounts listing them as legal fees to deduct the payments from his taxes. That is illegal. It has been illegal for decades.

Let’s talk about the documents case. If Trump had surrendered the documents when discovered as Biden and Pence did, I’d say it was a mistake and they owned up to it. If Trump had turned them over when the phone call or letter showed up I’d say it was a mistake he took his good sweet time rectifying but whatever. Trump instead lied to Federal Agents. A crime. He conspired to hide the documents. A crime. And has consistently ranted and raved telling lies a plenty since. The espionage act is over a Century old. This isn’t new law. It’s been on the books since the oldest living people today were crawling newborns.

Lastly we get to the DC/Georgia cases.

Let me give you a picture to save myself a thousand words.

 

[j-mac]

The question of prosecution while in office is long settled. The entire case, and I’m surprised you don’t know that, revolves around post presidential actions.

As far as I can tell, Trump’s problems are from Trump’s own actions. Let’s begin with New York.

If Trump had paid for the NDA’s with cash from his personal account nobody would have been able to do anything about it. Instead he paid from business accounts listing them as legal fees to deduct the payments from his taxes. That is illegal. It has been illegal for decades.

Let’s talk about the documents case. If Trump had surrendered the documents when discovered as Biden and Pence did, I’d say it was a mistake and they owned up to it. If Trump had turned them over when the phone call or letter showed up I’d say it was a mistake he took his good sweet time rectifying but whatever. Trump instead lied to Federal Agents. A crime. He conspired to hide the documents. A crime. And has consistently ranted and raved telling lies a plenty since. The espionage act is over a Century old. This isn’t new law. It’s been on the books since the oldest living people today were crawling newborns.

Lastly we get to the DC/Georgia cases.

Let me give you a picture to save myself a thousand words.

View attachment 941847

I’m aware of the narrative you’d like to be accepted here in these cases…And, it’s flimsy at best.

What you’re saying basically, is ‘I don’t like how trump campaigned in 2016, so we’re going to do to him what he campaigned on, screw the division, and harm it causes…’

It’s one giant tantrum, and is failing because of the simple fact that the current president is a complete failure, that both sides can’t stand. And, you weren’t counting on half of America laughing at these weak, kangaroo charges…

Stop acting like petulant children and let them campaign, America will decide.

 

[bdtex]

Of course not, but these MAGAS want to go along with trumps bs, they may need to know that Biden is the president and immunity would apply to him.

MAGAts aren't thinking that far ahead.

 

[SavannahMann]

I’m aware of the narrative you’d like to be accepted here in these cases…And, it’s flimsy at best.

What you’re saying basically, is ‘I don’t like how trump campaigned in 2016, so we’re going to do to him what he campaigned on, screw the division, and harm it causes…’

It’s one giant tantrum, and is failing because of the simple fact that the current president is a complete failure, that both sides can’t stand. And, you weren’t counting on half of America laughing at these weak, kangaroo charges…

Stop acting like petulant children and let them campaign, America will decide.

I see you focused on the distraction and failed to address a single point. Let’s cover what you failed to address.

Falsifying business records. That’s been illegal for decades. It goes back to when businessmen would write off vacations and mistresses as business expenses. The people, through their elected representatives decided that would not be tolerated. There have been laws prohibiting it for pretty much my entire life, and I’m approaching retirement age.

The documents. I covered that well enough. It has been a crime to hold them for a century. It has been illegal for at least that long to cover up crimes. It has been a crime for about that long to make a false statement to a cop.

I am not demanding that Biden or Pence be prosecuted. I see plenty of opportunities for mistakes. I have long believed we should forgive honest mistakes. Documents that were accidentally stuffed into the wrong box. Ok. The question comes up what did they do when the documents were found? Biden and Pence called the authorities and reported the find. They cooperated with the investigation. Accidents happen. They did the right thing when the accident was discovered.

How many times have you been forgiven when you turned to your boss and said I fucked up? I’ve been forgiven many times. My bosses admire honesty. They know if I do fuck up I’m going to tell them as soon as I realize it. They know I’m going to tell the truth. I try not to fuck up, but it happens. And the test of character is how you respond to the human trait of fucking up.

Finally. The January 6 and post election crimes. It has been illegal forever to create or possess forged documents. Ordering such forged documents is a crime in an of itself. Claiming it is a proper role of your job is questionable.

Even if you order someone to go to Russia with forged documents I think we can agree that would be normal espionage against a foreign power. What does it say about us when we claim the same thing is perfectly legal in our own nation?

This isn’t political persecution. It is prosecuting crimes committed by a politician. It is what this Nation has always intended. No one above the law. It is why Nixon got a Pardon. It is why Clinton had a plea bargain. Until now we have never argued that a President was immune after leaving office for acts committed in office.

 

[BackAgain]

You are hilarious my friend. The argument from Trump to the Supremes is exactly that. The President has Absolute Immunity.

Wrong.

Your ongoing ignorance is understandable. But you’re still wrong.

What you miss is nuance.

Try to follow along this time.

There are preconditions in the Presidential CIVIL immunity which already exists. If there are preconditions, then the immunity by definition isn’t “absolute.” Once the preconditions are met, then perhaps it can’t be taken away. In that more limited sense it can be said to be “absolute.”

The President’s legal arguments ask that the civil immunity be extended to criminal prosecutions on the same basis and for the same reasons as for civil immunity.

The argument is that the Constitution says the President must be Impeached, and Removed from Office, before he can be Prosecuted.

That is a corollary argument derived from an interpretation of what the Constitution says.

Finally, if our Congresspersons and Senators were elected with an actual demand by their constituents that they faithfully perform their duties, then assuming they started behaving accordingly, the entire process of impeachment and a Senate trial might take on some meaning once again.

 

[SavannahMann]

Wrong.

Your ongoing ignorance is understandable. But you’re still wrong.

What you miss is nuance.

Try to follow along this time.

There are preconditions in the Presidential CIVIL immunity which already exists. If there are preconditions, then the immunity by definition isn’t “absolute.” Once the preconditions are met, then perhaps it can’t be taken away. In that more limited sense it can be said to be “absolute.”

The President’s legal arguments ask that the civil immunity be extended to criminal prosecutions on the same basis and for the same reasons as for civil immunity.

That is a corollary argument derived from an interpretation of what the Constitution says.

Finally, if our Congresspersons and Senators were elected with an actual demand by their constituents that they faithfully perform their duties, then assuming they started behaving accordingly, the entire process of impeachment and a Senate trial might take on some meaning once again.

The problem remains that history seems to indicate the opposite is true. Presidents are liable, at least criminally, for actions taken in contrivance of the law, while in office.

Nixon was facing an indictment when he was granted a Pardon by President Ford. Ford did so knowing that the acceptance of the Pardon insured that Nixon had admitted his guilt.

Bill Clinton was facing charges of lying to Investigators when he was about to leave office. He wisely negotiated a plea deal to head off the Grand Jury and Indictment certain to come from his actions.

The argument made by Trump revolves around his claims that these charges, in every case, are just political persecution.

The problem with that claim is that Trump did it. He caused checks to be drawn to Cohen and declared them to be legal fees despite knowing they were payment for an NDA that had nothing to do with his business.

As I said many times. If he had paid it out of his personal money there wouldn’t be any charges at all. But he didn’t. And there be the Rub. He is in a Pickle of his own making.

The election related charges. Here again there is the claim it was all within the scope of the Presidency. Nonsense. Providing electors not picked by the legislatures of the various states official looking documents certifying them as official is not within the scope of the Presidency.

And the Documents case came about long after Trump had left the White House. Apparently his claims of immunity exist into the future for decades.

 

[BackAgain]

The problem remains that history seems to indicate the opposite is true. Presidents are liable, at least criminally, for actions taken in contrivance of the law, while in office.

Said you, absent any hint of support. Citing to the name of “history” doesn’t suffice. Give us a couple of examples.

Nixon was facing an indictment when he was granted a Pardon by President Ford.

Was he? Hm. And you know what? His immunity was later determined to be civil. But the Trump application is to extend it to criminal prosecutions. So if you have a point, you’re failing to make it.

Ford did so knowing that the acceptance of the Pardon insured that Nixon had admitted his guilt.

Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not taking your word on that. It is a belief that accepting a pardon is tantamount to admitting guilt. But it’s not a certainty. And, for whatever it’s worth, let’s assume that Nixon was “guilty” of some crime (coverup). So what? That doesn’t establish that Teumpnis wrong, now.

Bill Clinton was facing charges of lying to Investigators when he was about to leave office. He wisely negotiated a plea deal to head off the Grand Jury and Indictment certain to come from his actions.

Again. That was to the Trump application to extend the Presidential civil liability immunity to criminal prosecutions. And it’s far from clear that Bubba’s dishonesty would have been covered under the preconditions for such immunity anyway.

The argument made by Trump revolves around his claims that these charges, in every case, are just political persecution.

No. But your ignorance is understandable, again. That is one of his contentions. But his request emanates from his contention that actions AS President — under Constitutional authority — ought not be subjected to criminal prosecutions.

The problem with that claim is that Trump did it. He caused checks to be drawn to Cohen and declared them to be legal fees despite knowing they were payment for an NDA that had nothing to do with his business.

Wrong. In that case, he appears to have agreed to obtaining NDA’s. Paying for them was and remains legal. No crime was being concealed or committed.

The Bragg case is legal fluff and fiction.

As I said many times. If he had paid it out of his personal money there wouldn’t be any charges at all. But he didn’t. And there be the Rub. He is in a Pickle of his own making.

Nonsense. If Cohen paid it and submitted a bill for legal services and Trump paid his lawyer, no crime at all was committed. Not even the misdemeanor version.

The election related charges. Here again there is the claim it was all within the scope of the Presidency. Nonsense. Providing electors not picked by the legislatures of the various states official looking documents certifying them as official is not within the scope of the Presidency.

Your belief however misguided and mistaken is irrelevant. Preparation for a slate of alternative electors should not develop that the ”official” slate(s) could get tossed was never criminal at all. He had a right and duty as President to challenge the election as fraudulent.

And the Documents case came about long after Trump had left the White House. Apparently his claims of immunity exist into the future for decades.

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. The “documents case” came about entirely from the material he took with him from the Presidency into private life. He did so while President.

 

[SavannahMann]

Said you, absent any hint of support. Citing to the name of “history” doesn’t suffice. Give us a couple of examples.

Was he? Hm. And you know what? His immunity was later determined to be civil. But the Trump application is to extend it to criminal prosecutions. So if you have a point, you’re failing to make it.

Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not taking your word on that. It is a belief that accepting a pardon is tantamount to admitting guilt. But it’s not a certainty. And, for whatever it’s worth, let’s assume that Nixon was “guilty” of some crime (coverup). So what? That doesn’t establish that Teumpnis wrong, now.

Again. That was to the Trump application to extend the Presidential civil liability immunity to criminal prosecutions. And it’s far from clear that Bubba’s dishonesty would have been covered under the preconditions for such immunity anyway.

No. But your ignorance is understandable, again. That is one of his contentions. But his request emanates from his contention that actions AS President — under Constitutional authority — ought not be subjected to criminal prosecutions.

Wrong. In that case, he appears to have agreed to obtaining NDA’s. Paying for them was and remains legal. No crime was being concealed or committed.

The Bragg case is legal fluff and fiction.

Nonsense. If Cohen paid it and submitted a bill for legal services and Trump paid his lawyer, no crime at all was committed. Not even the misdemeanor version.

Your belief however misguided and mistaken is irrelevant. Preparation for a slate of alternative electors should not develop that the ”official” slate(s) could get tossed was never criminal at all. He had a right and duty as President to challenge the election as fraudulent.

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. The “documents case” came about entirely from the material he took with him from the Presidency into private life. He did so while President.

Your IGNORANCE is apparent. But let’s try and erase some.

The Ford Pardon referencing the 1915 Burdick Supreme Court Decision.

The Nixon pardon in constitutional retrospect - National Constitution Center

Now after your claims of nuances, which is nonsense. Let’s get to the meat of the Documents.

When the phone call came in Trump did not claim the documents were personal. He claimed there were no classified documents. When the letter came in Trump’s reply was again no documents. He did not assert they were personal. There was no claim of declassification. Nothing of the sort.

Finally the Subpoena. Trump hid the documents from his lawyers conducting the search. No claim that they were personal was made before the court. No claim of declassification in reply.

In fact. We didn’t hear about declassification or private documents until a couple days after the search warrant.

For the first couple days all we heard was how the documents were planted.

Then the narrative changed daily. Each day a new claim, which rendered the old claims irrelevant.

 

[Crick]

I think the trump worshippers don't see how trump has shot himself in the foot like Barney Fife. His team is arguing about presidential immunity while Trump is whining about Biden prosecuting his political opposition. If the president has immunity, Biden is the president and Biden can imprison trump and eveybody associated with trump.

TODAY.

Read the full brief asking the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s presidential immunity claim​

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team urged the Supreme Court on Monday night to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with scheming to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The brief from prosecutors was submitted just over two weeks before the justices take up the legally untested question of whether an ex-president is shielded from criminal charges for official actions taken in the White House.

Read Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s full brief to the Supreme Court here:

Hell, he can simply have the military kill them all.

 

[IM2]

Hell, he can simply have the military kill them all.

Yep, and it would be legal.

 

[BackAgain]

Your IGNORANCE is apparent. But let’s try and erase some.

The Ford Pardon referencing the 1915 Burdick Supreme Court Decision.

The Nixon pardon in constitutional retrospect - National Constitution Center

Now after your claims of nuances, which is nonsense. Let’s get to the meat of the Documents.

When the phone call came in Trump did not claim the documents were personal. He claimed there were no classified documents. When the letter came in Trump’s reply was again no documents. He did not assert they were personal. There was no claim of declassification. Nothing of the sort.

Finally the Subpoena. Trump hid the documents from his lawyers conducting the search. No claim that they were personal was made before the court. No claim of declassification in reply.

In fact. We didn’t hear about declassification or private documents until a couple days after the search warrant.

For the first couple days all we heard was how the documents were planted.

Then the narrative changed daily. Each day a new claim, which rendered the old claims irrelevant.

You tend to be a verbose bloviator.

But the ignorance is and has been all yours. True story!

As I correctly noted, there is indeed a line of legal reasoning that maintains that accepting a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt. But it is also a dubious line of legal reasoning. I’d explain that to you, but you’re a retard and it is off topic.

The documents case seems to be primarily occupying the tiny little brain of yours at the moment.

Now learn some facts. The GSA packed for him primarily. And he has said (as some others have) that he declassified them prior to leaving the White House.

Your denial is of no consequence. You have no clue on the topic.

You also have no evidence to support your claims about what Trump directed regarding anything subpoenaed. You hack.

 

[yidnar]

I think the trump worshippers don't see how trump has shot himself in the foot like Barney Fife. His team is arguing about presidential immunity while Trump is whining about Biden prosecuting his political opposition. If the president has immunity, Biden is the president and Biden can imprison trump and eveybody associated with trump.

TODAY.

Read the full brief asking the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s presidential immunity claim​

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team urged the Supreme Court on Monday night to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with scheming to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The brief from prosecutors was submitted just over two weeks before the justices take up the legally untested question of whether an ex-president is shielded from criminal charges for official actions taken in the White House.

Read Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s full brief to the Supreme Court here:

Briben is already trying to lock Trump up idiot ..