And now on to the more serious question of immunity. . .

[Donald H]

Show me the specific quote from the OP that suggests any citizen being above the justice system. The issue is what powers and protections are there for the President within the Constitution.

Read my comments on why the American system has failed.

It was a brave attempt to better the British system of the king being above the law.

But the brave attempt failed and now the chickens have come home.

There's only one solution and that is to unequivocally abandon the British system! PERIOD!

The way that Britain and the colonies did it was to exclude politicians, while 'supposedly' keeping the immunity for the crowned head. It hasn't been tested recently and it likely won't.

 

[Foxfyre]

If Biden says they’re enemy combatants, then it is within the scope of his powers to defend the country.

Every president assumed they were bound by the law. It’s never been a problem before.

I suppose you think that's a valid argument. It isn't. Anny more than any President can order with impunity all migrants in the country shot as enemy combatants. Such would absolutely be a high crime and misdemeanor.

Congress settled the matter of insurrection with an impeachment for which the President was acquitted. So whether he was guilty or not, just like O.J. Simpson, he should be immune from further prosecution for that particular offense.

 

[BS Filter]

I expect the SCOTUS will make a very narrow ruling with some generic standards for where and when immunity exists and kick it back down for the trial court to have to have a hearing on. There is no way in hell they are going to rule that that the president can do whatever the hell he wants whenever he wants and can never be held to account for it.

Impeachment is how the Constitution handles it. If the President is admitted by the senate, that's it.

 

[Donald H]

STFU duck. You know nothing of the US justice system. The POTUS is accountable to congress.

Yes, the fanding fouthers attempted to adopt the British system in part by inventing impeachment of a president.

But impeachment doesn't work for politicians!.

Now America's politicians on one side are stuck with immunity for the pseudo-crowned head.

Get it now my friend?

 

[Donald H]

I suppose you think that's a valid argument. It isn't. Anny more than any President can order with impunity all migrants in the country shot as enemy combatants. Such would absolutely be a high crime and misdemeanor.

Congress settled the matter of insurrection with an impeachment for which the President was acquitted. So whether he was guilty or not, just like O.J. Simpson, he should be immune from further prosecution for that particular offense.

Trump was accidentally being logically correct when he said he could murder at will.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A President who is above the law is no longer a President, he is a dictator.

Kind of like what we just saw with Biden and the whole student debt forgiveness after the SC struck it down?

Yeah, I'm sure that's what Trump has in mind.

But, to be clear, when you said that a President who is above the law is no longer a President, he is a dictator, it's kind of like that, though?

Yes? No? You don't know now?

 

[Concerned American]

Impeachment is how the Constitution handles it. If the President is admitted by the senate, that's it.

"acquitted" not admitted--just sayin'

 

[mudwhistle]

Impeachment is ALWAYS an option to remove an errant President for high crimes and misdemeanors. The U.S. Congress would almost certainly have impeached and removed Richard Nixon from office had he not resigned. And Ford's pardon removed any danger from impeachment subsequent to his resignation.

That we have idiots and clueless people who keep electing self-serving professional politicians instead of public servants to the House and Senate does not remove any provision from the Constitution. So the existing hyper partisan Congress can't remove a President or anybody else apparently from office does not say that the provision for impeachment does not exist. And the Constitution gives people full right to be wrong in their opinions and beliefs. They just are not supposed to be able to act with impunity on those opinions and beliefs in ways that violate the existing law.

I think they should go ahead and impeach Biden, just to say that he's been impeached.
But the charges should include criminal negligence at the border and abuse of authority with respect to his illegal actions in the prosecution of Trump.
Then throw in all of the FBI raids of Trump & associates and journalists.

 

[Mac1958]

But kind of like that, though?

I don't see Biden's bad idea breaking laws. If you do, counselor, great.

 

[Foxfyre]

A President who is above the law is no longer a President, he is a dictator.

And the Founders continue to roll over in their graves.

Nobody is speaking about being above the law. Trump was accused of incitement of insurrection by the House of Representatives and was acquitted of that crime by the Senate.

THAT is the proper process for dealing with a President who acts improperly (i.e. above the law). The President is going to make decisions every day that somebody will declare illegal, treasonous, acting 'above the law.' In the vast majority of the cases he likely is acting within his prerogative as President no matter how many people disagree with the action. For the rest, the power to hold him accountable for his actions is given to Congress and is given to no other.

That is how SCOTUS should rule.

 

[Concerned American]

But impeachment doesn't work for politicians!.

Your ignorance is getting old, duck. Had Nixon not resigned, he would have been impeached without question. So much for your ignorance in this matter.

 

[Concerned American]

I think they should go ahead and impeach Biden, just to say that he's been impeached.
But the charges should include criminal negligence at the border and abuse of authority with respect to his illegal actions in the prosecution of Trump.
Then throw in all of the FBI raids of Trump & associates and journalists.

And the documents regardless of whether or not he has a bad memory.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trump was accidentally being logically correct when he said he could murder at will.

He didn't say it exactly like that, but what he said was using a metaphorical analogy. It was nothing more than that. And he was using it as a hyperbolic illustration of his support from the people and not as an indication he could legally do that. And should he do that he would be operating outside of the scope of his Presidential powers.

 

[mamooth]

The founders never imagined that a party would get as corrupt as the Republicans, who proudly excuse criminality and treason.

Thus, the Constitution is having problems restraining criminals like Trump.

 

[Blaster]

Too avoid election interference any trial should start after the November election.

 

[Foxfyre]

Read my comments on why the American system has failed.

It was a brave attempt to better the British system of the king being above the law.

But the brave attempt failed and now the chickens have come home.

There's only one solution and that is to unequivocally abandon the British system! PERIOD!

The way that Britain and the colonies did it was to exclude politicians, while 'supposedly' keeping the immunity for the crowned head. It hasn't been tested recently and it likely won't.

Why the American system has failed has NOTHING to do with the discussion on this thread. Please start your own thread on that topic and do not further attempt to derail this one.

 

[Marener]

I suppose you think that's a valid argument. It isn't. Anny more than any President can order with impunity all migrants in the country shot as enemy combatants. Such would absolutely be a high crime and misdemeanor.

Congress settled the matter of insurrection with an impeachment for which the President was acquitted. So whether he was guilty or not, just like O.J. Simpson, he should be immune from further prosecution for that particular offense.

It’s a terrible argument, but one that arises from the bad idea of criminal presidential immunity.

This idea would effectively make Congress a law enforcement agency as no president could ever be prosecuted without Congress first prosecuting them. That’s illogical and impractical. They are not equipped to be so and wouldn’t serve well in that purpose. Impeachment is intended to get a corrupt president out of office. Not to be a necessary step to criminal prosecution.

Moreover, it’s pretty clear at least some Republican Senators had no idea they were giving Trump immunity by voting for acquittal. This concept never existed.

Flashback: These GOP senators suggested Trump could be criminally prosecuted after Jan. 6

Although many Republicans have decried the criminal prosecutions against former President Donald Trump for his plans to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 election, there was a time when many suggested he could be criminally prosecuted.And these senators weren't just longtime Trump...

www.rawstory.com

 

[Donald H]

America's Constitution, which could be called its Constipation, is fatally flawed, The impeachment process doesn't work and that leaves double jeopardy as the only remedy for a president. But the Constitution does allow that remedy!

Or as the British and French learned, decapitation!

One has to wonder, what else did the fanding fouthers F U?

 

[Foxfyre]

Come back to reality. You're trying to legitimize a citizen being above the justice system.

All the dancing around the issue aside, NO!

I am arguing for the Constitution to be followed when it comes to the office of the Presidency.

 

[mudwhistle]

And the documents regardless of whether or not he has a bad memory.

That's a matter of enforcing the 25th Amendment.