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

[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 arguing for the President to be above the law here. Please address the OP or start your own thread on your own topic.

 

[Mac1958]

Nobody is arguing for the President to be above the law here. Please address the OP or start your own thread on your own topic.

I'm right on topic, and you didn't like what I said.

Too bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question is about political persecution.

They're indicting him on legal acts he has absolute authority to carry out.

Biden can be indicted for criminal negligence.

The difference being Biden would be charged with not doing his job. Trump did his job.
They were just trying to trash the Trump in civil court where a majority vote can get a settlement, as opposed to criminal court, where the vote has to be unanimous to get a conviction.

While certainly the prosecution of Trump is motivated by a militarized DOJ ordered by a Deep State terrified they will lose their power, that is immaterial to this argument.

What is at issue is whether a President can make unpopular decisions within the scope of the Presidential duties/powers without having to worry that a subsequent militarized government or anybody else can prosecute him for those decisions. The only power to discipline the President for illegal actions is given to Congress alone to prevent such malicious prosecution. And yes those in Congress can be malicious too but so far the system seems to be working pretty well there.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

When it comes to disciplining the President, Congress is the ONLY body given authority to do that. Congress and the ballot box are the ONLY legitimate means to remove a President from office or prevent him/her from running for office again. THAT is how SCOTUS should rule.

 

[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.

NO! As Concerned American just said,

The president is accountable to congress.

That's impeachment but that doesn't work on account of politics. And that's how the discussion on the fanding fouthers becomes relevant.

Are you going to appeal to the moderators to prevent the discussion from taking place? I really don't mind at all, the point stands.

This isn't my issue over being pro Biden or Trump. It's simply the rubber meeting the road on the FF's failure to move far enough away and above the British system.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm right on topic, and you didn't like what I said.

Too bad.

Stop trying to derail the thread. If you don't like the discussion start your own. This discussion is how SCOTUS should rule on the issue of Presidential immunity and why. Trolling does not contribute to that discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

NO! As Concerned American just said,

And no valid argument is offered as to why 'no' is the proper answer? Tsk tsk.

 

[mudwhistle]

While certainly the prosecution of Trump is motivated by a militarized DOJ ordered by a Deep State terrified they will lose their power, that is immaterial to this argument.

What is at issue is whether a President can make unpopular decisions within the scope of the Presidential duties/powers without having to worry that a subsequent militarized government or anybody else can prosecute him for those decisions. The only power to discipline the President for illegal actions is given to Congress alone to prevent such malicious prosecution. And yes those in Congress can be malicious too but so far the system seems to be working pretty well there.

To the left they feel they can make legal acts illegal......as long as a Republican is doing it.

Biden was guilty of theft and mishandling TS documents and got off because the prosecutor felt he was too mentally challenged to stand trial.
Trump was fully authorized to have everything he had at Mar-a-Lago, but they decided to raid his home anyway.
That's an abuse of authority.
Word has it they were looking for a folder he had in his possession that proved they spied on him and that Biden and Obama ordered it.
They wanted it back so they could destroy the evidence.

 

[Donald H]

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

Wasn't Bill Clinton's failed impeachment and failure to convict enough?

The failure of the system awarded the Democrats the trophy! LOL

Then laugh again with the R's as Trump's impeachment failed! LOL

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

You might try to read the ruling on student loans so you quit looking like such a moron.

The ruling on student loans said that Biden could not use a specific program for student loan forgiveness. it did not say no student loans could ever be forgiven.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

This thread is not about the pros and cons of SCOTUS taking up the case for immunity, but it is to discuss the concept of presidential immunity at face value. This morning I listened to political pundits who think Trump will lose on this issue and more that believe he has a strong case.

The concept is whether Trump or Biden or any other President in office can be prosecuted after the fact for decisions, executive orders, policy edicts, negotiations, actions within the scope of Presidential powers. If he can be prosecuted by subsequent administrations or sued by the private sector, what President would not be vulnerable to being sued, persecuted, for pretty much any controversial action to prevent him/her from running for a second term or any other reason?
Example only and NOT intended to be another discussion on J6 or the border or the ACA or any other issue:

Let's assume Biden loses in 2024 but was physically capable of running again in 2028. What if the Trump DOJ decided to prosecute Joe Biden for failure to enforce immigration laws while serving as President and/or for encouraging millions of migrants to invade our country at massive expense and risk for American citizens? What President has not made some decision either domestic or in foreign relations that somebody has not declared illegal?

What if Obama had lost in 2012 and Romney's DOJ decided to prosecute him for lying to the American public and Congress about being able to keep their current doctor and not telling anyone how the ACA would reorganize the existing medical delivery system at great cost and inconvenience and often measurable harm to the American people?

There is good reason for the Constitutional provision that it is the prerogative of the American people via their elected representatives to remove a President for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and that power is given to no other. The House of Representatives has already charged Trump with 'incitement of insurrection' by the House of Representatives but he was acquitted on the grounds of 'no merit to the case' by the U.S. Senate.

That should have ended the matter right there. Not only was the constitutional provision used and no other, not even a sitting President, is given power to overturn that process, but there could also be an issue of double jeopardy in play when the current administration just relabeled the original 'offense' as something else. SCOTUS should not allow that.

Summary:

In my opinion, the President, good or bad, right or wrong, competently or incompetently has to be able to make tough decisions within his Presidential powers that are going to be unpopular with many without worrying about the legal repercussions to himself personally after he leaves office. And further, once acquitted in the impeachment process, a President should not have his right to protection from double jeopardy removed by a new administration. That is how SCOTUS should rule.

NOTE: You can change your vote if the discussion changes your mind.

The Constitution Is Confusion. Quit Citing It.

 

[Donald H]

And no valid argument is offered as to why 'no' is the proper answer? Tsk tsk.

You've resorted to a cheap tactic of trying to eliminate others who don't agree with you.

 

[Marener]

When it comes to disciplining the President, Congress is the ONLY body given authority to do that. Congress and the ballot box are the ONLY legitimate means to remove a President from office or prevent him/her from running for office again. THAT is how SCOTUS should rule.

He’s not the president anymore. He’s a citizen. That means Congress is no longer required to remove him from office for criminal behavior.

I agree with you that impeachment is the only way to remove him and prevent him from running. But that’s not the issue here.

 

[Foxfyre]

To the left they feel they can make legal acts illegal......as long as a Republican is doing it.

Biden was guilty of theft and mishandling TS documents and got off because the prosecutor felt he was too mentally challenged to stand trial.
Trump was fully authorized to have everything he had at Mar-a-Lago, but they decided to raid his home anyway.
That's an abuse of authority.
Word has it they were looking for a folder he had in his possession that proved they spied on him and that Biden and Obama ordered it.
They wanted it back so they could destroy the evidence.

But a different discussion my friend. I don't care about any actions that happened outside the scope of the Presidency here. What illegalities, if any, Biden has committed as President should be addressed by Congress and no other. They have been doing that and so far have chosen not to take any further action above and beyond investigation.

When it came to Mayorkas, they (improperly in my opinion) impeached him for failure to comply with the law and violation of the public trust. The Senate will (properly in my opinion) acquit him of those charges.

The reason I think that impeachment was improper is that Mayorkas serves at the pleasure of the President. It in my opinion demonstrated a huge lack of character and common decency for him to carry out Biden's orders re the border, but it probably falls short of a high crime and misdemeanor for him to obey his superior in a way that he likely did not believe would cause any material or physical harm to anybody or certainly was likely not intended to cause any material or physical harm.

Probably nobody in government has not made a decision to not enforce some rule or regulation or law at some point. Sometimes the reason for that were valid, sometimes not. But it's just the way it sometimes is. I was appreciative when a police officer could have written me a ticket for a traffic violation but chose to let me off with just advice not to do that any more. The one time I inadvertently (and harmlessly) was speeding in a school zone the officer ticketed me but suggested I plead my case to the judge. He heard my explanation and voided the ticket. These kinds of things I deeply appreciate.

Congress did not make a case that the indefensible border policy was intended to harm America or Americans but they could rightfully impeach Biden for failure to comply with the law. That they chose not to do that as an exercise in futility as well as mostly politically unpopular was also their prerogative.

Likewise Presidential decisions/orders/actions, regardless of the consequences, so long as they are within the scope of Presidential powers, do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors unless there is clear evidence that the actions were either self-serving in a criminal way or were intended to harm Americans.

Toward that end, the prosecution of Donald Trump is more likely a criminal act as it is both self-serving to get Biden re-elected and is intended to not only harm a U.S. citizen but to disenfranchise perhaps more than half the country from being able to elect the candidate of their choice. But Congress for whatever reason has chosen not to impeach him for that.

And that should be in the argument for a President to be immune from prosecution for decisions that are unpopular or result in unintended bad consequences.

 

[Donald H]

And even worse, the corrupt Scotus would need to be eliminated in order to amend the Consipated system of impeachment.

For now and forever, the Scotus is totally motivated by the politics of it's members.

The FF's obviously should have not tried to work with the British system!

America is left with having to resort to 'Chop, chop' to deal with a corrupt president.

 

[Blaster]

If the President doesn't have immunity could Biden be charged with the murder of Laken Riley?

 

[Amie2345]

They best be careful with this ruling as if a president is immune while in office, Biden as the current president could call for and carry out the killing of trump and all his supporters and would be immune from prosecution for doing so.

Good luck with that!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Jerk and Smirk

The Founding Fodder were totally ignorant about real-life politics, and so conceited they thought their scheme would prevent the inevitable partisanship. Impeachment has become s purely political presentation of phalluses. That includes Andrew Johnson's White-Replacement prosecution, the "Bro Job."

 

[Marener]

If the President doesn't have immunity could Biden be charged with the murder of Laken Riley?

No.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitution Is Confusion. Quit Citing It.

Sorry. It is all I have.