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

[BackAgain]

The immunity covers both just the same. You can't do one without the other.

You’re babbling. And, of course, you remain wrong.

Again, since you’re tragically ignorant and not particularly concerned with accuracy or honesty, I will correct you yet again.

Let’s talk about a President. He does a job within the ambit of his duties. A scumbag like you happens not to like that he didn’t at all much less the manner in which he did it. So, being the hack you are, you seek to have him prosecuted once he is out of office

Since the immunity only comes into existence at all if his actions are within the ambit of his duties, he wouldn’t get immunity at all if they were outside that ambit.

The reason FOR any immunity (civil liability and/or from criminal prosecution) is to enable the President to do his or her official duties without having to temporize them out of fear that some scumbag down the road might try to imprison him for doing his lawful duty.

I realize you will never admit to the validity of these concerns. So this argument is pointless with you. It is sufficient that the SCOTUS understood the true dangers and acted accordingly (as to civil liability).

Try reading the entire decision in the Nixon case.

It will be the SCOTUS who decides now whether to extend the immunity to criminal prosecutions. Not me. Not you.

 

[BackAgain]

Nothing disingenuous. I provided a valid criticism of your position which you haven't addressed.

Nonsense. Your criticism has no validity whatsoever. You don’t even understand the topic.

 

[candycorn]

What is it about this man that scares the bejeebers out of democrats...and you?

His supporters are hyper violent and prefer no government to any government that doesn’t include their cult leader. We see that in the rhetoric here, we saw it on 1/6.

The whole world knows that the world was safer with him in office. We wouldn't have this anti american mess in this country now if he were still president. Y'all screwed up cheating him out of his 2nd term...he'd be nearing the end of that legitimate second term...and y'all would have another crack at it without all america knowing at this point what traitorous slimeballs democrats are. Now not you...you're just their little puppet doing their bidding and I pray you guys smarten up before it is too late....but typically, democrats always wait till it is too late and then they have to blame someone else for their own failures like some testosterone fueled out of control teenager. Peter pan material.

None of that is true. He’s garbage and since you’ve joined the cult, you’ve acted like garbage.

 

[Flopper]

Now is TRUTH.

Ukraine; Biden right now and a huge coalition want to help the Ukrainians drive the Russians out of their country.

Trump right now is calling for Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia as appeasement to stop the war.

Putin hopes Trump wins in 2024 so he can finish the job and take Kiev.

Both Putin and Xi Jinping would like to see Trump as President, not because of any particular issue but because he creates dissention and division within the country. They both know a united America is unstopped and a divided America is easy prey.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Now is TRUTH.

Ukraine; Biden right now and a huge coalition want to help the Ukrainians drive the Russians out of their country.

Trump right now is calling for Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia as appeasement to stop the war.

Putin hopes Trump wins in 2024 so he can finish the job and take Kiev.

you guys. LOLOL This is not our war.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let's review:

Trump has no actual defense against any of his felonies.

So he and his supporters are forced to make the laughably abusrd argument that a president can do anything he wants, at any time, with utter impunity.

It's really quite embarrassing for all of them.

 

[BackAgain]

Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.

So what?

However, as a result of several court rulings, a sitting president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from many lawsuits while in office.

Primarily one SCOTUS ruling as I have already noted several times.

Currently an ex-president has no immunity from either civil or criminal charges for his actions while president.

false.

IMHO, he should not have blanket immunity.

That’s also not an issue.

 

[BackAgain]

Let's review:

Trump has no actual defense against any of his felonies.

Wrong. That’s not a review. It’s a baseless assumption founded upon another ignorant assumption. You drip.

So he and his supporters are forced to make the laughably abusrd argument that a president can do anything he wants,

Not an argument anyone has made. You lying twit.

at any time, with utter impunity

False. Doubling down on your ignorance doesn’t improve your odds of ever being accurate or honest.

It's really quite embarrassing for all of them.

Your existence here is an embarrassment for the Board.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NotfooledbyW

you guys. LOLOL This is not our war.

That means you favor appeasing Putin aggression against our European allies. Which is fine. You favor weakness in US Foreign policy. Trump is weak. Biden is strong. You confirm the Truth - TRUMP IS WEAK.

 

[boevans]

No they are not there is a process to submit alternate electors.

.... and they did not follow the process with legal intent. They lied.

 

[boevans]

the opposition since the state already submitted the other side.

But they can't swear to false facts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.... and they did not follow the process with legal intent. They lied.

And forged documents. And knowingly submitted the forged documents to the congress in an effort to steal an election.

 

[Marener]

You’re babbling. And, of course, you remain wrong.

Again, since you’re tragically ignorant and not particularly concerned with accuracy or honesty, I will correct you yet again.

Let’s talk about a President. He does a job within the ambit of his duties. A scumbag like you happens not to like that he didn’t at all much less the manner in which he did it. So, being the hack you are, you seek to have him prosecuted once he is out of office

Since the immunity only comes into existence at all if his actions are within the ambit of his duties, he wouldn’t get immunity at all if they were outside that ambit.

The reason FOR any immunity (civil liability and/or from criminal prosecution) is to enable the President to do his or her official duties without having to temporize them out of fear that some scumbag down the road might try to imprison him for doing his lawful duty.

I realize you will never admit to the validity of these concerns. So this argument is pointless with you. It is sufficient that the SCOTUS understood the true dangers and acted accordingly (as to civil liability).

Try reading the entire decision in the Nixon case.

It will be the SCOTUS who decides now whether to extend the immunity to criminal prosecutions. Not me. Not you.

I’ve already addressed everything you wrote, but you’ve tragically ignored it.

You don’t actually debate. That requires responding to the points others have brought up.

You just keep repeating yourself and ignore everything else.

 

[BackAgain]

I’ve already addressed everything you wrote, but you’ve tragically ignored it.

Nope. You’re the one who is Ignoring the points and making false claims even about what I’ve written.

Lying about that fact doesn’t improve your position.

You don’t actually debate.

You don’t.

That requires responding to the points others have brought up.

I have. You refuse.

You just keep repeating yourself and ignore everything else.

That’s your M.O. No doubt.

 

[boevans]

Nope, BackAgain. Nope. You’re the one who is Ignoring the points and making false claims.

 

[Marener]

Nope. You’re the one who is Ignoring the points and making false claims even about what I’ve written.

No false claims, just rephrasing your arguments to expose their weakness.

I already acknowledged that your point that you don't want the president (although this would logically apply to all civil officers) "second guessing themselves".

My response was already stated. One, they should be worried. Everyone should be worried about the legality of their actions. That's a feature, not a bug. Two, there's already a system in place to protect a president (or civil officer) from malicious prosecution. For one, the DoJ has a code of ethics to stand in the way. For two, the justice system protects people from malicious prosecutions. That's what the judge and jury is for. That's what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is.

The next part of my response you likewise ignored. Immunizing them from criminal prosecution would prevent them from being subject from malicious prosecution. It would also protect them from justified prosecution for actual crimes. As I said earlier, you can't immunize them from one and not the other.

So there's a cost here, that the president (and civil officers) would be emboldened to commit crimes knowing they're protected and the hurdle to criminal prosecution is extraordinarily high. The benefit (based on my argument above) is minimal since they are already protected by the justice system.

As for your discussion about what is in their official duties (and your annoyingly excessive use of the word ambit, give me a break), I also responded, which you ignored. It blurs the lines of what we ae talking about to the point that you're basically creating a situation where the entire doctrine is irrelevant.

The idea of the action being within their scope of their duties does not mean it's legal. The question I posed is whether you could prosecute Biden for making the DoJ go after Trump for personal gain. Is that within the scope of his duties? What about taking a bribe for an official act? Is that within the scope of their duties? It's hard to know what you exactly mean here, because one would assume that any action within the scope of their duties would be "legal" because their duties are legal.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

the opposition since the state already submitted the other side.

Do you mean the Republican electors who served in states that Joe Biden won?

It would be Republican electors in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, New Mexico
And Nevada.

How in the hell do Republican electors get to declare Trump had more votes in their state than Biden did?


They have to abide by the certified results accepted in the state legislature and whatever state election official who is in charge.

 

[Flopper]

You’re babbling. And, of course, you remain wrong.

Again, since you’re tragically ignorant and not particularly concerned with accuracy or honesty, I will correct you yet again.

Let’s talk about a President. He does a job within the ambit of his duties. A scumbag like you happens not to like that he didn’t at all much less the manner in which he did it. So, being the hack you are, you seek to have him prosecuted once he is out of office

Since the immunity only comes into existence at all if his actions are within the ambit of his duties, he wouldn’t get immunity at all if they were outside that ambit.

The reason FOR any immunity (civil liability and/or from criminal prosecution) is to enable the President to do his or her official duties without having to temporize them out of fear that some scumbag down the road might try to imprison him for doing his lawful duty.

I realize you will never admit to the validity of these concerns. So this argument is pointless with you. It is sufficient that the SCOTUS understood the true dangers and acted accordingly (as to civil liability).

Try reading the entire decision in the Nixon case.

It will be the SCOTUS who decides now whether to extend the immunity to criminal prosecutions. Not me. Not you.

Trump’s lawyers have said in court that they are seeking much broader immunity than what police officers receive.

Trump “seeks full immunity, not just ‘qualified’ immunity,” Somin said. “And he is seeking immunity for criminal conduct, not just civil violations.” This is the only way if will help him in the Jan 6th case. The real reason Trump is doing this is to delay his federal cases and it it is working. SOCTUS will not delivery a ruling till early July. That means neither case can come to trial till Aug and the two cases can not run at the same time. Maybe one case will make it to trial but not both.

As he seeks immunity, Donald Trump uses flawed logic to compare presidents and police officers - Poynter

Trump is petitioning the courts to be held legally immune for his actions as president. Experts say his comparisons to police protections are flawed.

www.poynter.org

 

[boevans]

Nope. You’re the one who is Ignoring the points and making false claims even about what I’ve written.

Lying about that fact doesn’t improve your position.

You don’t.


I have. You refuse.

That’s your M.O. No doubt.

You simply repeating falsehoods in which you believe.

 

[boevans]

You’re babbling. And, of course, you remain wrong.

Again, since you’re tragically ignorant and not particularly concerned with accuracy or honesty, I will correct you yet again.

Let’s talk about a President. He does a job within the ambit of his duties. A scumbag like you happens not to like that he didn’t at all much less the manner in which he did it. So, being the hack you are, you seek to have him prosecuted once he is out of office

Since the immunity only comes into existence at all if his actions are within the ambit of his duties, he wouldn’t get immunity at all if they were outside that ambit.

The reason FOR any immunity (civil liability and/or from criminal prosecution) is to enable the President to do his or her official duties without having to temporize them out of fear that some scumbag down the road might try to imprison him for doing his lawful duty.

I realize you will never admit to the validity of these concerns. So this argument is pointless with you. It is sufficient that the SCOTUS understood the true dangers and acted accordingly (as to civil liability).

Try reading the entire decision in the Nixon case.

It will be the SCOTUS who decides now whether to extend the immunity to criminal prosecutions. Not me. Not you.