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

[BackAgain]

The “implication” is a fabrication. Completely on your own making.

Wrong again.

I didn’t craft the Constitutional provision. Nor was it my brief or legal argument.

You don’t like it. Tough shit. Your dislike doesn’t control.

 

[Marener]

Wrong again.

I didn’t craft the Constitutional provision. Nor was it my brief or legal argument.

You don’t like it. Tough shit. Your dislike doesn’t control.

The constitutional provision doesn’t say what you claim. You’re fabricating what it supposedly means but does not actually say.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong, you idiot.

He was impeached twice.

UR such a Jackoff.

An absurd end result to which no one subscribes.
Article II, Section 4 must have force. It tells us the president, vice president and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. Donald Trump is no longer the president.

Likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction "shall be removed from Office" if convicted.
"Shall."
As Justice Story explained, "the Senate, [upon] conviction, [is] bound, in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office." Removal is mandatory upon conviction.

Clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to somebody who has left office.
The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible.

In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term.

But this just underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice.

Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal.

Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were – and this is extremely important – "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."

Put anther way, in the language of today: President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal#:~:text=Let%20me%20put%20that%20to,and%20instructions%20of%20their%20president.

I don't agree with McConnell. But his Senate colleagues did.

 

[BackAgain]

The constitutional provision doesn’t say what you claim. You’re fabricating what it supposedly means but does not actually say.

You disagree with the implication.

You’re allowed.

But your disagreement doesn’t mean that your view is correct.

As always, it sucks to be you.

 

[BackAgain]

UR such a Jackoff.

An absurd end result to which no one subscribes.
Article II, Section 4 must have force. It tells us the president, vice president and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. Donald Trump is no longer the president.

Likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction "shall be removed from Office" if convicted.
"Shall."
As Justice Story explained, "the Senate, [upon] conviction, [is] bound, in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office." Removal is mandatory upon conviction.

Clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to somebody who has left office.
The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible.

In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term.

But this just underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice.

Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal.

Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were – and this is extremely important – "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."

Put anther way, in the language of today: President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal#:~:text=Let%20me%20put%20that%20to,and%20instructions%20of%20their%20president.

I don't agree with McConnell. But his Senate colleagues did.

You use a lot of words to say nothing intelligent.

I don’t give a rat’s rancid twat whether you disagree. You’re a void.

 

[Marener]

You disagree with the implication.

You’re allowed.

But your disagreement doesn’t mean that your view is correct.

As always, it sucks to be you.

And you’re not allowed to claim the constitution actually says what you claim.

You want the court to legislate from the bench.

 

[BlindBoo]

You use a lot of words to say nothing intelligent.

I don’t give a rat’s rancid twat whether you disagree. You’re a void.

So yer to stupid to follow McConnell's logic. Not surprising you support Benedict Donald.

 

[Marener]

Impeachment and removal appear to have been intended as prerequisites to any possible criminal prosecution of a President.

While you aren’t required to agree, at leas the claim itself is buttressed by the very words of the Constitution.

Did you notice that this clause isn’t even specific to the president? Surely you don’t believe that all civil officers need to be impeached before prosecution?

 

[BackAgain]

And you’re not allowed to claim the constitution actually says what you claim.

You want the court to legislate from the bench.

Again, you’re retarded.

I didn’t say anything about what it says except to quote it.

I suggested that it entails an implication. And you’re wrong. Of course I’m allowed to say as much.

It does.

I also oppose legislating from the bench. But moron libturds such as you don’t know what that even means. You just use the term despite your ignorance.

 

[BackAgain]

So yer to stupid to follow McConnell's logic. Not surprising you support Benedict Donald.

You’re retarded because your blind and irrational disdain for Trump prevents you from actual thinking.

 

[Marener]

Again, you’re retarded.

I didn’t say anything about what it says except to quote it.

I suggested that it entails an implication. And you’re wrong. Of course I’m allowed to say as much.

It does.

I also oppose legislating from the bench. But moron libturds such as you don’t know what that even means. You just use the term despite your ignorance.

If the text doesn’t say it, then you have to legislate from the bench.

I don’t think you oppose legislating from the bench all that much. Only when it is used against your personal preferences

 

[BackAgain]

Did you notice that this clause isn’t even specific to the president? Surely you don’t believe that all civil officers need to be impeached before prosecution?

Are you sure? Or are you substituting your partisan views for objective thought?

You may not comprehend that Judges get immunity. So do public prosecutors. There are (naturally) some exceptions and qualifications. But the thinking is exactly the same.

When a civil officer performs his job or her job, they shouldn’t be sued over it. And they certainly shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted over it — even if you think it’s essentially “criminal” what they did in the performance of their official duties.

 

[MagicMike]

Wow. You’re so smart.

He was when he was impeached (twice) and never convicted, you idiot. And that’s the point.

Are you familiar with Mitch McConnel's statement following the second impeachment?
Probably not. You seldom appear to know much about what you are trying to discuss.
Go away.

 

[BackAgain]

If the text doesn’t say it, then you have to legislate from the bench.

Wrong.

It’s amusing to see you now pretending to be a firm textualist, though.

I don’t think you oppose legislating from the bench all that much.

Ndint care what you allegedly “think.”

Only when it is used against your personal preferences

You are, of course, merely projecting.

 

[Marener]

Are you sure? Or are you substituting your partisan views for objective thought?

You may not comprehend that Judges get immunity. So do public prosecutors. There are (naturally) some exceptions and qualifications. But the thinking is exactly the same.

When a civil officer performs his job or her job, they shouldn’t be sued over it. And they certainly shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted over it — even if you think it’s essentially “criminal” what they did in the performance of their official duties.

This isn’t about civil immunity, so we can ignore your comments about judges getting civil immunity and lawsuits etc.

If a civil officer engages in fraud or corruption as part of their official duties, they absolutely should be prosecuted and the constitution makes it perfectly clear that they can.

 

[Marener]

Wrong.

It’s amusing to see you now pretending to be a firm textualist, though.

Ndint care what you allegedly “think.”

You are, of course, merely projecting.

Im not a firm textualist. I’m just pointing out how hollow conservative jurisprudence is. They are textualists when they want to be. They’re not when it’s inconvenient.

You oppose legislating from the bench except when it helps you.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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 via 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.

No human being gets immunity from breaking the law. Period. Non starter.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

he petition of grievances asked for--ASKED, not demand or else--for the certification of the election to be delayed a short time for the investigations of election fraud to be completed

After December 14, 2020 when all 50 state certified their slate of electors the election was over. There was no constitutional means to delay the counting of true electors past January 6, 2021. Biden won.

The criminality of what Trump actually did was setting up the fake electors in seven states. There was fraudulently supposed to be two sets of electors, one real and one fake, Pence was supposed to recognize both sets of electors, then state on Jan6 there being two sets of electors he cannot count those states and therefore declare Trump and himself the winners and stay in power after January 20.

 

[BackAgain]

This isn’t about civil immunity, so we can ignore your comments about judges getting civil immunity and lawsuits etc

Wrong, you obtuse twit.

Try to get an adult to help you follow along. The Presidential immunity which already exists is civil. The Trump application is to extend that immunity to criminal prosecutions.

The comment about judicial and prosecutorial immunity was noted merely to advise your simple little brain that the concept of immunity for official actions is already established in our law.

If a civil officer engages in fraud or corruption as part of their official duties, they absolutely should be prosecuted and the constitution makes it perfectly clear that they can.

If the civil officer is performing his duties within the ambit of those duties, the fact is that he should be immune from civil or criminal liability to avoid having hacks like you second guess everything to death.

As. Noted in the prior post, there are exceptions. The primary exception is that the action has to be within the ambit of the official duties.

Only complete assholes like you then worry that this might immunize the official against the commission of crimes like theft or perjury or murder. An absurd and petty contention by you.

 

[SavannahMann]

Are you sure? Or are you substituting your partisan views for objective thought?

You may not comprehend that Judges get immunity. So do public prosecutors. There are (naturally) some exceptions and qualifications. But the thinking is exactly the same.

When a civil officer performs his job or her job, they shouldn’t be sued over it. And they certainly shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted over it — even if you think it’s essentially “criminal” what they did in the performance of their official duties.

Officials get immunity for official duties. They lose that immunity for criminal activity.

That is why Prosecutors, Judges, and Cops get sent to prison for their crimes. They are immune from prosecution or civil litigation if they are doing their jobs. They are subject to civil and criminal penalties if they are committing crimes.

Now. I’m not sure what part of the Constitution you think gives the President authority to pressure people to violate the law. Nor cause false documentation to be created to overturn an election. That among other actions sounds like criminal conduct.