Do you agree with this statement

[Faun]

so, you are saying that an impeachment conviction is necessary for the rest to happen?

No, I'm saying a president isn't above the law.

 

[berg80]

immunity for duties and official business, not for personal or election crimes. , no law should make a special exception for the president or anyone else. .

What duties or official biz would require the commission of a crime for which immunity would be necessary?

 

[rampart]

What duties or official biz would require the commission of a crime for which immunity would be necessary?

i'm sure trump's lawyers could think of a few.

jack smith's next indictment is read at about 1:30 on this clip.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

immunity for duties and official business, not for personal or election crimes.

True – election crimes such as Trump's: attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

 

[Godboy]

Your mountain of evidence with Biden is very similar to your evidence with Obama. It’s assumptions and opinions masquerading as fact.

I knew you were going to say this ^ dishonest shit.

 

[JGalt]

Presidential immunity is not 'absolute’ – no one is above the law, including president.

And Trump’s crimes – while in office and out – had nothing to do with his official duties.

What "crimes"? Trump has not been convicted of anything in a legitimate court of law.

 

[Seymour Flops]

so, you are saying that an impeachment conviction is necessary for the rest to happen?

He's pretending that he thinks you asked "What does the Constitution say about Convicting Former President?"

That's what people do when they have nothing to contribute, but can't stand to feel left out.

A president should have immunity for actions he take as president. They make life and death decisions, and if they don't make them, death will likely result for more people than if the president had decided.

We sure don't need a president with his finger on the nuclear button thinking, 'do I want to be charged with a hundred million murders? One of them might stick, out of that large a number.'

To bring it to the case you are obviously concerned about, we don't need a president or anyone else, for that matter, thinking 'I better not make a speech and say "we need to fight for _______________ ," because what if someone does something violent after that? it'd all be my fault! Or at least I might be prosecuted for it.'

I know that you intend this to be a one-person new rule about not saying "fight for" in a political speech. But, the next party in power could turn it on you just as easily.

 

[Godboy]

The irony – you’re accusing President Obama of ‘executing’ someone absent affording him a trial, jury, or due process.

You’ve also got to problems with this: one, the courts would not prosecute President Obama pursuant to Political Question doctrine.

Two, President Obama acted in his official capacity by taking action to eliminate a potential terrorist threat. Because President Obama acted in his official capacity, immunity would apply.

That’s not the case with Trump, who committed treasonous, historic crimes, attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, having nothing to do with his duties as president, outside of his official capacity – consequently, immunity doesn’t apply.

None of that means anything. None of that removes the right to due process. Being a "terrorist" doesnt remove your right to due process as a citizen. That isnt a thing in US law.

 

[Faun]

He's pretending that he thinks you asked "What does the Constitution say about Convicting Former President?"

That's what people do when they have nothing to contribute, but can't stand to feel left out.

A president should have immunity for actions he take as president. They make life and death decisions, and if they don't make them, death will likely result for more people than if the president had decided.

We sure don't need a president with his finger on the nuclear button thinking, 'do I want to be charged with a hundred million murders? One of them might stick, out of that large a number.'

To bring it to the case you are obviously concerned about, we don't need a president or anyone else, for that matter, thinking 'I better not make a speech and say "we need to fight for _______________ ," because what if someone does something violent after that? it'd all be my fault! Or at least I might be prosecuted for it.'

I know that you intend this to be a one-person new rule about not saying "fight for" in a political speech. But, the next party in power could turn it on you just as easily.

Too bad for you the Constitution is clear that a president isn't immune from prosecution.

 

[Marener]

So that means he no longer has Constitutional protections. Sure it does, vermin.

I'm going to enjoy them putting Biden in jail for providing aid and comfort to the enemy by letting Chinese, Russian, North Korean, Iranian and any other terrorist nation or individual terrorist walk across our borders.

Biden is obviously guilty, which you say meets the Constitutional standard, vermin

According to Trump and his lawyers now it means he has complete immunity from prosecution now that he’s been acquitted.

No one is going to put Biden in jail for any of your delusional allegations, unless facts no longer matter to you. In which case, you’re merely admitting you’re going to destroy the foundations of the country to support Trump. This is exactly what we were afraid of.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What duties or official biz would require the commission of a crime for which immunity would be necessary?

The point is not that a president might commit the kinds of crime that non-presidents might commit, i.e. rob a bank, kill his wife’s lover, burn his house down for the insurance money and then claim that was part of his presidential duties, etc.

The point is what if a president does things that are in a grey area of criminal action and presidential action. What if there is overlap, i.e. something that would have been a crime for anyone else, not necessarily being a crime for a president?

There would be two reasons for considering (considering) presidential immunity as an amendment to the constitution:

1) Presidents make life and death decisions as stated above. If a president were to call a drone strike on a foreign enemy in a foreign country, most people would certainly not consider that a crime even if they disagreed with the need for the strike. But if the president called a strike on a U.S. citizen in Arizona who had been acting “seditiously” by opposing the sitting president, most people would say “that’s just murder.” (I hope).

But what about a case in which a president calls a drone strike on a U.S. citizen in a foreign country? It could be arguably a crime. But I don’t want a president thinking about whether he can make bail with every life-and-death decision. Those are hard enough already. That would be an argument for immunity, but it would have to be blanket and comprehensive. Deciding after the fact, affords no protection to the decision maker.

2) Presidents rarely, but sometimes, refuse to drop out of politics after losing their re-election bid. If they decide to run again, the incumbent and his people will rightly see him as a threat to their jobs. Do we really want to allow them to go ahead and prosecute their political opponent? If they are corrupt enough to do such a thing?

Such a move would be incredibly divisive, and would lead half the country to think of the other half as supporters of election thieves, fascists, abusers of power. That along with not liking them already for their policy views.

Meanwhile, the half that supports the incumbent will be tempted to come up with justification for such obvious election interference, however lame, thus degrading respect for the process of democracy.

We’ve had our episodes with criminalizing dissent, and criminalizing political opposition. It wasn’t ever pretty. Unfortunately, presidential immunity would not stop that. Bad actors would focus on presidential staff, appointees, and maybe even family.

 

[Marener]

I knew you were going to say this ^ dishonest shit.

Nothing dishonest. It’s a legitimate criticism of what you pretend is “evidence”.

You say shell companies are evidence of corruption because there’s no other possible legitimate reason to have them. It’s assumption masquerading as fact.

You say hiring him at Buridma is evidence of corruption because there’s no other possible legitimate reason to hire him. It’s assumption masquerading as fact.

You guys spend more time trying to convince us that this “mountain“ of evidence exists than you do telling us what the evidence is.

 

[kaz]

According to Trump and his lawyers now it means he has complete immunity from prosecution now that he’s been acquitted.

No one is going to put Biden in jail for any of your delusional allegations, unless facts no longer matter to you. In which case, you’re merely admitting you’re going to destroy the foundations of the country to support Trump. This is exactly what we were afraid of.

Trump's claim of Presidential immunity has nothing to do with impeachment, vermin.

And we both know even though you aren't man enough to admit it that this would just not be your standard for a Democrat. I waste no effort arguing double standards, your hypocrisy shows you're just a tool and it will go nowhere, vermin

 

[rampart]

He's pretending that he thinks you asked "What does the Constitution say about Convicting Former President?"

That's what people do when they have nothing to contribute, but can't stand to feel left out.

A president should have immunity for actions he take as president. They make life and death decisions, and if they don't make them, death will likely result for more people than if the president had decided.

We sure don't need a president with his finger on the nuclear button thinking, 'do I want to be charged with a hundred million murders? One of them might stick, out of that large a number.'

To bring it to the case you are obviously concerned about, we don't need a president or anyone else, for that matter, thinking 'I better not make a speech and say "we need to fight for _______________ ," because what if someone does something violent after that? it'd all be my fault! Or at least I might be prosecuted for it.'

I know that you intend this to be a one-person new rule about not saying "fight for" in a political speech. But, the next party in power could turn it on you just as easily.

written for a different audience so ignore this if it seems inappropriate.

trump's rally on jan 8

familiar movie scene. lord of the rings. saruman the white makes a rather rousing political speech. first amendment stuff even in middle earth.

then consider that saruman's audience, an audience that he knows well, having gathered and even created it, is an army of 100000 specially bred trolls from 4 chan that he is dispatching to destroy civilization as we know it.

it's ok though, because after waving good bye, he can always whisper "but go peacefully."

 

[Marener]

Trump's claim of Presidential immunity has nothing to do with impeachment, vermin.

And we both know even though you aren't man enough to admit it that this would just not be your standard for a Democrat. I waste no effort arguing double standards, your hypocrisy shows you're just a tool and it will go nowhere, vermin

Apparently you’re not well informed because Trump’s claim of immunity is centered around impeachment. He’s claiming that his actions as president are immune from criminal prosecution if he’s not impeached first, even if he is out of office.

Im happy to explain it further to you if you’re still confused.

 

[kaz]

Apparently you’re not well informed because Trump’s claim of immunity is centered around impeachment. He’s claiming that his actions as president are immune from criminal prosecution if he’s not impeached first, even if he is out of office.

Im happy to explain it further to you if you’re still confused.

You're twisting the argument, Trump is not arguing he has no immunity without the impeachment, that is just a lie. I'll explain it later. Not really, I just said that to be nice. You're welcome, vermin

 

[Marener]

You're twisting the argument, Trump is not arguing he has no immunity without the impeachment, that is just a lie. I'll explain it later. Not really, I just said that to be nice. You're welcome, vermin

He’s making two similar arguments.

One, he has immunity from prosecution because he hasn’t been impeached and convicted for the criminal offense.

Two, since he was impeached and acquitted for largely similar offenses, his criminal prosecution is double jeopardy and is not constitutional.

Both arguments have everything to do with impeachment. You said his immunity claim had nothing to do with impeachment. You’re confused.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function. Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term end. Even events that 'cross the line' must fall under total immunity, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad.

MLCA

 

[kaz]

He’s making two similar arguments.

One, he has immunity from prosecution because he hasn’t been impeached and convicted for the criminal offense.

Two, since he was impeached and acquitted for largely similar offenses, his criminal prosecution is double jeopardy and is not constitutional.

Both arguments have everything to do with impeachment. You said his immunity claim had nothing to do with impeachment. You’re confused.

So what you're saying is wearing a belt and suspenders means you are wearing neither because they cancelled each other out. And yet again, NOT YOUR STANDARE FOR DEMOCRATS. That's stupid, even for you. Fail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 vermin

 

[Marener]

So what you're saying is wearing a belt and suspenders means you are wearing neither because they cancelled each other out. And yet again, NOT YOUR STANDARE FOR DEMOCRATS. That's stupid, even for you. Fail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 vermin

Honestly, this reply makes absolutely no sense. All I’m doing is telling you what Trump’s current lawyers are arguing in court, which you really don’t seem to understand given your claim that their argument has nothing to do with impeachment.

You really are all twisted up and confused.