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

[BS Filter]

Neither of which are capable of charging the former president with a crime, trying the case, reaching a verdict and establishing a sentence.

That’s what the criminal justice system is for.

It's our system. We don't put presidents in jail for political "crimes".

 

[WEATHER53]

Every single time the falsity “cult” is used it’s a white flag of surrender from the feelers who can’t think and can’t reply nor refute

 

[Marener]

It's our system. We don't put presidents in jail for political "crimes".

I don’t know what you mean by “political” crimes. We put people in jail for crimes. What Trump did after the 2020 election crossed the line into criminal.

Making Congress part of the criminal process guarantees its political, because Congress is political.

 

[Rawley]

Lets see substantiation of your accusations with regard to the DoJ.

Until then, I call that speculation.

Garland waited 2 1/2 years to bring the J6 bullshit charges against Trump. And only did so after Trump had announce he was running against Garland's boss

 

[BS Filter]

I don’t know what you mean by “political” crimes. We put people in jail for crimes. What Trump did after the 2020 election crossed the line into criminal.

Making Congress part of the criminal process guarantees its political, because Congress is political.

Why didn't we put Pelosi in jail for threats to the President?

 

[Foxfyre]

Where does the Constitution give it to Congress alone?? With no criminal prosecution and punishment ever, after they leave office?

Is that what you are arguing?

Show me any clause in the Constituion that gives the power to discipline the President to anybody other than Congress? The Founders struggled whether even Congress should have that power as it could blur the separation of powers but took the risk in case a rogue President should put people and country at reckless or improper risk. They chose the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside in a Senate trial as they thought the VP had too much possible self interest as he would succeed the President if removed by the Senate.

 

[Marener]

Garland waited 2 1/2 years to bring the J6 bullshit charges against Trump. And only did so after Trump had announce he was running against Garland's boss

The investigation long preceded his declaration that he was running.

Why did it take 2.5 years to indict Trump in election case?

Former President Donald Trump and his fiercest critics agree on this: It took a long time to bring charges against Trump

www.politifact.com

 

[Marener]

Why didn't we put Pelosi in jail for threats to the President?

What charges and what threats?

 

[BS Filter]

What charges and what threats?

She said she wanted to punch President Trump in the face on January 6th.

 

[Marener]

She said she wanted to punch President Trump in the face on January 6th.

That’s not illegal. Doesn’t constitute a threat let alone a true threat.

 

[BS Filter]

That’s not illegal. Doesn’t constitute a threat let alone a true threat.

It certainly is a threat. She at least should have been reprimanded for it. A member of congress threatened to punch the President of the United States.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem being the absolute double standards being used by corrupt democrats . They know that America and Americans overwhelmingly support Trump and making America great , and they can't stand that thought . So they do anything and everything to defeat him . And if we the silent majority let that happen , then we might as well March ourselves into the gas chambers.

No doubt, but more importantly, those on the left and Trump haters are incapable of even understanding what the topic is and none seem to have the intellect to be able to even discuss it, much less defend their point of view. It isn't about Trump at all though he was the catalyst that put it into the national conversation.

What SCOTUS must protect here is the ability of the President, no matter who he is, to do his job and make unpopular decisions and actions within the proper scope and range of his considerable responsibilities and duties without worrying bout his opposition making crimes out of those decisions that were never crimes before. He shouldn't have to live the rest of his life with the threat of such retaliation or malicious prosecution hanging over his head.

 

[BlindBoo]

Show me any clause in the Constituion that gives the power to discipline the President to anybody other than Congress? The Founders struggled whether even Congress should have that power as it could blur the separation of powers but took the risk in case a rogue President should put people and country at reckless or improper risk. They chose the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside in a Senate trial as they thought the VP had too much possible self interest as he would succeed the President if removed by the Senate.

Benedict Donald hasn't been president since Jan 20th 2021. As a citizen he is not immune from prosecution for any alleged crimes he committed while he was president. For example Nixon could have been charged with ordering the Plumbers, Pre-Watergate, to illegally break into Ellsberg's office had Ford not unconditionally pardoned him.

The Senate trial is not a judicial trial in any sense of the word.

 

[Foxfyre]

Means living in a time and place that no longer exists.

I disagree. Those voting yes on this poll are all people capable of critical thinking and understanding what the concept of the OP is. All of them don't exercise ability of course, but at times they all demonstrate they can do it.

Very very few on the left seem to have that ability at all.

 

[Marener]

It certainly is a threat. She at least should have been reprimanded for it. A member of congress threatened to punch the President of the United States.

She didn’t communicate the threat to Trump. Besides, saying she wanted to do something isn’t the same as saying they’re going to do something.

But even then, if it was a threat it’d have to be a true threat, meaning it has to be legitimate enough to put fear into someone. This protects speech meant in jest or hyperbole.

There is a large body of court decisions that detail these factors, most recently in 2023. In our speech loving country, we actually set a pretty high bar for what constitutes illegal speech.

True Threats

A true threat is a statement meant to frighten people into believing they will be seriously harmed by the speaker. True threats are not protected by the First Amendment.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

 

[Rawley]

The investigation long preceded his declaration that he was running.

Why did it take 2.5 years to indict Trump in election case?

Former President Donald Trump and his fiercest critics agree on this: It took a long time to bring charges against Trump

www.politifact.com

Yup. That's what I said. Garland waited 2 1/2 years to bring the J6 bullshit charges against Trump. And only did so after Trump had announce he was running against Garland's boss

 

[BS Filter]

Benedict Donald hasn't been president since Jan 20th 2021. As a citizen he is not immune from prosecution for any alleged crimes he committed while he was president. For example Nixon could have been charged with ordering the Plumbers, Pre-Watergate, to illegally break into Ellsberg's office had Ford not unconditionally pardoned him.

The Senate trial is not a judicial trial in any sense of the word.

What about when one of your President's has to act and the right doesn't like it so they charge your guy with a crime. Do you see the tit for tat here?

 

[Marener]

Yup. That's what I said. Garland waited 2 1/2 years to bring the J6 bullshit charges against Trump. And only did so after Trump had announce he was running against Garland's boss

Okay, and? Your premise seems to be that it was political since they only pressed charges because he’s running, but since the investigation started way earlier, and investigations often result in charges, your point seems to lack validity.

 

[Foxfyre]

Benedict Donald hasn't been president since Jan 20th 2021. As a citizen he is not immune from prosecution for any alleged crimes he committed while he was president. For example Nixon could have been charged with ordering the Plumbers, Pre-Watergate, to illegally break into Ellsberg's office had Ford not unconditionally pardoned him.

The Senate trial is not a judicial trial in any sense of the word.

See Post #432. Should you decide to discuss the concept in the OP on the possibility you actually have ability to understand it, I'll respond further. Otherwise have a nice day.

 

[BS Filter]

She didn’t communicate the threat to Trump. Besides, saying she wanted to do something isn’t the same as saying they’re going to do something.

But even then, if it was a threat it’d have to be a true threat, meaning it has to be legitimate enough to put fear into someone. This protects speech meant in jest or hyperbole.

There is a large body of court decisions that detail these factors, most recently in 2023. In our speech loving country, we actually set a pretty high bar for what constitutes illegal speech.

True Threats

A true threat is a statement meant to frighten people into believing they will be seriously harmed by the speaker. True threats are not protected by the First Amendment.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

Ok. So Trump's speech on January 6th is protected speech. Thank you.