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

[Coyote]

This thread is not about Trump please

This thread is what protections should a President have from litigation/prosecution for choices, decisions, actions, prerogatives within the scope and functions of the Office of Presidency. None of your leftist colleagues seem to e able to grasp that concept and alas, even a few of those on the right.

I was hoping you could.

You mention SPECIFIC presidents, to use as examples, but then say respondents can not and most of my post was on the general principles? In some of your own responses you bring up Trump!

/thread

 

[theHawk]

There is no way in hell they are going to rule that that the president can do whatever the hell he wants whenever he wants and can never be held to account for it

That is what impeachment is for.

Plus he was already impeached and found not guilty, so another charge against him is double jeopardy.

 

[BlindBoo]

And he nor any other occupant of the White House should not be subject to prosecution for exaggerated/misrepresented or made up 'crimes'

The crimes committed by Benedict Donald and his co-conspirators on Jan 6th are not made up crimes. They were not within the scope of any type of duties of the Presidency.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

You mention SPECIFIC presidents, to use as examples, but then say respondents can not and most of my post was on the general principles? In some of your own responses you bring up Trump!

/thread

I use specific Presidents as examples yes for illustration only and not to discuss the pros and cons of any particular issue. I tried to make that obvious in the OP but so many have reading comprehension dysfunction here it doesn't stop people from trying to make it about Trump or Biden instead of focusing on the issue of protection for the Office of the Presidency itself.

 

[Foxfyre]

The crimes committed by Benedict Donald and his co-conspirators on Jan 6th are not made up crimes. They were not within the scope of any type of duties of the Presidency.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Whether they are or whether they are not is irrelevant for this thread. I don't expect TDS afflicted leftists or otherwise one note minded people to understand that or be able to actually discuss a principle instead of expressing their irrational hatred for a political opponent, but oh well.

 

[Coyote]

I use specific Presidents as examples yes for illustration only and not to discuss the pros and cons of any particular issue. I tried to make that obvious in the OP but so many have reading comprehension dysfunction here it doesn't stop people from trying to make it about Trump or Biden instead of focusing on the issue of protection for the Office of the Presidency itself.

I used a specific president as an example of going too far in the immunity claim because it is a current case concerning exactly what you are talking about.

 

[Foxfyre]

I used a specific president as an example of going too far in the immunity claim because it is a current case concerning exactly what you are talking about.

If you had done that as an example and then put it back into the perspective of what the SCOTUS ruling should be I wouldn't have had a problem. But you didn't do that did you. You like others on the left here are trying to make this a bash Trump thread. You have dozens if not hundreds of other threads to do that. I have requested that this thread be devoted to a specific principle applicable to the Office of the President regardless of who occupies it that the SCOTUS hopefully will address.

 

[Coyote]

Well that certainly doesn't even remotely agree with the Founders concept of double jeopardy, equal protection, or whether an impeachment and trial of the President by Congress has force of law.

But because so few leftist have a clue re the letter and intent of the Constitution according to its supporting documents, i do hope SCOTUS puts the matter to rest with their ruling.

The Founders never envisioned impeachment as a substitute for legal action against an actual crime. It is like being fired from a job not prosecuted for a crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders never envisioned impeachment as a substitute for legal action against an actual crime. It is like being fired from a job not prosecuted for a crime.

What should the SCOTUS ruling be? And please keep in mind that your answer theoretically would apply to Joe Biden and all future presidents if Trump is re-elected in November.

 

[BlindBoo]

Whether they are or whether they are not is irrelevant for this thread. I don't expect TDS afflicted leftists or otherwise one note minded people to understand that or be able to actually discuss a principle instead of expressing their irrational hatred for a political opponent, but oh well.

You made the claim that the crimes Benedict is charged with are made up and you simply can't defend that lie. So of course you resort to silly insults and a complete dodge. The Dirty Don is not immune for the crimes he committed trying to overturn the 2020 election. No president has ever been so charged because no other losing incumbent has ever committed such a crime against the country.

 

[Foxfyre]

You made the claim that the crimes Benedict is charged with are made up and you simply can't defend that lie. So of course you resort to silly insults and a complete dodge. The Dirty Don is not immune for the crimes he committed trying to overturn the 2020 election. No president has ever been so charged because no other losing incumbent has ever committed such a crime against the country.

I made no such claim. Please stay with the thread topic or go slander Trump on some other thread. Thank you.

 

[BlindBoo]

I made no such claim. Please stay with the thread topic or go slander Trump on some other thread. Thank you.

An other feeble dodge.

"And he nor any other occupant of the White House should not be subject to prosecution for exaggerated/misrepresented or made up 'crimes"

 

[Coyote]

If you had done that as an example and then put it back into the perspective of what the SCOTUS ruling should be I wouldn't have had a problem. But you didn't do that did you. You like others on the left here are trying to make this a bash Trump thread. You have dozens if not hundreds of other threads to do that. I have requested that this thread be devoted to a specific principle applicable to the Office of the President regardless of who occupies it that the SCOTUS hopefully will address.

My reply was on the principles using specific examples. The gist is there is no double jeopardy involved and the ruling should not grant absolute immunity.

 

[Rawley]

That is what they can't get through their heads. If a President is impeached AND removed from office, i.e. found guilty in the Senate trial, then yes, he can be prosecuted for any damages incurred from his actions. Assassinating opponents is not a legitimate function of the Presidency, and Biden should be impeached and convicted of illegitimately prosecuting his political opponent for legitimate actions/exercising prerogatives given to the President of the United States. That should happen so no other President feels he/she has license to do that to a political opponent.

But since that won't happen, especially since it is only eight months to the election now, and highly partisan Democrat majority in the Senate wouldn't convict him anyway, the best we can hope for is that SCOTUS will give us a ruling discouraging this kind of corruption from ever happening again.

Even if they don't actually pull the impeachment trigger, I expect they will have public hearings all summer long

 

[MagicMike]

No it is not fake news. Biden absolutely said they would constitutionally prevent Trump from running again. .

Biden suggests Trump will ‘not take power’ again if he runs in 2024

President Biden on Wednesday suggested that if former President Trump opts to run in 2024, he would not make it to the White House for a second term. Biden’s comments come just two days after Trump…

thehill.com

And it was after that when Leticia James et al began filing lawsuits against Trump. And it is a near certainty that these suits were aided and abetted by Biden's DOJ though I don't have a link to prove that.

And THAT kind of corruption by any presidential administration or any other entities must not be allowed if we are to remain a government of the people, by the people, for the people. No administration should be able to put political prisoners in jail with immunity or destroy the opposition with exaggerated or made up crimes for which no President has ever been charged.

THAT is why the Supreme Court should clarify once and for all that the President must be able to do his job in his own way without fear of malicious prosecution for doing it. It won't affect anything he does outside the power, authority, prerogatives of the Office of President, but it would allow future Presidents to actually do their job.

“We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power if he does run, making sure he — under legitimate efforts of our Constitution — does not become the next president again,” Biden said.

I see the problem here.
You just don't like the U.S. Constitution right?

 

[Coyote]

What should the SCOTUS ruling be? And please keep in mind that your answer theoretically would apply to Joe Biden and all future presidents if Trump is re-elected in November.

All of my replies apply to the position not the person.

The ruling should be that the office enjoys a limited immunity. That means that he is immune from prosecution WHILE he is in office and when he is out of office, he is only immune from prosecution for actions taken that were part of his official duties and within the scope.

 

[BlindBoo]

Please stay with the thread topic or go slander Trump on some other thread

I love it when Donnie Dangerously's sycophant's get their panties in a tight wad over the trite pet names I use for him, considering how he and they pride themselves in his use of trite pet name for his opponents. Keep up the hypocrisy.

 

[Rawley]

And if they don't impeach him, when he leaves office, he CAN NOT be criminally charged was the claim, he would be immune from criminal prosecution...even from murder/an illegal assassination.

Not sure who is making that argument.

There is no such thing as Trump's claim of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, that he spews

Trump has never claimed ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. You need to stop watching MSNBC et al - they literally feed to misinformation.

 

[Blaster]

A President makes some decisions while in office that don't turnout very well. Should Biden be indicted for the death of Laken Riley and other migrant atrocities?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Accept now and get off your knees.

SCOTUS will strike down blanket immunity 9 to 0.