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

[WEATHER53]

POTUS won’t be restricted from doing some of the unpleasantries they and they alone Must do just because lib loons want to witch hunt Trump out of running

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

POTUS won’t be restricted from doing some of the unpleasantries they and they alone Must do just because lib loons want to witch hunt Trump out of running

Right, he will be restricted from leading criminal conspiracies in his spare time.

Looks like you're finally catching up to everyone.

 

[WEATHER53]

Right, he will be restricted from leading criminal conspiracies in his spare time.

Looks like you're finally catching up to everyone.

It is not incumbent that you respond to every post I make. Almost all are not directed at you anyway. It’s obsessive which is Stalking. Take a break short bus

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is not incumbent that you respond to every post I make. Almost all are not directed at you anyway. It’s obsessive which is Stalking. Take a break short bus

Cry it all out.

If you don't like it, then write yourself love notes instead of posting on a public forum.

 

[Marener]

Right, he will be restricted from leading criminal conspiracies in his spare time.

Looks like you're finally catching up to everyone.

Trump’s supporters want him protected from
criminal prosecution because they want him to commit crimes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Damn! You’re a broken record! All of the sane, rational, non –Magots here agree that the no president should be granted immunity for actions taken while president that are outside the scope and functions of the Office of Presidency that are deemed to be crimes

We gave Trumps Trump’s crimes as an example of that but that does not make it about Trump. We answered the question that yu posed but you do not like the answer so you keep asking it again and accusing people of not answering it

I will add that the reason why you don’t like the answer because you know full well that by that standard, Trump is not entitled to immunity that provided your own bull shit answer about “high crimes and misdemeanors “ So it is really you who is making it about Trump

And since you have taken us there , let me remind you and everyone else that you were presented with all 91 criminal counts that Trump is facing and asked to identify which of his acts fall under official presidential duties. Of coursr you were unable to identify even one such act. Again, that is why you do not like the answer that you were given-even though- as you demanded - it would apply to all presidents. It’s time that you pulled your head out of Trumps ass and wiped the excrement off of your face. You might find that you can think more clearly

 

[OKTexas]

It's part of the Conspiracy charge against Benedict Donald. Page 4

e. Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

f. Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential elector

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

Furthermore on page 6......

d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.

Benedict Donald needs to have his day in court and lets see where the chips fall.

We all know the portion in bole is a lie, Trump said no such thing. And you still have nothing that said Trump directed the creation of the fake elector slates.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Damn! You’re a broken record! All of the sane, rational, non –Magots here agree that the no president should be granted immunity for actions taken while president that are outside the scope and functions of the Office of Presidency that are deemed to be crimes

We gave Trumps Trump’s crimes as an example of that but that does not make it about Trump. We answered the question that yu posed but you do not like the answer so you keep asking it again and accusing people of not answering it

I will add that the reason why you don’t like the answer because you know full well that by that standard, Trump is not entitled to immunity that provided your own bull shit answer about “high crimes and misdemeanors “ So it is really you who is making it about Trump

And since you have taken us there , let me remind you and everyone else that you were presented with all 91 criminal counts that Trump is facing and asked to identify which of his acts fall under official presidential duties. Of coursr you were unable to identify even one such act. Again, that is why you do not like the answer that you were given-even though- as you demanded - it would apply to all presidents. It’s time that you pulled your head out of Trumps ass and wiped the excrement off of your face.

His speech was not a crime nor was he responsibly for the riot. There is evidence posted elsewhere on this board that the cops started the riot by tear gassing peaceful protestors.

 

[BlindBoo]

We all know the portion in bole is a lie, Trump said no such thing. And you still have nothing that said Trump directed the creation of the fake elector slates.

.

It is not a lie. Smith never claimed Trumpyberra said those words or quoted him in that part you bolded. I think Smith will prove that was Donnies intent for calling for the rally on that specific day.

The slates of forged and fraudulent electors were part of the alleged conspiracy the he is charged with.

 

[BlindBoo]

His speech was not a crime nor was he responsibly for the riot. There is evidence posted elsewhere on this board that the cops started the riot by tear gassing peaceful protestors.

He is not being indicted for his speech.

3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

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

 

[mudwhistle]

Sure.
Please include the link where he said Jan. 6th was "staged" as well.

Why on Earth would he publicly admit to a felony?

Are you fucking retarded?

Here's testimony of Fani Willis visiting the WH however.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

His speech was not a crime nor was he responsibly for the riot. There is evidence posted elsewhere on this board that the cops started the riot by tear gassing peaceful protestors.

Bovine excrement Read the fucking indictment and stop with the conspiracy crap . Evidence my ass!!

 

[OKTexas]

It is not a lie. Smith never claimed Trumpyberra said those words or quoted him in that part you bolded. I think Smith will prove that was Donnies intent for calling for the rally on that specific day.

The slates of forged and fraudulent electors were part of the alleged conspiracy the he is charged with.

The poster I responded to said Trump directed some things he didn't, that's why I asked for a link. That was before you interrupted of course. And Smith can allege anything he wants, but I'm not seeing the proof.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Exactly. Which would render Jack Smith's 97 'crimes' null and void. Which is what prompted the request for a SCOTUS ruling in the first place. If a President, even one as hated as Donald Trump, does not have such protection, most especially malicious prosecution from a subsequent administration, the President simply cannot do his job. If SCOTUS does not clarify that protection for the Office of the Presidency, Joe Biden could be in court for the rest of his life if a subsequent administration was so inclined.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Exactly. Which would render Jack Smith's 97 'crimes' null and void.

Oops, you skipped a step.

You forgot to argue that the criminal acts were somehow part of his official duties.

Which you cannot and will never do.

So your post is 100% wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

“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?

However he said it, and I did not use his exact words, he intended to prevent President Trump from running in 2024 or at any other time. And it is up to SCOTUS now as to what the 'legitimate efforts of our Constitution are' instead of what a malicious and vindictive administration says they are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

However he said it, and I did not use his exact words, he intended to prevent President Trump from running in 2024 or at any other time.

From becoming president, not from running.

You proved yourself wrong in your own post.

 

[j-mac]

View attachment 913058

That's the image you see as your feelings when responding to someone who disagrees with you isn't it Cult member?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

They can't pull the impeachment trigger because they would never be able to get enough votes in the House of Representatives. Or I hope they would not be able to. I don't think Johnson would allow it to come up for a vote for as long as possible.

But yes their intent is to so damage Trump personally and hinder his ability to campaign, they will try to keep him in court for as long as possible.

And that is why the SCOTUS ruling will be so important, i.e. to shut down such malicious or vindictive or politically motivated prosecution for ALL Presidents. It would mean Joe Biden goes scott free for those things most Americans believe he is doing illegally if he has any wiggle room to make those things even remotely legitimate or within the prerogatives of a President.

So yes, a proper SCOTUS ruling would put us at high risk for misconduct by future Presidents too, but it does return the power to the people instead of a small oligarchy being able to maliciously destroy political opposition. The people just need to be wise in who they elect to high office.

 

[Rawley]

They can't pull the impeachment trigger because they would never be able to get enough votes in the House of Representatives. Or I hope they would not be able to. I don't think Johnson would allow it to come up for a vote for as long as possible.

But yes their intent is to so damage Trump personally and hinder his ability to campaign, they will try to keep him in court for as long as possible.

And what I'm saying is the Repubs have counter programming of impeachment hearings all summer long. Make it a whole Nancy/Liz type January 6th Lolopalooza. All summer long.

And that is why the SCOTUS ruling will be so important, i.e. to shut down such malicious or vindictive or politically motivated prosecution for ALL Presidents. It would mean Joe Biden goes scott free for those things most Americans believe he is doing illegally if he has any wiggle room to make those things even remotely legitimate or within the prerogatives of a President.

So yes, a proper SCOTUS ruling would put us at high risk for misconduct by future Presidents too, but it does return the power to the people instead of a small oligarchy being able to maliciously destroy political opposition. The people just need to be wise in who they elect to high office.