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

[Rawley]

If the charges were truly bogus the indictments wouldn't happen.

OK. I'll bite. There isn't a single respected legal scholar that says the Bragg charge are solid.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

This is a country based on the rule of law. Where no one, including the President, is above that law. Once you leave office, all bets are off. There is no immunity for ex-Presidents. There is also no immunity for Presidents who commit crimes outside the bounds of their office, like election interference in Georgia.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a country based on the rule of law. Where no one, including the President, is above that law. Once you leave office, all bets are off. There is no immunity for ex-Presidents. There is also no immunity for Presidents who commit crimes outside the bounds of their office, like election interference in Georgia.

This thread is about the ability of the President to do a very difficult job in which there are always people who oppose his decisions and not being subject to malicious or vindictive prosecution when he leaves office. It is not a license for the President to break the law, but SCOTUS should stop the political opposition from making up crimes, exaggerating crimes, including purported infractions for which nobody else has ever been prosecuted.

Now honorable people will understand why such a SCOTUS ruling is now necessary.

The hateful, Marxist minded, vindictive, politically oppressive left will continue to hold Trump to a different standard than any President has ever been held. For instance your assertion that Georgia is somehow criminal when no other candidate who has questioned the results of an election or demanded investigation or recount has ever been accused of criminal behavior.

 

[Billo_Really]

This thread is about the ability of the President to do a very difficult job in which there are always people who oppose his decisions and not being subject to malicious or vindictive prosecution when he leaves office. It is not a license for the President to break the law, but SCOTUS should stop the political opposition from making up crimes, exaggerating crimes, including purported infractions for which nobody else has ever been prosecuted.

Now honorable people will understand why such a SCOTUS ruling is now necessary.

The hateful, Marxist minded, vindictive, politically oppressive left will continue to hold Trump to a different standard than any President has ever been held. For instance your assertion that Georgia is somehow criminal when no other candidate who has questioned the results of an election or demanded investigation or recount has ever been accused of criminal behavior.

I will agree that a President conducting the normal business dealings of his office, should be immune from prosecution. But that's it!

A sitting President has no business trying to manipulate votes in a state election. That is a crime.

In addition, a sitting President has no business starting an insurrection just to remain in office.

And finally, I find your depiction of the left to be particularly offensive. I'm a member of the left and I am definitely not a Marxist. I believe in the rule of law, whereas Trump and his minions think he is above the law.

SCOTUS will rule against Trump and he will whind up in prison where he belongs.

 

[Foxfyre]

I will agree that a President conducting the normal business dealings of his office, should be immune from prosecution. But that's it!

A sitting President has no business trying to manipulate votes in a state election. That is a crime.

In addition, a sitting President has no business starting an insurrection just to remain in office.

And finally, I find your depiction of the left to be particularly offensive. I'm a member of the left and I am definitely not a Marxist. I believe in the rule of law, whereas Trump and his minions think he is above the law.

SCOTUS will rule against Trump and he will whind up in prison where he belongs.

And honorable people don't distort the facts, make up crimes to accuse somebody, or mischaracterize the circumstances. Have a nice day.

 

[Billo_Really]

And honorable people don't distort the facts, make up crimes to accuse somebody, or mischaracterize the circumstances. Have a nice day.

You accuse me of being a Marxist, then infer I'm the one making things up! That is rich!

 

[Marener]

The people of the country have a right to hear both sides of the case publicly.

Giving the president immunity prevents us from being able to decide for ourselves.

 

[Rawley]

No. But it's also not relevant to the discussion. Trump is not claiming qualified immunity.

He absolutely is.

Already answered. Please consider reviewing previous posts before asking questions.

I did. I fail to see how your "not convicted" is different from my "cleared" when interpreting your words that the victim of bogus charges "will be fine"

 

[Marener]

He absolutely is.

Not according to his own lawyers.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293865/20231220140543301_23-624%20-%20U.S.%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Petition%20for%20Certiorari%20Before%20Judgment%20-%20Filed.pdf

I did. I fail to see how your "not convicted" is different from my "cleared" when interpreting your words that the victim of bogus charges "will be fine

So you asked the question when you knew the answer? You misinterpreted what I said.

 

[BlindBoo]

OK. I'll bite. There isn't a single respected legal scholar that says the Bragg charge are solid.

I don't think his claim of immunity is relevant. Wasn't this done during the campaign? Unless of course this new magical presidential immunity superpower is retroactive, However, It should come down to why the hush money payments were made. If they were made for personal reasons, to protect a marriage, that doesn’t violate the law.

But, if the payments were made to win an election, then it would be considered a campaign contribution.

I'm just more focused on Jack Smiths cases.

 

[Rambunctious]

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:

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1512(k);and

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

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

Of course that's just charges from his traitorous Jan 6th plot to overturn the valid, free and fair election he lost in 2020. All the other charges are just as easily accessible.

None of that has been proven... we are innocent until PROVEN guilty... an accusation from your enemies is not proof of a crime... see this is why the other two wouldn't try and answer... at least you tried so good for you boo...

 

[Rambunctious]

Good, sit there and wait and stay ignorant.

Or read the indictments like a normal adult.

So indictments are proof of a crime?.... where did you attend school?..... In Rusia?...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And honorable people don't distort the facts, make up crimes to accuse somebody, or mischaracterize the circumstances. Have a nice day.

Haha, this weak tapout has never worked. Free advice.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So indictments are proof of a crime?.... where did you attend school?..... In Rusia?...

Oh look, idiotic non sequiturs.

I don't think you have the education background to hang in these discussions.

 

[Rambunctious]

Oh look, idiotic non sequiturs.

Do you ever answer a question?.. I guess you aren't intelligent enough to think of an answer...

 

[Rawley]

Not according to his own lawyers.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293865/20231220140543301_23-624%20-%20U.S.%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Petition%20for%20Certiorari%20Before%20Judgment%20-%20Filed.pdf

View attachment 913674

The doctrine of absolute presidential immunity already exists. He's not arguing for that. He's asking if the existing doctrine "includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts, i.e., those performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.'" It was right in the portion you quoted.

So you asked the question when you knew the answer? You misinterpreted what I said.

I asked the question becasue you were doing your bullshit insulting condescending routine. Which is truly getting old

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you ever answer a question?

Yes.

See? Just did.

 

[Rambunctious]

Yes.

See? Just did.

Would that be yes you are not smart enough to think of an answer?...

 

[d0gbreath]

I don't think that is at all questioned. No. For example, When Nixon as CiC he decided to attack the VC in Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict. Many people called that illegal. I don't remember any mention of that as one of the crimes he committed that he had do resign over. It was his illegal activities involving dirty politics against his fellow Americans that did him in.

The Watergate bugging was only part of it. It was the attempted coverup that did Richard in.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Would that be yes you are not smart enough to think of an answer?...

Read the indictments yet?

No?

Don't bother me in this topic until you do.