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

[Care4all]

There have been no developments. His case still sucks donkey dick. Significantly, Bragg has still not revealed what crime Trump was allegedly covering up with this internal paperwork. An express element of the statute Bragg is using (the one that turned it into a felony as the Statute of Limitations had long run on the misdemeanor.

In order to hide his sexual affairs, Trump had Cohen pay off Stormy and made her SIGN an NDA...a Non Disclosure Agreement to not talk about their affair, the October before the November 2016 election.

All of that was legal for him to do, is my understanding.

But, Trump, Alan Weiselberg, and Trump Org then decided to commit fraud, and pay Cohen back for the money he initially fronted for the sexual liaisons silence payoff, with Trump org money illegally claiming Cohen was being paid back for some computer system or sound system for the company that Michael Cohen bought which covered his tracks of paying off Stormy even further, and avoided payroll and income taxes for Cohen through that lie along with other fraudulent maneuvers..... Cohen had already been charged and served time for it, Trump was individual #1 in Cohen's trial.

He was Individual #1, because he was President at the time, and he could not be charged.

 

[excalibur]

...

You know every president would get this version of absolute immunity, right? Not just Trump?

LOL No one is asking for "absolute immunity", that's just the voices in your head at work. It is a question of immunity from official acts.

 

[Marener]

LOL No one is asking for "absolute immunity", that's just the voices in your head at work. It is a question of immunity from official acts.

Trump’s lawyers asked for it, moron.

 

[Rawley]

In order to hide his sexual affairs, Trump had Cohen pay off Stormy and made her SIGN an NDA...a Non Disclosure Agreement to not talk about their affair, the October before the November 2016 election.

All of that was legal for him to do, is my understanding.

But, Trump, Alan Weiselberg, and Trump Org then decided to commit fraud, and pay Cohen back for the money he initially fronted for the sexual liaisons silence payoff, with Trump org money illegally claiming Cohen was being paid back for some computer system or sound system for the company that Michael Cohen bought which covered his tracks of paying off Stormy even further, and avoided payroll and income taxes for Cohen through that lie along with other fraudulent maneuvers..... Cohen had already been charged and served time for it, Trump was individual #1 in Cohen's trial.

He was Individual #1, because he was President at the time, and he could not be charged.

With the fraud again. Who did Trump allegedly defraud?

 

[Care4all]

With the fraud again. Who did Trump allegedly defraud?

The Tax Payer.....us, and doubly New Yorkers....

he cheated to cover his tracks with Stormy after the Access Hollywood tape was revealed in the election....he could have done so legally, but he CHOSE the cheating and fraudster route.

yeah, compared to his other fraudulent crimes at Trump Org, it's small potatoes..... though still a felony for Trump org at his direction....

Weiselberg spent time in the slammer last year for Trump org felonious tax fraud shenanigans he was convicted on previously, and was just charged with perjury plead guilty for lying under oath in this civil fraud case that Letitia James just won.

This election cover up case, the Criminal Fraud case Trump lost last year, and the civil law fraud case Trump just lost, and the Trump University civil fraud case lost, and the Trump Charity civil fraud case he lost all show a PATTERN of repeated fraud and cheating in New York State by the Trump organization.... (you have to admit!)

 

[Rawley]

The Tax Payer.....us, and doubly New Yorkers....

OK, I'll bite. How did Trump cheat on taxes and why didn't the hyperpartisan prosecutors charge him with tax fraud, evasion ...

 

[Care4all]

OK, I'll bite. How did Trump cheat on taxes and why didn't the hyperpartisan prosecutors charge him with tax fraud, evasion ...

His Trump Organization was charged (and fined) and the CFO (chief financial officer) Alan Weiselberg was found guilty, and went to prison for a short time. Alan took the hit, but it was shown he made no financial decisions without Donald Trump.

 

[AsherN]

I expect the SCOTUS will make a very narrow ruling with some generic standards for where and when immunity exists and kick it back down for the trial court to have to have a hearing on. 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.

It's not really about what SCOTUS decides. it's about their ability to stall the trials until after the election.

 

[Dekster]

It's not really about what SCOTUS decides. it's about their ability to stall the trials until after the election.

The left timed the prosecution to correspond to the election, and thereby created the scenario that placed it before the SCOTUS now. They could have prosecuted him earlier and had it decided earlier but elected not to. Thems the breaks. They are not stalling anything. It would only be if they rushed out with an early ruling would they be playing politics.

 

[Rawley]

His Trump Organization was charged (and fined) and the CFO (chief financial officer) Alan Weiselberg was found guilty, and went to prison for a short time. Alan took the hit, but it was shown he made no financial decisions without Donald Trump.

Not in regard to the Daniels extortion case. You need to keep your lawfare cases straight.

 

[Calypso Jones]

So you have proven nothing but that Fani Willis visited The White House.
Yawn.

Hey!! How's that fani willis prosecution against Trump goin'?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trumpers HAVE to argue for absolute, blanket immunity.

This is because they know what the orange slob did was wrong and illegal.

And they know that any discussion about qualifying this immunity -- official acts, etc -- will leave out the high crimes Trump committed. That he will lose that debate very quickly, in a courtroom.

So blanket immunity it is!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hey!! How's that fani willis prosecution against Trump goin'?

Actually, it's the People of Georgia vs. Trump. Not Fani Willis.

 

[Calypso Jones]

As Trump and Biden officially presidential nominations, Trump is leading every single battleground state in the polls: AZ, GA, WI, MI, PA, NC and NV

By Robert Romano Former President Donald Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden both easily clinched their respective party’s nominations for the 2024 presidential race on March 13 after winning the necessary amount of delegates, setting the stage for the general election in November. And...

dailytorch.com

IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY...TRUMP WOULD WIN ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND POPULAR VOTE.

 

[MagicMike]

As Trump and Biden officially presidential nominations, Trump is leading every single battleground state in the polls: AZ, GA, WI, MI, PA, NC and NV

By Robert Romano Former President Donald Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden both easily clinched their respective party’s nominations for the 2024 presidential race on March 13 after winning the necessary amount of delegates, setting the stage for the general election in November. And...

dailytorch.com

IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY...TRUMP WOULD WIN ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND POPULAR VOTE.

IF is the only relevant word in your statement.
If the election is held in November (which it will be) Trump will finally be a convicted felon and the only people who will be willing to vote for him will be his wingnut, MAGAt die hard cultists who cannot face his obvious flaws so they just chose to plug their heads up their asses and deny them.
What is left of his MAGAt base anyway.
And they won't be enough to matter.

 

[Calypso Jones]

 

[Libby von H]

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.

Everything a President does is not ultimately shielded from post-office civil prosecution, so this is all nonsense to me and SCOTUS will see through the argument completely

 

[Foxfyre]

Everything a President does is not ultimately shielded from post-office civil prosecution, so this is all nonsense to me and SCOTUS will see through the argument completely

A President has to make difficult decisions, have difficult conversations with people including other heads of state, has to determine what course of action to take in difficult situations, all of which will meet with disapproval or contempt from some segment of Congress and/or society. If he cannot be assured that these decisions, right or wrong, so long as they are allowed within the Constitution, are immune from future prosecution by vindictive successors or elected/appointed officials in subsequent administrations or the general public, he/she cannot do his job at all. That is why the sole authority to discipline the President is via the people's elected representatives in Congress and no other.

THAT is what SCOTUS should see and THAT is what SCOTUS should rule.

 

[Flopper]

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.

I'm not sure if the Trump team is asking for total or some form of partial immunity. Full immunity from the law would mean a president could order assignations of political enemies, blackmail congressmen, utilize government funds for his own personal benefit, and even acts of treason and nothing could be done to him other than remove him from office. And if his party controlled congress that might not be possible.

Making the president above the law is the first step to fascism.

 

[HikerGuy83]

But the power to hold the President accountable rests with the people via their elected representatives and is not given to any other power or any subsequent administration to do. And the issue of double jeopardy is also at play so that a strongly partisan congress should not be able to impeach and remove a president for something a previous congress tried but didn't get done. I hope that is how the SCOTUS justices will see it.

It seems like it will be a question of he/she carrying out their duties.

If there is something unrelated to his duties, he's fair game.

This will always be the judgement call.

The left weaponized impeachment and prosecution and I am sorry to say that Biden will be assaulted with this kind of thing the day after he leaves office.

But I guess it's what get's FOX their ratings.