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

[Flopper]

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

SCOTUS agreed to hear the case because the court has never ruled on how far a president can go into illegal activity to do his job.

There is another reason why SCOTUS could be hearing this case. The Jan 4th case would have been ready for trial by June 1st and the Classified Document case trial date was tentatively set for Aug 1. Neither of these cases can proceed until after SCOTUS's ruling scheduled for early July. Since the two cases can not run concurrently at least one if not both will be delayed till next year. Delaying these cases till next year will avoid any constitutional crises if Trump is found guilty. If Trump wins the election he can stop the prosecution. If Trump loses, there would be no constitutional crisis regardless of the outcome.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

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.

I think you have a solution for a problem that does not exist. No president including Trump has ever been indicted for crimes committed in performing their duties as president.

Even if you give the president the authority to violate the law when performing his duties as president, it still will not protect him from legal actions when he leaves office because he will be faced with proving that the illegal action was necessary in fulling his duties as president.

 

[IM2]

If the court rules that a president has immunity, Biden shoud immediately ock up Trump, Bannon, Comer, Jordan, Gates, Johnson, Green, and Republicans in the Senate. The he ends all cases against Hunter Biden.

 

[g5000]

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.

One of the motivating factors behind the American revolution was the belief that there is no divine right of kings.

It is simply astounding to me anyone is so brain damaged they bleev a President has immunity from his crimes.

That is about as Un-American as it gets.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the motivating factors behind the American revolution was the belief that there is no divine right of kings.

It is simply astounding to me anyone is so brain damaged they bleev a President has immunity from his crimes.

That is about as Un-American as it gets.

Not immunity from crimes. Immunity from made up crimes, malicious prosecution. The authority to discipline the President is given to Congress and no other. End of story.

 

[g5000]

Not immunity from crimes. Immunity from made up crimes, malicious prosecution. The authority to discipline the President is given to Congress and no other. End of story.

Wrong.

And Trump's crimes are not made up.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The left weaponized impeachment and prosecution

Saint Hikerguy is a liar. The left did no such thing. Republicans in the Senate fucked up both times. Specifically McConnell on the second one.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

made up crimes,

Trump led the conspiracy to create the fake Republican electors in the attempt to get Pence to overturn the 2020 election. That is a crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trump led the conspiracy to create the fake Republican electors in the attempt to get Pence to overturn the 2020 election. That is a crime.

Trump led a constitutionally protected protest and petition of government to address legitimate grievances. That is not a crime.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Trump led a constitutionally protected protest and petition of government to address legitimate grievances.

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

So he may have. What’s that got to do with the fake electors plot involving Pence to overthrow the incoming government.

 

[BlindBoo]

Trump led a constitutionally protected protest and petition of government to address legitimate grievances. That is not a crime.

Garbage. Benedict Donald lost all the legit protests and court cases he brought to challenge the elections. The Green Bay Sweep conspiracy was not a legal method to challenge the election. He should get his day in court for all the charges before the next election.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

So he may have. What’s that got to do with the fake electors plot involving Pence to overthrow the incoming government.

There was no attempt of any kind by ANYBODY to overthrow the government. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that.

The petition of grievances asked for--ASKED, not demand or else--for the certification of the election to be delayed a short time for the investigations of election fraud to be completed. I think Pence was right that the election had to be certified on J6 but that does not make Trump or any Patriot there guilty of insurrection or any other crime other than the relative few who participated in the riot that I am reasonably sure anti-Trump people instigated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Garbage. Benedict Donald lost all the legit protests and court cases he brought to challenge the elections. The Green Bay Sweep conspiracy was not a legal method to challenge the election. He should get his day in court for all the charges before the next election.

Your TDS is glaring today. Do have a pleasant afternoon.

 

[BlindBoo]

Your TDS is glaring today. Do have a pleasant afternoon.

Lame insults are really all you have again isn't it? Demanding Pence unilaterally throw out certain states certified votes is also part of the Jan 6th conspiracy charges.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lame insults are really all you have again isn't it? Demanding Pence unilaterally throw out certain states certified votes is also part of the Jan 6th conspiracy charges.

Pure manufactured charges. No truth to them. And I do not personally insult people. Only the idiotic things they post.

 

[BackAgain]

The legal basis for Presidential immunity was spelled out by SCOTUS long ago. It applied specifically only to civil liability.

The rational behind it, however, makes equal sense in support of some criminal prosecution immunity. This is precisely the argument made by President Trump for the extension of the immunity to criminal prosecutions

Who the hell knows what the SCOTUS will eventually determine? But it would make sense for them to agree with their own previously articulated premises so as to apply the immunity to criminal prosecutions (where the Presidential act in question comes within the ambit of the President’s Constitutional duties).

 

[BlindBoo]

Pure manufactured charges. No truth to them. And I do not personally insult people. Only the idiotic things they post.

“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”

For those who might doubt him, Pence urged them to “read the indictment.”

 

[Marener]

Pure manufactured charges. No truth to them. And I do not personally insult people. Only the idiotic things they post.

They literally wrote it down and we have the memos.

Its true. Thats what they were doing. I don’t know why Trump supporters have an hard time acknowledging this basic fact.

Eastman memos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Foxfyre]

They literally wrote it down and we have the memos.

Its true. Thats what they were doing. I don’t know why Trump supporters have an hard time acknowledging this basic fact.

Eastman memos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I doubt this is accurately reported in full context but even if it is, holding a wrong legal opinion is NOT a crime. Holding wrong opinions about ANYTHING is protected by the U.S. Constitution via the First Amendment. Asking for something or believing something or even insisting on something when you have no power to enforce it is NEVER a crime!

 

[Marener]

I doubt this is accurately reported in full context but even if it is, holding a wrong legal opinion is NOT a crime. Holding wrong opinions about ANYTHING is protected by the U.S. Constitution via the First Amendment. Asking for something or believing something is NEVER a crime!

Except they acted on the plan by trying to get Pence to engage in the corrupt and illegal scheme.

If they just sat around talking about this theory, that’s one thing. They actually tried to carry it out.