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

[BackAgain]

Officials get immunity for official duties. They lose that immunity for criminal activity.

So far, you haven’t said anything different than what I’ve been saying.

That is why Prosecutors, Judges, and Cops get sent to prison for their crimes.

Sometimes. But not if their behavior is within the ambit of their official duties.

They are immune from prosecution or civil litigation if they are doing their jobs.

If they are doing their jobs and doing so without committing crimes in the process.

They are subject to civil and criminal penalties if they are committing crimes.

Again. Not a word different than what I’ve already said.

I don’t know anyone who calls for or wants absolute immunity without those guard rails being in place.

Now. I’m not sure what part of the Constitution you think gives the President authority to pressure people to violate the law.

Good. Because I’ve never said any such thing.

Nor cause false documentation to be created to overturn an election.

That’s an accusation. It isn’t established as any kind of fact.

That among other actions sounds like criminal conduct.

Of course it does. To you. But that’s fully expected from an unduly partisan hack.

 

[Foxfyre]

After December 14, 2020 when all 50 state certified their slate of electors the election was over. There was no constitutional means to delay the counting of true electors past January 6, 2021. Biden won.

The criminality of what Trump actually did was setting up the fake electors in seven states. There was fraudulently supposed to be two sets of electors, one real and one fake, Pence was supposed to recognize both sets of electors, then state on Jan6 there being two sets of electors he cannot count those states and therefore declare Trump and himself the winners and stay in power after January 20.

Says you and others afflicted with TDS. I do not believe President Trump intended to do anything illegal whatsoever.

 

[Flopper]

I cannot fathom a single good reason why it’s bad thing that the president would fear legal repercussions of their actions.

That should be one of the first things on their minds. Always.

I agree. The purpose of the White House Counsel is to keep the actions of the president within the law avoiding violations of both federal statues and the constitution. The suggestion that a president should be immune from all legal actions is absurd.

 

[Marener]

Only complete assholes like you then worry that this might immunize the official against the commission of crimes like theft or perjury or murder. An absurd and petty contention by you.

But I didn’t say anything about theft, perjury or murder. That’s another straw man.

I said fraud and corruption, which is what Trump is accused of doing.

Are we going to immunize civil officers from prosecution for those crimes? That’s absurd. Civil officers shouldn’t be able to use their power for personal benefit. Why else would we pass laws to make it illegal if they’re immunized?

 

[BackAgain]

I cannot fathom a single good reason why it’s bad thing that the president would fear legal repercussions of their actions.

That’s because you’re very slow and a major hack.

That should be one of the first things on their minds. Always.

Nope. Performing their jobs as spelled out under the Constitution and the laws (and their oath of office) for the good of the American people is supposed to be the first thing on their minds. For glaringly obvious reasons, it is dangerous to put them into a position of being double guessed by a despicable subsequent Administration seeking revenge.

In point of fact, Brandon deserves to be impeached and convicted for all of this.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After December 14, 2020 when all 50 state certified their slate of electors the election was over. There was no constitutional means to delay the counting of true electors past January 6, 2021. Biden won.

The criminality of what Trump actually did was setting up the fake electors in seven states. There was fraudulently supposed to be two sets of electors, one real and one fake, Pence was supposed to recognize both sets of electors, then state on Jan6 there being two sets of electors he cannot count those states and therefore declare Trump and himself the winners and stay in power after January 20.

yes there is one can challenge the electors and submit their own as was done, it takes member of the house and senate to challenge the electors.

 

[SavannahMann]

So far, you haven’t said anything different than what I’ve been saying.

Sometimes. But not if their behavior is within the ambit of their official duties.

If they are doing their jobs and doing so without committing crimes in the process.

Again. Not a word different than what I’ve already said.

I don’t know anyone who calls for or wants absolute immunity without those guard rails being in place.

Good. Because I’ve never said any such thing.

That’s an accusation. It isn’t established as any kind of fact.

Of course it does. To you. But that’s fully expected from an unduly partisan hack.

The accusation of the false documents and pressuring people to commit crimes is why we have a process. First the investigation. Then the grand jury. Finally a trial.

All of these steps follow rules established long ago. And all of them are weighted to protect the accused. Trump’s argument is that everything is covered by immunity. That argument was rejected by everyone during the Nixon era.

 

[boevans]

Says you and others afflicted with TDS. I do not believe President Trump intended to do anything illegal whatsoever.

What a goofy reply. Your age is affecting your thinking. Yes, he knew was outside the boundaries. Fake electors are criminal. They swore to matters that were not true.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What a goofy reply. Your age is affecting your thinking. Yes, he knew was outside the boundaries. Fake electors are criminal. They swore to matters that were not true.

No they are not there is a process to submit alternate electors.

 

[BackAgain]

But I didn’t say anything about theft, perjury or murder. That’s another straw man.

You didn’t have to. And no. It’s not even remotely a strawman argument. They were but examples, you hapless ineffectual hack troll.

I said fraud and corruption, which is what Trump is accused of doing.

So? You focus on those alleged crimes (which is not at all anything Trump has done or is doing). But the principle is exactly the same? Troll.

Are we going to immunize civil officers from prosecution for those crimes? That’s absurd. Civil officers shouldn’t be able to use their power for personal benefit. Why else would we pass laws to make it illegal if they’re immunized?

If an actual crime is committed in the performance of an official’s duty, it is very likely that it goes beyond the ambit of his duties. One cannot legally order a crime to be committed in order to perform a lawful duty.

In the other hand, just because a hack like you later wishes to label the manner in which an official duty was performed as “criminal” doesn’t mean that it was a crime.

I realize all of this flies miles over your head at Mach speeds. But that doesn’t change any part of the Nixon v. Fitzgerald analysis.

 

[boevans]

No they are not there is a process to submit alternate electors.

That is not the process,

 

[boevans]

You didn’t have to. And no. It’s not even remotely a strawman argument. They were but examples, you hapless ineffectual hack troll.

So? You focus on those alleged crimes (which is not at all anything Trump has done or is doing). But the principle is exactly the same? Troll.

If an actual crime is committed in the performance of an official’s duty, it is very likely that it goes beyond the ambit of his duties. One cannot legally order a crime to be committed in order to perform a lawful duty.

In the other hand, just because a hack like you later wishes to label the manner in which an official duty was performed as “criminal” doesn’t mean that it was a crime.

I realize all of this flies miles over your head at Mach speeds. But that doesn’t change any part of the Nixon v. Fitzgerald analysis.

You can learn the correct way from Mariner.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Attempting to disenfranchise one to seven states of voters in an attempt to create a constitutional crisis that would make it possible to allow a first term president who loses his election for a second term could commit fraud leading up to January 6, which would allow him to stay in office for a second term if his VP would participate in the fraud cannot be part of His presidential duties.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

one can challenge the electors and submit their own as was done

Who exactly can submit their own slate of electors to be counted on January 6?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No they are not there is a process to submit alternate electors.

No state chose any other process than certifying that Biden had won the state prior to “safe harbor” which meant no more challenges by the loser would or ever could be entertained.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who exactly can submit their own slate of electors to be counted on January 6?

the opposition since the state already submitted the other side.

 

[Flopper]

I suppose you think that's a valid argument. It isn't. Anny more than any President can order with impunity all migrants in the country shot as enemy combatants. Such would absolutely be a high crime and misdemeanor.

Congress settled the matter of insurrection with an impeachment for which the President was acquitted. So whether he was guilty or not, just like O.J. Simpson, he should be immune from further prosecution for that particular offense.

Impeachment is not a judicial process. An election is a political process in which the voters hire a candidate for the office of president. An impeachment is a political process for firing a a president. Federal courts found the doctrine of double jeopardy entirely inapplicable, since impeachment is a political rather than a criminal proceeding, with removal and disqualification from office qualifying as political, rather than criminal,....

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11121#:~:text=Fourth%2C%20the%20court%20found%20the,%2C%20rather%20than%20criminal%2C%20consequences.

 

[Marener]

Performing their jobs as spelled out under the Constitution and the laws (and their oath of office) for the good of the American people is supposed to be the first thing on their minds. For glaringly obvious reasons, it is dangerous to put them into a position of being double guessed by a despicable subsequent Administration seeking revenge.

It's far more dangerous to expect civil officers to follow the law if they have immunity from prosecution for breaking it. We both think they should be following the law, but that's exactly why they need to be subject to prosecution for breaking it.

Having to second guess yourself is a good thing. Everyone in government should be worried that they could be prosecuted for what their doing.

In point of fact, Brandon deserves to be impeached and convicted for all of this.

He won't be and we both know it. Let's say Biden specifically ordered the DoJ to prosecute Trump to harm his chances at being elected. That's corrupt as hell and illegal. Every civil officer who participates should be prosecuted for doing so.

But with your concept of immunity, they won't be prosecuted. They have nothing to worry about.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Says you and others afflicted with TDS. I do not believe President Trump intended to do anything illegal whatsoever

He told the crowd on January 6 2021
before the stop the steal riot became an assault in his own words that if Mike Pence did the right thing, he would be the winner of the 2020 election that all fifty states had certified the reality that he lost.

What legal way do you submit that Trump could somehow “win” an election that he clearly “lost”?

 

[Marener]

If an actual crime is committed in the performance of an official’s duty, it is very likely that it goes beyond the ambit of his duties. One cannot legally order a crime to be committed in order to perform a lawful duty.

So basically you're saying they have immunity from prosecution unless they do something illegal.

Okay.

They can't be prosecuted for doing their duties. But if they commit a crime, it's not part of their duties and therefore they don't have immunity.

You're talking in circles.

Take the example from above. Biden orders the DoJ to prosecute Trump to hurt his campaign. Does he have to be impeached before he can be prosecuted for this abuse of office?