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

[Flopper]

No false claims, just rephrasing your arguments to expose their weakness.

I already acknowledged that your point that you don't want the president (although this would logically apply to all civil officers) "second guessing themselves".

My response was already stated. One, they should be worried. Everyone should be worried about the legality of their actions. That's a feature, not a bug. Two, there's already a system in place to protect a president (or civil officer) from malicious prosecution. For one, the DoJ has a code of ethics to stand in the way. For two, the justice system protects people from malicious prosecutions. That's what the judge and jury is for. That's what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is.

The next part of my response you likewise ignored. Immunizing them from criminal prosecution would prevent them from being subject from malicious prosecution. It would also protect them from justified prosecution for actual crimes. As I said earlier, you can't immunize them from one and not the other.

So there's a cost here, that the president (and civil officers) would be emboldened to commit crimes knowing they're protected and the hurdle to criminal prosecution is extraordinarily high. The benefit (based on my argument above) is minimal since they are already protected by the justice system.

As for your discussion about what is in their official duties (and your annoyingly excessive use of the word ambit, give me a break), I also responded, which you ignored. It blurs the lines of what we ae talking about to the point that you're basically creating a situation where the entire doctrine is irrelevant.

The idea of the action being within their scope of their duties does not mean it's legal. The question I posed is whether you could prosecute Biden for making the DoJ go after Trump for personal gain. Is that within the scope of his duties? What about taking a bribe for an official act? Is that within the scope of their duties? It's hard to know what you exactly mean here, because one would assume that any action within the scope of their duties would be "legal" because their duties are legal.

The Office of the White House Counsel to the President has not been mentioned in this discussion. This is not the president's personal lawyer. The Counsel reviews every document the president signs, all major speech, and all policy decisions. Just about everything a president does within his duties as president is reviewed by White House Counsel for violations of federal statues, oath of office, and ethical considerations. The bottom line is it would be very rare for a president to break any federal statue. Full immunity from civil or criminal prosecution is at it's best is unnecessary and at it's worst might encourage president's to violate the law since there would be no penalty.

 

[Marener]

The Office of the White House Counsel to the President has not been mentioned in this discussion. This is not the president's personal lawyer. The Counsel reviews every document the president signs, all major speech, and all policy decisions. Just about everything a president does within his duties as president is reviewed by White House Counsel for violations of federal statues, oath of office, and ethical considerations. The bottom line is it would be very rare for a president to break any federal statue. Full immunity from civil or criminal prosecution is at it's best is unnecessary and at it's worst might encourage president's to violate the law since there would be no penalty.

Ever heard of this guy called Nixon? His White House Counsel is also infamous. John Dean was convicted of a single felony after a plea deal for his part in the coverup.

 

[BackAgain]

No false claims, just rephrasing your arguments to expose their weakness.

I already acknowledged that your point that you don't want the president (although this would logically apply to all civil officers) "second guessing themselves".

My response was already stated. One, they should be worried. Everyone should be worried about the legality of their actions. That's a feature, not a bug. Two, there's already a system in place to protect a president (or civil officer) from malicious prosecution. For one, the DoJ has a code of ethics to stand in the way. For two, the justice system protects people from malicious prosecutions. That's what the judge and jury is for. That's what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is.

The next part of my response you likewise ignored. Immunizing them from criminal prosecution would prevent them from being subject from malicious prosecution. It would also protect them from justified prosecution for actual crimes. As I said earlier, you can't immunize them from one and not the other.

So there's a cost here, that the president (and civil officers) would be emboldened to commit crimes knowing they're protected and the hurdle to criminal prosecution is extraordinarily high. The benefit (based on my argument above) is minimal since they are already protected by the justice system.

As for your discussion about what is in their official duties (and your annoyingly excessive use of the word ambit, give me a break), I also responded, which you ignored. It blurs the lines of what we ae talking about to the point that you're basically creating a situation where the entire doctrine is irrelevant.

The idea of the action being within their scope of their duties does not mean it's legal. The question I posed is whether you could prosecute Biden for making the DoJ go after Trump for personal gain. Is that within the scope of his duties? What about taking a bribe for an official act? Is that within the scope of their duties? It's hard to know what you exactly mean here, because one would assume that any action within the scope of their duties would be "legal" because their duties are legal.

No. You alter what I write to make silly arguments. It’s called strawman.

You are verbose but utterly unpersuasive.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump’s lawyers have said in court that they are seeking much broader immunity than what police officers receive.

Ok. That establishes nothing.

Trump “seeks full immunity, not just ‘qualified’ immunity,” Somin said.

Words have meaning. Full or even “absolute” immunity does not mean one can never be either sued or prosecuted. In only means that IF the circumstances allowing immunity pertain, THEN you can’t be sued or prosecuted.

“And he is seeking immunity for criminal conduct, not just civil violations.”

As I have said repeatedly (because I read their briefs), they are indeed seeking to extend the Presidential Immunity from just civil liability to criminal prosecutions. Yes. Already established. And?

 

[Marener]

No. You alter what I write to make silly arguments. It’s called strawman.

You are verbose but utterly unpersuasive.

You don’t really seem like you have the capacity to be persuaded.

 

[BackAgain]

You don’t really seem like you have the capacity to be persuaded.

Irony meters all over the world just exploded.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don’t really seem like you have the capacity to be persuaded.

Have you tried offering one of these?

 

[bendog]

Ok. That establishes nothing.


Words have meaning. Full or even “absolute” immunity does not mean one can never be either sued or prosecuted. In only means that IF the circumstances allowing immunity pertain, THEN you can’t be sued or prosecuted.


As I have said repeatedly (because I read their briefs), they are indeed seeking to extend the Presidential Immunity from just civil liability to criminal prosecutions. Yes. Already established. And?

what case law supports a former potus having full immunity for criminal prosecution for acts done while potus?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

what case law supports a former potus having full immunity for criminal prosecution for acts done while potus?

None.

In fact, the pardon by Ford of Nixon demonstrates that Nixon was indeed exposed to criminal prosecutions.

 

[BackAgain]

what case law supports a former potus having full immunity for criminal prosecution for acts done while potus?

What part of “seeking to extend civil immunity to criminal prosecutions” threw you?

 

[bendog]

What part of “seeking to extend civil immunity to criminal prosecutions” threw you?

What civil immunity are you blathering about?

 

[BackAgain]

What civil immunity are you blathering about?

I’m not blathering at all. Damn, you are one ignorant little twat.

I decline to do all your homework for you.

But I’m a conservative and therefore, by definition, I’m compassionate toward you unfortunate twat waffles.

Go look up Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).

 

[Rumpole]

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.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court is likely to consider the impact of presidential actions in the realms of foreign policy and military engagements abroad, particularly those affecting civilians. The Court may grant a form of immunity for these actions, which could retrospectively protect former presidents who have been accused by figures like Noam Chomsky of committing 'war crimes.' However, this immunity would not be as broad as what Trump might hope for, which is a sweeping immunity that would nullify all his legal challenges.

Additionally, the Court is unlikely to extend immunity to clear violations of international laws, such as those outlined in the Geneva Conventions. Thing is, there is a difference between clear violations of Geneva conventions and 'collateral damage' of military actions, cloak and dagger maneuvers, etc. I think they want to discuss it, and try and define it with some clarity for a ruling of some sort. We shall see what they are up to, but I doubt it's anywhere hear what Trump is hoping for. He's delusional, to be blunt.

 

[my2¢]

I believe the President is immune from official acts.

I also believe the question here comes down to whether official acts include a criminal scheme to use official powers to overturn the presidential election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power frustrates core constitutional provisions that protect democracy. Not to decide whether Trump is or isn't guilty of anything, but whether political interference is to be included as official presidential conduct?

 

[bendog]

I’m not blathering at all. Damn, you are one ignorant little twat.

I decline to do all your homework for you.

But I’m a conservative and therefore, by definition, I’m compassionate toward you unfortunate twat waffles.

Go look up Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).

no no, u dumb fucked abortion.

Fitzgerald held a potus (or ex potus) has absolute civil immunity for "official actions. " So, would bill clinton have been immune to a sexual harrassment suit by Lewinsky?

 

[bendog]

In my opinion, the Supreme Court is likely to consider the impact of presidential actions in the realms of foreign policy and military engagements abroad, particularly those affecting civilians. The Court may grant a form of immunity for these actions, which could retrospectively protect former presidents who have been accused by figures like Noam Chomsky of committing 'war crimes.' However, this immunity would not be as broad as what Trump might hope for, which is a sweeping immunity that would nullify all his legal challenges.

Additionally, the Court is unlikely to extend immunity to clear violations of international laws, such as those outlined in the Geneva Conventions. Thing is, there is a difference between clear violations of Geneva conventions and 'collateral damage' of military actions, cloak and dagger maneuvers, etc. I think they want to discuss it, and try and define it with some clarity for a ruling of some sort. We shall see what they are up to, but I doubt it's anywhere hear what Trump is hoping for. He's delusional, to be blunt.

ehhhh, I dunno. Is W immune for war crimes? So long as he stays in the US, he absolutely is.

But the question comes down to whether its an official act. If it's not done pursuant to carrying out a duty .... supposedly Trump can't steal the WH china.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion, the Supreme Court is likely to consider the impact of presidential actions in the realms of foreign policy and military engagements abroad, particularly those affecting civilians. The Court may grant a form of immunity for these actions, which could retrospectively protect former presidents who have been accused by figures like Noam Chomsky of committing 'war crimes.' However, this immunity would not be as broad as what Trump might hope for, which is a sweeping immunity that would nullify all his legal challenges.

Additionally, the Court is unlikely to extend immunity to clear violations of international laws, such as those outlined in the Geneva Conventions. Thing is, there is a difference between clear violations of Geneva conventions and 'collateral damage' of military actions, cloak and dagger maneuvers, etc. I think they want to discuss it, and try and define it with some clarity for a ruling of some sort. We shall see what they are up to, but I doubt it's anywhere hear what Trump is hoping for. He's delusional, to be blunt.

The sole authority to discipline a President in ALL his duties and actions in the course of his job is given to Congress alone just so individual citizens, groups, attorneys, courts or whomever won't apply law as THEY see it. Given the various interpretations of 'law' on this very board should illustrate how important that principle is.

The Biden Administration is trying to put that authority with the DOJ or surrogate courts they work with. It must not be allowed to succeed in that.

I hope and pray SCOTUS sees it in just that way and their ruling is unmistakably concrete.

 

[BackAgain]

no no, u dumb fucked abortion.

Fitzgerald held a potus (or ex potus) has absolute civil immunity for "official actions. " So, would bill clinton have been immune to a sexual harrassment suit by Lewinsky?

You’re the fucking twat who asked the ignorant question, ya retard.

Already know what Fitzgerald held. I’m happy to have educated you.

That case wouldn’t cover Bubba. No. By definition, you imbecile.

 

[Rumpole]

The sole authority to discipline a President in ALL his duties and actions in the course of his job is given to Congress alone just so individual citizens, groups, attorneys, courts or whomever won't apply law as THEY see it.

What are you talking about? The department that 'applies the law' is the DOJ, where Congress writes the laws. The president makes sure that the laws are properly executed, that's true, but in the broadest sense, he doesn't go around ordering prosecutions as if the DOJ is his hired gun (though apparently Trump has tried to do that when he was president and has voiced the desire to do it again if he is reelected). No one but the aforementioned is 'applying the law as they see fit' where do you even get this nonsense?

The cornerstone of American jurisprudence upon which the entire institution of the US Justice system is built is simple the proclamation that 'no one is above the law'. That means that not even the president is except from prosecution by the justice department if he violates the law, in or out of office.

But, given the old adage, 'if you aim your arrow at the king, you'd better not miss' this was definitely on the minds of Bragg, Willis, and Smith so is safe to presume that given the immense pressure and supremely high stakes involved, it is safe to presume that they have a ton of evidence and then some by which to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That they don't and are doing it merely for publicity, when the stakes are so high that if they fail, it could ruin their careers and they will be forever badly marked down in history, it defies credulity that they are doing it willy nilly. Prosecuting Trump took a lot of courage, make no mistake about that one.

The OLC memo of 1973 created an administration's policy during during Nixon that the president cannot be prosecuted during office, implying he could out of office, but it's just a policy, it could be revoked by any administration at any time and it definitely does not affect a former president who is out of office.

Given the various interpretations of 'law' on this very board should illustrate how important that principle is.

The Biden Administration is trying to put that authority with the DOJ or surrogate courts they work with. It must not be allowed to succeed in that.

Horse manure. They already have it, and have had it under 'no one is above the law' concept.

I hope and pray SCOTUS sees it in just that way and their ruling is unmistakably concrete.

Uh, no.

It's not accurate to assert that Congress alone has the sole authority to discipline a President in all duties and actions related to the job. While Congress does indeed possess significant power, including the authority to impeach and remove a president under conditions such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, this doesn't encompass all actions or duties of a president. The U.S. Constitution provides a system of checks and balances that includes other branches of government.

You might be overlooking the role of the judicial system, which can check the President’s powers. The courts can rule on the constitutionality of executive actions when these are challenged. For example, in United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that President Nixon must comply with a subpoena to produce tapes for a criminal trial, emphasizing that no person, not even the President, is above the law.

Additionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ), while part of the executive branch, operates with a degree of independence, particularly in matters of legal enforcement and prosecution. It is misleading to suggest that the Biden Administration is acting 'politically' given that the DOJ is independent, or that has been the tradition and it's clear that Garland is following in this tradition.

Early on given how late in the game he assigned a special counsel to investigate Trump, it appears that Garland never wanted to investigate Trump in the first place, but the documents case forced his hand, and when that occurred, the Special Counsel was allowed to investigate the other potential crimes in 1/6, as well. Moreover, Biden certainly has no control over state justices, such as of that in Georgia and NY State. The role of the DOJ includes enforcing laws enacted by Congress, and it has its own mechanisms for maintaining legal integrity, separate from impeaching a president.

Moreover, while you hope for a concrete ruling from the Supreme Court that aligns with your view, the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law impartially and not to serve political ends. They adjudicate specific legal questions and disputes, not broad political doctrines, and their decisions are based on the constitutionality of issues presented to them, as shown in landmark cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the principle of judicial review. That being said, in my view they have misfired on some rulings.

It’s important to consider the nuances of constitutional powers and the roles of different branches of government in this context.

 

[Foxfyre]

What are you talking about? The department that 'applies the law' is the DOJ, where Congress writes the laws. The president makes sure that the laws are properly executed, that's true, but in the broadest sense, he doesn't go around ordering prosecutions as if the DOJ is his hired gun (though apparently Trump has tried to do that when he was president and has voiced the desire to do it again if he is reelected). No one but the aforementioned is 'applying the law as they see fit' where do you even get this nonsense?

The cornerstone of American jurisprudence upon which the entire institution of the US Justice system is built is simple the proclamation that 'no one is above the law'. That means that not even the president is except from prosecution by the justice department if he violates the law, in or out of office.

But, given the old adage, 'if you aim your arrow at the king, you'd better not miss' this was definitely on the minds of Bragg, Willis, and Smith so is safe to presume that given the immense pressure and supremely high stakes involved, it is safe to presume that they have a ton of evidence and then some by which to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That they don't and are doing it merely for publicity, when the stakes are so high that if they fail, it could ruin their careers and they will be forever badly marked down in history, it defies credulity that they are doing it willy nilly. Prosecuting Trump took a lot of courage, make no mistake about that one.

The OLC memo of 1973 created an administration's policy during during Nixon that the president cannot be prosecuted during office, implying he could out of office, but it's just a policy, it could be revoked by any administration at any time and it definitely does not affect a former president who is out of office.


Horse manure. They already have it, and have had it under 'no one is above the law' concept.


Uh, no.

It's not accurate to assert that Congress alone has the sole authority to discipline a President in all duties and actions related to the job. While Congress does indeed possess significant power, including the authority to impeach and remove a president under conditions such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, this doesn't encompass all actions or duties of a president. The U.S. Constitution provides a system of checks and balances that includes other branches of government.

You might be overlooking the role of the judicial system, which can check the President’s powers. The courts can rule on the constitutionality of executive actions when these are challenged. For example, in United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that President Nixon must comply with a subpoena to produce tapes for a criminal trial, emphasizing that no person, not even the President, is above the law.

Additionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ), while part of the executive branch, operates with a degree of independence, particularly in matters of legal enforcement and prosecution. It is misleading to suggest that the Biden Administration is acting 'politically' given that the DOJ is independent, or that has been the tradition and it's clear that Garland is following in this tradition.

Early on given how late in the game he assigned a special counsel to investigate Trump, it appears that Garland never wanted to investigate Trump in the first place, but the documents case forced his hand, and when that occurred, the Special Counsel was allowed to investigate the other potential crimes in 1/6, as well. Moreover, Biden certainly has no control over state justices, such as of that in Georgia and NY State. The role of the DOJ includes enforcing laws enacted by Congress, and it has its own mechanisms for maintaining legal integrity, separate from impeaching a president.

Moreover, while you hope for a concrete ruling from the Supreme Court that aligns with your view, the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law impartially and not to serve political ends. They adjudicate specific legal questions and disputes, not broad political doctrines, and their decisions are based on the constitutionality of issues presented to them, as shown in landmark cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the principle of judicial review. That being said, in my view they have misfired on some rulings.

It’s important to consider the nuances of constitutional powers and the roles of different branches of government in this context.

The sole authority to discipline the President in his presidential duties, actions, responsibilities, etc. is the U.S.
Congress and no other.

A member of the President's cabinet, appointed by the President, answerable to the President, and who serves at the pleasure of the President, has no authority to discipline or charge the President no matter who he is.