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

[mudwhistle]

Removal from office is the sentence ordered by the Senate. And if the offense is one that makes a person ineligible for office that would be effectively part of the sentence as well.

But the sole power to impeach/indict and try and convict or acquit a President of the United States is given to Congress alone and no other.

Well, Democrats destroyed that premise.

They turned what was a legal matter into a political one.

 

[Marener]

If it's good for the country, good for America. in line with his oath, no President should ever think about his own legal liability

If it’s good for the country but violates the constitution? If it’s good for the country but violates the law?

Absolutely not. Laws are there to limit the government.

At least we all agree that the president is subject to criminal prosecution after impeachment and conviction. The constitution explicitly says this. So no matter which way you fall on the other immunity argument, the president is always at risk of legal liability.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Come back to reality. You're trying to legitimize a citizen being above the justice system.

All the dancing around the issue aside, NO!

I'm still waiting for Hillary to be punished and her feeling that she is above the justice system.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, Democrats destroyed that premise.

They turned what was a legal matter into a political one.

Which is why a Supreme Court constitutional ruling is now necessary to rein in a corrupt, malicious, militarized, politically motivated administration from going after a political rival and attempting to destroy him.

I hope SCOTUS accepts that responsibility and forever makes that impossible for future administrations to do with impunity by government or anybody else other than Congress when it comes to the President.

It would be nice if they could protect everybody from a militarized unethical government but that probably needs to be a separate issue taken up by Congress and, if necessary, the courts.

 

[Zincwarrior]

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.

If he has absolute immunity he could machine gun Congress.

Note, neither Clinton nor Nixon thought they had immunity. CLinton settled and Nixon was pardoned.

 

[Rawley]

If it’s good for the country but violates the constitution?

"in line with his oath,"

If it’s good for the country but violates the law?

As we've seen with these absurd indictments brought by hyper-partisan politically motivated prosecutors, it depends on who is claiming violations of the law. No, a President should not think about the kind of bullshit your cult is presently throwing at Trump.

Absolutely not. Laws are there to limit the government.

At least we all agree that the president is subject to criminal prosecution after impeachment and conviction. The constitution explicitly says this.
So no matter which way you fall on the other immunity argument, the president is always at risk of legal liability.

That's what this case is about, removing that "always" qualifier.

 

[Marener]

He should think only about what is in the best interests of America and the American people. Period. Full stop.

This is what you first said. Full stop.

"in line with his oath,"

Then you changed it.

As we've seen with these absurd indictments brought by hyper-partisan politically motivated prosecutors, it depends on who is claiming violations of the law. No, a President should not think about the kind of bullshit your cult is presently throwing at Trump.

If these absurd indictments are truly absurd, he has nothing to worry about as he will be found perfectly innocent.

That's what this case is about, removing that "always" qualifier.

You can’t remove the “always” qualifier because the constitution says the president is always at risk of prosecution. The only question is whether it requires one additional step of impeachment and conviction first.

 

[Foxfyre]

If he has absolute immunity he could machine gun Congress.

Note, neither Clinton nor Nixon thought they had immunity. CLinton settled and Nixon was pardoned.

Where good thing or bad thing (j/k) machine gunning Congress is not within the duties/prerogatives of the Presidential office. I'm pretty sure he couldn't kill everybody before somebody took him down. But if he did unlawfully machine gun somebody, hopefully Congress would act quickly to deal with it. And once convicted and removed from office, he/she would then be subject to charges, indictment, trial, conviction, prison, death penalty for murder.

It is up to the people to elect somebody who won't be machine gunning people. We all are suspicious of this or that person in high places quietly ordering or effecting the murder of somebody, but so far nobody has been conclusively charged with such a crime.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Where good thing or bad thing (j/k) machine gunning Congress is not within the duties/prerogatives of the Presidential office.

Thats not what Trump is arguing. Thats essential what case law is for the President now, but also within the Bill of Rights.
As he couldn't be impeached by Congress he is home free.
Or he could send the goon squad to imprison all Republican members and Trump.

 

[Mac1958]

This is what you first said. Full stop.

Then you changed it.

If these absurd indictments are truly absurd, he has nothing to worry about as he will be found perfectly innocent.

You can’t remove the “always” qualifier because the constitution says the president is always at risk of prosecution. The only question is whether it requires one additional step of impeachment and conviction first.

We're supposed to be a nation of laws, a nation of standards, and a nation committed to separation of powers. Holding one (1) person immune from all of that is preposterous.

These people remain absolutely smitten with this romantic idea of a strongman at the helm, despite the long historical list of examples why it's a rotten idea. It's inexplicable.

 

[Marener]

We're supposed to be a nation of laws, a nation of standards, and a nation committed to separation of powers. Holding one (1) person immune from all of that is preposterous.

These people remain absolutely smitten with this romantic idea of a strongman at the helm, despite the long historical list of examples why it's a rotten idea. It's inexplicable.

It's perfectly transparent the only principle behind this position is "defend Trump". It has nothing to do with what is good for the country.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thats not what Trump is arguing. Thats essential what case law is for the President now, but also within the Bill of Rights.
As he couldn't be impeached by Congress he is home free.
Or he could send the goon squad to imprison all Republican members and Trump.

He should be home free on the insurrection issue. The House indicted him but the Senate acquitted him. That should end the matter once and for all. And he should be immune from prosecution for anything done within the scope of his duties and authority as President other than Congress.

Machine gunning Congress is not at issue here. The President being able to conduct his duties and responsibilities and prerogatives within the scope of his constitutional authority without fear that vindictive people, government or private, will try to harm or destroy him during and after he leaves office is at issue here.

 

[Mac1958]

It's perfectly transparent the only principle behind this position is "defend Trump". It has nothing to do with what is good for the country.

They're trying to make their move. They figure this is their chance to get their Pinochet.

 

[Zincwarrior]

He should be home free on the insurrection issue. The House indicted him but the Senate acquitted him. That should end the matter once and for all. And he should be immune from prosecution for anything done within the scope of his duties and authority as President other than Congress.

Thats not what he is arguing.

 

[Marener]

They're trying to make their move. They figure this is their chance to get their Pinochet.

It effectively allows the president to commit crimes so long as they can maintain the support of a part of their party in Congress to vote against impeachment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thats not what he is arguing.

I believe in essence it is what he is arguing.

 

[Foxfyre]

It effectively allows the president to commit crimes so long as they can maintain the support of a part of their party in Congress to vote against impeachment.

If you don't like the way Congress votes, put your people into Congress. Otherwise those who think people shouldn't be impeached or convicted for non crimes will put enough of their people into Congress to prevent people like you from militarizing the government against citizens they don't like or present a political risk to them.

Meanwhile, I hope SCOTUS rules that Congress and Congress alone is given authority to prosecute somebody for what they did within the scope and authority of their position as President of the United States.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I believe in essence it is what he is arguing.

Nope. He is arguing that while President, he has total immunity. Otherwise the Washington DC case would not be impacted by the argument as subverting elections is not within the enumerated powers of the President.

Trump presses Supreme Court to rule for him on presidential immunity

Former President Trump on Monday took a victory lap after the Supreme Court restored him to the ballot in Colorado, rebuffing 14th Amendment challenges to his candidacy for the White House. But Tru…

thehill.com

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution provides for indictment/impeachment to be exercised by the House of Representatives and trial/conviction/removal/acquittal be exercised by the Senate. There is NO other provision, other than the ballot box, to discipline a President for wrong doing while in office. And that is how it should be.

If SCOTUS does not make that ruling, then all Presidents now and in the future will be/could be subject to endless vindictive/malicious investigation, legal persecution, prosecution and be tied up on court forever. Not only will he be in fear of legal repercussions from every unpopular decision--and pretty much everything is unpopular with somebody--but he will be physically prohibited from doing his job.

SCOTUS should rule immunity from prosecution for the President in the course of his duties now and forever other than what Congress chooses to do.

The Constitution say nothing about an impeachment being an indictment like charge, with legal ramification with a guilty verdic by the Senate other than being removed from office and being ineligible for office.

Nothing will change. That's why the presidents have the WH lawyer to advise them. Benedict Donald refused to listen to the WH lawyer.

No man should be above the law.

 

[Marener]

If you don't like the way Congress votes, put your people into Congress. Otherwise those who think people shouldn't be impeached or convicted for non crimes will put enough of their people into Congress to prevent people like you from militarizing the government against citizens they don't like or present a political risk to them.

Meanwhile, I hope SCOTUS rules that Congress and Congress alone is given authority to prosecute somebody for what they did within the scope and authority of their position as President of the United States.

I'm more worried about a political party protecting their own president by giving them a pass on committing crimes so long as they agree with the president doing so. You're making a criminal process into a political one, and that's something that this country has always tried it's best to separate.

Again, the judicial system is equipped to make sure people aren't successfully prosecuted for "non-crimes". It's the same protection we are all given by the constitution and it's worked well enough.