Trump's motion for stay made to the Supreme Court goes into Great Detail in describing the extraordinary machinations engaged in by the lower courts -

The argument for presidential immunity is based on the Constitution that gives authority to Congress to 'discipline' the President via the impeachment process in the House and the Senate given authority to remove him/her from office. This is to ensure that malicious prosecution cannot be utilized to interfere with the authority given to the office of President. It should apply to a President after leaving office so far as his presidential duties and authority are concerned. The issue has been argued by constitutional scholars for as long as I can remember.

Impeachment and Criminal Trial have ALWAYS been seen as SEPARATE issues. Two Federal Judges, Walter Nixon and Alcee Hastings, were prosecuted and impeached. Impeachment is ONLY about holding office. Walter Nixon was convicted in a court and subsequently impeached after his conviction. Hastings was eventually acquitted of the charges against him.

Ford pardoned Nixon not to protect him from prosecution by any person or persons but rather to immunize him against the impeachment process that likely would have been utilized had there been no pardon. The pardon did so outrage enough people in the electorate it cost Ford his chance for a full term as President and we got Carter instead. (Ford would have been far less damaging.) Gerald Ford goes down in history as the only person to have served as Vice President and President without being elected to either office.

I think you are confused, as usual. Ford didn't pardon Nixon to immunize him from Impeachment. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment after Republicans told him they'd vote to support removal. (This is when Republicans weren't craven cowards!)

Ford Pardoned Nixon to avoid a trial because that would have opened old wounds as Nixon's criminality was exposed in court.
 
Cite the case in which Nixon claimed immunity from prosecution and lost.

Or perhaps you are confusing United States v. Nixon, which dealt with a subponea of tapes and records?

United States v. Nixon
He obviously does not understand the nuances of what that immunity entails and why the chief executive officer needs to be free from tort nuisance legal actions. If not every administration would be tied up in court for decades bar none.
 
I especially liked page 25, citing the DOJ's argument that the court shouldn't worry about "politically motivated prosecutions" in the future because this was the first time they had done it!
That was actually in the brief?
Are you fucking kidding me?
 
The election should be of no concern to the court.
But you and I both know they just took the timeline for three of the four cases under their personal control, almost certainly for the purposes of delaying them until tRum can scream "it's too close" and petition for delays until after he loses the election.
 

Forum List

Back
Top