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

[Seymour Flops]

It’s a terrible argument, but one that arises from the bad idea of criminal presidential immunity.

It’s the worst idea possible, except for the alternative. The alternative is a president weighing every decision against the possibility of prosecution if the opposing party gains control of the DOJ.

This idea would effectively make Congress a law enforcement agency as no president could ever be prosecuted without Congress first prosecuting them. That’s illogical and impractical. They are not equipped to be so and wouldn’t serve well in that purpose. Impeachment is intended to get a corrupt president out of office. Not to be a necessary step to criminal prosecution.

Yes, that pesky constitution often gets in the way of zealous prosecutions. Especially of political opponents. Can’t even get a good dictatorship off the ground, for Pete’s sake!

Moreover, it’s pretty clear at least some Republican Senators had no idea they were giving Trump immunity by voting for acquittal. This concept never existed.

Flashback: These GOP senators suggested Trump could be criminally prosecuted after Jan. 6

Although many Republicans have decried the criminal prosecutions against former President Donald Trump for his plans to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 election, there was a time when many suggested he could be criminally prosecuted.And these senators weren't just longtime Trump...

www.rawstory.com

I’d donate money to an organization like the Gideon Society, but passing out U.S. Constitutions instead of bibles. Give them to elected officials first!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Under normal circumstances I would agree, but since Biden has immunity by default as being the Democratic President then Trump and all subsequent Presidents should have the same protection.

Look at you, making up a fantasy lie to present as your reason. Adorable.

Have you fooled anyone yet?

 

[Foxfyre]

The court doesn't take purely political cases.

It does when the law or constitution is being used wrongly for political purposes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said I hoped SCOTUS will rule that only Congress can discipline a President of the United States

Well of course you did. Thats was the cult's con from the start.

Say he can't be impeached, because he is leaving office and the courts should deal with him.

Then say the courts can't touch him.

This was all called from day one. The con wasn't really meant to fool anyone and did not fool anyone.

 

[BS Filter]

No impeachment is whether he can be removed from office. Has nothing to do with whether he can be charged with an actual crime.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, a Constitutional right. Should he have been charged with a crime?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, a Constitutional right. Should he have been charged with a crime?

Was that an official act in the spirit of his official capacity?

Was it intentional, criminal fraud?

Geez you guys. At least put in a little bit of mental effort.

 

[Dekster]

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, a Constitutional right. Should he have been charged with a crime?

Yep but it was more because he was hauling congressmen who voted against him off to jail. He also violated the constitution by admitting WV in as a state without the consent of the Virginia legislature.

 

[BS Filter]

Was that an official act in the spirit of his official capacity?

Was it intentional, criminal fraud?

Geez you guys. At least put in a little bit of mental effort.

Yes, it was intentional. It's a Constitutional right.

 

[BS Filter]

Yep but it was more because he was hauling congressmen who voted against him off to jail. He also violated the constitution by admitting WV in as a state without the consent of the Virginia legislature.

He wasn't impeached, charged, etc. Nothing.

 

[Rawley]

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.

So you reject qualified immunity?

 

[Dekster]

He wasn't impeached, charged, etc. Nothing.

You asked should he have been and I answered in the affirmative. That he wasn't really has no relevance because he was murdered less than a week after the end of the civil war, and as I already indicated, he had any congressman daring oppose his will hauled off to jail.

 

[BS Filter]

You asked should he have been and I answered in the affirmative. That he wasn't really has no relevance because he was murdered less than a week after the end of the civil war, and as I already indicated, he had any congressman daring oppose his will hauled off to jail.

Yes, he was assassinated by a Democrat. Case closed.

 

[Dekster]

Yes, he was assassinated by a Democrat. Case closed.

He was assassinated by a member of the Know Nothing Party.

 

[Marener]

So you reject qualified immunity?

Not the topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Immunity for some acts done in an official capacity as part of the job is reasonable.

We don't arrest undercover cops for possessing or converting drugs, for example.

But we would throw a cop in prison for doing that in his spare time.

 

[Rawley]

Not the topic.

Sure it is. He's asking for immunity when conducting the duties of his office.

 

[BS Filter]

He was assassinated by a member of the Know Nothing Party.

Close enough. He supported slavery.

 

[noonereal]

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.

A tough decision to assassinate his political enemies? To refuse the peaceful transfer of power.
Anyone voting yes in your poll has some serious traitor tendencies.

 

[Foxfyre]

A tough decision to assassinate his political enemies? To refuse the peaceful transfer of power.
Anyone voting yes in your poll has some serious traitor tendencies.

Anyone voting yes in my poll is a constitutionalist with capability for rational evaluation and critical thinking. Perhaps some voting no have the same attributes but their posts for the most part aren't showing it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyone who votes yes to this poll is voting yes to protect Dear Leader. Also, every single one of them will vote no, when it does not benefit Dear Leader.