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

[Care4all]

Nobody is speaking about being above the law. Trump was accused of incitement of insurrection by the House of Representatives and was acquitted of that crime by the Senate.

THAT is the proper process for dealing with a President who acts improperly (i.e. above the law). The President is going to make decisions every day that somebody will declare illegal, treasonous, acting 'above the law.' In the vast majority of the cases he likely is acting within his prerogative as President no matter how many people disagree with the action. For the rest, the power to hold him accountable for his actions is given to Congress and is given to no other.

That is how SCOTUS should rule.

Impeachment is a POLITICAL process and NOT a criminal process.

No, it is not a substitute, it is not in the place of, our criminal justice system.

If a President commits a crime while in office, that was not in the commission of a presidential duty, he is not immune.

A campaign rally or protest or riot organized by a President's political Campaign, is NOT a Presidential duty.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trump was accidentally being logically correct when he said he could murder at will.

Only in what is deemed necessary such as taking out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or Qasem Soleimani. Or Obama ordering the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Think of the can of worms it would open if Presidents had no immunity for such orders and could be sued days, weeks, months, years, decades by members of those people's families or others claiming they were harmed by those deaths.

The President is bound by the same laws as everybody else in the country. That is why SCOTUS ruled that President Clinton was not immune to Paula Jones' lawsuit for offenses committed before he became President. If the President committed rape or murder while in office he could absolutely be subject to legal consequences even while he is in office.

This thread does not address crimes committed outside the scope and authority of the Presidential office but what happens within the scope and authority of the Presidential office and how his choices and decisions, right or wrong, so long as they are within that scope and authority should be immune to prosecution after he leaves office. At least they should be immune to prosecution by ANY entity other than the U.S. Congress.

 

[Foxfyre]

Impeachment is a POLITICAL process and NOT a criminal process.

No, it is not a substitute, it is not in the place of, our criminal justice system.

If a President commits a crime while in office, that was not in the commission of a presidential duty, he is not immune.

A campaign rally or protest or riot organized by a President's political Campaign, is NOT a Presidential duty.

Please read the OP so I don't have to repeat all that to you. Thank you.

I will say that holding a rally or making a speech to a group of people especially for the purpose of honorable jurisprudence is certainly a prerogative for the President of the United States however unpopular it might be with highly partisan leftwingers or anybody afflicted with chronic TDS.

And any procedure involving criminal offenses, especially those involving possible enforceable consequences or penalties, is a judicial process no matter who is conducting it. That the federal impeachment process is unique to all other process that normally work their way through the courts does not change that fact.

 

[Care4all]

Please read the OP so I don't have to repeat all that to you. Thank you.

Everyone already knows and has accepted there is presidential immunity when a president may break the law during a Presidential act or duty.

Why would the supreme court need to even hear that case?

Trump is claiming and arguing in court.... complete presidential immunity, for every thing a president does while in office, whether a Presidential duty or something outside of his duties....like robbing a bank, killing his wife or stranger on 5th Avenue, or ordering seal team six to assassinate one or two of his opponents.

If you agree that Presidents do not have complete immunity, while in office....then you and I agree.

 

[Marener]

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

Qualified immunity refers to immunity from civil damages for official acts.

This isn’t about civil damages.

qualified immunity

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Foxfyre]

Everyone already knows and has accepted there is presidential immunity when a president may break the law during a Presidential act or duty.

Why would the supreme court need to even hear that case?

Trump is claiming and arguing in court.... complete presidential immunity, for every thing a president does while in office, whether a Presidential duty or something outside of his duties....like robbing a bank, killing his wife or stranger on 5th Avenue, or ordering seal team six to assassinate one or two of his opponents.

If you agree that Presidents do not have complete immunity, while in office....then you and I agree.

President Trump is arguing the same principles I am arguing in the OP which is why I asked you to read it. The current administration and its DOJ are corrupting the constitutional intent for the Office of the Presidency and the only way to restore integrity to the concept is via a SCOTUS ruling on the constitutional interpretation that applies.

 

[Care4all]

I will say that holding a rally or making a speech to a group of people especially for the purpose of honorable jurisprudence is certainly a prerogative for the President of the United States however unpopular it might be with highly partisan leftwingers or anybody afflicted with chronic TDS.

It was a political event, paid for and organized by his campaign and political action committees, it was NOT a presidential act...organized by our government.

 

[Care4all]

President Trump is arguing the same principles I am arguing in the OP which is why I asked you to read it. The current administration and its DOJ are corrupting the constitutional intent for the Office of the Presidency and the only way to restore integrity to the concept is via a SCOTUS ruling on the constitutional interpretation that applies.

Nope. F. President trump's lawyers. argued in court, before the 9th circuit, that presidents are immune from all criminal acts done while serving in office, and unless a President is impeached and convicted, the DOJ can never charge him, with any of his crimes, even after leaving office and....even if the crime was him ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent.

 

[Foxfyre]

It was a political event, paid for and organized by his campaign and political action committees, it was NOT a presidential act...organized by our government.

It doesn't matter who did the legwork to organize it though I doubt you have your facts straight on that. As President he had every right to have a rally in response to 75 million voters, most of whom believe there was sufficient fraud in the 2020 election to justify delay of certification of the election to give time for preliminary investigations to be completed. Right or wrong about that he was supporting their constitutionally protected right to petition their government for redress of grievances.

There was no riot planned or initiated by that concept, nor was there any intent to overthrow the government or overthrow the valid results of an election. Right or wrong, President Trump should be immune in his decisions and actions that day which were in no way illegal. I hope SCOTUS rules according to that principle.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope. F. President trump's lawyers. argued in court, before the 9th circuit, that presidents are immune from all criminal acts done while serving in office, and unless a President is impeached and convicted, the DOJ can never charge him, with any of his crimes, even after leaving office and....even if the crime was him ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent.

I don't know what Trump's lawyers argued nor is it material to this discussion of what the constitutional principle should be re the office of the Presidency according to what is laid out in the OP. The ultimate ruling should apply to the office of the Presidency no matter who occupies that office.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course the Founders are rolling over in their graves. Biden is the worst possible example of who should be in the White House. Never had a real job, 50 years in politics, liar, plagiarizer, traitor, pervert and now brain damaged. He has no redeeming value at all.

From the perspective of a Trumpster, sure. The regular talking point attacks, none of which have anything to do with the subject.

Meh.

 

[Care4all]

I don't know what Trump's lawyers argued nor is it material to this discussion of what the constitutional principle should be re the office of the Presidency according to what is laid out in the OP. The ultimate ruling should apply to the office of the Presidency no matter who occupies that office.

Okie dokie, sure, it has nothing to do with Trump's appeal....or this SCOTUS decision....

 

[ding]

America's Constitution, which could be called its Constipation, is fatally flawed, The impeachment process doesn't work and that leaves double jeopardy as the only remedy for a president. But the Constitution does allow that remedy!

Or as the British and French learned, decapitation!

One has to wonder, what else did the fanding fouthers F U?

Russian sympathizer attacking the constitution. That tracks.

 

[sparky]

Real leaders do so via example, not exception.....~S~

 

[Care4all]

While certainly the prosecution of Trump is motivated by a militarized DOJ ordered by a Deep State terrified they will lose their power, that is immaterial to this argument.

What is at issue is whether a President can make unpopular decisions within the scope of the Presidential duties/powers without having to worry that a subsequent militarized government or anybody else can prosecute him for those decisions. The only power to discipline the President for illegal actions is given to Congress alone to prevent such malicious prosecution. And yes those in Congress can be malicious too but so far the system seems to be working pretty well there.

Where does the Constitution give it to Congress alone?? With no criminal prosecution and punishment ever, after they leave office?

Is that what you are arguing?

 

[jknowgood]

Another rube tried this before.

Joe's bad idea doesn't hold a candle to Trump, but I appreciate the effort to equate the two.

Biden showing off his dictator skllls.

 

[BlindBoo]

nor was there any intent to overthrow the government or overthrow the valid results of an election.

Hahahaha sure, sure. Except for the Grand Jury that indicted him with:

The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1512(k);and

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election ("the federal government function").

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

 

[Rawley]

Qualified immunity refers to immunity from civil damages for official acts.

This isn’t about civil damages.

qualified immunity

www.law.cornell.edu

So no immunity for criminal prosecution? None whatsoever?

 

[Marener]

So no immunity for criminal prosecution? None whatsoever?

Please tell me why I would want them immune from criminal prosecution.

 

[Rawley]

Please tell me why I would want them immune from criminal prosecution.

TO prevent politically based criminal prosecutions