Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Presidents have had rallies since the inception of our Country. FDR's Blue Eagle rallies for instance. His tacit backing of Unions and Union Strikes.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.
So you support the right of the DA in Athens GA charging Biden with manslaughter for Laken Reilly's death?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.
In this hypothetical, are they a criminal or not?TO prevent politically based criminal prosecutions
Absolutely. Indictment for violating a criminal statute.Are they a criminal or not?
Then why should we care to speculate about the basis for the prosecution if they are indeed a criminal?Absolutely. Indictment for violating a criminal statute.
How do you get to that, by my post????So you support the right of the DA in Athens GA charging Biden with manslaughter for Laken Reilly's death?
No speculation. It's a reality today. DEms are setting a horrible precedent that should be stopped. Now.Then why should we care to speculate about the basis for the prosecution if they are indeed a criminal?
A simple "no" would have sufficed.How do you get to that, by my post????
That’s your opinion, which I would say is politically based.No speculation. It's a reality today. DEms are setting a horrible precedent that should be stopped. Now.
Hard to argue it isn't. Biden's DOJ waited two and half years to bring charges and only did so after Trump announced. ANd the Jan 6th charges are extremely questionable. DC Circuit has already thrown them out for J6th defendants.That’s your opinion, which I would say is politically based.
Again, "criminal" is in the eye of the prosecutor? And they can be politically corrupt, like Garland, Smith, Willis, James, Bragg ...But you avoided the question. If the president is indeed a criminal, what difference does it make? A criminal should be prosecuted.
Why? Congress is more culpable by passing ineffective immigration laws and not providing the resources necessary to expedite the huge influx of asylum cases that had piled up at the border during the Covid shut down. Even yer Orange Jesus had to release detainees into the US to await immigration hearings. President Biden has called for more immigration judges and more border patrol resources since day one of his Administration. But as the OP stated and most believe the executive has qualified immunity for policy decisions.So you support the right of the DA in Athens GA charging Biden with manslaughter for Laken Reilly's death?
Why? Congress is more culpable by passing ineffective immigration laws and not providing the resources necessary to expedite the huge influx of asylum cases that had piled up at the border during the Covid shut down. Even yer Orange Jesus had to release detainees into the US to await immigration hearings. President Biden has called for more immigration judges and more border patrol resources since day one of his Administration.
Trump's policy to have clean elections.But as the OP stated and most believe the executive has qualified immunity for policy decisions.
Not at all. It’s actually quite easy to argue it isn’t.Hard to argue it isn't
I asked you if he was a criminal and you said absolutely. That’s why I asked.Again, "criminal" is in the eye of the prosecutor? And they can be politically corrupt, like Garland, Smith, Willis, James, Bragg ...
In this hypothetical, are they a criminal or not?
Absolutely
Not at all. It’s actually quite easy to argue it isn’t.
I asked you if he was a criminal and you said absolutely. That’s why I asked.
I said nothing about impeachment.But there’s a more fundamental problem here. Your intent here is to prevent politicization of the criminal process. And the proposed method to do so is to require impeachment (a political process) before criminal prosecution. The “solution” doesn’t fix politicization, it makes it mandatory.
Shock of shocks, you think anything the blob did is saintly. Whodathunkit?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.
GO back and listen again. HIs answer was that President has to be impeached and removed from office before DOJ could charge him/her, due to DOJ policy of not charging sitting President.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 asked if they were a criminal. A criminal is someone who has actually committed a crime, not someone who is prosecuted. I asked the question for a reason. Are you changing your answer?Criminal prosecutions. DO you have a need to be an asshole in these discussions?
I assume you know the broad contours of the arguments in play, not to mention the constitution which explicitly states the president is subject to criminal prosecution after successful impeachment and conviction.I said nothing about impeachment
A criminal prosecution.I asked if they were a criminal.
Nope.A criminal is someone who has actually committed a crime, not someone who is prosecuted. I asked the question for a reason. Are you changing your answer?
And the question is whether the civil qualified immunity should be extended to criminal prosecution. I say yes. Seems clear you say no. IMHO bad policy.I assume you know the broad contours of the arguments in play, not to mention the constitution which explicitly states the president is subject to criminal prosecution after successful impeachment and conviction.
Who says?Having a rally on Jan 6 over losing an election was not within the scope of presidential responsibility.
