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

[Marener]

Nope.

Youre answering a different question than I asked. If the president committed a criminal act, why should I care if they’re prosecuted with political basis? A criminal should be prosecuted.

If the president didn’t commit a criminal act, they will be found innocent at trial. That’s what trials are for.

Either way, the president doesn’t need to be protected.

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 say no. We don’t need to invent special protections for the president. If anything, we need the president more accountable than anyone else.

The precedent DEms are setting opens Biden to be criminally charged for Laken Reilly's death

There’s no rational basis for such charges. So I’m not worried.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Who says?

You?

Any rational person.

Same goes for criminal conspiracies to steal state and federal elections.

 

[StoneCold]

Who says?

You?

Then what was the purpose of it? He lost. Why bring all those people there, that day? Why was he trying to allow people entry without going thru metal detectors? He enforced that at every other rally. Why that day?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then what was the purpose of it? He lost. Why bring all those people there, that day? Why was he trying to allow people entry without going thru metal detectors? He enforced that at every other rally. Why that day?

Get ready for an Oscar worthy performance in playing stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

Trump's policy to have clean elections.

Legal policy in every state allowed Benedict Donald to challenge any of the elections. He lost all legal challenges before implementing the illegal ones that got him indicted. Well, illegal at least to a whole host of non MAGANUT Republican witnesses.

 

[Rawley]

Youre answering a different question than I asked. If the president committed a criminal act, why should I care if they’re prosecuted with political basis? A criminal should be prosecuted.

If the president didn’t commit a criminal act, they will be found innocent at trial. That’s what trials are for.

Either way, the president doesn’t need to be protected.

I say no. We don’t need to invent special protections for the president. If anything, we need the president more accountable than anyone else.

There’s no rational basis for such charges. So I’m not worried.

there's no rational basis for any of the charges against Trump. But that's your cult at work.

 

[Marener]

there's no rational basis for any of the charges against Trump. But that's your cult at work.

There is a rational basis and it’s described in ample detail in the indictment.

Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in 2020 crossed the line in his attempt to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.

 

[Rawley]

Legal policy in every state allowed Benedict Donald to challenge any of the elections. He lost all legal challenges before implementing the illegal ones that got him indicted. Well, illegal at least to a whole host of non MAGANUT Republican witnesses.

Guess that's why your cult has resorted to novel, questionable theories to claim anything he did was illegal

Karma's a bitch Boo

 

[Edgetho]

Then what was the purpose of it? He lost. Why bring all those people there, that day? Why was he trying to allow people entry without going thru metal detectors? He enforced that at every other rally. Why that day?

The Constitution calls for the US Government to ensure a Republican Form of Government to all the States

Trump, and about 80 MILLION other people thought there was some funny business in the '20 election. Mostly because -- There was.

What could be more important than POTUS making sure that elections are fair and honest?

Not trying to re-hash an old topic but they weren't. Everybody knows it but there's nothing we could do about then and -- We still can't go back and change it.

Even if we did prove it -- Then what? Nothing.

Trump wanted Congress and some States to look at the elections in several States. What the FUCK is wrong with that?

I'll tell you -- dimocrap filth cheated like the scum you are and you didn't want to get busted for it.

The ultimate defense. SCOTUS rules 6-3 in Trump's favor.

Keep on keepin' on, dimocrap scum. You're creating a monster. Maybe even one that I won't like.

That's the problem with you people, you just don't know when to shut the fuck up.

 

[Rawley]

There is a rational basis and it’s described in ample detail in the indictment.

Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in 2020 crossed the line in his attempt to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.

Guess that's why the uber liberal DC Circuit has tossed out the core of COmrade Smith's J6th case. LOL

 

[Marener]

Guess that's why the uber liberal DC Circuit has tossed out the core of COmrade Smith's J6th case. LOL

Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Can you explain with more detail?

 

[Care4all]

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.

The question was, after the president left office, could Doj charge him with a crime....? The example was for after he was out of office.... Could trump be charged for an assassination of his political opponent ordered by him for seal team 6 to execute?

Trump lawyer's answer, was only if he was impeached by congress and found guilty before he left office could the Doj prosecute after he left office.

Do you agree with the trump lawyer stance?

 

[Edgetho]

Legal policy in every state allowed Benedict Donald to challenge any of the elections. He lost all legal challenges before implementing the illegal ones that got him indicted. Well, illegal at least to a whole host of non MAGANUT Republican witnesses.

He didn't lose, most of them were denied cert. Wrongly.

Mostly because, even if they went to Court and it was proven, correctly, that dimocrap scum are cheating FILTH -- Then what?

That was what they couldn't deal with. Not so much that dimocraps are cheating scum. Everybody knows they are but -- Then what?

Do we cancel the election and re-vote? When do we hold the next vote? How do we do it? How do we cancel out the 150 million legitimate votes and start over?

The thing is -- dimocrap FILTH got one over on us. Our bad. Nothing we can do about it now. You got us, good one.

This time next year? That's when the fun starts. I hope you're still around to celebrate it

 

[Marener]

He didn't lose, most of them were denied cert. Wrongly.

Mostly because, even if they went to Court and it was proven, correctly, that dimocrap scum are cheating FILTH -- Then what?

That was what they couldn't deal with. Not so much that dimocraps are cheating scum. Everybody knows they are but -- Then what?

Do we cancel the election and re-vote? When do we hold the next vote? How do we do it? How do we cancel out the 150 million legitimate votes and start over?

The thing is -- dimocrap FILTH got one over on us. Our bad. Nothing we can do about it now. You got us, good one.

This time next year? That's when the fun starts. I hope you're still around to celebrate it

its always a goddamn conspiracy with you guys.

 

[para bellum]

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.

Not one bit of your post is correct. Nada.

The 9th Circuit is for the Western US and is not even the appellate court in this case.

1. Jack Smith indicted Trump in US District Court.
2. Trump moved for a dismissal on the grounds that a President has immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts while he is in office.
3. The District Court denied the motion and set a trial date.
4. Trump appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
5. Jack Smith petitioned the SCOTUS to rule on the decision before the appellate court had a chance to rule on it. SCOTUS denied the petition.
6. The D.C. Circuit agreed with the District Court and said the trial could go ahead.
7. Trump filed a petition with the SCOTUS for a stay of the Circuit court, pending an appeal to the full court.
8. Jack Smith asked the SCOTUS to treat the petition for a stay as a Writ of Cert.
9. SCOTUS agreed, granted cert, and set the dates for oral arguments and submissions.

The question before the court is whether a POTUS has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts committed while in office.

Get your head out of your ass.

 

[Marener]

The question before the court is whether a POTUS has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts committed while in office.

We know for a fact there is no “absolute immunity” as the constitution explicitly states that the president is subject to criminal prosecution after impeachment and conviction.

This is one fact we all agree on.

 

[Rawley]

Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Can you explain with more detail?

Fischer v US. Comrade Smith and Biden's DOJ novel and rather absurd application of a Federal obstruction statute

Fischer v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No it would not be legal. But neither would it be within the scope of authorized presidential powers.

Neither is inciting an insurrection or attempting to overturn the results of an election.

 

[Edgetho]

The question was, after the president left office, could Doj charge him with a crime....? The example was for after he was out of office.... Could trump be charged for an assassination of his political opponent ordered by him for seal team 6 to execute?

Trump lawyer's answer, was only if he was impeached by congress and found guilty before he left office could the Doj prosecute after he left office.

Do you agree with the trump lawyer stance

Why would you use DEVGRU to assassinate some pencil-necked lawyer?

Other than that, you lost me. I don't get it at all. POTUS has absolute immunity. Period.

We, and especially you, have no idea of who POTUS orders executed. And when. Or where. Or how. And what about those under him? Is he responsible for who the CIA takes out? Or the Army? Yes, he is. This is just getting stupid. You're going to get your asses handed to you in November and you're afraid because your people broke so many laws and you're running out of places to hide.

SCOTUS tosses this bullshit so hard, it bounces when it hits the ground. Stupidity, dimocrap stupidity, at its finest.

 

[Rawley]

The question was, after the president left office, could Doj charge him with a crime....?

Nope. Go back and listen to the exchange. She was asking about a current President.

The example was for after he was out of office....

Nope Go back

Could trump be charged for an assassination of his political opponent ordered by him for seal team 6 to execute?

Trump lawyer's answer, was only if he was impeached by congress and found guilty before he left office could the Doj prosecute after he left office.

Do you agree with the trump lawyer stance?

Yes, I agree that a current President would have to be removed from office before you could charge him.

The Constitution clearly states that an impeached President can be criminally charged after he leaves office. The only question is whether there any immunity against criminal charges for the former President