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

[Hutch Starskey]

Your ignorance is getting old, duck. Had Nixon not resigned, he would have been impeached without question. So much for your ignorance in this matter.

He would have been indicted if not pardoned as well.

 

[para bellum]

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.

In general, yes. Upon conviction criminal charges may be brought.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Trump was impeached and acquitted for the acts he is being charged with criminally. That has never happened before, which is why the SCOTUS has taken up the case.

"The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice
is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request
to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of
certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to
the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a
former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal
prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during
his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits,
this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding
issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of
this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot."

 

[Care4all]

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

It's not the president's job to do that....he's out of the bounds of his presidency. As a candidate he only has the right through legal means to contest the results...and has to under the law, accept the court's rulings, as everyone.

Elections constitutional power is given to the States. And Congress under very specific conditions. The president has no power to take it upon himself to decide election results or malfeasance in his own election. No man can judge, in his own case....

Trump's campaign rally, paid for by his campaign and political PACS, was not a presidential event or duty.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, in the old days when committing crimes was viewed as wrong and immoral.

Agree....and democrats were Americans.

 

[bodecea]

Nobody is arguing for the President to be above the law here. Please address the OP or start your own thread on your own topic.

Immunity is being above the law.

 

[Care4all]

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

OooPs, whatever the circuit.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Nope. Trump is claiming total immunity, for official and non official acts.

 

[Rawley]

Nope. Trump is claiming total immunity, for official and non official acts.

I don't think so. I haven't read his lawyers briefs, have you? If so, do you have a link ? I couldn't easily find them

 

[BS Filter]

Immunity is being above the law.

So we can indict Obama for bombing a wedding and bombing doctors. Cool.

 

[para bellum]

It's not the presidents job to do that....he's out of the bounds of his presidency.

False. There are a number of executive branch agencies that are charged with assuring the integrity of Federal elections. It is well within the "official duties" of a President.

 

[Edgetho]

It's not the president's job to do that....he's out of the bounds of his presidency. As a candidate he only has the right through legal means to contest the results...and has to under the law, accept the court's rulings, as everyone.

Elections constitutional power is given to the States. And Congress under very specific conditions. The president has no power to take it upon himself to decide election results or malfeasance in his own election. No man can judge, in his own case....

Trump's campaign rally, paid for by his campaign and political PACS, was not a presidential event or duty.

Everything about that post is -- Wrong. When POTUS Is serving, he is the Chief Executive Officer of the Land. He, or someday she, is the Head of the Govenrment of the United States. Period.

And, he wasn't a candidate on J6, he was President of the United States. Sponge Brains Shits Pants was a candidate, not Trump.

For Federal elctions, the Feds have control. Did you not hear about the SCOTUS ruling yesterday? Seriously??

You need to stop watching The View. You might be a bright Lady if you did your own thinking. Using theirs makes you seem -- Not

 

[Edgetho]

Immunity is being above the law.

Now you're catching on.

 

[Rawley]

It's not the president's job to do that....he's out of the bounds of his presidency.

Wow. Really? You don't think the President has a Constitutional duty to ensure free and fair Federal elections?

 

[para bellum]

I don't think so. I haven't read his lawyers briefs, have you? If so, do you have a link ? I couldn't easily find them

Here is the relevant brief Rawley. Trump's objection to Smith's petition for cert before the appeal.

The claim of "absolute immunity for all criminal acts" is made-up bullshit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293865/20231220140543301_23-624%20-%20U.S.%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Petition%20for%20Certiorari%20Before%20Judgment%20-%20Filed.pdf

 

[Edgetho]

Wow. Really? You don't think the President has a Constitutional duty to ensure free and fair Federal elections?

Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

 

[para bellum]

Nope. Trump is claiming total immunity, for official and non official acts.

You need to read the court docs and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Marener]

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

One. Trump isn’t charged with that specific offense and the nature of Trump’s charges different considerably from the case you offered.

Two, you didn’t read your own link very carefully because the appellate court reinstated the charges, they didn’t toss them out. From your own link:

Fischer sought to have the charge at the center of his Supreme Court case dismissed, and U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols agreed. He reasoned that the law, which was enacted in the wake of the Enron collapse, was only intended to apply to evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and reinstated the charges against Fischer (as well as those against two other men). It ruled that “nder the most natural reading of the statute,” the law “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by” the evidence-tampering provision.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Care4all]

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.

The Insignificance of Trump’s “Immunity from Prosecution” Argument

If and when the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, the stakes will be far less momentous than many observers might assume, because the answer to the immunity question matters very little for Trump’s prosecution.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[WEATHER53]

One by one lib loon fantasies get squashed so first up is the we are reading the decisions incorrectly and then followed by onto the next sure fire “got him now” fantasy that Also blows up.

 

[para bellum]

So we can indict Obama for bombing a wedding and bombing doctors. Cool.

And this is exactly why the SCOTUS took up the matter. A POTUS is a class of one, and his immunity is different than the normal qualified immunity of public servants.

How different is what the court is going to answer.