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

[The Sage of Main Street]

They (the fanding fouthers) thought they had invented a substitute to the British system of 'Chop, Chop' for kings and queens!

And that's the reason why Foxfyre is doing his dance, my friend. The American Constitution is F'd up, to put in simple words for you, and everybody is afraid to go there!

Worshiping Wits Wearing Wigs

Like Christofascists with the Bible, Constitution-bangers are pathetically pushy blowhards who desperately need to associate themselves with an imaginary Higher Power.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

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.

The problem being the absolute double standards being used by corrupt democrats . They know that America and Americans overwhelmingly support Trump and making America great , and they can't stand that thought . So they do anything and everything to defeat him . And if we the silent majority let that happen , then we might as well March ourselves into the gas chambers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you two have no point this prosecution is political and something banana republics do.

That's is what cultists always say.

Too bad they can't argue it.

Making gone of your own points while ignoring all the points everyone else makes is par for the course.

 

[WEATHER53]

There are two lib loons avenging a post per minute declaring that 9-0 has a new definition

 

[Marener]

you two have no point this prosecution is political and something banana republics do.

What Trump tried to do to reverse the election results in 2920 is what banana republics do.

A proper functioning country that adheres to the rule of law would prosecute this behavior.

 

[BS Filter]

Again, you’re avoiding the point that the SCOTUS decision yesterday is not relevant to anything being discussed and was inaccurately characterized by another poster.

Ok. Presidents have immunity when protecting the American people and the national interests.

 

[para bellum]

Opinion | Democrats Have Been Shameless About Your Presidential Vote Too (Published 2021)

After the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, they objected to counting electoral totals.

www.nytimes.com

Democratic presidential electors revolt against Trump

The Electoral College could see a historic number of "faithless electors."

www.politico.com

 

[BS Filter]

What Trump tried to do to reverse the election results in 2920 is what banana republics do.

A proper functioning country that adheres to the rule of law would prosecute this behavior.

Democrats are using the Department of Justice and State DAs for political purposes against their number one political opponent. What do you call that? Democracy?

 

[WEATHER53]

Democrats are using the Department of Justice and State DAs for political purposes against their number one political opponent. What do you call that? Democracy?

They call it fair

 

[Marener]

Democrats are using the Department of Justice and State DAs for political purposes against their number one political opponent. What do you call that? Democracy?

Lets see substantiation of your accusations with regard to the DoJ.

Until then, I call that speculation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are two lib loons avenging a post per minute declaring that 9-0 has a new definition

Lil' cult baby begs for attention, then gets mad when he gets it.

 

[Marener]

Ok. Presidents have immunity when protecting the American people and the national interests.

Who determines what the national interests are? Wouldn't that be the president?

Youd be giving an awful lot of power to the president without proper accountability. I doubt the founders would be happy to see the president put so far out of reach of the rule of law.

 

[WEATHER53]

Lil' cult baby begs for attention, then gets mad when he gets it.

Name calling deflection from the boy

 

[BS Filter]

Lets see substantiation of your accusations with regard to the DoJ.

Until then, I call that speculation.

Of course you do.

 

[BS Filter]

Who determines what the national interests are? Wouldn't that be the president?

Youd be giving an awful lot of power to the president without proper accountability. I doubt the founders would be happy to see the president put so far out of reach of the rule of law.

The accountability is the congress and the voters.

 

[Marener]

Of course you do.

Feel free to provide substantiation to your allegation.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yeah, but you are a little cut baby, weather.

 

[Marener]

The accountability is the congress and the voters.

Neither of which are capable of charging the former president with a crime, trying the case, reaching a verdict and establishing a sentence.

That’s what the criminal justice system is for.

 

[Marener]

Name calling deflection from the boy

Bringing up the SCOTUS decision from yesterday was a deflection.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

The concept itself is not about Trump. Trump just raised/caused the issue to be addressed.

How much authority is given to the President? And how well can he do his job if he will be forever at risk of lawsuit or other legal liabilities should somebody decide to make a crime out of something that was never made a crime before? Or he would be forever at risk of malicious prosecution by those who opposed him, especially to make it impossible for him to ever have that power again?

That is what is being argued here. And the concept applies to Obama or Biden or anybody else who has ever held the office of President.