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

[Foxfyre]

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.

I don't want to discuss this in the context of corrupt Democrats or Trump though. This thread is about a concept of whether Trump or ANY President can do his job without worrying about lawsuits and indictments the rest of his life.

As it is it is mostly the TDS afflicted trolls and deranged leftists who are arguing at all and most of those are only here to derail the discussion.

I wish more who actually are interested in the topic would join in. But oh well. I'll just revert to my New Year's resolution to as much as is reasonable to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in other exercises in futility.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok. So Trump's speech on January 6th is protected speech. Thank you.

that's different cause Trump is the orange bad man anything he says is a threat and to be taken literally and as a crime. ask any progressive.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Name calling deflection from the boy

Internet coward ^^

 

[Marener]

Ok. So Trump's speech on January 6th is protected speech. Thank you.

He’s not being charged with making threats.

He’s being charged with fraud, among other things.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This thread is about a concept of whether Trump or ANY President can do his job without worrying about lawsuits and indictments the rest of his life.

Of course it actually isn't. It's about whether president should be allowed to lead criminal conspiracies to overturn elections, with impunity.


The above post is the low IQ red herring that the cult wants to substitute for reality. And we know why.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

that's different cause Trump is the orange bad man anything he says is a threat and to be taken literally and as a crime. ask any progressive.

This is the low IQ whining you engage in, because you either can't or won't respond to what is actually said in the discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course it actually isn't. It's about whether president should be allowed to lead criminal conspiracies to overturn elections, with impunity.


The above post is the low IQ red herring that the cult wants to substitute for reality. And we know why.

I'm sure that's your mindset which is why you are trolling the thread instead of actually discussing the concept in the OP. But then few on the left are even capable of understanding concepts so oh well.

Since you reflect most of the leftists here I sill check in now and then hoping for intelligent life but won't bother to respond further to those who cannot or will not discuss the topic.

 

[Rawley]

Okay, and? Your premise seems to be that it was political since they only pressed charges because he’s running, but since the investigation started way earlier, and investigations often result in charges, your point seems to lack validity.

It is political, for the third time, because Garland waited 2 1/2 years to bring the J6 bullshit charges against Trump. And only did so after Trump had announce he was running against Garland's boss

 

[Marener]

If the concern is that the president is going to be prosecuted for political reasons, the criminal justice system can handle that. That’s what judges and juries are for.

We don’t need to inject politics into it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

m sure that's your mindset

And it's also a fact.

The question in this instance is if a president is immune from prosecution for the criminal acts Trump committed while in office.

What you and your cult do not want is a careful and rational examination of degrees involving these specific incidentsm Because you know the crimes committed by the orange slob will fail that test.

So you zoom out and try to cover for him with a different question. Team Trump tried that and got laughed out of court.

 

[BlindBoo]

What about when one of your President's has to act and the right doesn't like it so they charge your guy with a crime. Do you see the tit for tat here?

Nixon didn't have to order his plumbers to break into anything. Furthermore if there is evidence of Carter, Clinton or Obama acting in a criminal manner, the DOJ should investigate. How many years did Durham investigate for an Obamagate moment? Benedict Donald didn't have to feed 'wild falsehoods' about the election to his supporters 'because he was angry he'd lost the election'.

"Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal."

"Put anther way, in the language of today: President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.

We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal

 

[Marener]

It is political, for the third time, because Garland waited 2 1/2 years to bring the J6 bullshit charges against Trump. And only did so after Trump had announce he was running against Garland's boss

If it was all about Trump running, they wouldn’t have opened a criminal investigation way before he announced.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Glad that you mentioned "actions within the scope of Presidential powers." Here are all 91 counts/ Please tell us which ones are actions within the scope of Presidential powers.

Trump criminal charges: Here are all 91 felony counts against the former president across 4 cases

Yahoo News breaks down exactly what Trump is being charged with in each case as well as the judges, prosecutors, co-defendants and key dates as he awaits trial

news.yahoo.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it was all about Trump running, they wouldn’t have opened a criminal investigation way before he announced.

And of course the orange slob declared very early, in hopes of interfering with his investigations and indictments and trials.

Every accusation, a confession....

 

[BlindBoo]

See Post #432. Should you decide to discuss the concept in the OP on the possibility you actually have ability to understand it, I'll respond further. Otherwise have a nice day.

I did that in my initial reply. You keep trying to absolve the president of his criminal actions not associated with his duties as president. His actions surrounding the Jan. 6th Riot at the Capitol and his plot to remain in power after losing the 2020 election were not remotely part of his duties as president.

 

[Rawley]

If it was all about Trump running, they wouldn’t have opened a criminal investigation way before he announced.

LOL How do you figure that one?

 

[Marener]

LOL How do you figure that one?

Your whole premise is that they only filed charges because he was running, but charges are only the result of a long involved investigation.

The investigation started way before he announced, ergo they’re unrelated.

Your entire point is totally speculative. Investigations take as long as they take. Sometimes it takes 2.5 years.

 

[Rawley]

Your whole premise is that they only filed charges because he was running, but charges are only the result of a long involved investigation.

Yup they waited 2 1/2 years and only filed AFTER he announced.

The investigation started way before he announced, ergo they’re unrelated.

Your entire point is totally speculative. Investigations take as long as they take. Sometimes it takes 2.5 years.

You're a hoot. When it's in favor of Trump A+B=C is speculative. When it's against Trump you have no problem accepting A+B=Purple.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Foxfyre asks legitimate questions.

The answer is: he is immune from indictment while in office, and he is not immune from later criminal or civil acts that arose outside the duties of his office while in office.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yup they waited 2 1/2 years and only filed AFTER he announced.

You're a hoot. When it's in favor of Trump A+B=C is speculative. When it's against Trump you have no problem accepting A+B=Purple.

There is no statue of limitations for filing.