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

[OKTexas]

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.

I voted yes, but an explanation is in order. I think SCOTUS will rule that the president has limited sovereign immunity. What remains to be seen is how it would apply in this particular case, in my view, it's a toss up.

.

 

[Marener]

I voted yes, but an explanation is in order. I think SCOTUS will rule that the president has limited sovereign immunity. What remains to be seen is how it would apply in this particular case, in my view, it's a toss up.

.

DEFINITELY not sovereign immunity. Trump is not the sovereign of this country. That’s for monarchies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I voted yes, but an explanation is in order. I think SCOTUS will rule that the president has limited sovereign immunity. What remains to be seen is how it would apply in this particular case, in my view, it's a toss up.

.

Toss up?

I am curious how, for example, one would argue that submitting criminally forged electors to Congress was an "official act in the spirit or capacity" of his office.

 

[Mac1958]

Toss up?

I am curious how, for example, one would argue that submitting criminally forged electors to Congress was an "official act in the spirit or capacity" of his office.

You know they'll find a way. It will be bizarre and twisted, but they'll try something.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You know they'll find a way. It will be bizarre and twisted, but they'll try something.

Sure. But an argument that makes their fellow cultists hoot and jump around like caged monkeys won't necessarily work in a court of law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Too bad for you Bragg's case is a complete joke. It's going to make your cult look terrible. Hell, we still don't know what crime Trump allegedly committed.

 

[Mac1958]

Sure. But an argument that makes their fellow cultists hoot and jump around like caged monkeys won't necessarily work in a court of law.

60+ examples of that already.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

It's true that Garland was dragging his feet on it but when Trump announced his candidacy, he had not choice to appoint a special council Garland is not agressive but Smith is a pit bull. None of that proves the the charges are politically motivated or that Trump is not a criminal with no respect for the law

 

[OKTexas]

DEFINITELY not sovereign immunity. Trump is not the sovereign of this country. That’s for monarchies.

They still call it sovereign immunity, there's a ton of case law that verifies that.

Sovereign immunity in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Marener]

They still call it sovereign immunity, there's a ton of case law that verifies that.

Sovereign immunity in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

I've never seen sovereign immunity applied to an individual, but it can be applied to the US government, because although the country is sovereign, the government actors are not. The wiki page indicates it's qualified or absolute immunity, but not soveriegn immunity.

I fully admit that I may be splitting hairs, but I have a visceral reaction to anyone labeling the president as a sovereign.

 

[OKTexas]

Toss up?

I am curious how, for example, one would argue that submitting criminally forged electors to Congress was an "official act in the spirit or capacity" of his office.

Did he personally do that, or instruct that is be done? I'm sure you have a handy link for that, RIGHT??????

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did he personally do that, or instruct that is be done?

I don't see how that matters.

How would directing a criminal conspiracy to submit forged electors slates to the congress qualify as such an official act?

Not seeing it.

 

[OKTexas]

I've never seen sovereign immunity applied to an individual, but it can be applied to the US government, because although the country is sovereign, the government actors are not. The wiki page indicates it's qualified or absolute immunity, but not soveriegn immunity.

I fully admit that I may be splitting hairs, but I have a visceral reaction to anyone labeling the president as a sovereign.

The term is not only applied to the feds, but State, counties and city governments as well. I used the term limited, but qualified will work as well, they're pretty much the same.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't see how that matters.

How would directing a criminal conspiracy to submit forged electors slates to the congress qualify as such an official act?

Not seeing it.

It matters commie, you can't direct shit without taking personal action. So where's your link?

.

 

[Clipper]

The question is about political persecution.

They're indicting him on legal acts he has absolute authority to carry out.

Biden can be indicted for criminal negligence.

The difference being Biden would be charged with not doing his job. Trump did his job.
They were just trying to trash the Trump in civil court where a majority vote can get a settlement, as opposed to criminal court, where the vote has to be unanimous to get a conviction.

If POTUS is granted immunity Biden should order Trump arrested within 24 hours & thrown into Riker's right beside Weaselburg until trial.

Or worse.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It IS about how much protection the President--any and all who are President--should have from malicious or opportunist or vindictive prosecution when he exercises his responsibilities, duties, prerogatives as President of the United States. Should he have to live his life forever at risk of such prosecution?

I previously posted the 91 acts that he is criminally charged with and challenged you to identify with ones are cover as officia acts of the presidency. Still waiting but not holding my breath

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I hope and pray that SCOTUS will rule that the President is immune for life from prosecution for anything other than high crimes and misdemeanors as described in the Constitution.

So now all of a sudden it is no longer acts that come under his official duties that he should be immune from prosecution from. Now its "high crimes and misdemeanors which are not really defind in the constitution. You could not explain what charges against him were part of his official duties to you pivot to "high crimes...." You seem to be struggling to defend this piece of shit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The question is about political persecution.

They're indicting him on legal acts he has absolute authority to carry out.

Complete and utter horseshit!! Read the fucking indictments!!

 

[WEATHER53]

I previously posted the 91 acts that he is criminally charged with and challenged you to identify with ones are cover as officia acts of the presidency. Still waiting but not holding my breath

He is not being charged for actually completed actions but rather what they feel he intended to do and what that outcome might have been

 

[Marener]

He is not being charged for actually completed actions but rather what they feel he intended to do and what that outcome might have been

True for some of the charges, not true for all of the charges (there are 91 of them so it’s a lot to take in).

Attempting to violate the law is still illegal.