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

[WEATHER53]

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.

It has prevalent elements of though police when they charge him over”how bad it might have gotten”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It has prevalent elements of though police when they charge him over”how bad it might have gotten”

Which is another thing that didn't happen.
They charged him because he violated the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Do your challenges on your own thread. This one has nothing to do with what Trump is charged with.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Once more though you are no doubt as cognitively challenged in reading as everybody else foolish enough to embrace Marxist theology. This thread is NOT about Trump. It has little to do with Trump. It is about what protections a President--ANY President--should have in the conduct of his duties as President and how SCOTUS should define that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do your challenges on your own thread. This one has nothing to do with what Trump is charged with.

It absolutely does, as you yourself even admitted that the court will be ruling on a degree of immunity.

Immunity for this, but not for that.

That makes the charges 100% relevant. All you are doing is trying to eliminate topics from the discussion that make you uncomfortable and for which you don't have prescribed talking points.

Not going to work.

 

[Foxfyre]

It absolutely does, as you yourself even admitted that the court will be ruling on a degree of immunity.

Immunity for this, but not for that.

That makes the charges 100% relevant. All you are doing is trying to eliminate topics from the discussion that make you uncomfortable and for which you don't have prescribed talking points.

Not going to work.

I can't help your reading or critical thinking dysfunction if you won't help yourself. Do have a pleasant day.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Intention is sill a crime

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I can't help your reading or critical thinking dysfunction if you won't help yourself. Do have a pleasant day.

Haha, you always fold like a cheap suit immediately. Look at this vapid whining. No points, no knowledge, no substance. You make up dumb shit, then get mad when it is obliterated.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

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.

Well since this is unprecedented only Democrats would stoop to Hitler type tactics. It's hard not to bring them up.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do your challenges on your own thread. This one has nothing to do with what Trump is charged with.

Give me a fucking break. Your op stated that “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” I raised the issue of whether or not the act that he is charged with come under actions within the scope of Presidential powers. The question of immunity has everything to do with what he is charges with. You set it up that way and now you are running from it with you tail between your legs

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Once more though you are no doubt as cognitively challenged in reading as everybody else foolish enough to embrace Marxist theology. This thread is NOT about Trump. It has little to do with Trump. It is about what protections a President--ANY President--should have in the conduct of his duties as President and how SCOTUS should define that.

And I addressed that very clearly and now you are squirming trying to show that no former president can face prosecution. You clearly had Trump in mind in creating this thread. Stop running and deal with it

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And I addressed that very clearly and now you are squirming trying to show that no former president can face prosecution. You clearly had Trump in mind in creating this thread. Stop running and deal with it

Looks like the OP started a discussion that is too much for him to handle, emotionally.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Sovreign immunity is not applied to individuals.

 

[SavannahMann]

He didn't. No charges were ever proffered during the two plus years between resignation and pardon. Ask Gerald Ford, he wasn't known for the greatest decisions in the world, but he was head and shoulders above this current class of demofascists.

The DOJ was going to indict. That is why Ford pardoned him. The same reason that Clinton got the plea deal. He knew they were going to indict him. They told him as much n

 

[WEATHER53]

Intention is sill a crime

The interpretations of intentions is very subjective and ordinarily does not result in charges of a crime due to “what might have been”
If I could be frightened then your facist “intention” comment might be fear producing, instead its just disgustingly commie

 

[Foxfyre]

Well since this is unprecedented only Democrats would stoop to Hitler type tactics. It's hard not to bring them up.

I understand and appreciate the sentiments. They're doing their damndest on this thread to make it about Trump when it isn't at all. But I hope--I pray--that at least the conservatives/Patriots/libertarians (little 'L') on this board are capable of critical thinking which so far none of those on the left have been.

Critical thinking requires stepping out of our partisan shoes, prejudices, biases, hatred long enough to consider a concept that goes beyond that just as the Constitution does. (They seem incapable of considering the Constitution at face value either but I know at least some on the right do understand why the intent of the Founders is important in how the Constitution should be interpreted.)

It is not given to any of us to dictate or interpret what the law is but rather all law should be interpreted according to the letter and intent of the law when it was made by those given authority to make law.

The ruling of the Supreme Court on immunity should not be in any way to protect President Trump. It should be to protect the office of the Presidency so that the President can do the job the Constitution intended however unpopular that might be with any particular demographic, sociopolitical group, or others without worrying about being prosecuted for that after he leaves office.

If the ruling benefits Trump they will hate the justices who make that decision but it also benefits Biden who has done serious real harm, even deadly harm, to Americans as President. If Congress chooses not to impeach and try him for that, and it appears they will not, if Trump is elected in November, he will have no authority to go after Biden for that either.

Immunity should not authorize or give consent for the President to break the law though EVERYBODY in any leadership role whether elected, appointed, private sector is going to occasionally at least stretch the limits of the law, rules, policy from time to time when circumstances warrant that. It should specify that the President is immune from prosecution for errors, mistakes, law breaking etc. within the scope of his duties, responsibilities, prerogatives as President if the U.S. Congress does not act to impeach and try him for those crimes. And a responsible Congress with integrity will not do that for minor infractions but only for the high crimes and misdemeanors as the Constitution intended.

Summary: This is not about Trump or Biden or Obama or any other individual. It is about the Office of the President of the United States of America and reasonable and proper protections for the occupant of that office no matter who he is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The interpretations of intentions is very subjective and ordinarily does not result in charges of a crime due to “what might have been”
If I could be frightened then your facist “intention” comment might be fear producing, instead its just disgustingly commie

Shut up dumbass. We rule on intention nearly every time we convict a criminal.

Your orange god is no different.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He wasn't pardoned until 1974, moron. Over two years after he resigned the office. The congress was overwhelmingly hostile from both sides during that period, so your speculation has no merit. I believe that government was more attuned to carrying out the business of the country at that time. They weren't looking for their pound of flesh as the democrats are now. I guess the globalists didn't have the power that they have now.

Then there was no need for a pardon then. Right?

 

[Coyote]

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

I think that is the key term. There can be no absolute immunity, but there is immunity while he is in office for actions that are undertaken as part of his office and within the scope as you stated.

There is a difference between political stuff and criminal stuff. For example, the examples you gave of Biden and Obama are not criminal, there is no law being broken plus it was within the scope of authorized presidential powers even if there is political disagreement.

In this particular case though, Trump wants to take that immunity further, absolute immunity.

Wikipedia has this to say on how it has played out in the courts historically:

A sitting president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from many lawsuits while in office; it is under legal dispute whether they also enjoy criminal immunity from arrest or prosecution.[a] Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.[1]

The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States#cite_note-trump-5 In February 2024, a federal appeals court rejected former president Trump's assertion of absolute immunity for any crimes he may have committed while in office.

 

[Coyote]

Nobody is speaking about being above the law. Trump was accused of incitement of insurrection by the House of Representatives and was acquitted of that crime by the Senate.

THAT is the proper process for dealing with a President who acts improperly (i.e. above the law). The President is going to make decisions every day that somebody will declare illegal, treasonous, acting 'above the law.' In the vast majority of the cases he likely is acting within his prerogative as President no matter how many people disagree with the action. For the rest, the power to hold him accountable for his actions is given to Congress and is given to no other.

That is how SCOTUS should rule.

I don’t agree. Impeachment is political and no law has to be broken. “High crimes and misdemeanors”. A political “conviction” is not the same as a legal conviction because it does not involve any laws. It is purely political. If he broke an actual law, it isn’t double jeopardy to indict him after he left office.