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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

What in the name of frankenfuck are you jabbering about ? That is not even coherant

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

"High crimes" can also be read as a crime ONLY a president could commit. I don't think any such laws are on the books.

So "High crimes" fills the space beyond our normal code of law, where it ends.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.Presidential immunity in the United States - Wikipedia 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.

This thread is not about Trump please

This thread is what protections should a President have from litigation/prosecution for choices, decisions, actions, prerogatives within the scope and functions of the Office of Presidency. None of your leftist colleagues seem to e able to grasp that concept and alas, even a few of those on the right.

I was hoping you could.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well that certainly doesn't even remotely agree with the Founders concept of double jeopardy, equal protection, or whether an impeachment and trial of the President by Congress has force of law.

But because so few leftist have a clue re the letter and intent of the Constitution according to its supporting documents, i do hope SCOTUS puts the matter to rest with their ruling.

 

[Arlette]

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 previous guy has been told in no uncertain terms that he is not wanted. He's offensive to everyday Americans. He doesn't relate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well that certainly doesn't even remotely agree with the Founders concept of double jeopardy, equal protection, or whether an impeachment and trial of the President by Congress has force of law.

False of course. One is the pathway to removing a president from office. One is a criminal trial for a private citizen. You cannot seriously believe that just being removed from office is sufficient penalty for any and all crimes by a president.

 

[MagicMike]

I think they should go ahead and impeach Biden, just to say that he's been impeached.
But the charges should include criminal negligence at the border and abuse of authority with respect to his illegal actions in the prosecution of Trump.
Then throw in all of the FBI raids of Trump & associates and journalists.

How is Biden prosecuting Trump?

 

[mudwhistle]

How is Biden prosecuting Trump?

Everyone who has indicted him has done so after visiting the White House.

 

[MagicMike]

Everyone who has indicted him has done so after visiting the White House.

Again, how is Biden prosecuting Trump?

 

[mudwhistle]

Again, how is Biden prosecuting Trump?

He said 2 years ago that they were exploring constitutional options to disqualify Trump from ever running again.
That was the primary reason they staged Jan6th and tried to blame it on him.

Now that's blown up in their faces. Jack Smith doesn't have a case.

A whistleblower has testified that Biden paid Fani Willis to indict Trump for election interference in Georgia.
Every prosecutor's election was funded by George Soros, and Alex Soros, Soros' son, made several trips to the White House earlier this year.



Only a blind man couldn't figure out that the Biden adm has been behind every lawsuit and indictment since he left office.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again, how is Biden prosecuting Trump?

 

[Concerned American]

Yup, Magic Mike and Slow donkey.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again, how is Biden prosecuting Trump?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Everyone who has indicted him has done so after visiting the White House.

That is so thin, it only has one side.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds, of Trump threads to discuss everything Trump.

This thread is not about Trump. This is a thread about the Office of the President regardless of who is in it.

I wonder if anyone even cares how SCOTUS rules on the immunity issue? Or even has a clue at what is at stake here?

 

[Concerned American]

There are dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds, of Trump threads to discuss everything Trump.

This thread is not about Trump. This is a thread about the Office of the President regardless of who is in it.

I wonder if anyone even cares how SCOTUS rules on the immunity issue? Or even has a clue at what is at stake here?

I think they will rule that the potus has immunity, but not total and not for crimes that are committed but not related to the job.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think they will rule that the potus has immunity, but not total and not for crimes that are committed but not related to the job.

That's exactly how it should go, but they need to be very specific so corrupt politicians cannot game the process in the future.

And of course going back to somebody's suggestion that the President could start machine gunning people, it would be up to Congress to impeach and remove him from office. And then since that is not an action allowed the President, he could then be prosecuted for murder.

But if he ordered the assassination of a terrorist leader as Obama did and Trump did, that would be within the scope of his Presidential duties and he would have immunity from prosecution for that forever.

By the way, thank you thank you thank you for actually addressing the topic. So much appreciated!!!

 

[Care4all]

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.

Nixon resigned in 1974 he was also pardoned in 1974.

 

[Care4all]

Yup it is completely legal to have alternate electors when you plan to challenge the current electors which is what was done.

not the way the Trumpers did it....inform yourself!

 

[j-mac]

not the way the Trumpers did it....inform yourself!

Trying to jail your political opponent in an election then I suggest you move to a country that practices that sort of thing…America isn’t that place.