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

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry, obeying illegal orders from the president is no excuse.

I spent 35 years in the federal government, and I know from countless briefings that just saying you were doing what you're told isn't an shield against prosecution for your illegal actions. He always had the option to refuse.

Obeying the orders from the President is an excuse however. A police officer orders a doctor to jaywalk to assist an injured person and the doctor does so and is then arrested for jaywalking would be a huge injustice. If Mayorkas interprets the law as Biden does that anybody requesting asylum in the U.S. is entitled to a hearing, is it a high crime and misdemeanor to obey Biden's instructions on that? On the DOJ's opinions on that? So far we know Mayorkas is a flawed human being. But it has not been proven that he willingly broke the law or intended any harm to anyone. Have his policies been disastrous? Harmful? Even deadly? Yes. But that is what elections are for and not the justice system in my opinion.

Do I believe Mayorkas believes he was obeying the law? No. I think the man has shown horrible character. But it would still be a good argument in a court of law.

Again, every single infraction is not going to be prosecutable without reducing the entire government to chaos and nothing but accusations and prosecutions over and over and over. There is a meaning in high crimes and misdemeanors and the President should be secure in the protections provided by the Constitution for good reason. And short of willfully harming people on purpose, his staff should enjoy at least the concept of that same protection. Biden's DOJ should have been impeached on those ground. Not Mayorkas.

 

[Marener]

You only consider it a terrible argument because YOU don't agree with it. I suppose you thought the 9-0 SCOTUS decision today was a terrible decision as well, LOL.

Seems like if the founders wanted the president to have immunity, they would have said so.

It’s pretty telling that no one thought the president had immunity when Trump was being impeached for the riot in 2021. Hell, a big chunk of MAGA world thought it was absurd that he could be impeached after leaving office at all.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I will look however I want, thank you very much...

That is your Odin given right.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Stop trying to derail the thread. If you don't like the discussion start your own. This discussion is how SCOTUS should rule on the issue of Presidential immunity and why. Trolling does not contribute to that discussion.

We, the People, Are the Only Law

The Constitution must be scrapped. The impeachment article is typical of its fear of and contempt for the American people, leaving everything up to incompetent and juvenile politicians, know-it-all nincompoops. So removal from office must only come from the people's right to recall, the same way it was done to California's governor.

 

[Foxfyre]

All Republics Go Bananas

Off topic.

 

[BlindBoo]

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 don't think that is at all questioned. No. For example, When Nixon as CiC he decided to attack the VC in Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict. Many people called that illegal. I don't remember any mention of that as one of the crimes he committed that he had do resign over. It was his illegal activities involving dirty politics against his fellow Americans that did him in.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obeying the orders from the President is an excuse however. A police officer orders a doctor to jaywalk to assist an injured person and the doctor does so and is then arrested for jaywalking would be a huge injustice. If Mayorkas interprets the law as Biden does that anybody requesting asylum in the U.S. is entitled to a hearing, is it a high crime and misdemeanor to obey Biden's instructions on that? On the DOJ's opinions on that? So far we know Mayorkas is a flawed human being. But it has not been proven that he willingly broke the law or intended any harm to anyone. Have his policies been disastrous? Harmful? Even deadly? Yes. But that is what elections are for and not the justice system in my opinion.

Do I believe Mayorkas believes he was obeying the law? No. I think the man has shown horrible character. But it would still be a good argument in a court of law.

Again, every single infraction is not going to be prosecutable without reducing the entire government to chaos and nothing but accusations and prosecutions over and over and over. There is a meaning in high crimes and misdemeanors and the President should be secure in the protections provided by the Constitution for good reason. And short of willfully harming people on purpose, his staff should enjoy at least the concept of that same protection. Biden's DOJ should have been impeached on those ground. Not Mayorkas.

Wrong. In this case Mayokas is breaking the law. It doesn't matter if Biden ordered him to do it or not. He doesn't have the right or authority to break immigration laws.

They're essentially granting amnesty to people who do not qualify for asylum.

You cannot file for asylum simply because you can't get a job in your home country. You must be a political refugee or escaping from a your home country because of political or religious persecution. He also doesn't have the right to redirect funds to pay for their upkeep and their transportation.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't think that is at all questioned. No. For example, When Nixon as CiC he decided to attack the VC in Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict. Many people called that illegal. I don't remember any mention of that as one of the crimes he committed that he had do resign over. It was his illegal activities involving dirty politics against his fellow Americans that did him in.

Wrong.

Nixon was set up by the CIA, and he attempted to cover it up.

 

[Concerned American]

He also would have been convicted.

With a TRUE bipartisan majority.

 

[BlindBoo]

Kind of like what we just saw with Biden and the whole student debt forgiveness after the SC struck it down?

No. They struck down the method he used. He found another way.

 

[Marener]

With a TRUE bipartisan majority.

I think a lot of us doubt whether Nixon would have been convicted in impeachment by today’s Republican Party.

Notably, he was also pardoned, showing that again we all assumed the president was subject to criminal prosecution without impeachment and conviction

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, in the old days when committing crimes was viewed as wrong and immoral.

A crime is decided in a court of law where everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[BS Filter]

No. They struck down the method he used. He found another way.

Most crooks do.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

For whatever reason, Congress has chosen not to indict (i.e. impeach) President Biden for criminal negligence that has resulted in great harm to the American people. He should be impeached for it, but for whatever reason, Congress has chosen not to impeach him for that at least so far.

And if Congress chooses not to impeach him and Trump wins in 2024, Trump's DOJ should be absolutely prohibited from going after him for a horrible border policy even though it caused great harm. If SCOTUS does not rule for immunity from such prosecution for the Office of President, no President will ever be able to do their job either brilliants or badly.

 

[Concerned American]

Seems like if the founders wanted the president to have immunity, they would have said so.

What do you think they meant when they created the impeachment process?

It’s pretty telling that no one thought the president had immunity when Trump was being impeached for the riot in 2021.

Fake News.

 

[BS Filter]

I think a lot of us doubt whether Nixon would have been convicted in impeachment by today’s Republican Party.

Notably, he was also pardoned, showing that again we all assumed the president was subject to criminal prosecution without impeachment and conviction

Today's republican party isn't the problem in America. Even the libtards on the Supreme Court made that clear today.

 

[BS Filter]

With a TRUE bipartisan majority.

Yes. I remember those days very well. I followed it very closely. They told Nixon the Senate had the votes to convict him.

 

[Concerned American]

Notably, he was also pardoned, showing that again we all assumed the president was subject to criminal prosecution without impeachment and conviction

And the argument was nipped in the bud as it should have been. He resigned to avoid impeachment. The argument is moot as it only exists in the minds of the democrat electorate and they are fascists.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong.

Nixon was set up by the CIA, and he attempted to cover it up.

Hahahahaha

10 Crimes of the Nixon Administration - History Collection

There was a reason he was called “Tricky Dick”. Since the multitude of crimes he committed in his political career have faded with time, some have tried to resurrect the reputation of Richard Nixon. They cite his visit to China, his resolution of the Vietnam War as “peace with honor”…

historycollection.com

 

[Donald H]

You only consider it a terrible argument because YOU don't agree with it. I suppose you thought the 9-0 SCOTUS decision today was a terrible decision as well, LOL.

The ruling was correct my friend because it complied with the Constitution. The point you keep missing is that the Constitution/Constipation can't and doesn't deal with the issue. That's F'd Up. And it's going to remain F'd Up til the cows come home.

The remedy is another amendment. That will then become the 1,151'st amendment. LOL

I would suggest that amendment expressly allow the guillotine for all future presidents.