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

[BlindBoo]

No doubt but however good or bad Congress may be does not change the premise of the O.P. that Congress has the sole authority to convict a President of any form of malfeasance and, if the crime rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, remove him/her from office and/or prevent him/her from running for public office.

If convicted, Congress can only remove a president, they can't pass a sentence against a president as if they were a court of law. An acquittal by the Senate is not an acquittal by a jury either.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No doubt but however good or bad Congress may be does not change the premise of the O.P. that Congress has the sole authority to convict a President of any form of malfeasance and, if the crime rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, remove him/her from office and/or prevent him/her from running for public office.

There's a lot of more serious things that they could have actually impeached Trump for. But they didn't, predictably.

All they really did was impeach him on the politically uncomfortable things. So basically all they did was use the impeachment to warn him of what he could and could not talk about. In other words, you can go here, but you canlt go there, because it upsets the apple cart.

There's not really a nickel's worth of meaningful difference betwen the parties. Heck, Pelosi turned around and gave him everythign he wanted during the impeachment in what was, at the time, the largest spending bill in history.

I think I had written about it in far more detail a few years ago, but not really gonna do it all over again here.

Of course, that's just impeachment. Which is not what is being discussed here. But the shenanigans involved are basically the same.

 

[Foxfyre]

And during his impeachment, Trump’s lawyers argued that he should be criminally investigated, not impeached, because he’s out of office. Some Republicans agreed. Now we have a 180.

It’s pretty rich to think that the DoJ should be “impeached”, whatever that means, for doing what Trump’s own lawyers argued to do in 2021. This is far from some clear cut principle that would support impeachment.

Congress is given the sole authority to impeach a president. The constitution says nothing about this supposed immunity. It’s entirely invented.

If Trump is convicted, you can still vote for him. This is not a violation of your rights.

I don't care what anybody's opinion is. Not even Trump's lawyers. I can't imagine what life would be in America or anywhere else, if government was conducted via individual opinions. (That is called 'anarchy' by the way.)

The whole purpose of the SCOTUS hearing will be to determine if the Constitutional provision for how a President is removed from office or how a person is ineligible to run for office implies immunity for the President to be able to DO HIS JOB with full immunity from prosecution by vindictive people, militarized governments, rogue court proceeding, or whatever. If the President seriously errs in following the law or permissions presumed in law, the authority to deal with him regarding that is given to Congress and/or the people at the ballot box alone. No others.

 

[Foxfyre]

There's a lot of more serious things that they could have actually impeached Trump for. But they didn't, predictably.

All they really did was impeach him on the politically uncomfortable things. So basically all they did was use the impeachment to warn him of what he could and could not talk about. In other words, you can go here, but you canlt go there, because it upsets the apple cart.

There's not really a nickel's worth of meaningful difference betwen the parties. Heck, Pelosi turned around and gave him everythign he wanted during the impeachment in what was, at the time, the largest spending bill in history.

I think I had written about it in far more detail a few years ago, but not really gonna do it all over again here.

Of course, that's just impeachment. Which is not what is being discussed here. But the shenanigans involved are basically the same.

Immaterial to the principle stated in and topic provided in the OP

 

[Foxfyre]

If convicted, Congress can only remove a president, they can't pass a sentence against a president as if they were a court of law. An acquittal by the Senate is not an acquittal by a jury either.

Removal from office is the sentence ordered by the Senate. And if the offense is one that makes a person ineligible for office that would be effectively part of the sentence as well.

But the sole power to impeach/indict and try and convict or acquit a President of the United States is given to Congress alone and no other.

 

[Foxfyre]

And during his impeachment, Trump’s lawyers argued that he should be criminally investigated, not impeached, because he’s out of office. Some Republicans agreed. Now we have a 180.

It’s pretty rich to think that the DoJ should be “impeached”, whatever that means, for doing what Trump’s own lawyers argued to do in 2021. This is far from some clear cut principle that would support impeachment.

Congress is given the sole authority to impeach a president. The constitution says nothing about this supposed immunity. It’s entirely invented.

If Trump is convicted, you can still vote for him. This is not a violation of your rights.

That Trump is illegally being prosecuted for a vague 'crime' that was completely within his authority as President of the United States is a violation of my rights. Most especially if the ultimate conviction results in a verdict that would make him ineligible to serve.

The DOJ should NOT have authority to prosecute a President for something done within the scope and authority as President.

And THAT is what SCOTUS should rule.

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress has been derelict for years.

They tend to kick their delegated duty over to the courts these days.

True, but that is basically irrelevant to the question/premise of the OP. At this point SCOTUS is the only body with the clout to settle the matter of a constitutional interpretation on the issue at hand. And they absolutely should rule that a vindictive administration, court, private citizen or whatever has no authority to prosecute a President in the conduct of his authority/duties as President.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A President who is above the law is no longer a President, he is a dictator.

And the Founders continue to roll over in their graves.

Roll? Theyre spinning like tops with the current occupier.

 

[Rawley]

whats the point of having laws then? The president isn’t even supposed to think about following them, according to you.

And you advocate strangling kittens. Let me know when/if you want to have a serious conversation.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Immaterial to the principle stated in and topic provided in the OP

Depends on how deep down the rabbit hole one is interested going.

But yeah. I'll concede and not go there any further here.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There's a lot of more serious things that they could have actually impeached Trump for. But they didn't, predictably.

All they really did was impeach him on the politically uncomfortable things. So basically all they did was use the impeachment to warn him of what he could and could not talk about. In other words, you can go here, but you canlt go there, because it upsets the apple cart.

There's not really a nickel's worth of meaningful difference betwen the parties. Heck, Pelosi turned around and gave him everythign he wanted during the impeachment in what was, at the time, the largest spending bill in history.

I think I had written about it in far more detail a few years ago, but not really gonna do it all over again here.

Of course, that's just impeachment. Which is not what is being discussed here. But the shenanigans involved are basically the same.

I've said that all along too. Of all those 91 indictments there are maybe 2 that relate to classified docs that may be legit. But then again, the current occupier took his classified docs to his garage and got a free pass as the they said he was just an old senile man, too incompetent to answer for his vp days so orange man should probably be good on those classified docs too.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

So you're going to take the word of a journalist that wrote a story, or are you going to believe that people on the inside said that the CIA set Nixon up?

Just because some schmuck wrote a story, doesn't mean it's the truth.

Watergate at 50: How the CIA may have had a hidden hand in the scandal

Years down the line, we now know that perhaps as disturbing as the money trail in the Watergate scandal was the shadowy hand of America's much-celebrated intelligence agency, the CIA.

news.cgtn.com

 

[Foxfyre]

Depends on how deep down the rabbit hole one is interested going.

But yeah. I'll concede and not go there any further here.

I didn't mean that as critical toward you. And if you can relate it to the OP and why SCOTUS should rule in favor of immunity, go for it.

I just want to keep the partisan politics and recriminations out of it as much as possible while focusing on a serious constitutional question of Presidential authority. If SCOTUS rules against President Trump on this issue, for all practical purposes we will have lost the intent and purpose of the Presidency itself.

It will be a different dynamic at work if and when the NY case gets to the Supreme Court though as that does not involved President Trump's presidential duties. I would hope that SCOTUS would rule as they should that the charges and conviction are ridiculous on the face of them and throw them out, thus discouraging other politically motivated malicious prosecution.

But whatever they rule there it will not affect the Office/authority of the President.

 

[Marener]

I don't care what anybody's opinion is. Not even Trump's lawyers. I can't imagine what life would be in America or anywhere else, if government was conducted via individual opinions. (That is called 'anarchy' by the way.)

The whole purpose of the SCOTUS hearing will be to determine if the Constitutional provision for how a President is removed from office or how a person is ineligible to run for office implies immunity for the President to be able to DO HIS JOB with full immunity from prosecution by vindictive people, militarized governments, rogue court proceeding, or whatever. If the President seriously errs in following the law or permissions presumed in law, the authority to deal with him regarding that is given to Congress and/or the people at the ballot box alone. No others.

All I’m saying is that this opinion seems to me that it’s motivated by desire to defend Trump and not what’s best for the country.

At best you can say this immunity is implied, but it certainly isn’t stated. The constitution certainly had no problem stating there was immunity for members of Congress, but is silent on immunity for the president.

Making Congress the primary law enforcement agency for a single individual seems pretty illogical, especially given it wasn’t stated anywhere in the constitution.

The need for Congress to impeach and remove the president is because there’s no one else to do it. The DoJ works for the president. Thats not the problem anymore.

If the former president is prosecuted “maliciously”, there’s already protection by the criminal justice system. It’s the same protection the rest of us get.

 

[BlindBoo]

Removal from office is the sentence ordered by the Senate. And if the offense is one that makes a person ineligible for office that would be effectively part of the sentence as well.

But the sole power to impeach/indict and try and convict or acquit a President of the United States is given to Congress alone and no other.

Removal is the consequence specified in the Constitution and ineligibility is automatic. There would then have to be a separate investigation, indictment and a trial by jury to divvy out any necessary punishment for his/her crimes. Just like when they leave office they are not immune from prosecution for actions of an unofficial nature while in office.

 

[Rawley]

I've said that all along too. Of all those 91 indictments there are maybe 2 that relate to classified docs that may be legit. But then again, the current occupier took his classified docs to his garage and got a free pass as the they said he was just an old senile man, too incompetent to answer for his vp days so orange man should probably be good on those classified docs too.

It should have been worked out with the Archive. The Trump haters used the Archive as a tool.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've said that all along too. Of all those 91 indictments there are maybe 2 that relate to classified docs that may be legit. But then again, the current occupier took his classified docs to his garage and got a free pass as the they said he was just an old senile man, too incompetent to answer for his vp days so orange man should probably be good on those classified docs too.

Which may or may not be included in the arguments to SCOTUS. For certain equal protection under the law should be included though and the document issue certainly applies there.

But the primary concept to be decided is protection of the President's decisions/actions in the course of his duties/responsibilities/authority from politically motivated prosecution/official persecution, most especially in the dishonest and malicious double standard way it is being done now.

SCOTUS should rule for Presidential immunity, now and forever, from any and all prosecution activity in the execution of his job other than that lawfully initiated and carried out by the existing Congress.

 

[Marener]

And you advocate strangling kittens. Let me know when/if you want to have a serious conversation.

Your reply wasn’t serious. It’s pretty absurd to think that the president shouldn’t consider the legality of their own actions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Removal is the consequence specified in the Constitution and ineligibility is automatic. There would then have to be a separate investigation, indictment and a trial by jury to divvy out any necessary punishment for his/her crimes. Just like when they leave office they are not immune from prosecution for actions of an unofficial nature while in office.

The Constitution provides for indictment/impeachment to be exercised by the House of Representatives and trial/conviction/removal/acquittal be exercised by the Senate. There is NO other provision, other than the ballot box, to discipline a President for wrong doing while in office. And that is how it should be.

If SCOTUS does not make that ruling, then all Presidents now and in the future will be/could be subject to endless vindictive/malicious investigation, legal persecution, prosecution and be tied up on court forever. Not only will he be in fear of legal repercussions from every unpopular decision--and pretty much everything is unpopular with somebody--but he will be physically prohibited from doing his job.

SCOTUS should rule immunity from prosecution for the President in the course of his duties now and forever other than what Congress chooses to do.

 

[Rawley]

Your reply wasn’t serious. It’s pretty absurd to think that the president shouldn’t consider the legality of their own actions.

If it's good for the country, good for America. in line with his oath, no President should ever think about his own legal liability