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

[Nobody911]

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 concept of presidential immunity in the United States stems from the idea that the president should be able to carry out their duties without being constantly harassed or distracted by lawsuits. This immunity is intended to protect the president from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official capacity. However, this immunity is not absolute. The president can still be subject to criminal prosecution for actions taken before or during their time in office.

Additionally, the president can be sued for actions taken before assuming office or for actions that are unrelated to their official duties. In general, the president can be sued for personal actions, such as defamation or fraud, but not for actions taken in their official capacity. There have been instances in the past where sitting presidents have been sued, such as in the case of Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky( the blowjob ).

Overall, the concept of presidential immunity is meant to strike a balance between protecting the president from undue legal challenges and holding them accountable for their actions.

There is evidence to suggest that former President Trump played a role in inciting the insurrection that occurred on January 6, 2021. Leading up to the event, Trump repeatedly made false claims of election fraud and encouraged his supporters to attend a rally in Washington D.C. on the day that Congress was set to certify the electoral college results.

During the rally, Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters and urged them to "fight like hell" and "take back our country." He also repeated false claims about the election being stolen and encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol building. Many of his supporters then stormed the Capitol, resulting in violence, destruction, and several deaths.

Trump's actions and rhetoric leading up to and during the insurrection have been widely criticized as contributing to the events that unfolded on January 6. Some lawmakers have even accused him of inciting an insurrection, leading to his second impeachment by the House of Representatives.

SCOTUS does not have the authority to directly address or take action against President Trump for his incitement of insurrection on January 6th. The responsibility for addressing the President's actions lies primarily with Congress, which has the power to impeach and remove a sitting president from office. In this case, the House of Representatives has already voted to impeach President Trump for incitement of insurrection, and the Senate held a trial to determine whether to convict him and potentially bar him from holding future office.

On February 13, 2021, the Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump of inciting the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The final vote was 57 guilty to 43 not guilty, falling short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. This means that Trump will not be barred from holding future office. Seven Republican senators joined all 50 Democrats in voting to convict Trump, making it the most bipartisan impeachment trial in U.S. history.

SCOTUS does not have a role in this process but may become involved if legal challenges arise related to the impeachment proceedings. The judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, will only become involved if legal issues related to the impeachment process are brought before them.

I will not tell SCOTUS what they should or should not do. Obviously, they are old enough to make their own decisions. And it is none of my business. lol.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope. He is arguing that while President, he has total immunity. Otherwise the Washington DC case would not be impacted by the argument as subverting elections is not within the enumerated powers of the President.

Trump presses Supreme Court to rule for him on presidential immunity

Former President Trump on Monday took a victory lap after the Supreme Court restored him to the ballot in Colorado, rebuffing 14th Amendment challenges to his candidacy for the White House. But Tru…

thehill.com

I hope SCOTUS agrees with him on those things he can constitutionally do within his duties, responsibilities, authority, prerogatives as President. And if he is guilty of 'subverting an election'--that is preposterous to any person capable of critical thinking on the face of it--SCOTUS should reaffirm that only Congress has the authority to deal with that. Not the DOJ. Not the DC circuit. Congress alone is given authority to indict and convict the President of a crime committed within the scope and authority of his office.

 

[Foxfyre]

The concept of presidential immunity in the United States stems from the idea that the president should be able to carry out their duties without being constantly harassed or distracted by lawsuits. This immunity is intended to protect the president from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official capacity. However, this immunity is not absolute. The president can still be subject to criminal prosecution for actions taken before or during their time in office.

Additionally, the president can be sued for actions taken before assuming office or for actions that are unrelated to their official duties. In general, the president can be sued for personal actions, such as defamation or fraud, but not for actions taken in their official capacity. There have been instances in the past where sitting presidents have been sued, such as in the case of Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky( the blowjob ).

Overall, the concept of presidential immunity is meant to strike a balance between protecting the president from undue legal challenges and holding them accountable for their actions.

There is evidence to suggest that former President Trump played a role in inciting the insurrection that occurred on January 6, 2021. Leading up to the event, Trump repeatedly made false claims of election fraud and encouraged his supporters to attend a rally in Washington D.C. on the day that Congress was set to certify the electoral college results.

During the rally, Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters and urged them to "fight like hell" and "take back our country." He also repeated false claims about the election being stolen and encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol building. Many of his supporters then stormed the Capitol, resulting in violence, destruction, and several deaths.

Trump's actions and rhetoric leading up to and during the insurrection have been widely criticized as contributing to the events that unfolded on January 6. Some lawmakers have even accused him of inciting an insurrection, leading to his second impeachment by the House of Representatives.

SCOTUS does not have the authority to directly address or take action against President Trump for his incitement of insurrection on January 6th. The responsibility for addressing the President's actions lies primarily with Congress, which has the power to impeach and remove a sitting president from office. In this case, the House of Representatives has already voted to impeach President Trump for incitement of insurrection, and the Senate held a trial to determine whether to convict him and potentially bar him from holding future office.

On February 13, 2021, the Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump of inciting the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The final vote was 57 guilty to 43 not guilty, falling short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. This means that Trump will not be barred from holding future office. Seven Republican senators joined all 50 Democrats in voting to convict Trump, making it the most bipartisan impeachment trial in U.S. history.

SCOTUS does not have a role in this process but may become involved if legal challenges arise related to the impeachment proceedings. The judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, will only become involved if legal issues related to the impeachment process are brought before them.

I will not tell SCOTUS what they should or should not do. Obviously, they are old enough to make their own decisions. And it is none of my business. lol.

SCOTUS should say the President should be subject to lawsuit or prosecution of a crime committed during the course, scope, authority of his office only after convicted of that specific crime by the Senate.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm more worried about a political party protecting their own president by giving them a pass on committing crimes so long as they agree with the president doing so. You're making a criminal process into a political one, and that's something that this country has always tried it's best to separate.

Again, the judicial system is equipped to make sure people aren't successfully prosecuted for "non-crimes". It's the same protection we are all given by the constitution and it's worked well enough.

Then elect people who won't give the current President a pass on obvious wrong doing even if the President is of their own party. That's how the system works. (Hint you won't get that by electing some Republicans. You won't get that by electing most Democrats.)

SCOTUS should protect the office of the Presidency by stating such wrong doing has to be addressed by Congress who must find him/her guilty before he/she can be subject to further applications of the law. Impeachment is not a statement of guilt but is an indictment for a purported crime. The Senate has sole authority to try and convict or acquit the accused.

 

[Marener]

Then elect people who won't give the current President a pass on obvious wrong doing even if the President is of their own party. That's how the system works. (Hint you won't get that by electing some Republicans. You won't get that by electing most Democrats.)

SCOTUS should protect the office of the Presidency by stating such wrong doing has to be addressed by Congress who must find him/her guilty before he/she can be subject to further applications of the law. Impeachment is not a statement of guilt but is an indictment for a purported crime. The Senate has sole authority to try and convict or acquit the accused.

Well, last time Trump was impeached a bunch of the Republicans said that they didn't need to convict him because he was subject to the criminal justice system. Again, you're inserting a political process into a criminal process, which has no precedent anywhere in our country. It's an entirely new invention.

The office of the president is already protected by impeachment. No president can be criminally tried. This is about FORMER presidents who no longer occupy that office. You're arguing that these private citizens need protection, but I do not see how the interests of the American people is advanced by making them less accountable.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Kinda like Biden ignoring the Supreme Courts ruling that Biden couldn't forgive student loans. Then he did it? That kind of dictator?

 

[Mac1958]

Kinda like Biden ignoring the Supreme Courts ruling that Biden couldn't forgive student loans. Then he did it? That kind of dictator?

Another rube tried this before.

Joe's bad idea doesn't hold a candle to Trump, but I appreciate the effort to equate the two.

 

[Dragonlady]

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 from 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.

1. The President already has protections from prosecution after he leaves office, for the conduct of the nation's business, but alsolutely NOTHING that Trump has been indicted for has ANYTHING to do with his Presidential duties.

2. No other American President in nearly 250 has asked or required "absolute immunity", and as we've seen this past couple of weeks, "absolute immunity" would give the President the ability to order the murder of his political opponents with no consequences - just like Vladimir Putin.

3. At his second impeachment, Donald Trump argued that if he had broken the law, he should not be impeached, because the courts could hold him accountable. Now he says having been acquitted in the Senate, a criminal trial is "double jeopardy".

The President has NOTHING to do with election integrity, and his attempt to overthrow the election was never legal.

 

[whitehall]

As president, Trump was the guy who classified documents. He could take whatever he wanted. Why did the FBI make a big show of raiding his property? Biden however had no right to classified documents as vice president. Trump is right and Biden is guilty.

 

[Dekster]

But the power to hold the President accountable rests with the people via their elected representatives and is not given to any other power or any subsequent administration to do. And the issue of double jeopardy is also at play so that a strongly partisan congress should not be able to impeach and remove a president for something a previous congress tried but didn't get done. I hope that is how the SCOTUS justices will see it.

The scotus has zero say in presidential impeachments. That is the exclusive power of the legislature.

 

[WEATHER53]

It’s a more serious and less frivolous action than CO which got crushed but it’s still make pretend that goes down 7-2 against lib loons wishes.

 

[Dekster]

Impeachment is how the Constitution handles it. If the President is admitted by the senate, that's it.

No impeachment is whether he can be removed from office. Has nothing to do with whether he can be charged with an actual crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

The scotus has zero say in presidential impeachments. That is the exclusive power of the legislature.

I didn't say they did.

 

[Dekster]

I didn't say they did.

"I hope that is how the SCOTUS justices will see it."--You, March 4, 2024

 

[Foxfyre]

"I hope that is how the SCOTUS justices will see it."--You, March 4, 2024

Context is everything dear. I said I hoped SCOTUS will rule that only Congress can discipline a President of the United States and that via separation of powers, that is given to no other authority to do. And that protection remains in effect after the President leaves office so far as the scope of his Presidential duties, authority, prerogatives are concerned.

FYI, interpretation of the Constitution is well within the authority of the high court.

 

[MarathonMike]

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.

Of course the Founders are rolling over in their graves. Biden is the worst possible example of who should be in the White House. Never had a real job, 50 years in politics, liar, plagiarizer, traitor, pervert and now brain damaged. He has no redeeming value at all.

 

[MarathonMike]

Read my comments on why the American system has failed.

It was a brave attempt to better the British system of the king being above the law.

But the brave attempt failed and now the chickens have come home.

There's only one solution and that is to unequivocally abandon the British system! PERIOD!

The way that Britain and the colonies did it was to exclude politicians, while 'supposedly' keeping the immunity for the crowned head. It hasn't been tested recently and it likely won't.

Despite the best efforts of the Democrat Regime, America has not failed YET. And Canada btw is further down the slippery slope than we are, so check your own house first before you throw rocks at ours.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course not. How absurd.

 

[MarathonMike]

Of course not. How absurd.

Under normal circumstances I would agree, but since Biden has immunity by default as being the Democratic President then Trump and all subsequent Presidents should have the same protection.

 

[Dekster]

Context is everything dear. I said I hoped SCOTUS will rule that only Congress can discipline a President of the United States and that via separation of powers, that is given to no other authority to do. And that protection remains in effect after the President leaves office so far as the scope of his Presidential duties, authority, prerogatives are concerned.

FYI, interpretation of the Constitution is well within the authority of the high court.

The court doesn't take purely political cases.