Foolish People on the Left Keep Asking Ridiculous Hypotheticals About Presidential Immunity

[Procrustes Stretched]

And foolish people on the right keep insisting Mr. Trump would have absolute immunity if he went out onto 5th Avenue an shot 45 people.​

People keep denying this.

 

[DGS49]

As I wrote many months ago, the answer is, Presidents have immunity when executing their duties as President. There is no question about this. Never has been.

However, if a sitting President does something in his capacity as a private citizen, there is no immunity.

Specific cases will depend what the FACT FINDER (judge or jury) determines was the nature of the action in question. If a President challenges the results of an election, is he acting as President or as a candidate for re-election?

It could go either way. If the outcome of the 2020 election was decided by a systemic conspiracy to illegally add millions of Democrat votes by "harvesting" them in big Leftist cities, and the President took measures to get to the bottom of it, then he is acting legitimately as President. If that is a total fairy tale and the President knew that or should have known that, he was acting as a candidate. No immunity.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, since Donnie and his supporters are arguing for absolute immunity, that would include such a scenario.

So blame yourselves for arguing something so incredibly stupid.

What's stupid is reading incomprehension so bad that a person couldn't say what the other person is arguing if his life depended on it.

 

[BackAgain]

People keep denying this.

Stupid libturds keep making that baseless claim.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's stupid is reading incomprehension so bad that a person couldn't say what the other person is arguing if his life depended on it.

I'm not sure what this irrelevant outburst is, but Team Trump is definitely arguing for absolute immunity. Go check. And stop whining, ffs!

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Immunity does not cover Presidential actions that are criminal in concept, scope, and commission.,

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Not just official acts necessarily though but immunity from criminal charges for pretty much anything. Using Dante's really REALLY dumb analogy that Trump supporters would give him immunity for going out and shooting 45 people. In that essentially non existent circumstance, we would expect our elected leaders to impeach and remove him from the Presidency immediately and then certainly state or local law would apply to prosecute him for murder. But if Congress is not the constitutional authority to prosecute and convict a President of crimes, any Tom, Dick, Harry or Harriet could accuse him of anything and keep him in court throughout his term of office. There would be constant investigations to see if something was within his jurisdictional duties or not. And for the rest of his life, his enemies could be making something he did as President a 'crime.

And if Congress did not impeach him and try him for the murder charge, we no longer have a government of, by and for the people anyway.

Barrack Hussain Obama, back when he was president , assassinated a US citizen without due process, breaking the law of the Constitution. What you are implying is that he, the brown turd Obammy can be brought to trial and would be convicted of crimes.

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald The president's partisan lawyers purport to vest him with the most extreme power a political leader can seize

www.theguardian.com

 

[Billiejeens]

And foolish people on the right keep insisting Mr. Trump would have absolute immunity if he went out onto 5th Avenue an shot 45 people.​

Literally no one has insisted that.

 

[Billiejeens]

Well, since Donnie and his supporters are arguing for absolute immunity, that would include such a scenario.

So blame yourselves for arguing something so incredibly stupid.

This is fiction.

It's absolute immunity, once invoking the limited scope.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Foolish people on the left"?

Isn't that a redundancy?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

"Foolish people on the left"?

Isn't that a redundancy?

Nah, but it is on the right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It began this past January when judge Pan asked her now infamous question about Seal Team 6. It continued today in the arguments in front of SCOTUS. How embarrassing.

What they fail to mention is that the Biden team, with Reichsleiter Garland as his wingman, attempting a political assassination with all the coordinated lawfare against Biden's #1 opponent.

The left needs to take a long, hard look at themselves in a mirror. They may not like what they see, if the mirror doesn't shatter first that is.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh frequently told the government that the Supreme Court’s ruling would apply to all future presidents — not just Donald Trump.

“I’m not concerned about this case,” Gorsuch said. “But I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he continued.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/25/supreme-court-trump-immunity-case/

​

I’m not concerned about this case,” Gorsuch said. “But I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”

Hmm…that’s a cryptic answer..one would think it’s a projection on how he is going to decide in this case. …

 

[excalibur]

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It will be 7-2 against immunity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's absolute immunity, once invoking the limited scope.

Well there is some incoherent babble.

That sure is not what Team Trump is arguing, before the SCOTUS, either. So it's made up, incoherent babble.

 

[Billiejeens]

It will be 7-2 against immunity.

You are an attention whore clown.

 

[Billiejeens]

Well there is some incoherent babble.

That sure is not what Team Trump is arguing, before the SCOTUS, either. So it's made up, incoherent babble.

It is what the ruling will be.

Areas where the President is immune, the immunity will be absolute.
It will cover acts within the breath and scope of being President.

Some of the ridiculous scenarios that the lunatic Dems want to throw out as possibilities fall outside that scope.

 

[d0gbreath]

So when a President Fails to protect US citizens, then when he is out of office, he can them be brought up on "Crimes against Humanity" right?

He's not our babysitter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is what the ruling will be.

Absolute immunity, but just sometimes.

Thanks. Now my brain needs a shower.

 

[Billiejeens]

Absolute immunity, but just sometimes.

Thanks. Now my brain needs a shower.

Because you are very stupid.