The Trump legal arguments involving Presidential immunity

[Foxfyre]

First reply to this thread is the typically inane use of a laughter emoji.

I realized this would sail over the head of most of our liberals. Augy is one of the usual suspects.

Those you refer to as 'liberals' are anything but. A more accurate description is authoritarian minded Marxists or dictatorial leftwing extremists. They honestly believe that government should have the authority to force its citizens into the mold that leftwingers have been brainwashed to believe is desirable. And they have been completely blinded to the negative, sometimes disastrous consequences of what they believe is desirable.

As pro America and pro American, Trump is the antithesis of all they believe and is the figure they most hate in America and most want destroyed. ANY post that puts him or his point of view in a favorable light must be ridiculed, damned, gaslighted or whatever.

Actually your OP is well thought out and quite interesting. The concept of double jeopardy had not occurred to me, but it would be interesting to see a thoughtful court consider that aspect of it.

 

[White 6]

You won’t ever learn what you refuse to even consider.




False.

The evidence of your error will be seen when the SCOTUS reviews the case.

You actually think they will go with total immunity? I wouldn't be dialing up Las Vegas to put money on it, if I were you.

 

[BackAgain]

Those you refer to as 'liberals' are anything but. A more accurate description is authoritarian minded Marxists or dictatorial leftwing extremists. They honestly believe that government should have the authority to force its citizens into the mold that leftwingers have been brainwashed to believe is desirable. And they have been completely blinded to the negative, sometimes disastrous consequences of what they believe is desirable.

As a pro American and pro American Trump is the antithesis of all they believe, he is the figure they most hate in America and most want destroyed. ANY post that puts him or his point of view in a favorable light must be ridiculed, damned, gaslighted or whatever.

Actually your OP is well thought out and quite interesting. The concept of double jeopardy had not occurred to me, but it would be interesting to see a thoughtful court consider that aspect of it.

Although my wife has a history of being mostly on the left side of the political spectrum, over the years I have had some impact on her thinking. During a long drive today, I commented to her about the high quality of the legal brief which had been filed by team Trump. In particular, like you, i had not looked at the notion of “double jeopardy” at all in this case.

In fact, before I reviewed the Trump brief, I had kind of dismissed the reference to double jeopardy prematurely. It not upon reading the brief more fully did I grasp their point. Then I suggested to my wife that i wasn’t sure I would have even taken note of those words in the Constitution.

But they sure did. And regardless of how the courts ultimately rule on it, their argument is a remarkably good one.

 

[BackAgain]

You actually think they will go with total immunity? I wouldn't be dialing up Las Vegas to put money on it, if I were you.

Did I say that they would?

I don’t know. But I believe it will be difficult to harmonize the words in the Constitution with a decision that basically negates those words. I mean, how do you cobble an argument together to deny that Art. I, section 3, clause 7 which directly speaks not about mere impeachment but about “the Party convicted” being “nevertheless” also subject to criminal prosecution [emphasis added], thereby (necessarily) implies that an acquittal is tantamount to “double jeopardy?”

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Headline: Trump Should Not Be Disqualified by an Ambiguous Clause​

This is not to say he should not be disqualified. The argument there is over the interpretation of the clause. And it's about ballot access.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You actually think they will go with total immunity? I wouldn't be dialing up Las Vegas to put money on it, if I were you.

Trump’s Craziest Legal Argument May Be Headed to the Supreme Court

And the justices will determine whether or not he goes on trial before the election.

nymag.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You actually think they will go with total immunity? I wouldn't be dialing up Las Vegas to put money on it, if I were you.

and -- Is the argument legitimate or just a flailing conservative base in search of a legitimate defense? I break it down below.

D.C. Circuit Rejects this Theory​

Does Double Jeopardy Bar Trump’s January 6th Indictment? — Ronald W. Chapman II

Legal scholars are beginning to argue that former President Donald Trump cannot be convicted in Jack Smith’s January 6th federal indictment because the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents a trial after an acquittal of the same offense. Federal Defense Attorney Ronald W. Chapman

ronaldwchapman.com

this is it:

"Given the obvious lack of caselaw on the issue, this will be a matter of first impression for the Supreme Court. While the argument has merit, the concern is that this would prevent prosecution of other federal officials subject to removal by impeachment and would require impeachment before criminal charges - this would insulate the Government too much from indictment and may lead to the potential for more corruption."

 

[White 6]

and -- Is the argument legitimate or just a flailing conservative base in search of a legitimate defense? I break it down below.

D.C. Circuit Rejects this Theory​

Does Double Jeopardy Bar Trump’s January 6th Indictment? — Ronald W. Chapman II

Legal scholars are beginning to argue that former President Donald Trump cannot be convicted in Jack Smith’s January 6th federal indictment because the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents a trial after an acquittal of the same offense. Federal Defense Attorney Ronald W. Chapman

ronaldwchapman.com

this is it:

"Given the obvious lack of caselaw on the issue, this will be a matter of first impression for the Supreme Court. While the argument has merit, the concern is that this would prevent prosecution of other federal officials subject to removal by impeachment and would require impeachment before criminal charges - this would insulate the Government too much from indictment and may lead to the potential for more corruption."

The Trump motion will be rejected, almost summarily, and go down in flames. He is going to trial.

 

[BackAgain]

Headline: Trump Should Not Be Disqualified by an Ambiguous Clause​

This is not to say he should not be disqualified. The argument there is over the interpretation of the clause. And it's about ballot access.

He isn’t disqualified. Period. Nor should he be. The “argument,” such as it is, is that there exists some hypothetical basis to conclude that he was engaged in some alleged “insurrection.”

That is a federal crime. Ergo, it is logical (actually, it’s the only meaningful inference) to realize that one must be convicted of that crime to come under the ambit of the 14th Amendment for purposes of disqualification. And even THAT requires the assumption that it was ever intended to apply to the Presidency.

The Colorado decision will fall as it must. With it goes the idiotic decision of the Maine Secretary of State.

 

[BackAgain]

The Trump motion will be rejected, almost summarily, and go down in flames. He is going to trial.

I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that guess if I were you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

He isn’t disqualified. Period. Nor should he be. The “argument,” such as it is, is that there exists some hypothetical basis to conclude that he was engaged in some alleged “insurrection.”

That is a federal crime. Ergo, it is logical (actually, it’s the only meaningful inference) to realize that one must be convicted of that crime to come under the ambit of the 14th Amendment for purposes of disqualification. And even THAT requires the assumption that it was ever intended to apply to the Presidency.

The Colorado decision will fall as it must. With it goes the idiotic decision of the Maine Secretary of State.

not necessarily - your ERGO

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Trump motion will be rejected, almost summarily, and go down in flames. He is going to trial.

What some here refuse to acknowledge, is Trump's trial (Jack Smith case), does not hinge on this one question alone. The Supreme Court is being asked to consider the applicability of the obstruction statute. The indictments of Mr. Trump go far beyond that one charge of obstruction.

 

[Kilroy2]

So, you either didn’t read the brief or you didn’t understand it.

Not an unexpected development.

Wait a minute , I rolling on the floor here

You read the brief but didn't understand it

 

[BackAgain]

What some here refuse to acknowledge, is Trump's trial (Jack Smith case), does not hinge on this one question alone. The Supreme Court is being asked to consider the applicability of the obstruction statute. The indictments of Mr. Trump go far beyond that one charge of obstruction.

Folks like the Dainty are simply incapable of grasping that the official actions taken by the President — within the ambit of his duties — might make him immune from criminal prosecution even if they wish to label his actions as an alleged “obstruction” or some other alleged “crime.”

 

[BackAgain]

Wait a minute , I rolling on the floor here

You read the brief but didn't understand it

You’re an idiot.

I read it and I understood it.

You maybe didn’t read it at all. But if you did, you’re one of the one who didn’t understand it.

 

[BackAgain]

not necessarily - your ERGO

You only say that because you lack any ability to employ logic.

If one is forbidden from living within 1000 yards of a school when one has engaged in pedophilia, it isn’t sufficient to merely label some schmuck a “pedophile.” One would have to secure a conviction for that crime.

Since it is a criminal offense, one would need to get the alleged offender indicted and tried and convicted before that residential restriction could be imposed.

The disqualification provision of the 14th Amendment is argued — by you — however, not to require the same analysis.

You can deny it as much as you wish. But you haven’t offered reason 1 to support your contrary conclusion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Folks like the Dainty are simply incapable of grasping that the official actions taken by the President — within the ambit of his duties — might make him immune from criminal prosecution even if they wish to label his actions as an alleged “obstruction” or some other alleged “crime.”

Try and keep up. The whole obstruction charge is an argument of what Trump had done outside of his protections of his official duties.

Nobody is arguing that any 'official actions taken by the President' are illegal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You only say that because you lack any ability to employ logic.

If one is forbidden from living within 1000 yards of a school when one has engaged in pedophilia, it isn’t sufficient to merely label some schmuck a “pedophile.” One would have to secure a conviction for that crime.

Since it is a criminal offense, one would need to get the alleged offender indicted and tried and convicted before that residential restriction could be imposed.

The disqualification provision of the 14th Amendment is argued — by you — however, not to require the same analysis.

You can deny it as much as you wish. But you haven’t offered reason 1 to support your contrary conclusion.

You have the annoyingly sophomoric habit of consistently putting forth opinions as facts.

 

[BackAgain]

Try and keep up. The whole obstruction charge is an argument of what Trump had done outside of his protections of his official duties.

Nobody is arguing that any 'official actions taken by the President' are illegal.

Wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

You have the annoyingly sophomoric habit of consistently putting forth opinions as facts.

Projection.

It’s amusing to see you being a total hypocrite all the time.

You don’t even recognize how transparent it are.

As trolls go, you should.