The Trump legal arguments involving Presidential immunity

[BackAgain]

You’re so stupid it’s beyond painful.

And it is not covered by any Presidential Immunity.

You still don’t even understand why.

 

[SavannahMann]

You’re so stupid it’s beyond painful.

And it is not covered by any Presidential Immunity.

You still don’t even understand why.

We aren’t the ones saying that Trump’s actions are covered by never ending immunity. We aren’t the ones who are claiming that the President can never be charged for any criminal action. We aren’t the ones who say that any criminal charges must yield to political process.

If attempting to overturn an election is covered by Immunity, what isn’t?

 

[BackAgain]

We aren’t the ones saying that Trump’s actions are covered by never ending immunity.

You can’t even distinguish which actions are to be covered by Presidential Immunity and which aren’t because you’re too plodding to follow along.

We aren’t the ones who are claiming that the President can never be charged for any criminal action.

Nobody’s making any such claim.

We aren’t the ones who say that any criminal charges must yield to political process.

Also not a claim made by the Trump pleadings or by anyone else.

If attempting to overturn an election is covered by Immunity, what isn’t?

Nobody tried to overturn an election.

 

[SavannahMann]

You can’t even distinguish which actions are to be covered by Presidential Immunity and which aren’t because you’re too plodding to follow along.

Nobody’s making any such claim.

Also not a claim made by the Trump pleadings or by anyone else.

Nobody tried to overturn an election.

All of that is true. Trump claiming immunity?

Trump claims immunity from prosecution in Georgia

Former President Donald Trump Monday asked a Fulton County judge to dismiss criminal charges against him because he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while in the White House.

www.ajc.com

The problem is that you are denying the truth. Not that I don’t understand. The problem is I reject the constantly changing claims that are denied a day after they are made.

 

[noonereal]

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.

I mt short time back to this site you have distinguished yourself.

 

[noonereal]

Nobody tried to overturn an election

Seriously?

 

[BackAgain]

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously — you ass clown.

 

[BackAgain]

I mt short time back to this site you have distinguished yourself.

Let’s pretend your opinion matters.

 

[noonereal]

I have seen very few progressives anywhere who have an IQ above low average.

All studies show the opposite.

 

[BackAgain]

All of that is true. Trump claiming immunity?

Trump claims immunity from prosecution in Georgia

Former President Donald Trump Monday asked a Fulton County judge to dismiss criminal charges against him because he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while in the White House.

www.ajc.com

The problem is that you are denying the truth. Not that I don’t understand. The problem is I reject the constantly changing claims that are denied a day after they are made.

Yes. He is seeking to make use of Presidential immunity. But, no; that doesn’t mean what you ignorantly and erroneously imagine it means.

The problem remains that you simply aren’t smart enough to understand.

There hasn’t been a change in his immunity claim since the moment his lawyers fled the brief before the judge.

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

 

[BackAgain]

All studies show the opposite.

Zzz

Nobody accepts your ridiculous claims.

 

[Synthaholic]

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

It's not good stuff. It's ridiculous. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants Presidents immunity. Period. End of story.

The argument from the Right for Originalism has always been a crock of shit. They don't believe it themselves when it doesn't go their way.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes. He is seeking to make use of Presidential immunity. But, no; that doesn’t mean what you ignorantly and erroneously imagine it means.

The problem remains that you simply aren’t smart enough to understand.

There hasn’t been a change in his immunity claim since the moment his lawyers fled the brief before the judge.

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

I read it. It flies in the face of every single President in history. It flies in the face of the very principles of this nation. It ignores the real and established history of this nation.

Nixon got a full pardon from Ford. That precluded his being indicted for the Watergate affair.

Clinton took a plea deal to avoid being indicted, something that was certain to happen when he left the White House.

But Trump has immunity. It really wasn’t a crime. Not really. Sure. If anyone else had done it it would be a crime. But not Trump.

Since George Washington took the oath, people have said that in America, no one is above the law, no one is below the law. We are all equal before the law. But that isn’t the country we want is it?

And the bullshit about Trump having valid concerns? His own Attorney General said there was no evidence. His own cabinet said so. In Georgia the Governor, a Republican, the Secretary of State, another Republican, and the speaker of the State House all told him there was no evidence the election was stolen.

Trump went on anyway. In spite of legal advice. In spite of the expert opinions of people in a position to know. He issued instructions in direct violation of the law. But that’s covered by immunity. Because he says so.

Bullshit.

 

[BackAgain]

It's not good stuff. It's ridiculous. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants Presidents immunity. Period. End of story.

Your disagreement is with (1) the SCOTUS re civil Presidential Immunity (the Fitzgerald decision) and (2) the Trump motion to extend the civil immunity to criminal immunity based on the same logic as was used in Fitzgerald.

As to the former, you’re entitled to your view but you’re still wrong. As to the latter, that’s the matter under discussion. There is no guarantee it will be extended to criminal cases. But, logically, as the corrupt Potato Department of the Miscarriage of Justice has revealed., extending the immunity to criminal charges makes perfect sense.

The argument from the Right for Originalism has always been a crock of shit.

No. And that has nothing to do with this discussion.

They don't believe it themselves when it doesn't go their way.

Also untrue. You truly don’t have the foggiest damn notion concerning these matters. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Synthaholic]

Your disagreement is with (1) the SCOTUS re civil Presidential Immunity (the Fitzgerald decision) and (2) the Trump motion to extend the civil immunity to criminal immunity based on the same logic as was used in Fitzgerald.

I don't necessarily disagree with the decision re: civil lawsuits looking for monetary damages, because, say, a POTUS issues an executive order that makes your stock in a company worthless (an example would be an EO suspending the use of private prisons).

That's a far cry from criminal acts. Trying to link them is ludicrous.

 

[Synthaholic]

No. And that has nothing to do with this discussion.

It has to do with the 14th.

Also untrue. You truly don’t have the foggiest damn notion concerning these matters. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Trump lawyers are arguing against the CO decision. And throwing Originalism under the bus to do it.


My overall point is that Trumpers believe in nothing except what benefits Trump.

 

[BackAgain]

View attachment 885661

I don't necessarily disagree with the decision re: civil lawsuits looking for monetary damages, because, say, a POTUS issues an executive order that makes your stock in a company worthless (an example would be an EO suspending the use of private prisons).

That's a far cry from criminal acts. Trying to link them is ludicrous.

Same principal. A criminal charge doesn’t have to be premised on any criminal actions. The indictment can be purely retaliatory. The President shouldn’t have to worry that a future President like Potato might falsely label your Presidential actions as having been allegedly “criminal.”

 

[BackAgain]

It has to do with the 14th.

No. It doesn’t.

Trump lawyers are arguing against the CO decision.

Yes.

And throwing Originalism under the bus to do it.

Not at all. You don’t know what it means.

My overall point is that Trumpers believe in nothing except what benefits Trump.

Your overall point is flatly wrong.

 

[SavannahMann]

Same principal. A criminal charge doesn’t have to be premised on any criminal actions. The indictment can be purely retaliatory. The President shouldn’t have to worry that a future President like Potato might falsely label your Presidential actions as having been allegedly “criminal.”

Ok. So what standard of proof do you want before a former President is indicted? How much do you need?

 

[BackAgain]

Ok. So what standard of proof do you want before a former President is indicted? How much do you need?

Your “question” highlights your fundamental misunderstanding of the issues involved.

The standard to indict any person for a felony remains the same “probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and probable cause to believe that the person being looked into for that ‘crime,’ is the person criminally responsible for that ‘crime.’”

The point of Presidential Immunity focuses its attention to a different matter: whether the “actions” which were allegedly criminal were made under the President’s authority as President for a legitimate purpose demanded by his duties as President.

If murder is the intentional taking of a human life, then the action of pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger in order to end that other person’s life would normally qualify as “murder.” However, if that other person was at that time trying very hard to kill you, then shooting him to death before he can accomplish his goal isn’t murder. Why not? Because not it “justified.” It legally means that what would otherwise be a murder isn’t a crime at all because the action was justified by necessity.

Interestingly, in most cases, to defend against a murder charge by claiming “justification” and or ”self defense” the accused actually has to admit essentially all of the required culpable mental state and criminal act elements of the crime.
But, if the jury agrees, it isn’t a crime at all.

Similarly, if a special persecutor wants to charge a former President with criminal behavior, it may be that the persecutor will have to disprove that the former President’s actions weren’t undertaken for the purposes of doing his duties as President.