US supreme court to decide on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity

That sounds like the rationalization Trump will use when he declares himself king.

 

Bring it. If they have evidence of crimes they should be charging people!

 

You haven't read the indictment.

Educate yourself before commenting.

The only proof you have of this 'corruption' is that the candidate who has devotion is criminally charged in 4 trials.

In short, it's nothing more than political bias.

Back on topic, Trump's lawyer went before the SCOTUS judges today to say that a President has full immunity even if he's fomenting a coup.

Are you okay with that?

 

Nice irony is that if they give POTUS some sort of immunity, the first bloke to take advantage of it will be Biden!

 

Of all the people in a democratic, law abiding Country, ye'd reckon the person MOST required to act lawfully at all times would be a 'POTUS.'

It seems there are retards on SCOTUS who think otherwise.

No wonder Humpty**** says the USA is on the road to Hell (or similar.)

If SCOTUS yields any ground whatsoever to give POTUS God/King-like status to any extent, it may well go to confirm what some around the Planet already think....that the USA is a rogue, an outlaw pretending to be part of the civilised World.

 

I'm just going to copy/paste what I already stated in another thread, I'll leave the quote tags out so that you can easily quote it if you wish...

I've got a feeling that your "prediction" was based on something you read/heard from the "media". I read the same thing just a few minutes ago. And it makes sense. Of course you're attributing it to "conservative justices" and some sort of bias. But the fact of the matter is that a President has always been presumed to have some sort of immunity for PRESIDENTIAL ACTS. I have to stress that because leftists are trying to claim that the argument is about some sort of "complete immunity" for anything and everything while President. That is not, and never has been, the argument. As such the case was always going to come down to "Did Trumps actions constitute a Presidential Act? Or Personal Act?" I have stated this previously in other posts in the past. But it always seems to get ignored.

Why has a President always had a presumed immunity? Because a President has to commit acts that are not always considered "legal" when compared to civilians who do not have the weight of authority that a President has/needs. For instance there are times that a President has to order a "hit" on a person. Ex: Obama ordering the "hit" on Osama Bin Laden. Or when ANY President orders a strike on what is believed to be a terrorists base of operations and as a result innocent civilians are killed, also called "collateral damage". These are just obvious examples. There are many more situations that can, and no doubt does, arise which could be considered "illegal" for anyone but the President.

One example that has been used, and which lefties hollered about, was "If the President orders a hit on a political rival which results in the death of that political rival, does that President have immunity?". Leftists of course hollered "of course they don't!!!". Except that the answer to that isn't that simple. If it was done in furtherance of national security, (the rival was plotting a terrorist act in order to win the election by blaming the President for example) then yes, the President would be immune from prosecution. If it was done for personal reasons only (to win the election for example) then no, that President would not have immunity.

So yes, this question was always going to come down to "Does what Trump did fall under a "Presidential Act" or "Personal Act"?

 

You may wish to read my last post, post 81.

 

Don't even pretend that there has never been corrupt prosecutors. And not one lawyer in this case is arguing for absolute/full immunity.

 

We live in very interesting times.

In a sane world, this thing would have never made its way to the SCOTUS, because the very idea of absolute immunity goes against everything the US Constitution stands for, but alas, we do not live in a sane world and Trump's ****ed up lawyer literally argued that it is perfectly ok for a US President to use Seal Team six to assassinate a political enemy, even within the borders of the USA, and this would be ok.

Just to be clear, Osama bin Laden was not a political enemy. He was a ****ing terrorist.

I have no faith in this supreme court. The MAGA wing of the SCOTUS will destroy it from within.

 

Ok, I've read it. Simple.

Get Congress to pass into Law legislation that legalises what you describe. That is what a democracy does. It does not walk passed a POTUS doing ANYTHING contrary to Law.

 

The only ones pushing "absolute immunity" propaganda are leftists. No lawyer has argued for such.

 

No one has claimed "ANYTHING contrary to Law". Even my own post is making a distinction between a "Presidential Act" vs a "Personal Act" and is the argument that is before SCOTUS.

As for legislation, got a suggestion for how such would be worded? You do realize that even Presidential Acts could be construed as "Personal Acts"? And visa versa. How would your proposed legislation account for that, especially in order to avoid partisan "lawfare".

 

I am not a drafter of legislation. There are skilled people who do that and they are perfectly capable of drafting something for Congress to debate, a Bill which deals with your point.

This is not to be left to a POTUS and the passing tides of the politicised SCOTUS.

You make it US Law for POTUS to order a 'hit' on say the Aussie PM and all is well. You do not just assume POTUS should be allowed to do that on their whim.

 

You're exaggerating things. Its not based on a "whim". In the examples I gave of possible immunity was any of it "on a whim"? And if it were to ever happen that is what the Impeachment Process is actually for. For when an action by a POTUS is so out of line that Congress agrees to get them out of office and then be prosecuted for whatever it is that they did that was wrong.

Also, being you're a foreigner, this question has actually already been answered to a degree already. Only difference is that it was in relation to lawsuits, not criminal acts. But the answer would be the same. And to anticipate your next question, the case was Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

 

The way to test a concept is precisely to put it under pressure including by exaggeration. If you want a POTUS to be immune from the LAW, them you pass legislation saying so. (The Planet will then take due notice of exactly how extreme the USA is going.) Otherwise, there are no prescribed statutory limits and it is being left to the 'whim' of an individual to decide who, why and when he orders your military to take someone out, being a domestic or foreign leader, pretty much like Putin gets to assassinate his opponents with poison, just like as occurs in South Korea, China and all those well respected sort of regimes.

 

The US already has a system in place for when a President unlawfully acts. Its called the Impeachment Process.

 

This has zero to do with Trump in the big scheme of things. What if DOJ would have brought murder charges on Obama for his drone strike that killed only women and children. What about Bush in Iraq or Biden's strike in Afghanistan that killed a family. All these were awful, all were also advised to be good and just at the time by advisors. A president has to make that call. If they have to prepardon to eliminate the threat of rouque state DA's, they will and should. Back to you snip, King Trump got impeached so could any other President which would eliminate immunity. That being said, this is a tough one because of todays wacko doj and da's attaching charges to hangnails.

 

What coup is Trump being charged with? A coup involves taking the power. Did Trump ever take the power? No, he left the WH on schedule. A president's duty is to ensure the integrity of a presidential election. Trump had every right to question the election after the fake Russian dossier paid for by his opponent Hillary Clinton.

 

Yeas, and it fails because it cannot be more politicised if you tried. Impeachment/conviction runs on party lines these days as is well exemplified since 2016.

 

Take it beyond doubt by LEGISLATION.

Simple.

 

Apparently SCOTUS plans to design a "test" and send it back to the lower courts to adjudicate. And, apparently it'll be one act at a time so the delays and appeals could go on for years, even decades. Trump will be dead a long with some of us before he sees a verdict re Jan 6th.

IMO, the majority will not rule this season because anything they do to help Trump will ALSO apply to Biden. They will wait until the next term to render a decision.

 

Trump's opponent in 2020 was Joe Biden...
Are you claiming that Trump questioned the results in 2020 based on something that happened in 2016?
That seems like quite a stretch that defies all logic...:smdh:

 

The example used was that a POTUS is not protected by immunity if he orders the assassination of a political opponent.

The question of national security was never raised.

On the other hand, if you want to go there, I think it's an interesting avenue.

Biden could claim that Trump is a national security risk and have him killed by Seal Team Six.

So, in that case, do we give the POTUS total immunity?

In the MAGA world, just going after Trump makes you corrupt.

Cult.

 

He tried everything to stay in power.

On the very evening of the election, he claimed that he had won, even though the count was far from over.

He fabricated stories of fraud that were refuted by all the country's courts of justice.

He pressured election officials not to certify Biden's victory.

He prevented the transition committee from getting to the Biden team.

He spread his Big Lie, which led to the Capitol riot.

That's why he's accused of defrauding the U.S., and he richly deserves to die in prison for his crimes.

Trump doesn't give a damn about the integrity of the election.

What did he do about it when he was in power? .... Can you name a single measure he implemented?

He's already claiming that if he loses in 2024, it'll be because they've been rigged.

 

Evidence showing Democrats have a history of election cheating. lol