Trump asks Supreme Court to block ruling he lacks immunity in January 6 criminal case

wtf are you talking about? They've ALWAYS had that immunity.

Why do you think when the American citizen, who was assassinated without due process by Obama, father wasn't able to bring charges against him criminally? Because the president is immune to such charges.

Otherwise Obama would have murder charges dropped on his head. Which he may still have if the idiots on the left drop his protection lol

Moreover so you would be fine if a state blackmailed the president by creating a law making it the death penalty or life in prison for not protecting unborn life. Then threatens the POTUS with the death penalty or life in prison after he leaves office if he doesn't deal with abortion in the way they want?

Or how about a state who says it's illegal to attempt to restrict the ability to purchase automatic weapons and attaches 20 years to life to it and then threatens the president with 20 years to life after he leaves office if he does anything to attempt to stop the purchase of automatic firearms? You cool with that?

 

Speaking of delay, if Jack Smith is an impartial prosecutor and his case has NOTHING to do with the upcoming election as he has claimed over and over again why is he crying about delaying?

Defendants delay ALL the time and the prosecutor doesn't get butthurt about it. Why is he getting up in his feels about Trump delaying? What's the problem? If it has nothing to do with the election, why does Smith care if Trump delays?

Don't worry. I'll wait.

 

And btw he is NOT arguing for complete immunity for criminal acts. That is NOT his position.

In other words if he walked down to 5th Avenue and shot his wife's lover or his political opponent, he would not be covered by immunity because they were not actions taken within the duties of the presidency.

 

I didn't make that contention. The federal government made it when OBama ordered the targeted assassination of an American citizen without due process in another country whom we were not in conflict with and the citizens father wanted to sue him, his administration and to bring criminal charges against Obama.

As the court ruled and the federal government argued, the man's father has no legal remedy with which to engage. Because the president is immune from criminal acts he commits while engaging in presidential duties.

 

Does POTUS have absolute immunity or what? Make your mind up.

 

No and no one is arguing that. They're arguing he has immunity from criminal charges for actions he commits while engaging in his presidential duties unless he also gets impeached first. The EXACT same thing the Obama admin argued and won.

 

Ah......so you you agree it is not absolute even if it exists at all.

So:

1. If after he is no longer POTUS he retained documents belonging to the People, he can no longer claim whatever immunity as a defence?

2. If while he was POTUS he committed a felony, does he still have this claimed immunity or does it depend on what the felony is, one such as falls withing his duties as POTUS. In other words, what crimes may one commit in the course of discharging the duty of POTUS, and say what that duty is.

 

wtf are you talking about NOONE including trumps lawyers are arguing for absolute immunity.

1) He's declaring presidential immunity because the papers in question are related almost exclusively to correspondence he had with Kim Jung Un which he believed to be personal and covered under the PRA.

2) And his lawyers made that very clear. If a president walks down to 5th Avenue and shoots his wife's lover or his political opponent he could be tried and convicted criminally. Thats why we have the famous question by the judge who asked about if a president ordered seal team 6 to assassinate his opponent would that be covered. She had to form the question in the context of it being a presidential duty of ordering seal team 6 because his lawyers are NOT arguing for complete immunity.

 

What crimes may one commit in the course of discharging the duty of POTUS, and say what that duty is.

 

Yes they are.

From the NY Times:

*Rapist

(My asterisks.)

 

Any crime that does not have to do with his presidential duties. IE walking down to fifth Avenue and shooting his wife's lover or his political opponent.

 

lol that's what happens when you get your information from The NY Times. Would you like the oral arguments where his lawyers refute that to the judges?

 

So, what of the 91 offences he is charged with did he commit in the discharge of his 'presidential duties,' and what were those duties in each case?

 

Yes.

 

What about using the full power of the Presidency to illegally overturn an election?

That doesn't sound like an "Official Duty" to me, more like "officially dudee".

 

Trump can be impeached for many things if he wins

 

Justice delayed is justice denied. Time for the courts to speed up these time wasting appeals and motions including SCOTUS.

 

https://www.youtube.com/live/KFppEuJRTO4?si=d9AC1yHwSDIpsIup

start at 17:43

"No one is arguing that the president is immune from solely private conduct."

And he goes on but again they are NOT arguing for complete immunity. Shocking the leftist media is lying through their teeth about that, I know. Cause I assure you they listened to his lawyers categorically deny that accusation in court and are still parroting that bullshit.

 

Well for instance in the Georgia case he was engaging in his duty as president to ensure free and fair elections and making sure there was no fraud.

 

The constitution reads “Shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of Treason, Bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The house determines what a high crime or misdemeanor is, thus the house can impeach on just about anything it wants. The conviction part, especially in today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide, the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship isn’t going to happen. It takes 2/3rds of the senate to vote guilty for a president to be impeached and removed from office. You can impeach Trump five more times, if he wins, he isn’t going anywhere, he won’t be removed from office. Impeachment has become an idle threat with no meaning.

The threat of impeachment is seen more or less as a ho hum house action. Until we move out of today’s modern political era into a saner and less polarized, less partisanship political era, impeachment is just something to keep whichever party controls the house base happy. At this point in time, I view impeachment of anyone as a total waste of time, energy and money as removal isn’t going to happen.

 

And there's GOOD reason for not having presidents criminally liable.

You cannot have a situation in which a state or congress can create laws which make actions the president commits while in office to be criminal.

We can imagine a situation where both houses of congress are one party and the president is another. The congress can just enact laws making the presidents conduct criminal and then force him to do their bidding or threaten him with criminal charges. And the same for the states.

And what happens if states enact laws that make the president criminally liable for say supporting abortion with an executive order and the congress makes a law to make the president criminally liable for not supporting abortion with an EO? The president is ****ed.

That is a WHOLESALE untenable position. The appeal court ruling CANNOT be allowed to stand.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike in Yemen because he posed a threat to US security.

If you want to sue Obama because you think it was a murder outside the scope of his duties, you're free to do so.

What are you waiting for?

In this case, Trump is accused of attempting to defraud the US and illegally slowing down the transition of power after an election.

Do you consider these actions to be part of the official duties of a POTUS?

 

No see. You're not free to do so. Thats what the court said lol That's the entire point. His father was NOT free to sue him or bring criminal charges because he's immune to prosecution for performing presidential duties.

 

Lolwut?
We can imagine a situation where both houses of congress are one party and the president is another. The congress can just enact laws making the presidents conduct criminal
That would require quite an "imagination"...
Since both houses of Congress would need to have a 2/3rds Majority to override a 100% certain Presidential Veto...
In fact, I would consider it UNIMAGINABLE in the future that any party could control both houses of the U.S. Congress with veto-proof 2/3rds Majorities...
And, it would be even more Unimaginable that in the 1 in a Billon chance that the above situation (one party controlling both Houses with 2/3rds Majorities) did exist (in the future) that the President would be from the other party.
TL;DR: "Talking Point" destroyed...

 

lol that makes no sense whatsoever, just because it's a less likely probability doesn't make it less of a legitimate concern.

Furthermore that doesn't address the states making his actions criminal.