Trump lawyer: 'We're asking for temporary presidential immunity'

This is insane. The President is above the citizens he represents? It should never be allowed to happen regardless of the political party the President represents;

"(CNN)They'd said it before, but President Donald Trump's attorney put it more bluntly than ever:

"We're asking for temporary presidential immunity," Jay Sekulow told the Supreme Court Tuesday.

"Temporary presidential immunity," in the way the President's lawyers describe it, would mean that Trump (or whomever is president at the time) couldn't be investigated or prosecuted while holding the office of President. No subpoenas, no testimony, no indictments, if investigators sought those.

"Criminal process targeting the President" violates the Constitution, Sekulow said."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/poli...immunity-jay-sekulow-supreme-court/index.html

 

He thinks he is a King, but they don’t want the next Democratic president to be able to use this a precedent.
Of course this is what they are arguing.

I don’t believe the court will side with him, I expect a 6-3 decision (it should be 9-0) against trump.

Which will make all of these documents available about a month before early voting starts.
The best timing

 

Absurd. As the Judge put it ~ not even POTUS is above the Law. In fact, it should be the exact reverse. POTUS should always be under very close scrutiny.

 

Perfect. Those who want a big, powerful government, here you go.

 

exactly, the fascists on the right will support this I am sure, but hopefully many on both sides will not - this is a move for a dictatorship

 

No, we want a government as it was designed - three branches keeping check on the powers of each branch. If Congress and
the Courts both ask for transparency in the President's finances, then there should be transparency.

Just imagine if Obama had hotels in Turkey, Golf Courses in Dubai ... you think the Republicans wouldn't have wanted transparency? Hell, Obama would have been toast if he had paid off sex stars while Michelle was taking car of
the kids ...

 

It's nothing knew that presidents can't be charge by some local DA or other law enforcement while serving in office. That's why Bill Clinton was served an indictment for his multiple felonies until as he was leaving office. Same should apply to Trump. And apparently it was not a high priority for the State of New York to prosecute citizen Trump before he was elected President so I'm sure it can wait until he leaves office.

This is nothing new or exclusive to Trump.

The Supreme Court and Trump’s Tax Returns
The stakes are bigger than the political fate of this President.

"Democrats have subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s records despite no evidence of financial crimes. Though Mr. Mueller found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Democrats still argue their subpoenas are necessary to investigate collusion.

In short, there’s no legal precedent for the Democratic subpoenas. And the Justices will have to consider the damage that upholding the subpoenas would do to the separation of powers that would outlive the Trump Presidency.

There’s at least some legal precedent to support Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s subpoena of Mr. Trump’s financial records as part of a criminal investigation. We don’t think a President should be absolutely immune from criminal investigation, as Mr. Trump’s attorneys argue. But Tuesday’s second case, Trump v. Vance, raises vexing questions about federalism.


The two important Court precedents here are U.S. v. Nixon (1974) and Clinton v. Jones (1997), but neither is precisely apt. In Nixon, the Court allowed a special counsel to subpoena White House tapes in a criminal investigation of the President’s associates. Jones held that a President is not immune from civil lawsuits in federal court for out-of-office conduct. In both cases the Court emphasized that courts should not “proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual.” Both rulings were narrowly drawn to the facts at hand.

The Solicitor General makes a compelling argument that there should be a heightened judicial standard for criminal subpoenas directed at a sitting President including a strong showing of critical need. This is important to protect the President from harassment by 50 state Attorneys Generals and 2,300 local District Attorneys who may have political motives.

Mr. Trump won’t be President forever, and the Court will have to reflect on how its decisions will affect America’s political institutions amid hyper-partisanship that won’t end when a Democrat takes the White House.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-su...tax-returns-11589238780?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

 

LOL.....the left most certainly does not want a government as it was designed. It was NOT designed to have a quarter the power that the left wants it to have.

If Obama had all the things you mentioned and done all the things you mentioned, he would've been covered for by the MSM and we'd have heard very little about it. To imply otherwise is absurd.

 

ROFL ahhh NO that is NOT how the Constitution and our government works. And there is transparency in his finances he filed a financial disclosure form when he was a candidate and does so every year as President. Those hotels would be listed on that financial disclosure form in far more detail than a tax return and Presidents are not prohibited from owning hotels in Turkey or golf courses in Dubai. A court only act through the courts, judges rule on the law, they don't demand things of the President to satisfy their curiosity. There is no LAW that says a President or a candidate for President must make public their tax return. Neither the Courts nor the Congress have the power or authority to compel a President or candidate to do so, those are highly protect personal records.

 

Do you believe the president cannot be investigated by Congress in their oversight obligation?

 

You are asking whether or not Impeachment is a thing?

 

Have you no answer to my question?

 

Obviously a president can be investigated. The Dems have been doing that nonstop for about three and a third years as of now.

On the other hand those same Dems CLAIM that we are in a terrible nation shattering crisis and yet still they want to trifle around with yet more politically motivated B.S. investigations into a president who's been investigated more than any other president in the history of this nation. It's about time that the court system told the Dem Party's leadership to grow the hell up and cease wasting the nation's time.

 

What exactly are the Dems doing right now with "politically motivated B.S. investigations" into Trump?

And another question for you: since the president can be investigated, shouldn't they be able to subpoena and receive financial records of the president?

 

Not necessarily. They can't go on a fishing expedition. They need evidence of a crime having been committed to investigate. They cannot demand records and then invent a crime.

 

No... if you believe that, you are completely misinformed...

First off, NOBODY remotely investigated ANYTHING during the 2 years Ryan ran the house.... NADA...

In the 1.4 years Pelosi/Schiff have had the controls, Trump has ignored just about everything requested of him. You may think that shows toughness or balls, but it actually shows fear.

I listened to the first set of arguments (Mazars) on the 'puter yesterday. It was truly laughable some of the claims made my MY DOJ (horrifying) and Trump's personal lawyer (expected).

I don't know what this political SCOTUS is going to do, but if they do not follow their own precedent in Jones vs Clinton, this iteration of SCOTUS is worthless....

 

LOL, Roberts said the Congress reason is paper thin. The media says there is precedent with Nixon and Clinton but those were things happening while they were President and not a fishing expedition into things that happened years before.

 

I assume then that you would be all in favor of the president subpoenaing the financial and tax records of every Senator and Representative.

 

I for one would be completely OK with that. Bank records too.

 

Cite where the Constitution says Congress shall oversee the President and investigate his private matters as a matter of course. The Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach.

 

“We don’t think a President should be absolutely immune from criminal investigation, as Mr. Trump’s attorneys argue.”
And that’s their exact argument. Let’s remember, nobody is asking trump to do anything, they’re asking private firms to turn over what they have.

 

Yes and you think they can only impeach if they can get the executive branch to first investigate its self.

 

So do you believe future Democratic presidents should have absolute immunity?

 

It is strange how the right went from “the Executive has too much power” to “the Executive should have unlimited power” in less than four years.

 

The Grand Jury (separate) and NYC will get what they requested, but they’ll either punt on Congress or seek a limiting process. Although one already exists, as noted above Clinton.

Clinton holds the most investigated mantle also most taxpayer dollars spent investigating a President. Add in Hillary and the time and dollars spent rise to obscene.

Given Trump doesn’t have any hard fast principles other than hiding his record so he can freely embellish his record—live in a fantasy world. That’s all that is likely occurring here. He’s not who he says he is and never was.