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

When is it illegal for a president to try to stay in power? Trump had every reason to question the election after what Hillary Clinton did to try and win. Nothing you mentioned is illegal. Now if Trump had ordered the military to surround the WH to protect him and secure his position as president then maybe you have something to argue with. We all know Trump had requested the National Guard protect the Capital days before the scheduled protest.

 

The lawyers gave real world example with Clinton, Bush, Obama and Reagan. Again, you are focusing only on one side, you are not giving credence to rogue prosecutors, even state prosecutors. I understand why but it must be addressed moving forward to prevent a banana republic.

 

All of this is yet another reminder that for all their rhetoric about the evils of government power, there are WAY too many on the right in America who would happily grant near unlimited power to one of their own if they think it will benefit them or harm their opponents.

This is who conservatives have always been. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or delusional.

 

You haven't read the indictment.

So you don't know what you're talking about.

And the reason Trump's lawyers are before SCOTUS today pleading immunity is because he committed a crime while in office.

I repeat my question:

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

 

Examples that were refuted by the SCOTUS judges.

Trump will never get immunity from charges related to the attempt to overturn the election and the Capitol events.

It won't happen.

All the people who are against Trump are corrupt.

The prosecutors, the witnesses, the grand jury members who voted to indict Trump, the judges and their families.

The biggest conspiracy in US history.

 

I don't think that's remotely true. In fact, it's the opposite. I think republicans are wanting guidelines before this turns into Biden getting indicted the day he leaves office as retribution.

This Bragg case should be enough for rational people to understand the depth of political partisanship being used to effect an election. Any red state DA could find some ledger entries and tie them to some other BS crime to make it a felony, interrupting an election. What this will lead to moving forward is local DA's going after state and federal candidates of opposition party and this will happen nonstop. Frivolous charges have always existed and doesn't need to bleed into politics. Let the people decide.

Now that doesn't mean true crime can't be adjudicated, that's why we have impeachment which could lead to charges.

 

Nope I watched every second, some were brought up by the judges.

 

I think the country could live with a rogue prosecutor before it can a rogue President

Question I have is why the SCOTUS even bother to take the case. We have two hundred plus years of history where this question was never even raised, it was a given that no one was above the law, and only four years ago the Court the ruled unanimously that the NY AG could subpoena Trump’s taxes, that he wasn’t protected by the Imperial President theory

 

As was mentioned, not likely, the Court will bounce it back to a lower Court and it will ping pong beyond that past the election, they are determined that Trump never faces trial

 

And you expect that same political body to not politicize a law for the same thing you're talking about? Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

LoL

Cons can't even file impeachment articles when they've been investigating Biden for 3 years....

 

Actually it was raised, which is why lefties hollered so much. It was raised via the defense lawyers answer when he would not give an unequivocal "no" or "yes" to the question asked.

And yes, Biden could do that...but he'd better have the proof, or he could be impeached and charged.

 

Sorry, but my argument applies to ALL Presidents. Even Biden.

 

IMO the actions of Trump relative to the electoral college were done as president. But here is where the rub lies. If an ex-president doesn't get immunity for "non-presidential" actions then every ex-president with the opposition now in the white house and running the DOJ will be exposed to a ton of criminal investigations and prosecutions over things that 'weren't really presidential" far beyond the very few that are obviously clear and convincing without a reasonable doubt.

 

We are talking hypothetically here, but do you think a Congress is going to even think of starting impeachment hearings after the President they want to investigate just assassinated a political rival?

Impeachment has been regulated to just another political gimmick, and establishing guilt of impeached charges nearly impossible for the same reasons

 

People in power never order a coup, but it's a valid quesfion to the point so I'll play along. Your very question is the crux of the rub. That is if an ex-president does not have immunity for "non-presidential" actions he will face a ton of investigations and prosecutions by the opposition claiming this or that action was "not really presidential."

 

Of course we're talking hypothetically here. You think the President could actually stop such from happening? Even with such a threat? And still somehow stay in power? Or not be assassinated himself?

And yes, impeachment right now is regulated to that, but that does not mean it cannot be used for meaningful things also.

 

Not if one of the two chambers is controlled by the party of the POTUS.

How cool is immunity?

 

How does initiating a scheme to create false electors in select States after those States own certification authorities approved the properly elected electors an official Presidential act? According to the Constitution the Executive Branch has no role in the election system

 

Yes, ain’t a whole lot of profiles in courage in the Congress and any President that would go to the extremes of assassinating political rivals ain’t going to be intimidated by legislators

And I’d also disagree on impeachment, today, it means nothing, just another vehicle for some to gain media attention

 

So how is trying to userp the electoral college a protected act ?

And your asking why a president doesn't get full immunity for “non-presidential acts” ? Is that a serious question ?

Here IS a serious question: Should a sitting president have immunity for assassinating his political rival in an election ?

The constitution starts with “We the people”, not “he the president”

 

Obama did this during his administration and it came up during oral arguments. The attorney defending Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump said a president is immune from murder charges if their administration says it's okay. They don't have to charge anyone, they don't need permission from a court, etc. They can secretly decide to have a hit list of American dissidents and have them taken out in their beds.

This was Biden's DoJ attorney making this argument at the Supreme Court. They also said the initial ruling from Chutkan and the appellate ruling were fatally flawed and they made no attempt to defend them.

 

That thought has been echoed repeatedly, even in yesterday’s hearing, but you have to ask yourself, why now, why after two hundred plus years of history, forty six Presidents, why now are we talking Presidential immunity? Presidential immunity is not in the Constitution, the consensus thought is that no one is above the law, so why is this now a question that has to be redefined?

And the flip side would be what does any newly elected President even think would restrict him from doing anything he wanted seeing he was immune from any consequences?

 

Anwar al-Awlaki was a political rival of Obama?