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

Trump challenged the electoral college vote, something that is done all the time by both parties

That is one of the very few examples that are obviously clear and convincing without a reasonable doubt. My concern is over the other millions of examples that are very fuzzy and mushy and subject to the whims of politicians.

 

Or their not lame an impeach a president for a hangnail knowing it won't lead to conviction for political purposes..

 

Challenges have to be done by following the Rule of Law and in a court of law. Every court challenge could not qualify due to no standing or lack of factual evidence. You are in a very weak position on this path your rhetoric is following.

 

Politicians always are involved, discuss, complain about and challenge election systems -- happens all the time. It is rare that an electoral college is not challenged, and the challengers seldom get challenged themselves and never get prosecuted....... until Trump.

 

The Supreme Court’s Farce and Ruse

Friends,

Yesterday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court about Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for inciting an insurrection was a farce and a ruse.

A farce because the Republican appointees to the court suggested that presidents have some level of immunity — certainly for official actions well within the duties of the office. But this case clearly isn’t about official action within the duties of the office. This case is whether presidents have immunity for instigating an insurrection seeking to overturn the results of an election.

No matter. The Republican appointees to the court then explored how to decide which actions are official and which are purely private.

It was a ruse because the Republican appointees to the court know full well that if they return the immunity case to the lower courts to decide whether instigating an insurrection is within the official duties of a president, and whether a test should consider Trump’s motives or purely objective facts, they’ll delay the underlying case so long that it won’t be tried before the election. This would give Trump the opportunity, if elected, to appoint as attorney general a loyalist who will drop the charges against him.

Justice Samuel Alito — the most dangerous and deceitful Republican appointee on the court (he wrote the Dobbs decision, brazenly reversing Roe v. Wade) — said that “a stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully.”

Hello? Surely Trump’s insurrection destabilized American democracy more than special prosector Jack Smith’s attempt to hold Trump accountable for it.

The case before the justices is whether inciting an insurrection is a prosecutable offense. Of course it is. By blowing it up into something else, the Republican justices are blowing up Trump’s trial — which is exactly their intention.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson visited Columbia University yesterday and demanded that President Biden call in the National Guard to college campuses to quell mass protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

Johnson called the protests “dangerous,” and warned that “if this is not contained quickly and if these threats and intimidation are not stopped, there is an appropriate time for the National Guard.”

Rubbish. Failure to hold accountable a president who instigated a violent insurrection is dangerous to the future stability of American democracy. Peaceful protests on college campuses about America’s complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza reflect the strength of American democracy.

True. But then Alito had the chutzpah to claim that if a president thought he might be prosecuted for whatever he did to cling to office — including inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol — he would likely keep clinging by any means possible. Ergo, according to Alito’s upside-down logic, the possibility of post-presidential prosecution could “lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy.”

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/110204/the-supreme-court-s-farce-and-ruse

 

Trump says Biden is the most corrupt President in US history.

Why can't his House lackeys find any evidence of that?

 

The Constitution implies in the impeachment clause that it is possible to criminally prosecute an ex-president for some action he took while president. This was commonly understood and accepted for only maybe once in a century egregious and atrocious acts and it has never come up, for one no president was ever found guilty of impeachment and removed from office. It never crossed anybody's mind. Until the political hatred for Trump weaponized the justice system against him in an attempt to lose the election for him if not literally destroy him, and all the commonly accepted practices were thrown out the window because Trump's enemies are not inhibited by any law, rule, or custom. So they thought this might work, laws, rules, and customs be damned. That is why after 200 years we are now discussing presidential immunity.

By the way, no one is above the law is a catchy phrase but not 100% accurate. The president cannot be charged while president. Congresspeople cannot be charged while they are on the Capitol grounds for instance.

 

The court is not deciding if inciting an insurrection is a prosecutable offense [for Trump] because Trump has not been charged with conducting and insurrection let alone inciting one. Probably because Trump did not incite an insurrection. Kind of an interesting post except your foundational premise is bass ackwards.

 

Biden insinuates his uncle was eaten by cannibals and son died in war. What's your point?

 

No he didnt “challange it”. That’s completely BS.

He tried to get Mike Pence to usurp the electoral college…

The idea that he tried to “challange it” is ridiculous on its face.

There is nothing “mushy” or “funky” about the EC. It pretty clear cut. You may want to read up on it and how it actually works

 

My point is that Biden isn't a criminal.

Whereas Trump has been arrested for 4 criminal cases.

 

by democratic party hacks

 

No Trump's been arrested by biden goons to keep trump from running against him. The ole Venezuela playbook at its finest.

 

Only in the sense that he was President once upon a time Trying to illegally steal the election is not a duty given to the President.

 

There’s a massive conspiracy. George Soros is paying thousands of conspiracists off. Hillary is then eating them.

 

I really like your sources and facts.

 

You forget to mention that no case has been dismissed by any judge.

They're part of the conspiracy too....

 

Apparently, the vast conspiracy continues to grow!

 

He very definitely worked to change the election outcome to be counter to what people voted.

 

But zero Presidents have ever took part in a scheme to construct fake electors

 

So no one ever even thought of absolute Presidential immunity till Trump came along? That doesn’t tell you something about Trump?

And forget the persecution of Trump, no one can participate in a scheme to circumvent the election process by constructing their own set of State without expecting consequences. Nor can one steal, then deny having, and later fight to keep, top secret documents and walk away without repercussions. We don’t live in a society minus laws

 

I do not believe there are issues undecided at the USSC level.

There are no prosecutorial mistakes concerning Trump and whether he may be charged.

His attempted coup and his hush money crimes are not covered presidential duties of state. They were campaign crimes.

 

Yes, but in doing so, they will make rulings which Biden can then use in the exercise of Presidential power.

 

The expression is, 'You cant eat your cake and have it too.'

I don't care how a Law is politicised. Just get a Law in place so the World knows what the USA stands for...you know, as being a State which has authorised POTUS to take out a opponent in described circumstances.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it