Trump thinks a (not just him, but any) President should have absolute immunity?
Does anyone on here agree with him, and if so, why?
Does anyone on here agree with him, and if so, why?
Question.....
- Thread starter mitchelldawg
- Start date
Of course not, but it’s telling that he is making that play. It’s indicative of the extent of his legal peril.
Jack Smith has mentioned the specific scenario of a president selling nuclear secrets in three separate filings. I doubt that’s by chance.
Jack Smith Mentions Selling Nuclear Secrets. Again.
In Jack Smith’s response to Trump’s motion to dismiss the Espionage and Obstruction charges against him because he enjoys some sort of absolute presidential immunity, the government mentions a hypothetical where a former president steals and then sells national defense informatio
post.news
For official acts as president? yes
For acts as a candidate? Absolutely not.
To give a president absolute immunity would remove any check on the executive branch...because at that point I don't think you could even impeach and convict the president (not that that is an easy task as we have now seen 3 attempts in 25 years and all spectacularly fail).
But if that's what folks want, get ready to keep your mouth shut about Biden or any future president. Unintended consequences and all...
Honestly I understand what he is getting at. It has been an unwritten rule up until Pandora’s box was opened by the left. There was more respect for the office. No one should be above the law. Most of what is happening to him if not all is purely political. None of it happens if he retired to maro largo. Maybe the doc case is explored only because this has tripped up other presidents as well.
People ran for office on suing Trump. A former president. How does anyone deny it is not political just for that reason. I don’t believe presidents should be given immunity domestically, but I don’t want a president sued later for a decision he made overseas. Or here when something like 9-11 happens. Honestly, I don’t want someone sued for how they handle the border crises if elected. Within reason. It is a slippery slope. Where is the line drawn? It is an interesting question for sure.
What has been created now is an open opportunity to come after the president. You think that gold star family man protesting at the capital will not sue Biden. He is directly responsible for his son’s death. Laken Riley? His policy is directly responsible for her death. IMO. Indirectly at worse. The zeal to get the Orangeman has put us here. More to come. I don’t want to see any freaking whining about it either Mitchell.
I am going to be putting the above in threads today. Never forget Joe. Haha. You can’t make this up. He is our president. Drugs wore off. Lincoln Riley and never forget July 6th in a matter of days.
Last edited:
While in office......yes. Support whatever the laws/constitution are at the time. Don't believe in changing the laws to benefit someone.
Provision:
Article II, Section 4 provides for which crimes the President shall be removed from office by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 specifies that a President impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate is nevertheless “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment according to Law.”
See that but he was not convicted by the Senate. So all the BS the House put forward was exactly what it was a bunch of BS.
Thanks for posting information that any high school graduate should know like the back of their hand. But it is obviously news to the inquiring democRAT.
Don't see how you can't have absolute immunity as President, with the check and balance being impeachment.
If we don't grant President's absolute immunity i would assume Biden is liable for any deaths of American Citizen's by illegal immigrants on US soil because he chose not to enforce Border Laws. I fairly sure some DA is Texas is sitting on ready to have arrest warrants out for Biden second he leaves office. I can see it now, Biden stepping off his helicopter down in Delaware in January of 2025 and the Texas Rangers slapping cuffs on him, fairly sure none of us want that to occur.
I understand folks saying no one is above the law, it sounds good, but fairly sure every President during my lifetime has operated in the gray area at the very least which could put them in legal peril. I'm not a lawyer but that is how i see it.............
Maybe he decided to start investigating Bill Clinton?Of course not, but it’s telling that he is making that play. It’s indicative of the extent of his legal peril.
Jack Smith has mentioned the specific scenario of a president selling nuclear secrets in three separate filings. I doubt that’s by chance.
Jack Smith Mentions Selling Nuclear Secrets. Again.
In Jack Smith’s response to Trump’s motion to dismiss the Espionage and Obstruction charges against him because he enjoys some sort of absolute presidential immunity, the government mentions a hypothetical where a former president steals and then sells national defense informatiopost.news
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/25/time/china.missles.html
But on a more serious note, no a POTUS/former Potus shouldn't have total blanket but they should have a very wide berth. We offer foreign diplomats immunity so I would suggest a former POTUS be granted something very close or you run the risk of democracy being destroyed by functionaries wielding power over their elected superiors.
There is a very broad argument against presidential immunity, but Jack Smith has limited his focus to two primary areas.
Post-Term Immunity:
- Smith contends that a former president cannot cite immunity once they have left office.
- Committing crimes does not fall under the scope of their presidential duties.
- Therefore, Trump’s actions during his tenure should not shield him from prosecution after leaving office1.
- The charges filed under Smith’s investigation relate to alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election and events leading up to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
- These charges are not tied to official acts performed during Trump’s time in office.
- Consequently, Smith argues that immunity does not apply to criminal conduct unrelated to presidential duties1.
so you believe Trump should not be able to run for president?
libs=witch hunt
why- scared as F
libs=witch hunt
why- scared as F
I would concur with your first argument. Post presidency all immunity is off.
The 2nd argument seems to be getting into muddy water to me. Seems like that is what impeachment was set up to do. For record, i thought Trump crossed line related to time between election and electoral college certification. Alternate electors was silly and unbecoming and way past the gray area. Just think we are getting on a slippery slope here. Similar to directing your border folks NOT to enforce the law.
The slope has always been slippery in regard to exPOTUS. But to start allowing vendettas (such as elected officials like Bragg who ran on a platform of "getting Trump") is not an option. Neither is weaponization of federal law enforcement by the party in power such as the sinister moves behind the Jack Smith bullshit.
If it is, then every POTUS will face prosecution after serving. That's virtually guaranteed. It is not a practical or manageable path going forward. Hate for Trump, Biden or any other president cannot be allowed to rule the day.
SCOTUS must review the immunity case in minute detail and they will. They will know exactly what they are looking at relative to the future and they will know from whence the charges came as well as how many presidents have done the same things and not been prosecuted (almost all of them). They will consider that because that is precedent. In or out of court, precedent matters.
My best guess is that SCOTUS will rely heavily on 14.3 and then use common sense. Our laws are rooted in english common law which in turn was based on prevailing common sense. That is an oversimplification but nevertheless generally accurate.
It is a guess, but since no impeachment and removal took place, it will be very difficult to prosecute the former president for anything done before he left office and considering POTUS powers to declassify, that case will not procede.
Also, the Jan 6th accusations were falsified by ommiting exculpitory evidence beforehand. SCOTUS has to examine everything involved there and the case appears very shakey. It will be interesting to see how they come down there. Perhaps 14.3 will simply dismiss it without further comment from SCOTUS. But the improprieties/illegal acts used to bring it in the first place are glaring.
The NY civil judgement has no injured party. It will be overturned.
But, that's a different discussion.
No, every POTUS will not face prosecution, because every POTUS has not and will not do what Trump has done, unless of course he gets a free pass from the justice system. Then we will in effect be encouraging criminal behavior in office because there can never be accountability.
We've made it 230 years without this being a problem for a reason, and it's exactly why we have to see these indictments through to completion, whether the verdict is guilty or not.
Trump has not been indicted for policy choices or discharging the duties of the office of the presidency, which is the scenario you are suggesting. Trump has been indicted by four different grand juries for criminal behavior. He has no more or less rights than you, me or any other US citizen.
