The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to hear Donald Trump’s claim that as a former president he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution...

[WVU82]

Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump presidential immunity appeal

The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to hear Donald Trump's claim that as a former president he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution, as the 2024

insiderpaper.com

The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to hear Donald Trump’s claim that as a former president he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution, as the 2024 White House candidate faces dozens of state and federal charges.

The court scheduled arguments in the high-stakes case for the week of April 22 and said Trump’s trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election would remain on hold for now.

Trump had been scheduled to go on trial for election interference on March 4 but the proceedings have been frozen as his presidential immunity claim wound its way through the courts.

The Supreme Court said it would address the question of “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

It will be among the most consequential election law cases to reach the court since it halted the Florida vote recount in 2000 with Republican George W. Bush narrowly leading Democrat Al Gore.

A three-judge appeals court panel ruled earlier this month that the 77-year-old Trump has no immunity from prosecution as a former president.

Trump’s claim to be immune from criminal liability for actions he took while in the White House is “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution,” the judges said in a unanimous opinion.

“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” they said.

The ruling was a major legal setback for Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and the first ex-president to be criminally indicted.

The appeals court put the immunity ruling on hold to give Trump the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Special Counsel Jack Smith filed the election conspiracy case against Trump in August and had been pushing hard for the March start date for his trial.

Lawyers for the former president have sought repeatedly to delay the trial until after the November election, when Trump could potentially have all of the federal cases against him dropped if he wins the White House again.

 

[WVU82]

 

[atlkvb]

It's going to be ruled in his favor (immunity) for one reason. No President could ever be assured in the future that simply carrying out his official duties as President couldn't one day be used against him once he leaves Office! There is a reason we don't prosecute sitting Presidents, that principle will be upheld by the SUPCO to protect him after he leaves Office too.

Bank on it.

 

[WVU82]

 

[ThePunish-EER]

It's going to be ruled in his favor (immunity) for one reason. No President could ever be assured in the future that simply carrying out his official duties as President couldn't one day be used against him once he leaves Office! There is a reason we don't prosecute sitting Presidents, that principle will be upheld by the SUPCO to protect him after he leaves Office too.

Bank on it.

Yes, it’s common sense to everyone except for those wishing to stop Trump.

 

[WVU82]

 

[spartansstink]

It's going to be ruled in his favor (immunity) for one reason. No President could ever be assured in the future that simply carrying out his official duties as President couldn't one day be used against him once he leaves Office! There is a reason we don't prosecute sitting Presidents, that principle will be upheld by the SUPCO to protect him after he leaves Office too.

Bank on it.

It's not near that simple.

We have this concept called rule of law for a reason. No person holding office, up to and including the President, is free from prosecution for allegedly committing criminal acts while in office (Of course, while he is STILL in office he can't face prosecution, he certainly can after leaving office). That is the gist of THIS case - not whether he's guilty or not guilty.

There are numerous precedents in our history. None that I'm aware have come down in favor of the defendant. The court can't make their decision based upon what they feel the outcome MIGHT one day create - they can only base it upon the interpretation of the law.

I feel they will uphold the finding of the appeals court. Trump will have his day in district court just like anyone else and a jury of his peers will have to determine his guilt on the charges as they are presented.

 

[atlkvb]

It's not near that simple.

We have this concept called rule of law for a reason. No person holding office, up to and including the President, is free from prosecution for allegedly committing criminal acts while in office (Of course, while he is STILL in office he can't face prosecution, he certainly can after leaving office). That is the gist of THIS case - not whether he's guilty or not guilty.

There are numerous precedents in our history. None that I'm aware have come down in favor of the defendant. The court can't make their decision based upon what they feel the outcome MIGHT one day create - they can only base it upon the interpretation of the law.

I feel they will uphold the finding of the appeals court. Trump will have his day in district court just like anyone else and a jury of his peers will have to determine his guilt on the charges as they are presented.

It's a fair argument, however in my mind "criminality" can't equate to a President simply doing due diligence to faithfully execute the Laws and/or uphold them. Leftists have been clever to characterize Trump's challenges of the '20 election results as "criminal" but that same behavior did not draw "criminal" calls from anyone on their side who challenged the results of the '16 election, the '04 election, or the 2000 election. They even illegally spied on him after the '16 election, who did we prosecute for that?

We have a process in place to prosecute criminal behavior by a President while he's in Office. If Leftists thought Trump was engaged in criminal behavior while he was in Office, then that's the time they should have pressed their case through the impeachment protocol. They certainly didn't hesitate to impeach him over a phone call! Instead, they wait until 3 years later after he's announced his intention to try & regain his job when they decide to accuse him of engaging in crimes while he was still President simply challenging what he believed to be illegal activity compiling the '20 election results!

I don't think the Supreme Court will allow it. It's certainly never been done to a previous President (prosecuting him after he leaves office for his actions while he was in Office) and I believe the high Court will agree it would set a dangerous precedent that would impair all future Presidents exactly as Trump argues if allowed to stand.

 

[spartansstink]

I think your arguments are more suited to the district court trial than the Supreme Court ruling. The question they have to answer is CAN he be prosecuted - not SHOULD he be prosecuted - which is more along the lines of what you are arguing. The appeals court has already ruled so unless the Supreme Court sees something legally the appeals court missed I can't see how it can be overturned.

Of course, he does have the benefit of a majority of possibly favorable justices in his corner. They could rule in his favor but I don't think it will even come down to partisan politics in this case. I've been wrong before...

 

[atlkvb]

I think your arguments are more suited to the district court trial than the Supreme Court ruling. The question they have to answer is CAN he be prosecuted - not SHOULD he be prosecuted - which is more along the lines of what you are arguing. The appeals court has already ruled so unless the Supreme Court sees something legally the appeals court missed I can't see how it can be overturned.

Of course, he does have the benefit of a majority of possibly favorable justices in his corner. They could rule in his favor but I don't think it will even come down to partisan politics in this case. I've been wrong before...

I hear 'ya, and it's a good argument. I believe in Trump's mind he's arguing CAN he be prosecuted? I know he doesn't think he should be...but we'll see? Appreciate your insight.

 

[ThePunish-EER]

It's a fair argument, however in my mind "criminality" can't equate to a President simply doing due diligence to faithfully execute the Laws and/or uphold them. Leftists have been clever to characterize Trump's challenges of the '20 election results as "criminal" but that same behavior did not draw "criminal" calls from anyone on their side who challenged the results of the '16 election, the '04 election, or the 2000 election. They even illegally spied on him after the '16 election, who did we prosecute for that?

We have a process in place to prosecute criminal behavior by a President while he's in Office. If Leftists thought Trump was engaged in criminal behavior while he was in Office, then that's the time they should have pressed their case through the impeachment protocol. They certainly didn't hesitate to impeach him over a phone call! Instead, they wait until 3 years later after he's announced his intention to try & regain his job when they decide to accuse him of engaging in crimes while he was still President simply challenging what he believed to be illegal activity compiling the '20 election results!

I don't think the Supreme Court will allow it. It's certainly never been done to a previous President (prosecuting him after he leaves office for his actions while he was in Office) and I believe the high Court will agree it would set a dangerous precedent that would impair all future Presidents exactly as Trump argues if allowed to stand.

I think your arguments are more suited to the district court trial than the Supreme Court ruling. The question they have to answer is CAN he be prosecuted - not SHOULD he be prosecuted - which is more along the lines of what you are arguing. The appeals court has already ruled so unless the Supreme Court sees something legally the appeals court missed I can't see how it can be overturned.

Of course, he does have the benefit of a majority of possibly favorable justices in his corner. They could rule in his favor but I don't think it will even come down to partisan politics in this case. I've been wrong before...

It’s silly to even consider the idea. As atlkvb said, the only avenue to prosecute a president holding office is through impeachment and senate hearings. They tried that. Impeachment worked. The senate did not. However, a president must have complete immunity. Otherwise, every president in US history would be charged and convicted. Especially in wartime for authorizing murder. Hiroshima?

 

[atlkvb]

It’s silly to even consider the idea. As atlkvb said, the only avenue to prosecute a president holding office is through impeachment and senate hearings. They tried that. Impeachment worked. The senate did not. However, a president must have complete immunity. Otherwise, every president in US history would be charged and convicted. Especially in wartime for authorizing murder. Hiroshima?

It's an important question...similar to if individual States can remove a Presidential candidate from their ballot over something he's not even been charged with? There's a whole different set of rules for the Left when it comes to Trump, so we really need the SUPCO to weigh in on all of this nonsense and set the standard, otherwise they'll accuse him of illegally breathing!

 

[spartansstink]

It’s silly to even consider the idea. As atlkvb said, the only avenue to prosecute a president holding office is through impeachment and senate hearings. They tried that. Impeachment worked. The senate did not. However, a president must have complete immunity. Otherwise, every president in US history would be charged and convicted. Especially in wartime for authorizing murder. Hiroshima?

To help illustrate my point, let me use the following silly scenario:

Old Joe is secretly having an affair with Taylor Swift. After secreting her into the White House one night for a late night tryst, he kills her with his passionate lovemaking. Knowing that no one knows where she's at or been, he buries her in the Rose Garden.

It's not until next year at this time that her body is found.

Now the question? Can Joe be brought up on charges?

If we go with your beliefs, then the answer is no. Since he wasn't impeached, Old Joe can ride off into the sunset on his mobility scooter scot free for the rest of his life.

My belief is yes he can. It all depends upon whether the President was acting as one of the many roles he takes on (Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief, Chief Diplomat, etc.) or as a private citizen. If he's acting in a role, then he cannot except by impeachment. If he's acting as a citizen, then yes he can.

My belief is that on Jan. 6 Trump was acting as Citizen Trump rather than President Trump. Of course, the courts may see it otherwise, as many of you do.

 

[atlkvb]

To help illustrate my point, let me use the following silly scenario:

Old Joe is secretly having an affair with Taylor Swift. After secreting her into the White House one night for a late night tryst, he kills her with his passionate lovemaking. Knowing that no one knows where she's at or been, he buries her in the Rose Garden.

It's not until next year at this time that her body is found.

Now the question? Can Joe be brought up on charges?

If we go with your beliefs, then the answer is no. Since he wasn't impeached, Old Joe can ride off into the sunset on his mobility scooter scot free for the rest of his life.

My belief is yes he can. It all depends upon whether the President was acting as one of the many roles he takes on (Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief, Chief Diplomat, etc.) or as a private citizen. If he's acting in a role, then he cannot except by impeachment. If he's acting as a citizen, then yes he can.

My belief is that on Jan. 6 Trump was acting as Citizen Trump rather than President Trump. Of course, the courts may see it otherwise, as many of you do.

Good analogy. But the key you mentioned was "acting in his official duty". As hard as it is for me to imagine creepy Joe bangin' Taylor Swift, that wasn't in his official capacity as Commander-in-Chief! Creep in Chief...maybe.😉

Remember Trump was impeached "while acting as President" for allegedly inciting a riot on Jan 6th. If his alleged attempts to "overturn" the election were that obvious while he was still acting as President, why was he also not charged then with "election interference"? Why did Dems wait fully 3 years until after he announced his intentions to run again to charge him?

Ironically the one charge they scream the loudest, that he sparked an "insurrection" he's never been charged with! Your scenario involves statutory rape and/or murder. If he felt Taylor threatened him or blackmailed him trying to keep him from carrying out his official duty as President, maybe he wouldn't be charged?

However that creep wouldn't have the pleasure of getting within 10 feet of Taylor to even sniff her hair and if he did, he wouldn't have ridden off on a scooter after their encounter. She would have caused him to have a stroke trying to "do" her 🤣

Your point is well made, but doesn't apply here in my opinion because Trump's argument is he indeed was acting in his official duty as President concerned the election was not fully legal. That’s not a crime, that's him trying to assure the election Laws are followed.

 

[ThePunish-EER]

To help illustrate my point, let me use the following silly scenario:

Old Joe is secretly having an affair with Taylor Swift. After secreting her into the White House one night for a late night tryst, he kills her with his passionate lovemaking. Knowing that no one knows where she's at or been, he buries her in the Rose Garden.

It's not until next year at this time that her body is found.

Now the question? Can Joe be brought up on charges?

If we go with your beliefs, then the answer is no. Since he wasn't impeached, Old Joe can ride off into the sunset on his mobility scooter scot free for the rest of his life.

My belief is yes he can. It all depends upon whether the President was acting as one of the many roles he takes on (Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief, Chief Diplomat, etc.) or as a private citizen. If he's acting in a role, then he cannot except by impeachment. If he's acting as a citizen, then yes he can.

My belief is that on Jan. 6 Trump was acting as Citizen Trump rather than President Trump. Of course, the courts may see it otherwise, as many of you do.

Having an affair in the WH isn’t part of the job. And Jan 6 wasn’t directed by Trump. He never asked for anyone to storm the Capitol. He asked for a peaceful protest. That’s it. Your analogy was way off.

 

[bornaneer]

I don't think that the SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor.

 

[atlkvb]

I don't think that the SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor.

I do not believe they want to be responsible for all of the chaos or "election interference" if they fail to put a temporary halt to all of the ongoing Lawfare. I think they'd rather let voters decide if Trump deserves to be elected or prosecuted? If he loses, then I don't think they will stop any future prosecutions of him as a private citizen. If he wins, it becomes a moot point! So I think they will simply suspend all ongoing litigations until voters decide the election.

That in effect becomes a win for Trump if they decide to suspend all pending legal actions until after the election.

 

[Falstaff]

To help illustrate my point, let me use the following silly scenario:

Old Joe is secretly having an affair with Taylor Swift. After secreting her into the White House one night for a late night tryst, he kills her with his passionate lovemaking. Knowing that no one knows where she's at or been, he buries her in the Rose Garden.

It's not until next year at this time that her body is found.

Now the question? Can Joe be brought up on charges?

If we go with your beliefs, then the answer is no. Since he wasn't impeached, Old Joe can ride off into the sunset on his mobility scooter scot free for the rest of his life.

My belief is yes he can. It all depends upon whether the President was acting as one of the many roles he takes on (Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief, Chief Diplomat, etc.) or as a private citizen. If he's acting in a role, then he cannot except by impeachment. If he's acting as a citizen, then yes he can.

My belief is that on Jan. 6 Trump was acting as Citizen Trump rather than President Trump. Of course, the courts may see it otherwise, as many of you do.

You lost me at "he kills her with his passionate lovemaking". 🤣🤣🤣

 

[ThePunish-EER]

I don't think that the SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor.

Let’s seriously take a minute to put down the msm narrative and truly think rationally. What exactly has been factually proven that warrants Trump being removed from the ballot for January 6? That’s where the SCOTUS comes in to look at whether the original ruling was unjust. It’s not about which political party wants him on the ballot or off the ballot. It’s about evidence. And the known evidence that’s been proven by video of that day shows Trump asking for peaceful protests of the questionable election results. There is nothing illegal about that. And specifically, the president of the US is immune. That’s factual for the history of every US president in office. The question is, what is the case here? Democrats attempting to go against this tradition? Is that the basis here? To prove US tradition of presidential immunity was wrong and Trump is wrong for pointing that out? They’ve thrown everything at Trump from every direction, nobody even can keep track of what exactly the case is. This reason alone is why the SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor. This is purely a political witch hunt and election interference. The American people know this

 

[bornaneer]

Let’s seriously take a minute to put down the msm narrative and truly think rationally. What exactly has been factually proven that warrants Trump being removed from the ballot for January 6? That’s where the SCOTUS comes in to look at whether the original ruling was unjust. It’s not about which political party wants him on the ballot or off the ballot. It’s about evidence. And the known evidence that’s been proven by video of that day shows Trump asking for peaceful protests of the questionable election results. There is nothing illegal about that. And specifically, the president of the US is immune. That’s factual for the history of every US president in office. The question is, what is the case here? Democrats attempting to go against this tradition? Is that the basis here? To prove US tradition of presidential immunity was wrong and Trump is wrong for pointing that out? They’ve thrown everything at Trump from every direction, nobody even can keep track of what exactly the case is. This reason alone is why the SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor. This is purely a political witch hunt and election interference. The American people know this

I agree with everything you say....BUT...I don't think he will be able to claim immunity.
We both know this is and all the other cases in the last few years are nothing but a witch hunt.
However,,,much of the American public believes what the daily anti Trump media is feeding them.

 

[ThePunish-EER]

I agree with everything you say....BUT...I don't think he will be able to claim immunity.
We both know this is and all the other cases in the last few years are nothing but a witch hunt.
However,,,much of the American public believes what the daily anti Trump media is feeding them.

I believe the SCOTUS will look at this and say,

1.) “Do we really want to put every POTUS in the history of the US and every future POTUS on trial?”

2.) “What exactly is the evidence against Trump?”

Remember, the SCOTUS doesn’t investigate or cross examine. They only want to make sure that was already done properly and ruled correctly based on the evidence already provided. And also decide if the ruling did or didnt violate anyone’s constitutional rights. This alone is the reason Trump will win the case. There’s no evidence Trump did anything wrong or illegal. His rights were definitively violated.

 

[atlkvb]

I believe the SCOTUS will look at this and say,

1.) “Do we really want to put every POTUS in the history of the US and every future POTUS on trial?”

2.) “What exactly is the evidence against Trump?”

Remember, the SCOTUS doesn’t investigate or cross examine. They only want to make sure that was already done properly and ruled correctly based on the evidence already provided. And also decide if the ruling did or didnt violate anyone’s constitutional rights. This alone is the reason Trump will win the case. There’s no evidence Trump did anything wrong or illegal. His rights were definitively violated.

I think this is exactly why the New York case is overturned on appeal. The Jan 6th case not only shows no violations of law as @ThePunish-EER correctly points out, but selective enforcement of it. If the SUPCO rules it's OK to prosecute Trump for simply questioning the '20 results, then we should go back and prosecute Hillary and Obama's corrupt DOJ for the Russian collusion scam and illegal spying after the '16 election!

 

[spartansstink]

Let’s seriously take a minute to put down the msm narrative and truly think rationally. What exactly has been factually proven that warrants Trump being removed from the ballot for January 6? That’s where the SCOTUS comes in to look at whether the original ruling was unjust. It’s not about which political party wants him on the ballot or off the ballot. It’s about evidence. And the known evidence that’s been proven by video of that day shows Trump asking for peaceful protests of the questionable election results. There is nothing illegal about that. And specifically, the president of the US is immune. That’s factual for the history of every US president in office. The question is, what is the case here? Democrats attempting to go against this tradition? Is that the basis here? To prove US tradition of presidential immunity was wrong and Trump is wrong for pointing that out? They’ve thrown everything at Trump from every direction, nobody even can keep track of what exactly the case is. This reason alone is why the SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor. This is purely a political witch hunt and election interference. The American people know this

You're confusing the issues. The question the Supreme Court will hear is this, and only this: Does the President have complete immunity from actions he takes while POTUS?

It isn't about ballots, evidence, protests, or tweets. That's a separate trial that has been placed on hold until the question above gets answered.

It's a constitutional question. Thus, judicial review...

Clearly, the answer is no. Although constitutionally the only way to remove a SITTING President is through impeachment, that clearly doesn't apply to a former POTUS removed from office.

What's the justification? I'll list several...

1) If allowed, all Biden has to do is wait until Jan. 18 or 19th, then order the military to shoot Trump's plane down while he's flying into Reagan or Dulles or pick him off on the tarmac or send a missile into Mar a Lago a day or two before. In essence, the POTUS could kill off his political enemies with abandon, without fear of prosecution for any wrongdoing.

2) it violates the fundamental principles our government and constitution were built upon:
a) consent of the governed - he takes away the people's voice and power because he can overthrow any election with a simple order to take out political enemies
b) rule of law - everyone in office, even the POTUS, must follow the same laws as his constituents. Those criminal allegations follow you where ever you go, and political office is no safe harbor for criminality
c) limited government - the POTUS becomes all-powerful, able to do what he wants at his own whim, the people be damned
d) representative government, separation of powers, checks and balances, democracy - all erased.

To summarize, if the President has total immunity, the President becomes a dictator answerable to no one but himself.

Trump's arguments for immunity fall flat. District and Appeals Courts have already stated unanimously as such. His slippery slope fallacy is just that - a fallacy.

If his case is so airtight, as most of you (and he) believe, then he should want and welcome his day in court. Get it on and over with so that he can get on with winning the election in November free and clear, which he should easily do. Unless, you folks get your way, the SCOTUS overturns the appeal court's decision, and Biden decides to "take him out" for the betterment of the country - and get away with it - because you're all so sure you're right.

 

[atlkvb]

You're confusing the issues. The question the Supreme Court will hear is this, and only this: Does the President have complete immunity from actions he takes while POTUS?

It isn't about ballots, evidence, protests, or tweets. That's a separate trial that has been placed on hold until the question above gets answered.

It's a constitutional question. Thus, judicial review...

Clearly, the answer is no. Although constitutionally the only way to remove a SITTING President is through impeachment, that clearly doesn't apply to a former POTUS removed from office.

What's the justification? I'll list several...

1) If allowed, all Biden has to do is wait until Jan. 18 or 19th, then order the military to shoot Trump's plane down while he's flying into Reagan or Dulles or pick him off on the tarmac or send a missile into Mar a Lago a day or two before. In essence, the POTUS could kill off his political enemies with abandon, without fear of prosecution for any wrongdoing.

2) it violates the fundamental principles our government and constitution were built upon:
a) consent of the governed - he takes away the people's voice and power because he can overthrow any election with a simple order to take out political enemies
b) rule of law - everyone in office, even the POTUS, must follow the same laws as his constituents. Those criminal allegations follow you where ever you go, and political office is no safe harbor for criminality
c) limited government - the POTUS becomes all-powerful, able to do what he wants at his own whim, the people be damned
d) representative government, separation of powers, checks and balances, democracy - all erased.

To summarize, if the President has total immunity, the President becomes a dictator answerable to no one but himself.

Trump's arguments for immunity fall flat. District and Appeals Courts have already stated unanimously as such. His slippery slope fallacy is just that - a fallacy.

If his case is so airtight, as most of you (and he) believe, then he should want and welcome his day in court. Get it on and over with so that he can get on with winning the election in November free and clear, which he should easily do. Unless, you folks get your way, the SCOTUS overturns the appeal court's decision, and Biden decides to "take him out" for the betterment of the country - and get away with it - because you're all so sure you're right.

I do understand your argument, and as I mentioned it's correct to an extent. What is not being answered however is why now? If Trump was guilty as accused of trying to overturn results of an election, he did that WHILE IN OFFICE. Why wasn't he prosecuted for that then? That's his argument. He wouldn't have been immune then, but the only way to remedy his alleged crimes then would have been through the impeachment and removal process.

That's NOT what we're seeing here though. Dems waited until he announced his intentions to run again to accuse him of actions he allegedly committed while he was still President. They only did this in order to prevent him from seeking office again! Everyone knows that's what's going here, and in effect if the SUPCO doesn't put a stop to this selective prosecution, voters are being denied their right to pick who they want to vote for! That's a different issue from his "immunity" which I agree with you he does not have.

This is why I think the court will put a temporary halt to these Lawfare suits. So voters both get a chance to weigh in on who they want to vote for without extraneous influence from the political opposition, and Trump's right to still have his day in court is preserved. That decision in my opinion will be set aside until voters decide if he faces future prosecution after the election by defeating him in November or ultimately granting him clemency by electing him again and then watching while he pardons himself from the bogus charges?

 

[ThePunish-EER]

You're confusing the issues. The question the Supreme Court will hear is this, and only this: Does the President have complete immunity from actions he takes while POTUS?

It isn't about ballots, evidence, protests, or tweets. That's a separate trial that has been placed on hold until the question above gets answered.

It's a constitutional question. Thus, judicial review...

Clearly, the answer is no. Although constitutionally the only way to remove a SITTING President is through impeachment, that clearly doesn't apply to a former POTUS removed from office.

What's the justification? I'll list several...

1) If allowed, all Biden has to do is wait until Jan. 18 or 19th, then order the military to shoot Trump's plane down while he's flying into Reagan or Dulles or pick him off on the tarmac or send a missile into Mar a Lago a day or two before. In essence, the POTUS could kill off his political enemies with abandon, without fear of prosecution for any wrongdoing.

2) it violates the fundamental principles our government and constitution were built upon:
a) consent of the governed - he takes away the people's voice and power because he can overthrow any election with a simple order to take out political enemies
b) rule of law - everyone in office, even the POTUS, must follow the same laws as his constituents. Those criminal allegations follow you where ever you go, and political office is no safe harbor for criminality
c) limited government - the POTUS becomes all-powerful, able to do what he wants at his own whim, the people be damned
d) representative government, separation of powers, checks and balances, democracy - all erased.

To summarize, if the President has total immunity, the President becomes a dictator answerable to no one but himself.

Trump's arguments for immunity fall flat. District and Appeals Courts have already stated unanimously as such. His slippery slope fallacy is just that - a fallacy.

If his case is so airtight, as most of you (and he) believe, then he should want and welcome his day in court. Get it on and over with so that he can get on with winning the election in November free and clear, which he should easily do. Unless, you folks get your way, the SCOTUS overturns the appeal court's decision, and Biden decides to "take him out" for the betterment of the country - and get away with it - because you're all so sure you're right.

There’s already a process for that. It’s called impeachment hearings by the House. And if successful, Senate trials to convict. That’s been tried (impeachment) and unsuccessfull (Senate). End of story.

 

[atlkvb]

There’s already a process for that. It’s called impeachment hearings by the House. And if successful, Senate trials to convict. That’s been tried (impeachment) and unsuccessful (Senate). End of story.

Yes correct! Also, the court trials were timed to prevent him from waging a successful re-election campaign! It's up to the voters to decide who runs and who doesn't, not the political opposition! SUPCO will stay the appeals court rulings, and allow the election to go forward without political interference thus stopping the Lawfare.

End of story.

 

[spartansstink]

I do understand your argument, and as I mentioned it's correct to an extent. What is not being answered however is why now? If Trump was guilty as accused of trying to overturn results of an election, he did that WHILE IN OFFICE. Why wasn't he prosecuted for that then? That's his argument. He wouldn't have been immune then, but the only way to remedy his alleged crimes then would have been through the impeachment and removal process.

That's NOT what we're seeing here though. Dems waited until he announced his intentions to run again to accuse him of actions he allegedly committed while he was still President. They only did this in order to prevent him from seeking office again! Everyone knows that's what's going here, and in effect if the SUPCO doesn't put a stop to this selective prosecution, voters are being denied their right to pick who they want to vote for! That's a different issue from his "immunity" which I agree with you he does not have.

This is why I think the court will put a temporary halt to these Lawfare suits. So voters both get a chance to weigh in on who they want to vote for without extraneous influence from the political opposition, and Trump's right to still have his day in court is preserved. That decision in my opinion will be set aside until voters decide if he faces future prosecution after the election by defeating him in November or ultimately granting him clemency by electing him again and then watching while he pardons himself from the bogus charges?

First, and lets get this out of the way, everything you guys have written about why its being done is dead-on. This is sleazy, political retribution by the Democrats because they know this time they can't "beat" him at the ballot box. The courts, through "Lawfare" is their only shot to keep him off the ballot. It's a desperation move akin to dropping bombs amongst your own troops that are being overrun by the enemy.

Second, it's also true about the timing. Why weren't these charges filed by the end of 21? During 22? Why now? The answer- they are desperate. While Trump scares them, what's really terrifying is the almost messianic, fanatical support he has from so many people.

Third, let's talk about why he wasn't impeached for the supposed allegations. One has to remember that the events in question occurred on January 6th. The man was leaving office two weeks later on Jan.20. Would two weeks be enough time to gather the evidence, present the evidence, conduct the trial, and remove from him from office? A man that was leaving office anyway? Would it be worth it? How could it be justified to the American people? Plus, the constitutional question would arise - if we (Congress) don't get this done in time, can a FORMER president be impeached? There's a lot to unpack in all that...

Last, I'm not saying that what you folks are writing isn't true. It's just that the purpose for THIS hearing (to answer the constitutional question) has to come first - the CAN they before the SHOULD they. I think most all are in agreement about the should...it's just the procedural parts have to be answered first.

 

[atlkvb]

First, and lets get this out of the way, everything you guys have written about why its being done is dead-on. This is sleazy, political retribution by the Democrats because they know this time they can't "beat" him at the ballot box. The courts, through "Lawfare" is their only shot to keep him off the ballot. It's a desperation move akin to dropping bombs amongst your own troops that are being overrun by the enemy.

Second, it's also true about the timing. Why weren't these charges filed by the end of 21? During 22? Why now? The answer- they are desperate. While Trump scares them, what's really terrifying is the almost messianic, fanatical support he has from so many people.

Third, let's talk about why he wasn't impeached for the supposed allegations. One has to remember that the events in question occurred on January 6th. The man was leaving office two weeks later on Jan.20. Would two weeks be enough time to gather the evidence, present the evidence, conduct the trial, and remove from him from office? A man that was leaving office anyway? Would it be worth it? How could it be justified to the American people? Plus, the constitutional question would arise - if we (Congress) don't get this done in time, can a FORMER president be impeached? There's a lot to unpack in all that...

Last, I'm not saying that what you folks are writing isn't true. It's just that the purpose for THIS hearing (to answer the constitutional question) has to come first - the CAN they before the SHOULD they. I think most all are in agreement about the should...it's just the procedural parts have to be answered first.

I agree with this. I also do not think the Court will rule Trump is "immune" from further prosecution. They will however (IMO) rule the desperate efforts to prevent him and thus voters from making their own decisions about his political viability will be halted through a stay of these strategically timed sleazy Lawsuits.

 

[Airport]

To help illustrate my point, let me use the following silly scenario:

Old Joe is secretly having an affair with Taylor Swift. After secreting her into the White House one night for a late night tryst, he kills her with his passionate lovemaking. Knowing that no one knows where she's at or been, he buries her in the Rose Garden.

It's not until next year at this time that her body is found.

Now the question? Can Joe be brought up on charges?

If we go with your beliefs, then the answer is no. Since he wasn't impeached, Old Joe can ride off into the sunset on his mobility scooter scot free for the rest of his life.

My belief is yes he can. It all depends upon whether the President was acting as one of the many roles he takes on (Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief, Chief Diplomat, etc.) or as a private citizen. If he's acting in a role, then he cannot except by impeachment. If he's acting as a citizen, then yes he can.

My belief is that on Jan. 6 Trump was acting as Citizen Trump rather than President Trump. Of course, the courts may see it otherwise, as many of you do.

Wasn’t there a movie about this? President having an affair with a married woman. Something happens, SS runs in and shoots here. She’s the wife of a powerful Man.

 

[dave]

I don't think that the SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor.

They could rule on it. It might not be how people think. Imagine the ramifications of suggesting a president can be held criminally responsible after office. Trump did nothing illegal. Others?

 

[spartansstink]

There’s already a process for that. It’s called impeachment hearings by the House. And if successful, Senate trials to convict. That’s been tried (impeachment) and unsuccessfull (Senate). End of story.

That's a true constructivist answer. That's the question that will have to be answered next - assuming the court rules the President doesn't have immunity.

There are just procedural questions that have to be answered before they get there.

 

[atlkvb]

Wasn’t there a movie about this? President having an affair with a married woman. Something happens, SS runs in and shoots here. She’s the wife of a powerful Man.

I did NOT have Sexual relations with that woman!

Well we knew it wasn't with that Witch standing beside you slick Willie!

 

[atlkvb]

That's a true constructivist answer. That's the question that will have to be answered next - assuming the court rules the President doesn't have immunity.

There are just procedural questions that have to be answered before they get there.

You mentioned earlier Dems are afraid of the "almost Messianic" support Trump has. I honestly think it's support drawn on the disgust most folks feel over how unfair all these frivolous Lawsuits are! I believe part of the ruling the SUPCO will deliver will be to admonish and scold Dems for using the Judicial process to defeat their political opponents. If they (Justices) don't make a definitive statement about stopping that nonsense which ironically is in and of itself "election interference", then just like @dave said in post #30, who's next? It'll never stop!

I'm personally convinced Trump did nothing wrong, so I'd like to see the high Court throw out the entire case too. However I don't think legally they would be justified doing that. I do believe they are perfectly justified assuring the Courts can't be weaponized to stop political opposition which would be a far greater injustice IMO, and is EXACTLY what the Left is attempting filing these ridiculous charges just as Trump attempts to win his job back. The high Court IMO will put a stop to that caca.

Disgusting.

 

[Airport]

I did NOT have Sexual relations with that woman!

Well we knew it wasn't with that Witch standing beside you slick Willie!

The movie is Absolute Power. Book by Baldacci. Good movie and book

 

[ThePunish-EER]

First, and lets get this out of the way, everything you guys have written about why its being done is dead-on. This is sleazy, political retribution by the Democrats because they know this time they can't "beat" him at the ballot box. The courts, through "Lawfare" is their only shot to keep him off the ballot. It's a desperation move akin to dropping bombs amongst your own troops that are being overrun by the enemy.

Second, it's also true about the timing. Why weren't these charges filed by the end of 21? During 22? Why now? The answer- they are desperate. While Trump scares them, what's really terrifying is the almost messianic, fanatical support he has from so many people.

Third, let's talk about why he wasn't impeached for the supposed allegations. One has to remember that the events in question occurred on January 6th. The man was leaving office two weeks later on Jan.20. Would two weeks be enough time to gather the evidence, present the evidence, conduct the trial, and remove from him from office? A man that was leaving office anyway? Would it be worth it? How could it be justified to the American people? Plus, the constitutional question would arise - if we (Congress) don't get this done in time, can a FORMER president be impeached? There's a lot to unpack in all that...

Last, I'm not saying that what you folks are writing isn't true. It's just that the purpose for THIS hearing (to answer the constitutional question) has to come first - the CAN they before the SHOULD they. I think most all are in agreement about the should...it's just the procedural parts have to be answered first.

I think what is missing here is the fact Trump was still the president during Jan 6. Again, immunity. Again, he asked for peaceful protesting. Again, he was already impeached for this and acquitted by the Senate. There’s nothing illegal here that’s proven. Did Trump operate some undercover operation to storm the Capitol? While most likely not, the facts are it hasn’t been proven. And this idea only originated from wishful thinking from the msm and Democrats to use against Trump. Everything you hear from them is all THEIR ideas and interpretations from libtard fantasy land. This color revolution is driven by an ideology if they say it enough, you will eventually be brainwashed into believing it. That’s the goal. All so you won’t check Trump at the ballot box in November.

 

[atlkvb]

I think what is missing here is the fact Trump was still the president during Jan 6. Again, immunity. Again, he asked for peaceful protesting. Again, he was already impeached for this and acquitted by the Senate. There’s nothing illegal here that’s proven. Did Trump operate some undercover operation to storm the Capitol? While most likely not, the facts are it hasn’t been proven. And this idea only originated from wishful thinking from the msm and Democrats to use against Trump. Everything you hear from them is all THEIR ideas and interpretations from libtard fantasy land. This color revolution is driven by an ideology if they say it enough, you will eventually be brainwashed into believing it. That’s the goal. All so you won’t check Trump at the ballot box in November.

Precisely! They constantly scream "insurrection" "insurrection" "insurrection" yet Trump hasn't even been charged with it! They hope by constantly repeating it just as you said, stupid mind numbed vidiots (video idiots) automatically will equate these court proceedings on election "interference" with "insurrection".

For some of the bots on this forum at least, it's working brilliantly too!

 

[ThePunish-EER]

Precisely! They constantly scream "insurrection" "insurrection" "insurrection" yet Trump hasn't even charged with it! They hope by constantly repeating it just as you said, stupid mind numbed vidiots (video idiots) automatically will equate these court proceedings on election "interference" with "insurrection".

For some of the bots on this forum at least, it's working brilliantly too!

Yes, and these people are choosing to ignore the fact Trump was already cleared of this. They impeached him. The Senate found him not guilty. This is double jeopardy. The SCOTUS will see this and understand this.

Facts

1.). Trump was still president Jan 6

2.). Trump was already acquitted by the Senate of Jan 6

3.). Trump has immunity relating to his actions during his term of office after leaving office.

These are the facts. No emotions. No choosing sides. No tears. Just facts.

 

[atlkvb]

Yes, and these people are choosing to ignore the fact Trump was already cleared of this. They impeached him. The Senate found him not guilty. This is double jeopardy. The SCOTUS will see this and understand this.

Facts

1.). Trump was still president Jan 6

2.). Trump was already acquitted by the Senate of Jan 6

3.). Trump has immunity relating to his actions during his term of office after leaving office.

These are the facts. No emotions. No choosing sides. No tears. Just facts.

My hope would be the SUPCO dismisses the whole charade. I don't think they will, but at least cancelling any further prosecution until after the election is just as good. That way Trump can put the hammer on all of this nonsense after he's elected.