Posted on 04/10/2024 5:20:52 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
“Immunity” in the sense of presidential immunity isn’t absolute. Trump’s lawyers aren’t arguing that it is. Merely that there is an orderly process delineated in the Constitution for holding the leader of the executive branch accountable: impeachment in the House, trial in the senate, conviction/removal or acquittal. All in keeping with separation of powers.
This prevents local rogue DAs (for example) from weaponizing their offices and engaging in the absurdities we’re witnessing in the Bragg and Willis circuses.
Think of the mind boggling absurdity of imprisoning Trump for 750 years on bogus charges orchestrated by the Biden regime (to stay in power) while this same regime literally DESTROYS the country by actively logistically assisting and underwriting its invasion. What could be worse than treason? Biden is getting away it while we discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I agree with some of what you said. I’m just hoping for better. However, that hope was dashed somewhat when Antonin Scalia was murdered (completely my own opinion) by ‘forces unknown’ (I’ll leave it to the reader to fill in).
Oh, I am too, without question. It should be a slam dunk but this conservative supreme Court hasn’t impressed me as being so on several occasions. When the Supreme Court was owned by liberal justices, they always delivered for their supporters.
I wrote, “But if that were the only remedy, then a rogue president plus 34 partisan hacks in the Senate could do anything.”
You answered, “Isn’t that what we have today?”
That’s what we have IF the Supreme Court agrees that a president can’t be prosecuted for anything unless there’s been an impeachment and a conviction. On that view, Biden can leave office on January 20 and never face any criminal liability for any of the charges you went on to list.
My view: Biden can’t be prosecuted for bad decisions on border policy, because, no matter how bad the decisions were, they’re part of his official duties, so he’s immune. But if it could be shown that he took bribes or the like, then he could be prosecuted. That will be the result if (but only if!) the Supreme Court rejects the argument you make in the OP.
Your argument is situational. That we should carve out exceptions and go outside the proper Constitutional remedy because, oh dear, this or that crime is so heinous. My point is, unless Biden is impeached and removed from office, he will walk away scot-free and never be held accountable, regardless of how much treason he committed, how much bribery he engaged in, nor how much of any lawless activity he engaged in WHILE IN OFFICE.
What’s being done to Trump, to wit, the grotesque subversion of the weaponized legal system to take out the leading opponent of the regime, is yet one more example of wisdom of our Founding Fathers. What they’re doing to Trump is what happens when presidents are stripped of presidential immunity.
“Your argument is situational. That we should carve out exceptions and go outside the proper Constitutional remedy because, oh dear, this or that crime is so heinous.”
You’re simply assuming that the Constitution prohibits criminal prosecution of a president for anything done in office (official duty or not) unless and until there’s an impeachment and conviction. I don’t see the text of the Constitution as supporting that claim.
Thinking about horrible things a president might do isn’t situational. It’s part of understanding what the Framers meant. Did they mean that a president who committed treason, took bribes, or murdered someone on Fifth Avenue couldn’t be prosecuted unless the whole cumbersome mechanism of impeachment and conviction occurred first? That interpretation would have the potential to produce ridiculous results, and that potential is a reason for concluding that the Framers probably didn’t intend that.
There’s also the more obvious point that if they had meant it, they could have said it.
Article II section 4 would be superfluous if the head of the executive branch and the nation’s chief magistrate could be subject to prosecution under Article III. The beautify of the Constitution is its simplicity.
this garbage is not going to stop. I think they’ll double down and the rioting will be even worse than last time around.
People in big cities where such is likely to break out in the evening after the mostly peaceful has run it’s course need to be ready. The boys in blue and the city council need to agree before the festivities that any rioting whatsoever will be met with lethal force to avoid a repeat of the uncontrolled violence already witnessed. One time should be all it will take to put down the potential for more. We’ll see who has balls.
If I was living in such a city, and the city chose to stand around and watch Antifa tear down the town, the populace needs to protect themselves with the same zeal as the rioters. That is the only way to stop mobs gathering and the riots they will be a part of.
It might be possible to break up a mob gathering but I sincerely doubt it. The mob has to understand that riot will not be tolerated and those involved are risking their life in the attempt.
“Article II section 4 would be superfluous if the head of the executive branch and the nation’s chief magistrate could be subject to prosecution under Article III.”
That doesn’t follow at all. A president could be prosecuted for acts done before becoming president, which would not be a basis for removal from office. Or a president while in office might commit an act that was a crime but that didn’t rise to the level of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (That phrase must mean something other than just any old crime.) Or a president might do anything at all on January 19, when there’s not enough time to go through impeachment and conviction.
The Constitution specifies the bases for removing someone from office. It doesn’t say that removal from office is a necessary prerequisite to an ordinary criminal prosecution, especially one brought after the president has left office anyway.
“It might be possible to break up a mob gathering but I sincerely doubt it.”
I believe it was in Kansas City where some upright citizens dissuaded some rioters. They armed themselves and when the mob approached they all put one round into the ground in front of them.
They quickly found somewhere else to be.
If the cops won’t do it, you’ll have to.
L
Will know more once the case is fully briefed and oral arguments have concluded.
Re: 20 - I see the main issue in the Florida case as obstruction of justice. Expect Smith to put Evan Corcoran on the stand to try and convince the jury that President Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation.
As the alleged conversations between President Trump and Corcoran took place after the President was out of office, they are not protected by presidential immunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.