[bitt]

P

[linMcHlp]

bttt

[Jane Long]

...this amicus brief was filed to defend the constitutional principle that a President of the United States, as the Nation’s chief executive, must have immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts the President takes during the President’s term in office. Otherwise, the President’s fear of a subsequent political rival bringing a criminal prosecution after the President leaves office will impair the President’s ability to make those decisions necessary to protect our national interest and discharge the duties of the office of Chief Executive.

---

Hallelujah.

Exactly what Pres Trump has been explaining, over and over.

[alternatives?]

I think Meese’s filing regarding the special counsel not having authority to file charges is more convincing.

[willk]

I met John Ashcroft at a book signing. He seemed like a very nice man.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Asscroft is a real pain in the ass.

[Golden Eagle]

this amicus brief was filed to defend the constitutional principle that a President of the United States, as the Nation’s chief executive, must have immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts the President takes during the President’s term in office.

OFFICIAL ACTS is the key phrase.

I expect the Supreme Court to tule that official acts as President MAY afford some immunity, but it depends on what the act in question was, and therefore must be judged on a case by case basis.

Then, with the regard to the Trump case, the question becomes, was Trump calling for the protest of the Electoral College vote an official act, or not. The Supreme Court may, or may not rule on that yet. They may send that question back to the lower court to consider for now.

[FLT-bird]

Not just a current president charging a former one.....any DA. We have about 29,000 district attorneys in this country. Some in very blue districts, but some in very red districts too. If the president is subject to criminal charges for his acts as president....even after leaving office, how much does anybody want to bet partisan DA’s in highly partisan districts will start coming up with wild legal theories to charge their political opponents in districts where those opponents have almost no hope of obtaining a fair trial?

The constitution is quite clear about the president. He can be impeached only.....ie he can be charged by the House and tried in the Senate. There is no role for the judiciary.