I'm going to have to shift my allegiance to Monica Crowley.
Posted on 06/10/2024 2:09:14 PM PDT by CFW
As former President Donald Trump looks to the U.S. Supreme Court for answers on his claims of presidential immunity, a Republican group has launched an ad campaign in opposition.
Republicans for the Rule of Law launched a $2 million TV ad campaign featuring conservatives arguing that the Supreme Court should reject the former president's immunity claim.
Supreme Court justices are considering a case involving Trump and whether presidents have immunity from criminal prosecutions. Trump's team argued that the president must have immunity for a functioning democracy to flourish, while the attorney for the federal government argued that presidents don't enjoy blanket criminal immunity.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecentersquare.com ...
Same type of “Republicans” that are behind The Lincoln Project.
No ads being run in response to Special Counsel Hur’s report on Biden, of course.
I used to read them both a couple of decades ago.
I quit them when they kept delivering "weak sauce".
Glad that President Trump has outed them as fake conservative liars.
“Ukraine is a Money Laundering Operation for the Republican and Democratic Parties.”
Yep... and biolabs gone wild among other things.
Did George Conway?
Ah yes, “A Republican Group”. What nonsense.
Founded by Bill Kristol, Mona Charen, Linda Chavez, etc. Not kidding.
Used to like Mona Charen & Linda Chavez, never like Bill Kristol. Unfamiliar with Sarah Longwell, or Andy Zwick. But the three I know are all Bush supporters.
“Just Saying.”
This is one of those things that I don't know whether to condemn or applaud, and I guess it would depend on the circumstances.
Sometimes it would be the right thing to do, and other times it would be wrong.
So they’re basically saying they want the president’s entire security detail to also go to jail even though they have committed no crimes.
I'm going to have to shift my allegiance to Monica Crowley.
That’s a tough stance to be sure. 🙂👍
Perhaps Presidential immunity would finally put some backbone into the Senate to convict someone if properly impeached in the House, because impeachment conviction overrules Presidential immunity?
In essence, without immunity it would be like asking the President to keep a daily timesheet like a factory worker who clocks in when he goes on the line and then clocks out when goes to lunch.
To me, identifying a "core" from a "personal" act is a retroactive look-back at something; in the moment the President is just being the President.
Example:
When President Bush was reading a storybook to kindergartners on the morning of 9/11, was that a Presidential or personal act? I'd say it was presidential as the President is out meeting the people. Was it a "core" presidential act? I think many people could debate both sides of this, saying that "core" presidential acts are those that interact with Congress or involve meeting with foreign leaders, or when acting as Commander-in-Chief.
So, if President Bush reading books to children is not a "core" Presidential act, would he not have immunity for doing it? Suppose that a parent didn't like the story Bush was reading and wanted to sue him for exposing their child to content not appropriate to the beliefs of the parents?
And then, when aides interrupted President Bush with the news of the plane crashes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, did Bush suddenly "snap" into core Presidential mode? In other words, is there a switch that flips on and off outside of the President's control that categorizes his minute-to-minute existence as core, non-core, and personal, or do we just say the President is in a very fluid, dynamic, and often stressful role as the sole elected official of the Executive branch, and everything he does is core to the role?
That's my take. If events beyond the President's control determines when he is or is not performing a "core" Presidential act, then the President must have full immunity for all acts while President, unless impeached and convicted by Congress.
-PJ
true, that. Even the wiki entry for RFRL shows a ‘see also’ Lincoln Project (George Conway)
Gays for Palestine,and Chickens for KFC.
Yes, definitely a GROPElite anti-Trump RINO “named” group funded by and actually supporting Biden’s China, Ukrainian money laundering, the cartels, abortion, and homosexual/child porn divisions of today’s anti-Western movement.
President Nixon could have been convicted.
Presidents don’t have more immunity than their subordinates such as Merrick Garland or Jack Smith.
Presidents enjoy a presumption that their actions were legal.
Trump is a highly reasonable man. His reasoning ability is a saving grace.
At no time did Trump ever act with criminal intent.
He always strove to do what was right, lawful and necessary.
Let’s suppose that Presidential Immunity does not cover illegal acts .
What illegal act did President Trump commit ?
“In 2016, [Sarah] Longwell and her wife had their first child.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Longwell
“The American experiment in self-government can only survive if we all agree to abide by the laws and rules we make together. That means everything from election outcomes to jury verdicts to court decisions. Republicans for the Rule of Law hold fast to the principle that no one is above the law, from the average citizen to the president of the United States.”
Law is not always good. Law should never be beyond question or of reason.
A slave in Virginia often knew the faults of law, as did Ghandi and MLK Jr.
Christ remains worthy of worship, American law does not.
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.