Posted on 01/18/2024 7:42:48 AM PST by hcmama
Thanks. I expect the USSC to rule that his current position of universal and unlimited immunity is ludicrous, and kick it back down to the presiding court to give its ruling on the various pending charges. If Trump loses on those counts, they would allow him to re-argue immunity on the independent guilty verdicts in his subsequent appeal to the USSC.
But his calling for a protest of the electoral college vote, combined with tweeting “it’s going to be wild!” etc, is unlikely to be considered an official duty anyway. The official legal charges are not of “insurrection,” they are primarily for simply “interrupting an official proceeding.” How much bearing he personally had in the interruption, which did occur, is the question.
Actually, I think the nature of the official legal charges are far more likely to support a dismissal of the charges on other grounds.
1. Prosecuting someone for the act of calling for peaceful protest is a blatant violation of that person's First Amendment rights.
2. The "victim" in the "interrupting an official proceeding" charge is Congress itself -- which has already adjudicated the charge when it impeached Trump. If Congress itself acquitted him in a matter that was effectively a dispute between the executive and legislative branches of government, the idea that the executive branch under a different President can turn around and prosecute the case seems ludicrous on its face.
I agree this is his core argument, and would be a winning one if the protests hadn’t turned violent. The verdict, including on appeal, will likely swing on what did Trump do to try to stop the riot, after it began. He eventually called out the National Guard, himself he claims, but it appears his response was delayed, possibly by hours, which resulted in the EC proceeding being interrupted. He clearly called for the protest, then if he refused to responsibly quell it quickly once it became a riot…
If Congress itself acquitted him in a matter that was effectively a dispute between the executive and legislative branches of government, the idea that the executive branch under a different President can turn around and prosecute the case seems ludicrous on its face.
Politically, possibly, but legally, it’s completely different laws and jurisdictions. Trump’s own legal team suggested the issue eventually be resolved by the legal court system during the impeachment.
We can all play the stupid examples game.
-PJ
Here's a better one...
If Bill Clinton dispatched the FBI to torch a church with 42 children in it, would he have immunity from prosecution?
-PJ
Uh, no. If a bunch of knuckleheads who attended Martin Luther King's historic speech at the Lincoln Memorial in August 1963 decided to run through the crowd assaulting people and robbing them, King would have no legal responsibility to stop them.
What's worse, universal immunity for the president, or prosecutorial discretion by the Justice Department based on party affiliation?
Because that's what it's going to devolve into if the President isn't allowed to make mistakes or have his motives or intentions questioned every day.
If the answer is the former, then we know the process: impeachment and conviction followed by indictment and trial.
If the answer is the latter, we also know the process: ignore the wrong-doings of the party controlling the DoJ, and prosecute like a rabid dog the party that is out of power.
Which devil do you prefer?
-PJ
That's not an apt analogy, to the planned protest of an official proceeding, that Trump called.
You can call for a peaceful protest of an official proceeding, agreed. But you can not call for a protest of an official proceeding, and then sit idly by for possibly hours while an actual violent riot breaks out, when you are the authority who can help quell it, and then later try to claim pure innocence.
The evidence will show how long Trump sat by letting the riot take place, but according to leaks, even his family members like Don Jr. were frantically texting him and begging him to do something, before he finally did something much later.
We don't know, he was never charged. Are you saying that you have proof Clinton ordered that personally, but that he should still have infinite protection from criminal prosecution for it, simply because he was never impeached for it? That is Team Trump's position, of course.
Clinton just blamed it on Janet Reno, anyway.
Nice hypothetical question. And so far that appears to be a major part of the defense by Team Trump, that this is a partisan investigation, purely. I think that's an uphill battle for him, in this case, however. Despite all the claims that the FBI, and apparently their best exhibit, Ray Epps, are the ones guilty for the violence the interrupted the proceeding, little to no actual evidence supporting that has ever been produced. So far, all of the actual evidence indicates it was Trump supporters who performed the violence, and most charged have already pleaded guilty in court. Yes, they pleaded guilty, not just were found guilty.
Therefore as so many have already pleaded, or been found guilty, some even of actual insurrection, then the further charging of others, including even Trump himself, does not on it's face appear to be purely partisan.
Regarding if taking Presidential immunity away in the future might happen, to protect from partisan charges, I don't expect that to be the case. As I said above, I believe they will rule that immunity is grantable in certain, if not most, situations, but they must be judged individually on the circumstances involved. However, blanket immunity, from any and all prosecutions, that Trump is requesting, would very likely be abused, and therefore will not be granted.
In other words, no "blanket immunity" for either side, neither the President, nor the DOJ. That is the best way to prevent illegal activity, especially illegal activity driven by partisanship.
I don’t know where you’re getting this. It happens all the time. In fact, this is one of the only reasons why it’s not considered a restraint of free speech for a city government to require organizers of public gatherings — which can range from a St. Patrick’s Day parade to a political demonstration — to secure a permit (and pay a fee for it) in advance.
And once that public gathering is underway, it’s the responsibility of law enforcement — not the event organizers — to maintain order.
And your characterization of the President as “the authority who can help quell it (a riot at the Capitol)” is flat-out wrong. The Capitol Police do not answer to the President of the United States.
Yes, that's why I asked where's the proof it was on Clinton's order, to begin with. And if it was, do we believe he should have permanent, blanket immunity from any potential criminal charges, just because he wasn't impeached? No, of course not.
What if an official time/date stamped audio tape came out of him giving the order to kill them, no matter what, because he needed a mass blood sacrifice to his pagan god of some sort. I'm not making that accusation of course, just a hypothetical. Then let's say that tape leaked out right after he leaves office. So he's immune, from any further investigation, or federal charges, just because he wasn't impeached while IN office? Ridiculous.
The DC National Guard does. The President is the actual "Commander in Chief" of the DC National Guard. In fact Trump is the one who actually called them out on January 6th. At issue is, why didn't he call them before the riot broke out, to prevent a riot breaking out, and how long did he wait after the riot broke out, before finally calling them.
Trump is asking for absolute immunity for acts as President.
The leftists have turned it around saying that he is asking for absolute immunity for any act, even if unrelated to his role as President (like running someone over with a car), fishing for opposition to Trump’s position.
Cops have immunity, Congressmen have absolute immunity (Adam Shiff has basically a license to lie, no one can sue him for his lying remarks from the congress’ podium), judges have absolute immunity, Why in the world would the President be singled out as not having immunity?
Gee, I don't know... it sounds like it should be brought before a trial of fact to find out, don't you think?
Does a President have to directly order a Cabinet member to do something or does the Cabinet member already know the wishes of the President based on overall policy directions of the administration?
After all, the immunity argument against Trump is not about his core Presidential responsibilities, but about how much "immunity" a President has regarding "fringe" actions while in office. Extreme outer fringe examples are offered to test the boundaries of immunity, like ordering the SEALS to assassinate a rival.
Why wasn't the Waco siege handled as solely a Texas matter? Why did the FBI and ATF get involved? The Branch Davidians were suspected of stockpiling "illegal weapons." David Koresh offered to let the ATF inspect his documentation, but the agency refused. The Branch Davidians were accused of polygamy and child abuse; why wasn't that referred to the Texas Rangers to handle?
Was the President looking for an excuse to make it a federal matter so he can justify his actions in Waco? He was in office for only a month when the Waco situation began. Does that make it a fringe use of power since it would have been better addressed as a Texas state matter?
If the President was "shopping" for a reason to siege the compound, does that take immunity off the table as a fringe use of power? Shouldn't this be taken before a court to decide?
I'm not trying to relitigate the Waco Siege, but to simply use it to ask whether the open questions should have been taken to court via the removal of Presidential immunity for fringe actions. Was it a fringe action? Who gets to decide? Why did nobody think to ask when it was Clinton and 82 people died?
Why do these questions only arise when it is a Republican in office, like with Bush and WMDs in Iraq, or Trump and his J6 speech or asking the Governor and SoS of Georgia to look for 17,000 illegal ballots?
IMHO, the SEAL TEAM example is nonsense, but the Waco Siege actually happened and might be a good example to test what is or is not a "fringe" use of power, and whether or not Presidential actions can be prosecuted.
-PJ
Ok.
But then Trump thinks Biden should be arrested when he takes over in ‘25.
Which is it Donald?
Yes, but no one has arbitrated or determined if calling his supporters out to protest the electoral college vote should be considered an official act of the Presidency, or not. That's why he will likely lose the full immunity argument, because each and every individual action has to be judged independently, as to whether it warrants immunity, or not.
Depending on the actual evidence and circumstance, very possibly, if not absolutely. However, according to Trump's defense, no matter what evidence may emerge after a President leaves office, it doesn't matter, since he wasn't impeached back when he was still in office. Read my hypothetical above above a possible audio tape implicating Clinton in Waco emerging, immediately after he left office. What, we just throw it on the fire, because he's magically immune, since he wasn't convicted of impeachment while he was in office?
When arguing a case like this at the SCOTUS level, it's not about just him. SCOTUS is looking at the larger systemic issues and resolutions.
So, how much does it matter about Trump's specific case versus what SCOTUS will look at for all Presidential actions to come in the future?
Which goes back to my question:
As you can see, this comes down to trusting the motives of the president who was elected nationwide versus the motive of a prosecutor who was appointed by another appointed person.
At the SCOTUS level, I would like to believe that they would side with the person who was Constitutionally elected to office over a partisan appointee who has no effective oversight at all.
Why should we trust the prosecutors but not the presidents?
-PJ
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.