Posted on 02/29/2024 12:01:43 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
Just saw a YouTube video
where the SCOTUS ruled
in favor of presidential
immunity. States no
longer have a cause for
kicking Trump off of
their ballots.
That’s for an employee. But the President is not really an employee in a Constitutional sense.
“Presidential immunity applies to all presidents. Except Trump.”
Yep. That’s what they’re trying to tell us.
Great injustice, and a promise of continued fascist state run by Democrats. This is one step closer to states departing again.
They will not let Trump have a second term.
They does include the Supreme Court along with many others.
Predicted Answer: No idea where they draw the line but it wouldn’t be far fetched to say that they come down with a ruling that campaign related and election related actions are outside the scope as they are not directly related to performing Presidential duties, but rather, political duties.
Under the Constitution, the POTUS is responsible to enforce the laws. What ‘crime’ did Trump commit, where did he not attempt to enforce the law? The riots occurred when he told people to be peaceful. He believed that it was a dirty election, and that what it was, and forcing the vote back to state legislatures is the Constitution. He acted within his scope. Congress refused to pause to hear evidence. SCOTUS refused an original jurisdiction case. Either would have quelled the masses, both were irresponsible and reprehensible acts against the Republic.
So the process for a POTUS is trial by the senate.
He was found not guilty.
Now it’s double jeopardy.
I trust the Supremes at least as much as I trust DaBushes.
What case was that?
I think you have that in the wrong order.
Thanks. Fixing to watch it.
I can’t argue the legal aspects of this all.
I can only point out that if they could, the Democrat led Senate would have found favor for an indictment!
Lawyer? Then he is just another one of the 1.3 million cockroaches that infest our nation.
I think they rule for Trump. Alito tipped their hand in the docs case when he asked if releasing funds to an avowed enemy of the US could be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I think if they don’t recognize immunity, they are unleashing hell for Trump’s opponents.
As far as I can tell, he's never actually practiced law. He has also become a Never Trumper. His opinion on legal matters, especially where they relate to Trump, is virtually worthless.
Cerno is a lawyer like I’m a rock star.
He may have practiced at one time. He’s clueless. The very fact that, as shipwreckedcrew-—who argues cases in DC-—has noted that the Supes took this without even referencing the DC District Court suggests they will make a sweeping ruling. No way they can exclude Trump’s actions as president. It’s silly on its face.
That’s why ALL of the leftists are freaking out. They know this.
If true, how convenient for the Swamp Dwellers. Trump can be persecuted but Biden and Obama can’t be prosecuted for their crimes.
Correct!
“End result: Trump is right, there is immunity, but he is wrong that it applies here.”
I think your reasoning is right on, but your result is incorrect.
Trump believed the election was conducted illegally and as he swear to uphold the constitution, he had a right and the duty to act. The action that he took –“peacefully assemble and protest” was in performance of his official duties and was legal. Therefore, I think the court will and should find he has immunity in this case.
I don’t think a president has or should have absolute immunity for any action he takes. One example I can think of was Obama’s government gun-running scandal known as “Fast and Furious”.
Fast and Furious was a Justice Department program that allowed assault weapons — including .50-caliber rifles — to be sold to Mexican drug cartels allegedly as a way to track them. But internal documents later revealed the real goal was to gin up a crisis requiring a crackdown on guns in America. Fast and Furious was merely a pretext for imposing stricter gun laws.
The scheme backfired when Justice agents lost track of the nearly 2000 guns sold through the program and they started turning up at murder scenes on both sides of the border including one that claimed the life of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
In this case, I think Obama acted within the performance of his official duties but the action he took was not legal. In this case, I don’t think Obama has immunity if this case was brought to court.
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.