Posted on 06/19/2024 4:39:55 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Former Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday he is concerned that the Supreme Court will come to a “dangerous” conclusion on former President Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, partly because it has taken time for the justices to reveal their decision.
Trump has made the immunity claim on charges related to the federal cases he faces on storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida and related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Well, if it isn’t Mr. In Contempt of Congress himself.
On all fronts, the Left has been taking it to the Court as of late. But I’m not sure it matters to the voting public at large.
The first thing the Trump DOJ should do is announce loudly and publicly that they would have no objection to Mexico extraditing Holder to face charges for running guns into Mexico.
L
Holder worried ...
you should be eric.
being OG and all.
Eric Holder avoided prison because of non-existent DoJ immunity.
But he doesn’t believe in Presidential immunity.
What a scumbag.
“On all fronts, the Left has been taking it to the Court as of late.”
FDR?
Intimidation worked for me.
if ANYONE deserves to go to jail its that piece of sh*t
Lock him up for at least 4 mo.
“Supreme Court will come to a “dangerous” conclusion on former President Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, partly because it has taken time for the justices to reveal their decision”
I wouldn’t read too much into the timeframe of the decision as being a predictor of the outcome.
You better hope they rule for Trump. Just about every president has some incidents in their administration that could be prosecuted.
“During David Frost’s series of interviews with Richard Nixon, Nixon (in)famously said
‘when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition.’”
reader comment:
The context, clearly indicated in your quote, is the Huston Plan, which involved mass surveillance of US citizens, burglary, and even potentially internment camps for “radicals.” It was an assertion that any crime could be committed if it was claimed to be in the national interest (preventing people from making the nation less “peaceful” and “orderly”).
Nixon: “Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, “Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation.”
link given above:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/78917/was-nixons-when-the-president-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal-tech
President Nixon could have been convicted.
Presidents don’t have more immunity than their subordinates such as Eric Holder or Merrick Garland.
Presidents do enjoy a rebuttable presumption that their actions were legal.
Deport Mr. Fast and Furious to Mexico for allowing guns into Mexico which have been used in crimes. No immunity for him either.
What’s “dangerous” to Holder is good for Americans.
Oh yes, you got a fine sister
She warmed my blood from cold
She warmed my blood to boiling hot
To keep you from the gallows pole, pole, pole, pole, yeah, yeah
Your brother brought me silver, and your sister warmed my soul
But now I laugh and pull so hard, see you swinging on the gallows pole, yeah
Yep. I almost hope they don’t.
I am thinking the SC will characterize it as a riot, not the insurrection that the Democrats crafted as a narrative for political purposes and to enable him to be stripped of immunity so they could lawfare him. As a riot that he “failed” to contain, immunity applies because whatever actions he took or did not take as part of his presidential duties are subject to immunity from prosecution. If a DC jury gets ahold of this case, they will convict regardless of the evidence. They are worse than Manhattan juries. So the SC may be calculating, we will kill the whole damned thing here so it never gets to the stage of feeding it to a DC jury
It is only the President who has no protection for their behavior in the elected office?
Is "good behavior" for the Justices limited only to when they are on the bench hearing oral arguments or when they release their rulings?
Is "going to and returning from" Congress an official act of Congress?
So why are enemies of President Trump arguing that the President has no immunities for himself, or that they are so limited in scope to be narrower than even members of Congress and the Supreme Court enjoy?
-PJ
If I was in charge of a gambling website trying to calculate the probability of the success of Trump's immunity appeal, that statement doesn't help me.
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.