Posted on 04/25/2024 10:06:27 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Thursday on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The justices have taken up the monumental question of if, and if so to what extent, former presidents enjoy immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during their time in office.
The high court's decision will determine if Trump stands trial before the November election on four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Throughout arguments, multiple of the justices made clear they were looking past the immediate example of Trump and what their decision will mean for the future of the presidency.
"This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency and for the future of the country, in my view," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"Whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents," said Justice Samuel Alito......
Justice Samuel Alito addressed the "layers of protection" against bad faith prosecutions raised by the DOJ......
In a recurring point of interest for the court as it questioned the government, Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the question of the "risk" of a "creative prosecutor" using "vague" criminal statutes -- including obstruction and conspiracy, which Trump faces -- against any president if they can't claim immunity......
Asked by Justice Clarence Thomas why previous presidents were not prosecuted for controversial actions, prosecutor Michael Dreeben said "this is a central question."
"The reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not crimes," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Trumps lawyer is arguing that a president should have immunity for accepting bribes and assassinating rivals, among other things, such as selling our nuclear secrets to a foreign power. He would have to be impeached and convicted first on the nuclear secrets issue. Would that mean that Biden could lawfully assassinate Trump?
The arguments I heard were very weak and in dire need of rebuttal and the Justices asking the question were not impressive in their counter to the state’s case.
Including the Supremes that are hearing this case.
They discovered a much easier way, just keep polls open and find enough votes to change the election in their favor then do not allow anyone to investigate because that would be racist or something.
They’re leaning the other way.
The title here is from the furthest left whackjob on the court.
Basing expectations on the exception is unrealistic.
I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard that. I wanted a Justice to ask him if that meant that a President who ignored immigration laws and let 10 million foreigners illegally enter the United States can be prosecuted after he leaves office?
-PJ
That muslim scum needed killing.
I’d have to read more, but I don’t think that Trump’s lawyers are arguing that there should be absolute immunity for actions not related to actual governance.
My understanding is that they are saying that what a President does in furtherance of fulfilling his Presidential duties - like protecting elections from sabotage by enemies foreign and domestic, as his oath requires - is and must be protected. If a President is doing his job, he should not have to fear criminal prosecutors going after him.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any place where it says that taking bribes, assassinating rivals, and selling nuclear/military secrets (to our enemies (as both Mr and Mrs Clinton documentably did) is a Presidential duty.
What they are accusing Trump of is personally trying to subvert an honest election when in reality what he did was clearly intended to STOP subversion, which is a Presidential duty, as per the oath of office.
Actually, it is also the duty of anyone who takes that oath. Anybody making it easier for foreign and domestic enemies to subvert elections is in violation of their oath. That includes all the prosecutors and judges whose treason is showing blatantly.
IOW, I don’t think Trump’s attorneys are arguing for the “absolute immunity” that the press wants us to think. I think they are arguing for total immunity for a President doing his job.
The classified docs apparently had something to do with 0bama trying to bait Lil’ Kim into a war.
Yes, they did.
The Constitution addresses criminal Presidents - its up to Congress to bring charges, convictions and removal.
It should not be up to some random prosecutor to charge a President for anything, else there is no point in having a President.
It seems like so much of this is all over that one binder.
There is impeachment, yes. And that’s a good argument. If there were actual crimes committed by a President that President should be impeached.
How many crooks has impeachment actually held accountable to justice though? Witness the current resident’s crimes that are out there for all to see. As long as the Deep State controls Congress there will never be any justice.
But that comes down to an even more important question than whether a President can be charged with crimes outside of through the impeachment process. The bigger issue right now is HOW can criminal Deep State actors be tried for crimes? If that was able to be done then impeachment as a process for justice might have some teeth.
Isn’t it strange that Congress-critters like Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney can lie their guts out as long as they do it under the guise of their duties as Representatives? They have blanket immunity for all the crimes they are currently committing.
The Constitutional remedy for criminal lawmakers is them policing themselves.
The remedy for criminal prosecutors is elections. Which Trump was trying to protect from enemy takeover as his oath requires. Unfortunately, the corrupt, criminal system won the day through the Deep State.
I guess I’m saying that I would like it if some of the “concern” about how Presidents can be held accountable in the real world... spilled over to the others who are totally left to police themselves and the left seems to be fine with that.
This case is complex and rife with mines, I cannot believe the court is going to get into the weeds on this case.
Yeah, you guys are helping me get a better handle on that. The Constitutional remedy is impeachment.
And it could be effective if we got rid of the CIA and the rest of the Deep State that owns the whole system.
Especially the USSC—I have a bad feeling about this one.
How about applying it to Biden in current administration???
...embolden criminal presidents AND what about embolding zealous political prosecutors?
These 3 female judges are stupid.
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.