Is Trump's cry for 'total immunity' the dead canary in the fascist cave?

The appeals process will take a few years, so he won't be in jail.

In the meantime....

he could pressure the DOJ to commute his sentence. The AG he will hire will be a sycophant.

That AG will get tremendous blowback for doing it.

he will try and pardon himself and that will be litigated

he could resign with a secret agreement for the VP, now Prez, to pardon him (methinks that was the deal Ford struck with Nixon).

Congress could demand the appointed AG to recuse himself.

It will present some constitutional issues galore, that is certain.

If Dems have a majority in the house and senate, I guarantee he will be impeached a third time, though it is doubtful he will get 67 votes in the senate. 60 maybe.

But, it's possible if the evidence is strong enough.

 

Trump would have, effectively, dictatorial power If

1. He is granted total immunity, unless he is convicted of the crime in an impeachment.

2. He is not likely to be impeached, which is required before conviction, because if he is impeached, he could murder, severely harass, (with the help of his base) threaten primary, etc, whoever impeachesa him, so they won't impeach him.

3. At that juncture, he effectively has TOTAL immunity, and by virtue of that fact, since he could commit any crime, including murder, with impunity he thus hasa dictatorial power.

4. Now, the military will not follow any order that is illegal, such as murder, because they won't have immunity.

However, the problem is people will defend themselves, and Trump isn't likely to get into shooting matches with people.

So, his dictatorial power wont be the kind of power Julius Ceasar had, but he could engage in corruption with impunity, and that is what he will likely engage in. he could engage in war crimes with impunity, etc.

See above.

 

If Trump has total immunity, the sycophants in the Repub senate are not likely to impeach and convict him for anything, because a long time before they convict, they have to impeach, and Trump could sic his base to severely harrass the senators, mean tweet them, primary them. Hell, without immunity, they didn't convict after 1/6, when the evidence was plain as day.

So, the senate conviction thing isn't going to happen, which effectively gives Trump total immunity.

I doubt he will be getting into shooting matches, but he can wield a lot of power if he doesn't have to fear breaking any laws to do it. I mean, giving a malignant narcissist that kind of power, well, what could possibly go wrong?

I don't think you are thinking this through. I doubt the military will follow illegal orders and they will still hold their oath to support the constitution, but Trump could engage in corruption with impunity, far worse than he's done it in the past. he could harrass state legislators with impunity to keep him in power, and so on.

 

Are you suggesting the Democratic controlled Senate wouldnt vote for impeachment of Biden for murdering his political opponents? Or the Biden then Kamalah DOJ would never prosecute him after impeachment? That kind of total immunity?

 

I feel sorry for you.

With all that has happened during the last 3 1/2 years, coupled with how much harder it is for the honest taxpayers of this nation to make “ends meet”, the fact that you are still spewing trump hate instead of taking a real hard look at what’s actually happening to our country really makes me sad.

Our current situation is a cause of “politics as usual”.

Why do you ignore the biden administration and their “politics as usual” that have hurt our nation?

I could go on and on but I realize this is not a discussion, this is an “I’m right and your wrong” thread.

 

Biden did not engage in a conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election

Biden didn't tell the lie that the election was stolen, shaking confidence in elections to some 65 million people

Who is ignoring the threat?

 

Biden has done more for America than Trump ever has.

You complain about 'inflation' but fail to attribute it to it's true cause, which was the pandemic, which was world wide, and inflation was world wide, so you can hardly blame any president for it.

But, Biden got the infrastructure bill passed, which currently has some 44,000 projects going across the nation.

 

Getting rid of Trump will be a good first step, and the necessary first step.

You got to start somewhere.

 

There is no way they are going to grant any president 'total immunity' that's nuts.

 

You do realize that RFKjr is a liberal, right?

But, he is the true populist, Trump is fake.

 

I don't think it would result in Trump trying to murder people.

However, think about this:

Give a malignant narcissist full immunity from crimes, and what could possibly go wrong?

 

I'd say the evidence is out there for all to see that Biden et al did. There can be no other explanations for the sudden reversals in the vote counts after the cameras were no longer allowed to film the counts in so many precincts. But you're entirely willing to ignore that part. Choose your words more carefully. Biden tells the lie continuously that the election wasn't rigged. And so do folks like you. This time, y'all won't be able to stuff the ballot boxes with BS mail in ballots again. And now that you've recognized that, your tactic is to scream and stamp your feet. The threat is folks, like you, who have chosen to entirely disenfranchise voters because you think you know better. Again, this is how dictators in your own country continue to stay in power. Why would anyone in the US want a country like that?

 

One at time That's a waste of time, also explained how we got to place..

 

I didn't really factor in his Letter, I was drawn to his message..

That's how it should be with all Americans. Being married to choices because of a letter.

To limited IMHO..

 

There is NO evidence that Biden stole the election.

On one hand, you are accusing Biden of being a doddering dementia ridden fool.

Obn the other hand, you re saying he masterminded a stolen election?

You are not making any sense.

Each and every example you cite has been thoroughly debunked.

If you don't believe it, pull out the video,or cite the specific example LINK to it, and we shall discuss it.

Stop it.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

What letter?

 

Of that I have no doubt, eyes wide shut.

 

In this case you mentioned L

 

That's not what is being argued in court. They are arguing that he has immunity from official acts done while president. NOT actions in his personal life. So if he went down to 5th Avenue and shot his political opponent he would be charged and no impeachment would be necessary.

Thats why the judge had to come up with the stupid seal team 6 scenario because that would be considered an official act

 

You are wholly misrepresenting what was said...

“He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer said. “There is a political process that would have to occur under our Constitution.”

“If there’s no impeachment ever, and no conviction, then the official acts are immune. Period,” Sauder added later."
Trump could order SEAL Team 6 to kill rivals and avoid prosecution if not impeached, lawyer says (msn.com)

That is precisely what his lawyer said. It does not say it would be up the the President. It says he would have to be impeached and convicted by the Senate BEFORE the criminal prosecution. The only way that lawyer claims above he would be immune is if not first impeached and convicted.

Lets keep this simple and stick just to this.

Do you understand what is said above is that a President can be prosecuted but in order for that to happen, they must first be impeached and convicted in the Senate? Do you understand how your sources are misleading you on purpose? It does not say in any way that a President is immune for any crimes they may commit. It says in order to be prosecuted they must first be impeached and convicted (Removed).

 

This is ridiculous.

Why are you asserting that needing to be impeached prior to being prosecuted would make someone a dictator. That doesnt make a lick of sense. It is a meaningless platitutde.

A dictator does not need a legislator to pass any legislation they desire. They do not need to be elected etc. How exactly would requiring an impeachment before being propsecuted would enable any of that?

Your claim does not make a lick of sense. It is baseless hyperbole. It has no actual basis in reality. There is no connection that such a requirement would all of a sudden give someone the powers of a dictator.

 

Senate removal is dependent upon public opinion. If you are trying to remove a Presdent for things such as lying under aoth about oral sex, or some procedural nonsense with Ukraine that nobody cares about CLEARLY does not more public opinion enough to force removal. Shooting someone on 5th Avenue which is the example provided, would most certainly result in removal.

You are apparently basing your entire belief about this on the mistaken supposition that a politician cannot be impeached. Of course they can, it just needs to be something deemed sufficiently serious by the public.

All of this nonsense about a dictator is silly. It does not make any sense. It is not based on any form of reality.

 

Anybody who would vote to impeach him would BECOME his political opponent. Democratic or not. Not so easy to vote to impeach somebody when you're dead.

Are you still struggling to understand the problem?

That was the hypothetical the judge presented to Trump's defense team, and they acknowledged the above. With such absolute power, of course, there would be many alternatives different to murder to keep them from impeaching him before his term ends.

You guys trust giving Joe such power more than I do.

 

Except there is no such "full immunity" being given.

Saying that a President has full immunity unless they are first impeached and convicted by the Senate, is like saying that a normal defendant has full immunity from their crimes unless they are convicted by a jury. Or saying they are fully immune from their crimes unless evidence is found.

Adding another step in the process does not make someone immune. It only adds another step. Nothing more, and nothing less. Calling that full immunity is downright dishonest. It is an untrue statement. This is not a gray area. Your statement is 100% false.