US supreme court to decide on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity

But the question becomes how and who defines what is official decisions and what are personal decisions.

 

It was an amazing debate all day surrounding a extremely difficult question.

 

Who defines what is an official Presidential activity?

 

Not so sure, in two hundred plus years of history the question of immunity was never raised, Americans understood no one was above the law, so given history has set that precedent, why now is the SCOTUS even taking up the case?

“Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.”

“Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have prevented the enforcement of the subpoena because of Trump’s responsibilities as president, still rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity and pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it.”
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...ion-immunity-72c885c07c77970d4380206f87b2d8ca

 

Most of it is obvious.

 

Likely the same thing every president since George Washington did.

 

The prime stumbling block unanswerable question.

 

I beg to differ. A few might be obvious but millions are fuzzy.

 

I can't believe none of the judges asked the actual question to Trump's dumbass lawyers: Gents by your arguments today, what charges would result if President Biden shuffled in here with a pistol and calmly shot all 9 of us?
By their count the answer would be: None, and he'd get 9 appointments this year.

 

If this question needs to be debated today, it's because there's never been a criminal like Trump in office.

In 250 years, the country has never been confronted with a President who has clung to power to the point of trying to force states to recognize him as the winner of elections and dangerously compromising the transition of power.

But don't worry, US institutions are stronger than Trump and he'll pay for his crimes, before or after the election.

 

I don’t think so. I think it’s relatively easy to decern which is official duties of the office of the presidency and which aren’t. Running for reelection, isn’t. Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is. Calling the Georgia secretary of state telling him to find 11.780 votes isn’t.

 

Not if the SCOTUS rules Trump has immunity.

Previous Presidents knew they were not above the law, or at least never acted as if they had full immunity for their actions, but if this Court rules they did, any President going forward will know they can do whatever they want without consequences

 

Not that easy, who is going to make the decision something was official and private? Prior to this Court deciding to take this case, a questionable decision, common sense played a role, but not any more

 

The constitution?

 

If only our founders had created some document that outlined the presidential duties and powers….

 

Nothing in the Constitution that would address the question, the Founders did not include Presidential immunity, revolting against monarchies, such made sense

 

The duties of the office are definitely laid out in the constitution.

 

Agreed. So was trying to userp the electoral college a presidential activity ?

 

No, John Barron always saw himself as a baron. He even named his son that way.

 

It isn’t Donald Trump. But he has called for himself to “revise” it.

Psst! You’re one of the biggest Trump supporters on this forum!

 

@RodB

Bueller.....

Bueller......

Bueller.......

 

any one who doesn't hate Trump will be called that. It's not that I like Trump, I just have zero use for the talibiden

 

Yes such a criminal that we are dealing with not returning records properly and well ledger entries. It seems you may have a hard time understanding a corrupt DOJ can have the same effect as a criminal president. The left has now opened up petty BS as a basis to go after former president, therefore from here on out you have set the norm and it will continue.

 

I believe the argument he must be impeached and found guilty then can be prosecuted. To the judges credit when discussing today, they said hyper partisan DOJ could lead to Presidents just may pardon them selves after inauguration to avoid the partisanship judicial.

 

Say, the President decides to order a coup? As an “official duty”?

Stalin did that. So did Hitler, and so does Putin.

How does that sound.