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

Quote it here for me. I'll bet the word immunity does not appear in it.

Do you support free ice cream for all?

To answer your question, yes I do.

 

You're right. It doesn't. But it IS inferred. Like many things that we consider "Rights" in this country are inferred. And why the Federal Government goes beyond just what is listed in Article 1 Section 8.

What? Don't want to answer? I get why....

 

Tell me. Why was a pardon necessary to save Nixon? If immunity existed in the 'impeachment' part of your crappy Constitution, then Ford need not have acted, eh?

You 'get' nothing. I have answered your question.

 

Because what Nixon did was not within the bounds of a Presidential Act. It was a Personal Act. As I've explained already it is Presidential Acts that have immunity. NOT Personal Acts.

No you didn't. Let's try another question. Do you support the News Media being protected under the 1st Amendment even on TV even though TV's were never even dreamt of when the 1st Amendment was first written? Or should it only be confined to newspapers? Or does the Right infer that even the use of TV's is covered for news?

 

Rubbish, he did what he did wen he was POTUS. And you are making a distinction Humpty**** is not claiming before SCOTUS. The claim is absolute immunity.

I did. I posted that I support abortion (which is legalised by Statute here.)

In the general terms of your question, no I don't ~ and that is the last rabbit hole I am going down. Stay on topic.

 

There is no argument before SCOTUS of "absolute immunity". That is a lie spread by leftist propaganda. But here is an example that shows that Presidents do have some admitted immunity already. Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Even though its not explicitly written out. I've already pointed out both of these things to you in this very thread.

But it is not legalized here in the US by Federal Statute. Nor is it supported in any part of the Constitution per those on the Right...but those on the Left claim that it is by inference. Showing that just because something is not explicitly spelled out does not mean that it "doesn't exist". IE: People in the US realize that not everything is explicitly written for it to be supported by law.

Well, here in the US it is supported. Because it is inferred. No where is it explicitly written. Again showing that just because something is not explicitly written, does not mean it doesn't exist.

And I am on topic. Not my fault I have to go in a round about way to make you admit/realize that something is true.

 

sure... lol, would never want to base an opinion on Trump's past acts would Trumpers

 

If SCOTUS is basing a legal decision on the possibility of rogue prosecutors, they would, in effect, be calling the reliability of the entire American justice system into question.

Which immediately makes one wonder whether it is just to sentence anyone to death. Or even prison.

If the system isn’t reliable, shouldn’t the entire system be changed?

 

They aren’t going to decide, as I said, it will ping pong amongst Courts for the next few years, unless of course, Trump is elected, and then the SCOTUS will issue a ruling as soon as they can

 

This immunity must also apply to the VP too. Right?

 

Regardless of what the SC decides, one thing seems certain:
Trump will NOT face trial on this Jack Smith matter before the November election..

 

About the only time I could see it applying is if POTUS is incapacitated and the VP is temp-Prez (or fully becomes Prez). Under normal circumstances it wouldn't apply at all because they do not need, or have, the same power to call the shots. For the most part the only reason we have a VP is in case something happens to the POTUS. Indeed it isn't only until recently (relatively) VP's started to actually do anything aside from their 3 main tasks.

The three main tasks being:

1: Cast the deciding vote of a tie in the Senate, otherwise no power.
2: Count the Electoral Votes for who becomes the President.
3: Take over the Presidency if the President became incapacitated either temporarily or permanently.

Other than those three things the VP has/had no power whatsoever. As John Adams, our first VP under Washington, said "I am nothing but I may be everything." It wasn't until Roosevelt that the VP started to have any "power", and even then its only borrowed power at the discretion of the President. And only for something that the President directs them to do.

Now, if the VP becomes the President, then they have all the powers, and privileges, of the President.

 

There is far more evidence of rogue prosecutors than there is of rogue Presidents. That isn't even debatable. And its not the system that makes them go rogue. Or even allows them to go rogue. Its just the people themselves that go rogue.

No system is perfect, doesn't matter what country its in. Never will have a perfect system due to human nature. All we can do is try and mitigate the damage done. So SCOTUS taking it into account is only smart thinking by acknowledging reality.

 

That is what I said. The same things the Democrats did in 2000, 2004, and 2016. I can't recall if Republicans challenged (read "tried to change") in 2008 and 2012.

 

Gore did and, if not presidents, high party officials have many times. But they, including Trump, were not constructing fake electors as opposed to different electors.

 

No, but it sheds light on the Trump haters and persecutors. No other ex president challenged his immunity before because no other president was purged like Trump is.

 

I'm not aware of SCOTUS ever ruling on presidential immunity for ex presidents. But I might be wrong.

Technically I think this is true. Digging desperately through the statutes, twisting laws into pretzels and conjuring up major crimes for two-bit misdemeanors is bad justice but not prosecutorial procedural mistakes. Someone once accurately said that the average Russian commits three felonies a day. If you want to charge someone it is just a matter of scouring the statutes to find a law.

Trump's actions around Jan 6 was not anywhere near an attempted coup but was done while president as president. There was nothing criminal about the non disclosure agreement ("hush money" for the folks in Pisgha) so that is not relevant, although the so-called bookkeeping errors -- what the NY DA calls state felonies -- did occur while president IIRC.

 

I disagree. The prosecutors want desperately to go to trial before the election because being at trial has much more potential negative press than just being indicted.

 

Yeah, that's how things work.

 

Gore worked to create slates of fake electors in several States? When? Where?

And why would any State need “different” electors when the citizenry of that State elected their own, which were, upon full review, certified by relevant State election officials?

 

I think I bought up the “persecution” of Trump previously, a deflection, playing the martyr doesn’t excuse getting caught in participating in a conspiracy to alter the election nor stealing and fighting to keep secret documents

 

Prosecutors have been waiting to go to trial since last November because they were ready to go to trial, last December they petitioned the SCOTUS to take up Trump’s Hail Mary immunity claim, which the Court ignored till March and then setting a late April hearing. Any decision, and that will most likely bouncing it back to the lower Courts, won’t come till lake June

Not coincidental the same Court heard and resolved the ballot questions quicker than a hot knife thru butter but sat, and will continue to sit, on this longer

 

Really? Another ludicrous attempt at an analogy?

 

Anybody can challenge election outcomes through the legal means provided. And various groups from both parties have done so.

Trump used methods that are an assault on our form of government while having taken the presidential oath of office to support and defend our constitution.

And, that is why our constitution includes Amendment 14 section 3.

 

This is no more than an attempt to hold our entire legal system including our constitution as irrelevant.

Somehow, the USSC seems to think that their duty is to prevent Trump from looking bad - even though he has broken our highest laws and declares he will do so again.