Do you want a president who needs immunity from prosecution?

[Anonymous]

You don't need immunity if you don't break laws.

[NamerOfStars]

You mean the one who leaned on social media platforms to enforce Covid censorship, violating the first Amendment; backed gun control bills, violating the second; who opposed the "Fourth Amendment is not for sale" bill, which would end violations of the fourth; pushed Trump prosecutors to violate the fifth; established a program to pull federal funding from colleges that failed to deny students accused of sexual assault basic due process rights, violating the sixth, seventh, and eighth; attempted to force federal Covid policy onto the states, violating the tenth; and whose entire career has been about violating the ninth? THAT guy?

Donald Trump is a corrupt narcissist; Joe Biden is a walking war on the Constitution.

[AviatorTom]

It's critical that the President can do what's required of the Office of the President without fear of prosecution. The US Constitution basically says that, and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) just confirmed that.

Without that, Truman could be prosecuted for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nixon for Vietnam, both Bushes for Iraq, and Obama for bin Laden, just to name a few. It's likely that every President has done something questionable while in office... yes, even Biden... deporting asylum seekers?

[Asker]

"The US Constitution basically says that"? Where?

SCOTUS just made this stuff up. Nixon knew he could be prosecuted, Republicans in the Senate used the fact that Trump could be prosecuted to justify not convicting him, Trump's lawyers told them so.

[AviatorTom]

The only remedy in the Constitution for illegal activity by the President is impeachment, and though Trump was impeached twice, Nixon was about to be impeached, when he resigned, and Andrew Johnson was impeached, no President has ever been found guilty in the Senate Impeachment trial.

[Asker]

Where in the Constitution does it say "The only remedy in the Constitution for illegal activity by the President is impeachment"?

I'll remind you, many Republican senators refused to convict because they knew Trump was subject to criminal law for his crimes, so it was NEVER self-evident. Nobody ever thought the president was above the law.

[monorprise]

The Federal Constitution is a document of few and defined powers. Article 1 Section 3 is where the Senate is given the sole power to try impeachment which is defined as "a proceeding instituted by a legislative body to address serious misconduct by a public official".

[Asker]

@monorprise Which part says that being impeached doesn't stop you from being subject to the law (i. e. it doesn't count towards double-jeopardy)? And why would it say that unless it was self-evident that all impeachable people are subject to the law?

Including the president.

[monorprise]

We are straying from the topic, The activity in question is part of the standard executive power of the president. As such the question is whether or not the court can prosecute the president for using his executive power in ways they don't like.

The constitution does not provide the courts the power to dictate what the president can and cannot do with his constitutional powers. That is why all executive powers are invested in the president in Article 2 Section 1 clause 1:
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. "

The Federal court just said the President has immunity for using such power precisely because they the court DO NOT have said executive power, neither does congress. The court did not define exactly what that executive power is. But that power has always included the power to talk to other executives, control secretes, and command the military forces.

[Asker]

@monorprise No, we're not. The constitution says impeachment doesn't prevent indictment, so not being impeached obviously doesn't either. Presidents are subject to the law. At least until six Leonard Leo picks changed nearly 250 years of history a few days ago.

[Agape93]

Long as I get what I want, and he isn't a sex offende, I don't care.

[osmanthus]

Nope.

[gorydetails]

Ooh, this should be fun. This sounds like “if you’re not doing anything wrong then you won’t be bothered by 24hr surveillance”

You want to prosecute presidents for breaking laws while in office? So Obama executing a citizen without due process should get him, hmm.. the chair or life?

[Asker]

There's always prosecutorial discression.

[gorydetails]

Thanks for admitting that the charges against trump were political in nature.

[Asker]

They're not. Nothing he's accused of was remotely in the interests of the country.

[gorydetails]

Was it in the interest of the country to pay for a fake dossier about russian and Trump collusion then hide the payment for that dossier under another type of accounting entry?

[Asker]

That was a president, was it?

[gorydetails]

It was not, which is even less of a reason to sweep the crime under the rug with a minor slap on the wrist, since you folks believe this is the crime of the century.

[Asker]

Well, apart from the fact that the dossier wasn't fake, the only thing was not declaring it correctly, which cost them something like $130,000 in fines.

[gorydetails]

completely fake. all made up.

[Asker]

Of course. Didn't Manafort go to prison for some of the details in the "completely fake. all made up" dossier?

[gorydetails]

Even your main propaganda source, CNN calls it bullshit

www.cnn.com/.../index.html

[Asker]

You can't see a difference between "completely fake. all made up" and partially called into question, can you?

[Asker]

"To be clear, multiple US government inquiries uncovered dozens of contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russians, which have since been acknowledged. The candidate himself and his closest advisers even welcomed the Kremlin’s interference in the election."

[gorydetails]

Where's the rest of that statement? Why'd you cut it off?

[Asker]

Are you saying that part's not true?

[gorydetails]

I'm saying it was not to the level of the lies told in the steele dossier. Yeah everyone knows about 10000 weird russian bots posted on FB, but that's inconsequential and doesn't distract from the facts that Hillary paid for a fake document and then hid the payment in order to discredit Trump.

[Asker]

That's not what the quote you're complaining about said: "To be clear, multiple US government inquiries uncovered dozens of contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russians, which have since been acknowledged. The candidate himself and his closest advisers even welcomed the Kremlin’s interference in the election."

Nothing about facebook. Just Trump welcoming Russian interference that happened.

[gorydetails]

yeah, that's what the "russian interference" that you've been whinnig about actually was. I know you and reality are enemies.

I'm not complaining. I'm stating you're lying by omission. Which you are.

[Asker]

No, there was also the email hacking. You think that was nothing?

[gorydetails]

the emails on her illegal server?

[Asker]

No, they seem to have been secure. The ones that led to the pizzagate propaganda. You think that was nothing?

[gorydetails]

Oh yeah, the emails that exposed Podesta as being a pedophile

[Asker]

The bullshit that people like you spread.

[gorydetails]

Right, those emails are completely normal. Nothing to see here. PROTIP: when you are on the side of defending pedophiles, it’s time to reevaluate your life choices.

[monorprise]

@gorydetails
If the 'court' can try every public act of the president with personal consequences rather than simply nullifying the effect of said act then the same court effectively runs the executive branch, and whatever other branch who's politicians are subject to the same 'judgement' on their political behavior.

The idea that said court would be 'neutral' is laughable that nobody believes in practice as both sides dispute the other's judge's views of the law.

This is why we have such things as sovereign immunity of public officials because you only have a 'court' which commands everyone if you don't.

[Asker]

Yes, those emails were completely normal. You're the one spouting 4chan nonsense.

[gorydetails]

You are delusional.

[Anonymous]

Joe Biden has immunity from prosecution effectively already in that he selects prosecutors he knows won't charge him.

Sovereign immunity is a practical reality even if it wasn't one of the oldest legal concepts designed to keep the UN-elected courts from effectively controlling the other 2 branches of goverment by arbitrarily declaring them guilty if ever the don't do what the majority wants.

[Asker]

Sovereign immunity is for lawsuits, not for crimes.

[Asker]

And there's no evidence Biden committed any crimes, or the House would have impeached him already.

[Opinion Owner]

Sovereign immunity is for any goverment action. Lawsuits are simply the only realistic means by which they are brought before the court. As you otherwise require the Executive to choose to charge itself.

There is a lot of evidence Joe Biden committed crimes just as there is evidence of Obama and many other presidents committed crimes. The differences is until 2016 nobody had ever impeached a president for anything that was not a serous crime that threaten the system. Even still none that had impeached anyone had ever convicted. The bar for impeachment was very high which is why a lot of republicans still to this day refuse to go that low.

Even after democrats used it for non-crimes like mere speech or simply asking questions about specific cases of public officials abusing their power to cover up crimes. They think Republicans should hold a higher standard than democrats hold, if we ever want to have any standards at all.

[Asker]

Republicans haven't impeached Biden because they've found zero evidence of a crime and their witnesses were a convict, a Russian agent and a Chinese agent. They were talking about impeaching Biden on Jan 21 2021.

[exitseven]

We sort of always had this, It never became an issue until now. Wait until next year when Joe Biden is out of office and he is getting prosecuted for bribery and dereliction of duty. He will squeal like a pig that he has immunity.

[Asker]

No, he won't, because he will be innocent, unlike Trump. It's really not very complicated; presidents generally get a pass (from the next president) for doing illegal things in the interests of the country, they don't when it's in their own interests, like Watergate and all the crimes Trump is guilty of.

[exitseven]

@Asker Just the mishandling of the southern border is dereliction of duty. Hunters laptop has been found by the FBI to be 100% the real thing. Plenty of evidence for a conviction for Hunter and the Big Guy.

[Asker]

No it isn't, and no they haven't. You're believing lies.

[exitseven]

stop watching CNN it will rot your brain. opps, too late.

[Asker]

I never watch CNN.

[exitseven]

how the hell did you get like this?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I want congress that doesn’t haphazardly prosecute politicians at the beck and call of rich people.

[Asker]

How is congress prosecuting anyone?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I meant to say persecuting, my bad still can’t get used to the iPhone autocorrect or the fact it randomly forces me to use the apple keyboard

[Asker]

OK, who's being persecuted by congress?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Trump, RFK JR, Bernie Sanders, David Flyn anyone who says anything bad about the Zionists, anyone who tells the truth or is a threat to the bullshit they want everyone to believe (Julian Assange, Tucker Carlson, pretty much any whistleblower, Alex Jones etc. )

And make no mistake, it’s the large conglomerates making them do it.

[JonCobretti]

This demented pumpkin seed needs to leave

[Dargil]

Which one is that?

[Dargil]

We need a President who is immune from acts within his/her Constitutional authority. Otherwise, Joe would got to jail next year. He is immune from fukkups in policies.

[jahaims]

Every politician breaks laws