Trump is arguing, in Court, that he is immune from prosecution for anything he did while President.

Either he's wrong, and nobody is above the Law, or he's right and Biden can send Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago to Bin Laden Trump and just cancel elections until he's tired of being President.

Or he is immune until he is impeached and then can be tried.

I think the position is inordinately powerful and thus it behooves us to choose men of good character to be president.

Unfortunately, Trump shows he isn’t.


Biden may be better, but not by a lot IMO… and his policies suck.

That these two (three if you include the Hildabeest) are all the better we can send up it says something about our system.

I thought that it was only DOJ POLICY not to prosecute a sitting president. Don't know how that grants him complete immunity. And since when is trying to steal and election part of a President's official duties? And how does that square with the defense that people have the right to choose/elect the person that they want?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
I thought that it was only DOJ POLICY not to prosecute a sitting president. Don't know how that grants him complete immunity. And since when is trying to steal and election part of a President's official duties? And how does that square with the defense that people have the right to choose/elect the person that they want?

You're right, across the board. The DOJ policy applies only while a President is in office, and no Court has ever found Presidential immunity for criminal acts committed while in office, and certainly not for criminal acts not related to the duties of a President as Trump is claiming.

The Republican Party really does have a golden opportunity to make a clean break from Trumpism and maybe salvage a place in American political life as a significant minority loyal opposition. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump's immunity claim is hogwash, as is obvious to everybody saner than Ronna McDaniel, AND that Colorado is properly exercising it's responsibility under the 14th Amendment, Trump can be relegated to prison for the rest of his natural life as his myriad crimes deserve and they can try to rebuild some semblance of credibility from what's left.

Or they can ride the Trump Train right off the cliff.

Looking from the outside, it seems such a high level of immunity is a threat to decent democracy. We seem to have been able to run our country with no immunity for leaders outside of some suspension of libel laws for members of parliament while speaking inside the house.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Looking from the outside, it seems such a high level of immunity is a threat to decent democracy. We seem to have been able to run our country with no immunity for leaders outside of some suspension of libel laws for members of parliament while speaking inside the house.

It's nonsense. Before Trump Richard Nixon was vying for the position of crookedest President in American history. When his Vice President, Agnew, had to resign to avoid jail he appointed Ford who agreed to pardon Nixon so he couldn't be prosecuted, then when impeachment became obvious Nixon resigned and took the pardon.

When the biggest previous crook recognized he didn't have immunity without a pardon it should have been a hint for Trump, but no half-assed qualified lawyers will work for him so here we are.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Looking from the outside, it seems such a high level of immunity is a threat to decent democracy. We seem to have been able to run our country with no immunity for leaders outside of some suspension of libel laws for members of parliament while speaking inside the house.

It's nonsense. Before Trump Richard Nixon was vying for the position of crookedest President in American history. When his Vice President, Agnew, had to resign to avoid jail he appointed Ford who agreed to pardon Nixon so he couldn't be prosecuted, then when impeachment became obvious Nixon resigned and took the pardon.

When the biggest previous crook recognized he didn't have immunity without a pardon it should have been a hint for Trump, but no half-assed qualified lawyers will work for him so here we are.

Would Pence have agreed to pardon trump?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Looking from the outside, it seems such a high level of immunity is a threat to decent democracy. We seem to have been able to run our country with no immunity for leaders outside of some suspension of libel laws for members of parliament while speaking inside the house.

It's nonsense. Before Trump Richard Nixon was vying for the position of crookedest President in American history. When his Vice President, Agnew, had to resign to avoid jail he appointed Ford who agreed to pardon Nixon so he couldn't be prosecuted, then when impeachment became obvious Nixon resigned and took the pardon.

When the biggest previous crook recognized he didn't have immunity without a pardon it should have been a hint for Trump, but no half-assed qualified lawyers will work for him so here we are.

Would Pence have agreed to pardon trump?

Probably, but it would have required a resignation from Trump to give him that power.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Looking from the outside, it seems such a high level of immunity is a threat to decent democracy. We seem to have been able to run our country with no immunity for leaders outside of some suspension of libel laws for members of parliament while speaking inside the house.

It's nonsense. Before Trump Richard Nixon was vying for the position of crookedest President in American history. When his Vice President, Agnew, had to resign to avoid jail he appointed Ford who agreed to pardon Nixon so he couldn't be prosecuted, then when impeachment became obvious Nixon resigned and took the pardon.

When the biggest previous crook recognized he didn't have immunity without a pardon it should have been a hint for Trump, but no half-assed qualified lawyers will work for him so here we are.

Nixon wasn’t impeached, and he was pardoned to stop the toxicity that his impeachment or trial would bring.

I doubt that Ford was selected because he agreed to pardon Nixon. IIRC Ford was selected before Watergate happened.

Yes, Ford was selected as he was thought to be someone who would remove the image that Agnew the crook left.

I think he lost his chance to be elected on his own due to his pardon of Nixon.


If Carter had not been elected, the sway of Cold War politics would be very different.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Looking from the outside, it seems such a high level of immunity is a threat to decent democracy. We seem to have been able to run our country with no immunity for leaders outside of some suspension of libel laws for members of parliament while speaking inside the house.

It's nonsense. Before Trump Richard Nixon was vying for the position of crookedest President in American history. When his Vice President, Agnew, had to resign to avoid jail he appointed Ford who agreed to pardon Nixon so he couldn't be prosecuted, then when impeachment became obvious Nixon resigned and took the pardon.

When the biggest previous crook recognized he didn't have immunity without a pardon it should have been a hint for Trump, but no half-assed qualified lawyers will work for him so here we are.

Nixon wasn’t impeached, and he was pardoned to stop the toxicity that his impeachment or trial would bring.

I doubt that Ford was selected because he agreed to pardon Nixon. IIRC Ford was selected before Watergate happened.

Yes, Ford was selected as he was thought to be someone who would remove the image that Agnew the crook left.

I think he lost his chance to be elected on his own due to his pardon of Nixon.


If Carter had not been elected, the sway of Cold War politics would be very different.

I guess in your world history is malleable to suit whatever you choose to believe; in the real world the Watergate break-in happened on June 17, 1972, Woodward and Berstein reported on it before the 1972 election, the Senate voted to create the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities in February, 1973 and the hearings started on May 17th, Agnew resigned on October 10th, 1973 and Ford was nominated on October 12th.

And I was 6 in 1973.

You are right that temporally they occurred then.

Nixon resigned about a year later. The man had incredible hubris. I doubt he even thought he would be held accountable or that it would become an issue when he chose Ford.

Any proof that pardons played a role in the decision?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
And I was 6 in 1973.

You are right that temporally they occurred then.

Nixon resigned about a year later. The man had incredible hubris. I doubt he even thought he would be held accountable or that it would become an issue when he chose Ford.

Any proof that pardons played a role in the decision?

I'll be honest, Doctor, I'm about done trying to "prove" anything to somebody so profoundly ignorant of fairly recent American history while remaining so certain they are correct.

Look up things you wish to know.

Thought so.

No, there is no proof of a quid pro quo of a pardon for making him VP/President. Given Nixon’s penchant for taping everything it would be there if he had.


Similarly, the timeline is a bit murky as to who knew what when regarding watergate.

Frankly, I remember my history classes teaching it as all being a continuous mess along with the issues of Vietnam and our withdrawal from there.


I don’t have your personal memories of it at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Thought so.

No, there is no proof of a quid pro quo of a pardon for making him VP/President. Given Nixon’s penchant for taping everything it would be there if he had.


Similarly, the timeline is a bit murky as to who knew what when regarding watergate.

Frankly, I remember my history classes teaching it as all being a continuous mess along with the issues of Vietnam and our withdrawal from there.


I don’t have your personal memories of it at the time.

Yeah, I guess Ford, House Minority Leader at the time, was "murky" about the nationally-televised hearings taking place on the other side of the Capitol concerning the President who was leader of his Party. Probably didn't even realize they were happening.

You are fucking pathetic.

No doubt he knew about it happening at that time.

Did he know about it before woodward/bernstein?

Did he know there were tapes all over covering Nixon and his knowledge?

Did he know that Mrs. Nixon had told her husband to destroy the tapes?

When did Ford know that the allegations were true?

When did Ford know Nixon was resigning?

A lot of your claims could be said x happened on day Y.

Do you think Ford even knew about the break in at watergate before it came out that the various Nixon associates were involved?

Much of this is speculative.

You obviously believe that any Republican is guilty without any evidence or trial.

Yet you think I’m pathetic?

I guess that’s a badge of honor.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
No doubt he knew about it happening at that time.

Did he know about it before woodward/bernstein?

Did he know there were tapes all over covering Nixon and his knowledge?

Did he know that Mrs. Nixon had told her husband to destroy the tapes?

When did Ford know that the allegations were true?

When did Ford know Nixon was resigning?

A lot of your claims could be said x happened on day Y.

Do you think Ford even knew about the break in at watergate before it came out that the various Nixon associates were involved?

Much of this is speculative.

You obviously believe that any Republican is guilty without any evidence or trial.

Yet you think I’m pathetic?

I guess that’s a badge of honor.

What is pathetic is forming such firm opinions from a position of abject ignorance of accessible history, apparently based solely on the fact that it involved Republicans.

Seems to be a habit of yours.

And yes, I despise Republicans, for Watergate, for Reagan's team making a deal for Americans to be held hostage in Iran longer for political reasons, for Nixon and Kissinger prolonging Vietnam for political reasons, for Bush I issuing pardons to criminals so they wouldn't testify against him, for Bush the Lesser blatantly lying us into invading Iraq, and for Trump, all based on actual history that you, of course, know fuck-all about because it didn't happen on your block.

quote:

for Bush I issuing pardons to criminals so they wouldn't testify against him

Trump did that too, with Manafort, Stone and Flynn, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

for Bush I issuing pardons to criminals so they wouldn't testify against him

Trump did that too, with Manafort, Stone and Flynn, etc.

Listing all the reasons to despise Trump would increase Saeed's hosting costs.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
And how does that square with the defense that people have the right to choose/elect the person that they want?

I don't believe "the people" have ever had that right.

As I understand it, since the ink on the Constitution was still damp there have always been rules or parameters or qualifications to hold office.

I remember somebody wanting The Governator to run for president but he couldn't due to his foreign birth.

McCains eligibility was questioned.

You gotta be a certain age, ......you can't run again,....

"The people" certainly don't get to elect whoever they want.

Thank God.

To Scott King’s point, no right is absolute. Absolute rights would be anarchy.

The Constitution sets the qualifications to hold federal office.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
To Scott King’s point, no right is absolute. Absolute rights would be anarchy.

The Constitution sets the qualifications to hold federal office.

on the contrary, all rights are absolute, but not free of consequences

Eventually Trump-humpers will have to ask themselves, if only when they are alone:

If Trump did nothing wrong why does he need immunity?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Eventually Trump-humpers will have to ask themselves, if only when they are alone:

If Trump did nothing wrong why does he need immunity?

for trump, he's answered that a jillion times - "it's a politically witch hunt"

I don't agree with him - but he's said it enough times

In a civilised country the law should apply to everyone, equally. I thought it was only third world dictatorships which grant their leaders immunity from prosecution.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...r-russian-presidents

How heinous a crime or act would a sitting president have to commit before a reasonable person would say that he should be prosecuted NOW and not wait until they leave office?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
How heinous a crime or act would a sitting president have to commit before a reasonable person would say that he should be prosecuted NOW and not wait until they leave office?

Under current DOJ policy, going back over 20 years, if a President were videotaped raping and murdering the Governor of Maryland on the White House lawn in broad daylight they would not be subject to criminal prosecution until they no longer were President, either through impeachment and removal or expiration of their term. To quote the Office of Legal Counsel:

quote:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

If it was a Democrat I'm sure impeachment and removal would be very quick; if it was a Republican with our current Congress I wouldn't bet either way.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Looking from the outside, it seems such a high level of immunity is a threat to decent democracy. We seem to have been able to run our country with no immunity for leaders outside of some suspension of libel laws for members of parliament while speaking inside the house.

You lot, ALL OF YOU, have absolutely no concept of what DEMOCRACY is.

What happens MRS HORSE TEETH??

The one practically ruined your own country??

In today's hearing on Trump's immunity claim his lawyers argued that a President can only be prosecuted for crimes after they are impeached for those specific crimes...

While in Georgia they are arguing that prosecuting him for crimes he was impeached for violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution.

In Trumpworld you can only prosecute after you impeach but if you impeach you can't prosecute.

That is obviously ridiculous given the precedent established by the Court w Notion and Clinton.

They are two completely different matters as the S.Ct., ruled on the other Nixon case.

This immunity claim is not going to be close.

I doubt the S.Ct., even grants cert.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...30514eb1cf972a&ei=63

Judge asks Trump lawyer if president would be immune from prosecution for using SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival in explosive courtroom showdown
Story by Geoff Earle, Deputy U.S. Political Editor For Dailymail.Com At The E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse In Washington, D.C. • 6h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...30514eb1cf972a&ei=71

Trump refuses to respond when asked to tell supporters 'no violence'
Story by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement • 1h

https://youtu.be/lCOpKjwtKIk?si=gu97BZ7wUBwmiJYu

Judges destroy Trump in court with one devastating question

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is obviously ridiculous given the precedent established by the Court w Notion and Clinton.

They are two completely different matters as the S.Ct., ruled on the other Nixon case.

This immunity claim is not going to be close.

I doubt the S.Ct., even grants cert.

The legal arguments are stupid. But, we'll see.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...27e7e18213f03f&ei=98

Ty Cobb says former president poses ‘gravest threat to democracy we’ve ever seen’
Story by Lauren Sforza • 11h

“I think you have to take Trump seriously because he poses the greatest threat to democracy that we’ve ever seen,” Cobb said on “Erin Burnett Outfront.”

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Or he is immune until he is impeached and then can be tried.

I think the position is inordinately powerful and thus it behooves us to choose men of good character to be president.

Unfortunately, Trump shows he isn’t.


Biden may be better, but not by a lot IMO… and his policies suck.

That these two (three if you include the Hildabeest) are all the better we can send up it says something about our system.

Do you not think it says more about the quality/ gullibility/stupidity of the electorate ?

I'm not saying the Appeals Court reads AR but one of the Judges used the exact same example I opened this thread with...

https://youtu.be/rKjATbiTgZw?si=ca3NPK1KdkpQbI8R

George Conway: Trump’s lawyer walked into ‘nasty’ trap at immunity hearing