Presidential Immunity ... ? (Page 1/4) 82-T/A [At Work] MAY 04, 10:09 AM So, I haven't really been reading the news, but apparently the Supreme Court is considering "considering" taking the case, but last I read, they were thinking of sending it back down to the lower court (I don't know which appeals court this was filed from... possible the 4th Court of Appeals). Couple of things... last time I looked this up, there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that provides any kind of "Presidential Immunity." It tends to be implied, but at the same time, precedence has already been previously set as recently as President Nixon when the Supreme Court ruled that he had to hand over the phone voice recordings. It's possible this could be a major thing that the framers hadn't notionally considered. I remember last time I looked this up, the Supreme Court (years and years ago) had determined there was some limited basis of presidential immunity... and they oddly tied it to the appointment of judges (or something odd). About as skewed as ruling that abortion is legal because of the 4th amendment. The concern I have is that if the Supreme Court does decide to rule on this (which I don't think they want to touch), they'll be forced to rule reality... which is that there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants any kind of immunity. This means that Biden could be liable for killing those 12 aide workers in Afghanistan from the drone strike he authorized, or that President Obama could be liable for keeping kids in cages at the border, or President George W. Bush being liable for all of the deaths in the Afghan / Iraq war... What am I missing? Am I wrong? williegoat MAY 04, 10:52 AM In my opinion, a president has no Constitutional immunity. I believe he should, withing certain limitations. I also believe that Trump committed no crime that should require immunity, although that doesn't matter to our illegitimate occupying government. He will be declared (not found) guilty, regardless. That is my opinion. The left is now sparking up their flame throwers. "Because Nixon", "Because I am the center of the universe", "Because you said Leftist" ray b MAY 04, 01:10 PM the pig rump had limited immunity WHILE IN OFFICE ONLY ONCE THE LOSER LOST THAT WAS OVER THE NUT-CON SUPPORT FOR HIS REVOLT IS DISGUSTING AND HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR TREASON NO BOND AS IT IS A CAPITAL CRIME HIS PERSONAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE IS WELL DOCUMENTED 82-T/A [At Work] MAY 04, 01:17 PM quote Originally posted by williegoat: In my opinion, a president has no Constitutional immunity. I believe he should, withing certain limitations. I also believe that Trump committed no crime that should require immunity, although that doesn't matter to our illegitimate occupying government. He will be declared (not found) guilty, regardless. Yes, you and I have the exact same opinion here. I don't see anything that says the president has any kind of immunity, per the U.S. Constitution... though I do think he (any president) SHOULD to some degree. I also don't think what they're attempting to charge him for is anything they can actually convict him of... and it'll never happen anyway, but the majority of America realizes it's just politics. quote Originally posted by ray b: the pig rump had limited immunity WHILE IN OFFICE ONLY ONCE THE LOSER LOST THAT WAS OVER THE NUT-CON SUPPORT FOR HIS REVOLT IS DISGUSTING AND HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR TREASON NO BOND AS IT IS A CAPITAL CRIME HIS PERSONAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE IS WELL DOCUMENTED Ray, can we have a legitimate conversation about this? I'm not asking you to like Trump. On a serious question... where in your opinion did Trump have "limited immunity" while in office? Last time I looked, I didn't see anything in the Constitution, though as Joe said... I think the president SHOULD. williegoat MAY 04, 02:05 PM quote Originally posted by ray b: the pig rump had limited immunity WHILE IN OFFICE ONLY So, Trump cannot be prosecuted for anything he did on January sixth. Thank you for your support. BingB MAY 04, 05:15 PM Any public official should have immunity from prosecution for anything he did while in office that was part of his offical duties. If he was enacting a policy that he was authorized to do as part of his job then he should not be personally liable for any damages. The government would be liable, not the individual. No public official should have any immunity for committing any crimes while in office. There is no position where criminal activity is part of the job requirements. The use of governmental immunity is most common with police. They can shoot the wrong person while on the job, but if they were following proper procedure they are not personally responsible for the mistake. So Trump is arguing that all the steps he took to overturn the election results were just part of his duty as President. He was required to protect the office from a "stolen election". olejoedad MAY 04, 05:55 PM quote Originally posted by BingB: Any public official should have immunity from prosecution for anything he did while in office that was part of his offical duties. If he was enacting a policy that he was authorized to do as part of his job then he should not be personally liable for any damages. The government would be liable, not the individual. No public official should have any immunity for committing any crimes while in office. There is no position where criminal activity is part of the job requirements. The use of governmental immunity is most common with police. They can shoot the wrong person while on the job, but if they were following proper procedure they are not personally responsible for the mistake. So Trump is arguing that all the steps he took to overturn the election results were just part of his duty as President. He was required to protect the office from a "stolen election". I agree with that. ray b MAY 04, 09:43 PM quote Originally posted by BingB: Any public official should have immunity from prosecution for anything he did while in office that was part of his offical duties. If he was enacting a policy that he was authorized to do as part of his job then he should not be personally liable for any damages. The government would be liable, not the individual. No public official should have any immunity for committing any crimes while in office. There is no position where criminal activity is part of the job requirements. The use of governmental immunity is most common with police. They can shoot the wrong person while on the job, but if they were following proper procedure they are not personally responsible for the mistake. So Trump is arguing that all the steps he took to overturn the election results were just part of his duty as President. He was required to protect the office from a "stolen election". PROTECT FROM a "stolen election" IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM MAKING UP A FAIRY TALE THAT HAS NO SUBSTANCE NO EVIDENCE NO PROOF AND FOMENTING A REVOLT TO STOP THE LEGAL TRANSITION ONCE THE RUMP LOST ray b MAY 04, 09:57 PM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ray, can we have a legitimate conversation about this? I'm not asking you to like Trump. On a serious question... where in your opinion did Trump have "limited immunity" while in office? Last time I looked, I didn't see anything in the Constitution, though as Joe said... I think the president SHOULD. THERE IS A LAW SAYING YOU CAN'T ARREST A CONGRESS CRITTER WHILE IN SESSION OR COMING TO OR GOING FROM NOT A CONSTITUTION LEVEL LAW BY CUSTOM NO PRESIDENT WILL BE ARREST IN OFFICE IE NIXON WAS ALLOW TO LEAVE THEN PARDONED IT IS NOT ALL WRITTEN AND THE BITS THAT ARE ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION RUMPS PAYING THE GIRLS WAS NOT ILLEGAL THE TAX FRAUDS ARE STATE TAXES IN THIS CASE WHEN HE WANTS TAX DEDUCTIONS randye MAY 04, 11:30 PM quote Originally posted by ray b: THERE IS A LAW SAYING YOU CAN'T ARREST A CONGRESS CRITTER WHILE IN SESSION OR COMING TO OR GOING FROM NOT A CONSTITUTION LEVEL LAW BY CUSTOM NO PRESIDENT WILL BE ARREST IN OFFICE IE NIXON WAS ALLOW TO LEAVE THEN PARDONED IT IS NOT ALL WRITTEN AND THE BITS THAT ARE ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION RUMPS PAYING THE GIRLS WAS NOT ILLEGAL THE TAX FRAUDS ARE STATE TAXES IN THIS CASE WHEN HE WANTS TAX DEDUCTIONS It's always entertaining as hell to get an ALL CAPS whack-job "lecture" from "ray the Constitutional law perfesser"