John Roberts put a thumb on the Trump Immunity Ruling scale

[HisArpy]

Prove it. Cite authority for this.

There are plenty of examples of the leaders of countries being prosecuted or investigated for actions while they were in office.

Fujimora, leader of Peru.

Sarkozy, president of France.

Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, currently being prosecuted for corruption.

Kirchner, former president of Argentina.

Park Geun-hye, South Korea.

Pinochet, Chile.

Why would you WANT a national leader to be absolutely immune? How can that possibly be justified? If presidents break the criminal law, they should be prosecuted. Just like everybody else.

I'll repeat: there's no text in the Constitution that clearly gives the president immunity. If you think otherwise, cite the language.

Sovereign Immunity is a real thing. OFFICIAL acts are immune. Corruption, war crimes, etc are NOT 'Official Acts" in any country. Not even in the US.

As I said above, the US Constitution spells out VERY CLEARLY that the President can only be impeached and removed for specific reasons. If you think about it, those reasons cannot be included in any "official act" of faithfully administering the laws of the United States because by nature "official acts" cannot be corrupt, treasonous, etc.

Thus, the standard is that EVERY leader of EVERY nation is immune for "official acts" but not immune for non-official acts.

Not even the leaders of;

Peru
France
Israel
Argentina
S. Korea
or Chile.

This is the law and has always been the law. The immunity decision doesn't add to or modify this in any way. The is even reflected by the granting of qualified immunity to Congress as well as lesser administrative officials such as State administrators/officials and officers of the law and courts. The granted immunity doesn't cover illegal acts, even if those acts are done under color of authority.

So your understanding regarding immunity is lacking and your attempts to deny the truth/facts/reality isn't any better.

 

[Aglaopheme]

So sayeth the man who belies jan 6th was a good ol’ boys day trip!

Not to mention the one that wants Trump to be able to break any laws he’d like while in office.

 

[icanhelp1]

Prove it. Cite authority for this.

There are plenty of examples of the leaders of countries being prosecuted or investigated for actions while they were in office.

Fujimora, leader of Peru.

Sarkozy, president of France.

Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, currently being prosecuted for corruption.

Kirchner, former president of Argentina.

Park Geun-hye, South Korea.

Pinochet, Chile.

Why would you WANT a national leader to be absolutely immune? How can that possibly be justified? If presidents break the criminal law, they should be prosecuted. Just like everybody else.

I'll repeat: there's no text in the Constitution that clearly gives the president immunity. If you think otherwise, cite the language.

Without some kind of immunity for official decisions and actions made while in office no one would take the office of the presidency. This ruling protects past, present and future presidents from party tyranny while and after serving in that capacity. Official acts are very different than acts for personal gain and are easy to differentiate from. This ruling protects Obama from prosecution for authorizing a drone strike on an American citizen. An executive decision he made fighting terrorism. There is no actual text in the constitution but that protection should exist just to insure continuity of the office.

 

[SimonDoom]

Sovereign Immunity is a real thing. OFFICIAL acts are immune. Corruption, war crimes, etc are NOT 'Official Acts" in any country. Not even in the US.

As I said above, the US Constitution spells out VERY CLEARLY that the President can only be impeached and removed for specific reasons. If you think about it, those reasons cannot be included in any "official act" of faithfully administering the laws of the United States because by nature "official acts" cannot be corrupt, treasonous, etc.

Thus, the standard is that EVERY leader of EVERY nation is immune for "official acts" but not immune for non-official acts.

Not even the leaders of;

Peru
France
Israel
Argentina
S. Korea
or Chile.

This is the law and has always been the law. The immunity decision doesn't add to or modify this in any way. The is even reflected by the granting of qualified immunity to Congress as well as lesser administrative officials such as State administrators/officials and officers of the law and courts. The granted immunity doesn't cover illegal acts, even if those acts are done under color of authority.

So your understanding regarding immunity is lacking and your attempts to deny the truth/facts/reality isn't any better.

You don't read carefully. I said in my initial post that the immunity decision would only be problematic if it interpreted "official acts" over-broadly. I don't deny that it may be reasonable for the president to be immune for certain kinds of actions, like, for example, calling drone strikes against terrorists overseas.

But in this particular case there appears to be a risk that the Supreme Court WOULD interpret official acts over-broadly.

When Donald Trump stood up in front of a crowd on January 6 and urged Mike Pence to ignore his constitutional duty and refuse to accept the electors, he was not acting as a president, but as a candidate, for his own benefit. The president has NO role in presiding over the success of his own presidential election. To hold otherwise puts him in an obvious conflict of interest.

When Donald Trump called the George Secretary of State in January 2021 and urged him to "find" 11,000 votes, he wasn't acting as president, but as a candidate. He was corruptly using the power of his office to put pressure on the Georgia Secretary of State and to keep himself in power. That in no way was in furtherance of his duties as president. No president has ever done anything like that.

When Donald Trump decided to take top-secret documents from the White House with him to Mar A Lago, he wasn't acting as president, but as a private citizen and former president. That's not an official duty.


He shouldn't be immune for any of these actions, because none of these actions fall within the scope of his presidential duties, reasonably defined. All three were a form of corruption and represented an abuse of presidential power for personal interests. No president ever should have anything to do with actions like these or be immune from prosecution for them.

 

[schism666]

Prove it. Cite authority for this.

There are plenty of examples of the leaders of countries being prosecuted or investigated for actions while they were in office.

Fujimora, leader of Peru.

Sarkozy, president of France.

Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, currently being prosecuted for corruption.

Kirchner, former president of Argentina.

Park Geun-hye, South Korea.

Pinochet, Chile.

Why would you WANT a national leader to be absolutely immune? How can that possibly be justified? If presidents break the criminal law, they should be prosecuted. Just like everybody else.

I'll repeat: there's no text in the Constitution that clearly gives the president immunity. If you think otherwise, cite the language.

lmao good luck getting an honest answer.

 

[HisArpy]

You don't read carefully. I said in my initial post that the immunity decision would only be problematic if it interpreted "official acts" over-broadly. I don't deny that it may be reasonable for the president to be immune for certain kinds of actions, like, for example, calling drone strikes against terrorists overseas.

But in this particular case there appears to be a risk that the Supreme Court WOULD interpret official acts over-broadly.

When Donald Trump stood up in front of a crowd on January 6 and urged Mike Pence to ignore his constitutional duty and refuse to accept the electors, he was not acting as a president, but as a candidate, for his own benefit. The president has NO role in presiding over the success of his own presidential election. To hold otherwise puts him in an obvious conflict of interest.

When Donald Trump called the George Secretary of State in January 2021 and urged him to "find" 11,000 votes, he wasn't acting as president, but as a candidate. He was corruptly using the power of his office to put pressure on the Georgia Secretary of State and to keep himself in power. That in no way was in furtherance of his duties as president. No president has ever done anything like that.

When Donald Trump decided to take top-secret documents from the White House with him to Mar A Lago, he wasn't acting as president, but as a private citizen and former president. That's not an official duty.


He shouldn't be immune for any of these actions, because none of these actions fall within the scope of his presidential duties, reasonably defined. All three were a form of corruption and represented an abuse of presidential power for personal interests. No president ever should have anything to do with actions like these or be immune from prosecution for them.

Except all of that is your PERSONAL opinion and projection. The immunity decision says differently and is relatively neutral. As all good laws are.

Your objection isn't valid either. Saying that IF the decision is interpreted overbroadly doesn't mean squat because ALL LAWS are to be interpreted in favor of the accused. The government has to do more than assert something is criminal but only if you squint and look at it in a mirror from around the corner. The government have to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Looking at the facts one way, instead of another way, doesn't make that standard because we can all disagree as to what something means. If we equally and rationally disagree then your version isn't any more valid than my version and that's not good enough.

Further you try to assert "interpreted overbroadly" as being somehow less broad than your idea as to what constitutes a non-immune offense. What you do is allow yourself wide latitude to claim a violation while limiting the ability to defend against that claim. This is another liberal version of guilty until proven innocent except what you want is to remove the ability to prove innocence entirely.

Which is a legal travesty, albeit one which Leftist progressives and liberals seem to be ok with. The only rationale for this is "because Trump."

 

[SimonDoom]

The only rationale for this is "because Trump."

This is your rationale, not mine. If Joe Biden were accused of exactly the same crimes, your opinion would be completely different. This is the vexing thing about dealing with all Trump supporters. They don't think in terms of generally applicable principles, but in terms of "What works for Donald Trump right now?" They invent legal doctrines to suit whatever is convenient for their hero.

I have no heroes. I'm thinking in terms of general principles. No president of any party should be immune for what Trump did on January 6, or when he talked to the Georgia Secretary of State, or when he took secret documents, because none of these things, reasonably interpreted, fall within the scope of "official acts." He was plainly acting for his own personal benefit, which is by definition a corrupt use of power that should not be immune. How is that not obvious?

 

[HisArpy]

This is your rationale, not mine. If Joe Biden were accused of exactly the same crimes, your opinion would be completely different.

^this is literally how far I got before I just couldn't stomach more of your bullshit.

I stand for the law. I DO NOT CARE about how your politics and political bigotry infest your thinking, I stand for THE LAW. And the law is that sovereign immunity grants immunity to the leaders of every nation for the acts they take while in office. Period!

Or do you really think Bush is going to be prosecuted for invading Iraq? Or Obama for using a drone on a US citizen? Or any of the "proportional response" bombings?

Just stop being ridiculous.

 

[Lazaran]

^this is literally how far I got before I just couldn't stomach more of your bullshit.

I stand for the law. I DO NOT CARE about how your politics and political bigotry infest your thinking, I stand for THE LAW. And the law is that sovereign immunity grants immunity to the leaders of every nation for the acts they take while in office. Period!

Or do you really think Bush is going to be prosecuted for invading Iraq? Or Obama for using a drone on a US citizen? Or any of the "proportional response" bombings?

Just stop being ridiculous.

Oh, Derpy…



Derpy

 

[HisArpy]

Oh, Derpy…



Derpy

Not my fault you INSIST on being stupid.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Without some kind of immunity for official decisions and actions made while in office no one would take the office of the presidency. This ruling protects past, present and future presidents from party tyranny while and after serving in that capacity. Official acts are very different than acts for personal gain and are easy to differentiate from. This ruling protects Obama from prosecution for authorizing a drone strike on an American citizen. An executive decision he made fighting terrorism. There is no actual text in the constitution but that protection should exist just to insure continuity of the office.

The Constitution explicitly states that a President can be tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors".

 

[Lazaran]

Not my fault you INSIST on being stupid.

derp…berp…



Derpy

 

[SimonDoom]

^this is literally how far I got before I just couldn't stomach more of your bullshit.

I stand for the law. I DO NOT CARE about how your politics and political bigotry infest your thinking, I stand for THE LAW. And the law is that sovereign immunity grants immunity to the leaders of every nation for the acts they take while in office. Period!

Or do you really think Bush is going to be prosecuted for invading Iraq? Or Obama for using a drone on a US citizen? Or any of the "proportional response" bombings?

Just stop being ridiculous.

Here's my question to you, to test whether you have principles or whether you are simply a Trump apologist at all costs.

Do you believe that Trump should be immune from prosecution for all things he's accused of doing? Don't dodge the question. What, exactly, should a president NOT be immune from? Give me an example.

You cite examples of presidents exercising their normal authorities as commanders in chief under the Constitution. I think in general they should be immune from prosecution for exercising those authorites.

The examples I've given you have nothing to do with that. Trump was obviously NOT acting pursuant to his authority when he tried to subvert the 2020 election or when he stole documents. How can you argue otherwise?

You don't stand for the law, you stand for Donald Trump. You think the law should be twisted in whatever way suits his personal interests and quest for power.

I believe political leaders of all political stripes should be held to rigorous standards of conduct in office or have their asses handed to them on a platter. I don't care what their politics are.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Sovereign Immunity is a real thing. OFFICIAL acts are immune. Corruption, war crimes, etc are NOT 'Official Acts" in any country. Not even in the US.

As I said above, the US Constitution spells out VERY CLEARLY that the President can only be impeached and removed for specific reasons. If you think about it, those reasons cannot be included in any "official act" of faithfully administering the laws of the United States because by nature "official acts" cannot be corrupt, treasonous, etc.

Thus, the standard is that EVERY leader of EVERY nation is immune for "official acts" but not immune for non-official acts.

Not even the leaders of;

Peru
France
Israel
Argentina
S. Korea
or Chile.

This is the law and has always been the law. The immunity decision doesn't add to or modify this in any way. The is even reflected by the granting of qualified immunity to Congress as well as lesser administrative officials such as State administrators/officials and officers of the law and courts. The granted immunity doesn't cover illegal acts, even if those acts are done under color of authority.

So your understanding regarding immunity is lacking and your attempts to deny the truth/facts/reality isn't any better.

You were asked to prove it, not Derpy it.

 

[SimonDoom]

The Constitution explicitly states that a President can be tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors".

It says he can be impeached, which is different from being tried for a crime. That's Article II, section 4. It leaves somewhat open-ended what he can be prosecuted for. To me, the interpretation that makes sense is that the president CAN be prosecuted for crimes unless he can show that his action was committed within the genuine and limited scope of his constitutional duties.

Apply a rule of reason. If the president showed up at a debate with an opponent and pulled out a gun and shot him dead and said, "I'm exercising my authority as Commander in Chief to eliminate somebody I believe is threatening the country," we wouldn't take that seriously, right? He should be prosecuted for murder. I know you think that, as do I, but if you take the statements made by some of the Trump apologists seriously, they think he should get off. That's nuts. Even if you believe in immunity for engaging in official acts, there must be reasonable limits on what we consider "official acts," and the definition can't be so broad that we literally allow the president to get away with murder.

 

[HisArpy]

Here's my question to you, to test whether you have principles or whether you are simply a Trump apologist at all costs.

Do you believe that Trump should be immune from prosecution for all things he's accused of doing? Don't dodge the question. What, exactly, should a president NOT be immune from? Give me an example.

You cite examples of presidents exercising their normal authorities as commanders in chief under the Constitution. I think in general they should be immune from prosecution for exercising those authorites.

The examples I've given you have nothing to do with that. Trump was obviously NOT acting pursuant to his authority when he tried to subvert the 2020 election or when he stole documents. How can you argue otherwise?

You don't stand for the law, you stand for Donald Trump. You think the law should be twisted in whatever way suits his personal interests and quest for power.

I believe political leaders of all political stripes should be held to rigorous standards of conduct in office or have their asses handed to them on a platter. I don't care what their politics are.

More bullshit designed to obscure the facts and law.

Immunity applies to EVERY President equally. Period. It has NOTHING to do with Trump vis a vis another President, immunity applies to ALL acts performed as part of the administration of the nation and its laws regardless of whose butt is in the Hot Seat.

YOU want this to be partisan because you're suffering from TDS. You also won't acknowledge that fact so further denial and deflection on your part isn't going to help you win me over to your point of view, nor will it change the minds of anyone else because your rationale is shallow and transparently biased. Just accept that you're wrong on all counts regarding the law, the decision, and my stance on the law.

 

[HisArpy]

It says he can be impeached, which is different from being tried for a crime. That's Article II, section 4. It leaves somewhat open-ended what he can be prosecuted for. To me, the interpretation that makes sense is that the president CAN be prosecuted for crimes unless he can show that his action was committed within the genuine and limited scope of his constitutional duties.

Apply a rule of reason. If the president showed up at a debate with an opponent and pulled out a gun and shot him dead and said, "I'm exercising my authority as Commander in Chief to eliminate somebody I believe is threatening the country," we wouldn't take that seriously, right? He should be prosecuted for murder. I know you think that, as do I, but if you take the statements made by some of the Trump apologists seriously, they think he should get off. That's nuts. Even if you believe in immunity for engaging in official acts, there must be reasonable limits on what we consider "official acts," and the definition can't be so broad that we literally allow the president to get away with murder.

Impeachment IS a trial with the punishment limited to removal from office if found guilty. This is expressly stated in the Constitution.

NO WHERE in our system of justice can someone be tried twice for the same offense. Even in the cases where someone is tried in both State court and Federal court, the charges are different. Because Double Jeopardy is a real thing too.

 

[SimonDoom]

More bullshit designed to obscure the facts and law.

Immunity applies to EVERY President equally. Period. It has NOTHING to do with Trump vis a vis another President, immunity applies to ALL acts performed as part of the administration of the nation and its laws regardless of whose butt is in the Hot Seat.

YOU want this to be partisan because you're suffering from TDS. You also won't acknowledge that fact so further denial and deflection on your part isn't going to help you win me over to your point of view, nor will it change the minds of anyone else because your rationale is shallow and transparently biased. Just accept that you're wrong on all counts regarding the law, the decision, and my stance on the law.

You didn't answer my question.

I'll gladly answer any questions you throw my way. Will you answer mine?

 

[HisArpy]

You didn't answer my question.

I'll gladly answer any questions you throw my way. Will you answer mine?

I refuse to stoop to responding meaningfully to inane bullshit masquerading as legal discussion using the constantly shifting sands you create.

When you stop presenting ever changing biased bullshit I'll answer. You don't have to like it, just accept that what you've been given is the only response you'll get.

 

[SimonDoom]

Impeachment IS a trial with the punishment limited to removal from office if found guilty. This is expressly stated in the Constitution.

NO WHERE in our system of justice can someone be tried twice for the same offense. Even in the cases where someone is tried in both State court and Federal court, the charges are different. Because Double Jeopardy is a real thing too.

Well, you are wrong about this. Double Jeopardy does not apply to criminal prosecution and impeachment, just as it does not apply to criminal prosecution and a suit for civil liability.

Consider OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty in the criminal prosecution, but in a subsequent civil trial he was found liable for wrongful death and a substantial money judgment was awarded against him, based on exactly the same acts alleged in the criminal case. The acquittal in the criminal case did not have a Double Jeopardy effect on the civil case.

Same thing with impeachment and criminal prosecution. Acquittal in an impeachment case does not in any way give rise to Double Jeopardy to prevent criminal prosecution, and vice versa. They're two totally separate things, for good reason. One entails the right to continue holding office and the other entails going to prison or paying criminal fines.

Impeachments are not at all like trials. The Constitution is silent on the details of how impeachments are to be conducted. There are no rules of Due Process. Criminal trials, on the other hand, are subject to Due Process and numerous procedural rules and regulations, including the presumption of innocence and the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. None of that applies to an impeachment. Theoretically, the Senate can vote to remove a president in an impeachment via whatever procedure and based on whatever burden of proof it wants to.

 

[SimonDoom]

I refuse to stoop to responding meaningfully to inane bullshit masquerading as legal discussion using the constantly shifting sands you create.

When you stop presenting ever changing biased bullshit I'll answer. You don't have to like it, just accept that what you've been given is the only response you'll get.

I will gladly accept that you are waving the white flag in defeat.

 

[HisArpy]

Well, you are wrong about this. Double Jeopardy does not apply to criminal prosecution and impeachment, just as it does not apply to criminal prosecution and a suit for civil liability.

Consider OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty in the criminal prosecution, but in a subsequent civil trial he was found liable for wrongful death and a substantial money judgment was awarded against him, based on exactly the same acts alleged in the criminal case. The acquittal in the criminal case did not have a Double Jeopardy effect on the civil case.

Same thing with impeachment and criminal prosecution. Acquittal in an impeachment case does not in any way give rise to Double Jeopardy to prevent criminal prosecution, and vice versa. They're two totally separate things, for good reason. One entails the right to continue holding office and the other entails going to prison or paying criminal fines.

Impeachments are not at all like trials. The Constitution is silent on the details of how impeachments are to be conducted. There are no rules of Due Process. Criminal trials, on the other hand, are subject to Due Process and numerous procedural rules and regulations, including the presumption of innocence and the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. None of that applies to an impeachment. Theoretically, the Senate can vote to remove a president in an impeachment via whatever procedure and based on whatever burden of proof it wants to.

Where oh where did you get that idea?

 

[HisArpy]

I will gladly accept that you are waving the white flag in defeat.

Lol, you are so fucked in the head it isn't even funny. But if it makes you feel better to lie to yourself, I'm not going to stop you. However, I WILL call you a fool for believing the lies.

 

[icanhelp1]

You don't read carefully. I said in my initial post that the immunity decision would only be problematic if it interpreted "official acts" over-broadly. I don't deny that it may be reasonable for the president to be immune for certain kinds of actions, like, for example, calling drone strikes against terrorists overseas.

But in this particular case there appears to be a risk that the Supreme Court WOULD interpret official acts over-broadly.

When Donald Trump stood up in front of a crowd on January 6 and urged Mike Pence to ignore his constitutional duty and refuse to accept the electors, he was not acting as a president, but as a candidate, for his own benefit. The president has NO role in presiding over the success of his own presidential election. To hold otherwise puts him in an obvious conflict of interest.

When Donald Trump called the George Secretary of State in January 2021 and urged him to "find" 11,000 votes, he wasn't acting as president, but as a candidate. He was corruptly using the power of his office to put pressure on the Georgia Secretary of State and to keep himself in power. That in no way was in furtherance of his duties as president. No president has ever done anything like that.

When Donald Trump decided to take top-secret documents from the White House with him to Mar A Lago, he wasn't acting as president, but as a private citizen and former president. That's not an official duty.


He shouldn't be immune for any of these actions, because none of these actions fall within the scope of his presidential duties, reasonably defined. All three were a form of corruption and represented an abuse of presidential power for personal interests. No president ever should have anything to do with actions like these or be immune from prosecution for them.

How do you interpret official acts over broadly.

So you’d be OK with Biden being pr

^this is literally how far I got before I just couldn't stomach more of your bullshit.

I stand for the law. I DO NOT CARE about how your politics and political bigotry infest your thinking, I stand for THE LAW. And the law is that sovereign immunity grants immunity to the leaders of every nation for the acts they take while in office. Period!

Or do you really think Bush is going to be prosecuted for invading Iraq? Or Obama for using a drone on a US citizen? Or any of the "proportional response" bombings?

Just stop being ridiculous.

Or waterboarding

 

[SimonDoom]

So you’d be OK with Biden being pr

What does "pr" mean?