Supreme Court Takes Trump's Immunity Claims

[TastySuckToy]

He has immunity or he will be charged with murder for that ill-fated drone attack that killed innocent civilians instead of the terrorist he was hoping would be there, during the Afghanistan withdrawal. He would face murder charges ffor the deaths of those 11 Marines during the withdrawal due to his incompetent leadership. He could be tried for the murder of Laken Riley because he has failed to enforce standing immigration law. All after leaving office.

As I understand it, a President needs to be impeached and convicted before criminal charges can go forward.

For example, killing people is a criminal offense, but killing people is arguably a valid course of action for a President enacting duties of the office. That's why the immunity exists and the impeachment process must first be applied.

 

[ll74]

As I understand it, a President needs to be impeached and convicted before criminal charges can go forward.

For example, killing people is a criminal offense, but killing people is arguably a valid course of action for a President enacting duties of the office. That's why the immunity exists and the impeachment process must first be applied.

That is an argument being made in the courts. Mitch McConnell argued that criminal activity would be sorted by criminal courts afterward rather than by the Senate, without conviction in the Senate.

It's an open question and the courts have not yet clarified.

Reichy seems to believe that there's only one path forward for the conclusion...... It hasnt yet been decided.. which is why the question is before the courts

 

[ByteMe13]

As I understand it, a President needs to be impeached and convicted before criminal charges can go forward.

For example, killing people is a criminal offense, but killing people is arguably a valid course of action for a President enacting duties of the office. That's why the immunity exists and the impeachment process must first be applied.

You are just buying the Trump “lawyer” BS. There is nothing in the Constitution or the law that supports that.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You are just buying the Trump “lawyer” BS. There is nothing in the Constitution or the law that supports that.

So then you think every President that issued any order that killed innocent people should be criminally charged and punished, correct?

 

[Rightguide]

For those wondering how the SCOTUS will come down on the question of presidential immunity there is the following:

The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed the issue of presidential immunity in the past.

1. Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages actions related to conduct within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties1. Essentially, this means that a sitting president cannot be personally sued for damages arising from actions taken in their official capacity.

In the J6 question, all Trump did was see that the laws (election laws) were faithfully executed. Challenging the election is not a crime. Demanding votes believed to be in existence to be counted is not a crime. He did not encourage an insurrection either.

We now see the sham Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump and 18 others under RICO laws, and with White House guidance, is totally political and already imploding.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

As I understand it, a President needs to be impeached and convicted before criminal charges can go forward.

For example, killing people is a criminal offense, but killing people is arguably a valid course of action for a President enacting duties of the office. That's why the immunity exists and the impeachment process must first be applied.

Has Trump been charged with murder?

 

[ll74]

For those wondering how the SCOTUS will come down on the question of presidential immunity there is the following:

The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed the issue of presidential immunity in the past.

1. Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages actions related to conduct within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties1. Essentially, this means that a sitting president cannot be personally sued for damages arising from actions taken in their official capacity.

In the J6 question, all Trump did was see that the laws (election laws) were faithfully executed. Challenging the election is not a crime. Demanding votes believed to be in existence to be counted is not a crime. He did not encourage an insurrection either.

We now see the sham Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump and 18 others under RICO laws, and with White House guidance, is totally political and already imploding.

We don't know how they're going to decide

Their job is to hear arguments and make decisions based on those arguments.

But please, tell us all the future. ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Has Trump been charged with murder?

Not yet but give it time. Someone here will finger him for ordering the hit on Navalny.

 

[ll74]

If Biden killed someone and resigned, would he be immune.?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Not yet but give it time. Someone here will finger him for ordering the hit on Navalny.

So that would be no.

 

[Bn2f]

Not yet but give it time. Someone here will finger him for ordering the hit on Navalny.

I argue yes! He failed his oath of office and was complicit in the deaths of over 400,000 Americans his negligence during the Covid crisis. I use the Woodward tapes as exhibit one. Come at me bro.

Sorry everyone. Continue discussing immunity.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Hello March!

Are you so hammered that you traveled into the future?

 

[ByteMe13]

We don't know how they're going to decide

Their job is to hear arguments and make decisions based on those arguments.

But please, tell us all the future. ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

I don’t know how the will decide but I’ll bet that it favors Trump. Maybe another Bush v Gore where they say they aren’t setting any precedent but they give Trump immunity anyway.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

For those wondering how the SCOTUS will come down on the question of presidential immunity there is the following:

The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed the issue of presidential immunity in the past.

1. Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages actions related to conduct within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties1. Essentially, this means that a sitting president cannot be personally sued for damages arising from actions taken in their official capacity.

In the J6 question, all Trump did was see that the laws (election laws) were faithfully executed. Challenging the election is not a crime. Demanding votes believed to be in existence to be counted is not a crime. He did not encourage an insurrection either.

We now see the sham Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump and 18 others under RICO laws, and with White House guidance, is totally political and already imploding.

You do know the difference between civil and criminal, don't you?

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Rule of Law states that no one is above the law.

 

[ByteMe13]

The Rule of Law states that no one is above the law.

Except Trump

 

[dmallord]

For those wondering how the SCOTUS will come down on the question of presidential immunity there is the following:

The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed the issue of presidential immunity in the past.

1. Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages actions related to conduct within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties1. Essentially, this means that a sitting president cannot be personally sued for damages arising from actions taken in their official capacity.

In the J6 question, all Trump did was see that the laws (election laws) were faithfully executed. Challenging the election is not a crime. Demanding votes believed to be in existence to be counted is not a crime. He did not encourage an insurrection either.

We now see the sham Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump and 18 others under RICO laws, and with White House guidance, is totally political and already imploding.

Assuring that the election laws were faithfully executed would not involve creating fake electors, sending insurrectionists to the capitol, agreeing with them that maybe Mike Pence needed to be hanged, demanding vote changes to favor himself [You know Brad, it's okay to change the vote count; say there was a mistake and change them.], or continue to deny he lost the elections for years afterward given insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

As I understand it, a President needs to be impeached and convicted before criminal charges can go forward.

For example, killing people is a criminal offense, but killing people is arguably a valid course of action for a President enacting duties of the office. That's why the immunity exists and the impeachment process must first be applied.

I don’t think this is accurate. Impeachment is a purely political process independent of the criminal code and the judiciary.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Interesting observation noted by the WSJ. There were no dissents on the order and it directed the D.C. Circuit to delay returning the case to the trial court until the Supreme Court rules.

This is looking more and more like a 2025 trial. The DOJ has gotta be kicking itself for dragging its feet before bringing its case forward.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I don’t think

We're aware.

 

[jomar]

For those wondering how the SCOTUS will come down on the question of presidential immunity there is the following:

The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed the issue of presidential immunity in the past.

1. Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages actions related to conduct within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties1. Essentially, this means that a sitting president cannot be personally sued for damages arising from actions taken in their official capacity.

In the J6 question, all Trump did was see that the laws (election laws) were faithfully executed. Challenging the election is not a crime. Demanding votes believed to be in existence to be counted is not a crime. He did not encourage an insurrection either.

We now see the sham Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump and 18 others under RICO laws, and with White House guidance, is totally political and already imploding.

Well, in actuality Trump did exactly what you erroneously claim he didn’t, your claim being laughable.

But, it will be no surprise if the Supreme Court delays the immunity question until after the election before affirming the lower court’s ruling.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Well, in actuality Trump did exactly what you erroneously claim he didn’t, your claim being laughable.

But, it will be no surprise if the Supreme Court delays the immunity question until after the election before affirming the lower court’s ruling.

He tried.

 

[HisArpy]

He has immunity or he will be charged with murder for that ill-fated drone attack that killed innocent civilians instead of the terrorist he was hoping would be there, during the Afghanistan withdrawal. He would face murder charges ffor the deaths of those 11 Marines during the withdrawal due to his incompetent leadership. He could be tried for the murder of Laken Riley because he has failed to enforce standing immigration law. All after leaving office.

The great part in all of this is that if Trump doesn't have immunity after leaving office, every head of state in the world is subject to the same lack of immunity after leaving office.

Which is not the traditional and historic understanding of what immunity means.

 

[HisArpy]

Interesting observation noted by the WSJ. There were no dissents on the order and it directed the D.C. Circuit to delay returning the case to the trial court until the Supreme Court rules.

This is looking more and more like a 2025 trial. The DOJ has gotta be kicking itself for dragging its feet before bringing its case forward.

This may be the way Jack Smith has set it up to get his own butt off the hook. There are rules against using the justice system to persecute someone.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The great part in all of this is that if Trump doesn't have immunity after leaving office, every head of state in the world is subject to the same lack of immunity after leaving office.

Which is not the traditional and historic understanding of what immunity means.

What?