DC circuit court rejects immunity for Trump, SCOTUS appeal is pending

[johnwk]

The probable agenda behind the case against Trump in D.C.

Let us examine exactly what has taken place with the case against Trump in D.C.

.

What appears to have taken place is an intentional perversion of our constitution and the rule of law. Those trying to undermine our Presidency have looked at specific charges the House impeached Trump under and the Senate acquitted him of, parsed those specific charges into an INDICTMENT and assigned any federal statutory criminal law that closely resembles a specific charge under which the House impeached, and then moved forward with re-trying the former President in spite of him already having been acquitted of them under the unique process specifically adopted to deal with a President who commits acts which fall within the constitutional meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

That seems to sum up what has taken place and confirms our rule of law has been undermined, and some very evil actors in our judicial system, are part of this intentional undermining.

 

[TheCount]

How are they undermining the presidency? He's not the president.

 

[jmdrake]

How are they undermining the presidency? He's not the president.

True. But if he doesn't have immunity simply because he's no longer president then Obama could be prosecuted for murdering a U.S. citizen via a drone strike....which I would be perfectly fine with happening.

 

[johnwk]

How are they undermining the presidency? He's not the president.

Do you understand the word presidency, as distinguished from the president?

 

[johnwk]

True. But if he doesn't have immunity simply because he's no longer president then Obama could be prosecuted for murdering a U.S. citizen via a drone strike....which I would be perfectly fine with happening.

Exactly.

Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President.

In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.


The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique and highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate.

 

[TheCount]

True. But if he doesn't have immunity simply because he's no longer president then Obama could be prosecuted for murdering a U.S. citizen via a drone strike....which I would be perfectly fine with happening.

I don't see the issue.


Neocon supreme court justices give examples of presidents doing other things which may be illegal - as examples of why the president should be immune

Then people are acting like those justices are criticizing those acts

If those are arguments for immunity then they are saying that the president should be allowed to do those things and get away with it. Any sane person should oppose this.


But we know why they clap. Rah rah team, go team, defend team, support team at all costs, even if it means turning your principles inside out and sabotages your goals.

 

[TheCount]

Exactly.

Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President.

In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.


The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique and highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate.

Ah yes any reading of the constitution clearly shows that the founders intended for the president to execute americans without due process. Obviously.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't see the issue.


Neocon supreme court justices give examples of presidents doing other things which may be illegal - as examples of why the president should be immune

Then people are acting like those justices are criticizing those acts

If those are arguments for immunity then they are saying that the president should be allowed to do those things and get away with it. Any sane person should oppose this.


But we know why they clap. Rah rah team, go team, defend team, support team at all costs, even if it means turning your principles inside out and sabotages your goals.

I don't think you actually understood what I wrote. Note that I said "which I would be perfectly fine with happening." So what "team" am I supporting exactly? On the Trump charges, as written, they are paper thin. Yes I've actually read the indictments and in the case of the Stormy Daniels / hush money trial I've even read the order denying the motion to dismiss. The phony "34 count" indictment is a copy / pasta of the same charge 34 times applied to different supposed business records. And the "election interference" charge is totally bogus too. I've listened to the entire 1 1/2 hour phone call between Trump, his lawyers, and the Georgia Secretary of State on the State's lawyers and Trump and his lawyers never asked the SOS to "find votes." Rather the Trump team claimed to have found enough votes to overturn the election including thousands of "dead voters." The SOS claimed there were only 2 dead voters and that a lot of people have the same last name and DOB. Trump's lawyer asked to see the records but they were never offered. The entire conversation was part of a mediation to try to if Trump's Georgia election lawsuit could have been settled without going to trial. It shouldn't even be admissible evidence. Democrat Stacey Abrams sued Georgia in 2018 over her election loss making a similar claim that Trump did about Dominion voting machines. Her lawsuit was not thrown out until 2022. Why isn't she being prosecuted? Total garbage. I'm not a Trump defender like [MENTION=10908]dannno[/MENTION] or [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION] nor am I even considering voting from Trump like [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] or [MENTION=33245]TheTexan[/MENTION]. I'm in the "Can't stand either one of them" camp with [MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION], [MENTION=5460]CCTelander[/MENTION] and [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION]. But facts are facts. The's criminal charges against Trump are total byllshyt.

Edit: And here's the phone call.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm in the "Can't stand either one of them" camp with [MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION], [MENTION=5460]CCTelander[/MENTION] and [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION]. But facts are facts. The's criminal charges against Trump are total byllshyt.

Yes. Yes they are. Just giving Trump victim cards to play.

Democrats love playing victim cards, but never vote for people who do the same. Republicans wouldn't dream of playing victim cards, but won't vote for any candidate who doesn't.

 

[TheCount]

I don't think you actually understood what I wrote. Note that I said "which I would be perfectly fine with happening." So what "team" am I supporting exactly?

Hence why I said "we" instead of "i" and "they" instead of "you."

Democrat Stacey Abrams sued Georgia in 2018 over her election loss making a similar claim that Trump did about Dominion voting machines. Her lawsuit was not thrown out until 2022. Why isn't she being prosecuted? Total garbage.

What crime did she commit that she should be charged for? Trump is not charged with "making claims," whatever that means.


Also, none of what you said has anything to do with whether or not presidents are criminally immune to prosecution (for life).

Even if you disagree with prosecution of Trump, it doesn't follow that you should support granting all presidents immunity to prosecution forever.

 

[jmdrake]

Hence why I said "we" instead of "i" and "they" instead of "you."




What crime did she commit that she should be charged for? Trump is not charged with "making claims," whatever that means.


Also, none of what you said has anything to do with whether or not presidents are criminally immune to prosecution (for life).

Even if you disagree with prosecution of Trump, it doesn't follow that you should support granting all presidents immunity to prosecution forever.

Neither Trump nor Stacy Abrams committed a crime. But Trump has been charged with one. That's my point! Contesting an election is not criminal. Trump didn't ask the SOS to find 1,700 votes. That's a lie that's been propagated by the prosecutors and the media. Also I never said I supported granting immunity to any president. You seemed to go out of your way to explain which pronouns you were using and yet you're still conflating what I'm saying. Let me be clear. Presidents have been getting away with crimes. I don't think any of them should. I'd be happy to see Obama charged with murder. But you were asking someone how this diminishes the presidency. If it means taking presidential power away that is diminishing the presidency. And that's a good thing. However this is only used selectively to punish presidents who really haven't committed any crime except going against the status quo, as I suspect is the case here, that's a bad thing. I hope that clears it up for you...but I don't think you were confused anyway, just being obtuse.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Trump will keep his immunity for the simple fact that taking it away would open up the door for his predecessors to also lose theirs.

 

[dannno]

Even if you disagree with prosecution of Trump, it doesn't follow that you should support granting all presidents immunity to prosecution forever.

No President has immunity from prosecution. They just have to be impeached first, then convicted by the Senate. That's what it says in the Constitution.

Otherwise, let's say we had a good President. Ron Paul became President. He would be hamstrung by random courts all over the country trying to prosecute him for BS charges like what we are seeing with Trump.

 

[TheCount]

Contesting an election is not criminal.

Good thing he's not charged with that.

But you know that.

But you were asking someone how this diminishes the presidency.
If it means taking presidential power away that is diminishing the presidency. And that's a good thing.

Nothing is being taken away because immunity is not a thing that the president ever had.

 

[TheCount]

No President has immunity from prosecution. They just have to be impeached first, then convicted by the Senate. That's what it says in the Constitution.

He's not the president.

 

[dannno]

He's not the president.

He was on Jan 6.

 

[TheCount]

He was on Jan 6.

He's not on May 3.

 

[dannno]

He's not on May 3.

That's not when the alleged "crime" occurred. That's why you can impeach a President after they have left office.

 

[jmdrake]

Good thing he's not charged with that.

But you know that.

Indirectly he is....and YOU know that. The prosecution LIED when it claimed he asked the SOS to find him votes. I've already given you the evidence to prove they lied. Quit being obtuse.

Nothing is being taken away because immunity is not a thing that the president ever had.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-5-1/ALDE_00013392/

 

[jmdrake]

Trump will keep his immunity for the simple fact that taking it away would open up the door for his predecessors to also lose theirs.

And that's the point I'm making that [MENTION=58229]TheCount[/MENTION] keeps trying to ignore. But [MENTION=10908]dannno[/MENTION] gets it. If Trump gets tried in a regular court without having been convicted in the U.S. Senate then I hope some grand jury somewhere will indict Obama from the murder of Anwar Al Awlaki. But that's not going to happen because Democrats love Obama and Republicans don't care about the murder of an alleged radical Muslim cleric.