Prosecutors Ask Supreme Court to Reject Trump’s Immunity Claim in Election Case
Prosecutors Ask Supreme Court to Reject Trump’s Immunity Claim in Election Case
The filing was the main submission from Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting the former president. The case will be argued on April 25.
You're viewing a single thread.
Honestly for this crime, he shouldn't be charged here. It should be done as an impeachment. That's what a plain reading of the rules implies. And it's why it's such a travesty that the Democrats fumbled the second impeachment like they did.
They needed to slow walk the investigation and impeachment process and give it time for Americans to pressure their Republican congressmen to vote to impeach, similar to what happened with the Nixon investigation.
I don't think there's any amount of pressure that would result in the GOP voting to impeach. The lesson they learned from the Nixon impeachment was to create Fox News and further insulate themselves from public pressure.
I don't know, there have been a surprisingly large number of high profile, unexpected Congressional retirements because of Trump. Those same people might have been willing to vote against him in a prolonged impeachment trial.j
Everything we've seen from the GOP is that you must pledge absolute loyalty to Trump in order to remain in good graces with the party. If a GOP Congress person votes against Trump, they are persona non grata. Regardless of their position on Trump, the GOP has consistently put party over country at every possible opportunity. This includes both impeachment votes.
Which is exactly why they needed to present a fully fleshed out case to the public and to Congress. They needed to give individual Congressmen who voted against Trump the cover politically. As it was there were R Congressmen who are now quitting because of Trump who didn't vote for his imoeachment who explicitly cited the weakness of the case.
Not when he can just kill them. You can't arrest prosecute when you can just murder the prosecutors without repercussions.
The Senate chose not to impeach because by the time they got around to it he was not president. It had nothing to do with the legality of it. It was even stated by several of them that the actions were now left to the justice system.
There is no reason why a president should be immune from prosecution for crimes committed during the presidency.
Which was stupid. They should have continued to impeach because then they could legally bar him from running from office again.
There is no reason why a president should be immune from prosecution for crimes committed during the presidency.
Can you really think of no way to abuse this? Imagine when Biden leaves office if Texas tries to prosecute him for "dereliction of duty" or on whatever Texas' equivalent of a RICO charge is because his actions "assisted organized crime". Should they be allowed to?
It wouldn't be in Texas's jurisdiction. The president should not be above the law. If I would be prosecuted then so should he.
I mean it almost certainly would be in Texas Jurisdiction. Actual crimes of that nature are prosecuted at the state level every day.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and I hope I never have to see yours again...
I mean you say that, but imagine the case here was more suspect (which it could be) and targeted against a different former President for political reasons. It can't be that difficult to imagine such a case.
Trump should absolutely be prosecuted for his actions up to and including J6; but the prosecutions need to happen via the impeachment process, not in individual state and federal court rooms.
I meant what I said. Nobody is above the law, and the impeachment process is not a replacement for criminal prosecution. Kindly take your opinion, and shove it up your ass where it belongs...
The impeachment process is the proper way to prosecute crimes committed by the holder of the Presidency while they're the President. Impeachment is a criminal proceeding.
I understand that's what you think. You're just wrong.
If it's any consolation I hope I'm wrong too. But historically, when it comes to government overreach; I've been disappointingly correct.
Prosecuting someone for reckless criminal behavior that continues to have massive real world consequences, jeopardizes our national security, and undermined the will of millions of voters is not "government overreach".
Literally any other person who was accused of these same crimes would have been in jail awaiting trial the first day after an indictment. Cut the shit, and just say you want the president to be above the law. I wouldn't take you any more seriously, but at least you would be being honest...
Cut the shit, and just say you want the president to be above the law.
The President is above the law. That's why the impeachment process exists. That's why Obama and Bush (and Trump) can't be prosecuted for spying on every single American citizen. It's why they can't be taken to court for manslaughter for the Innocents they kill extrajudicially.
Their decisions have consequences and unless they rise to the level of impeachment their immune from them. That's how the law is written, that's how it's been consistently interpreted.
The President is above the law. That’s why the impeachment process exists.
Wrong. The impeachment process exists to remove a president from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors". If the President was truly above the law as you suggest, then there would have been no reason for Ford to pardon Nixon. You are making up post-hoc rationalizations for your psychotic ramblings because being an ignorant troll must get your dick hard.
There is literally no constitutional basis to suggest that the framers intended for the President to be permanently immune from legal prosecution. What you are attempting to describe is the determination of what context fits within the perimeter of Presidential authority. The President of the United States does not have authority over State elections. Therefore, none of Trump's conduct on January 6th or in his attempts to overthrow the election were within his purview as President.
I am now done with this conversation, and I am blocking you. You are not a serious individual who is worthy of my time, or anyone else's for that matter. Please seek help for your delusional thinking and fascist apologism.
There is literally no constitutional basis to suggest that the framers intended for the President to be permanently immune from legal prosecution.
That's objectively untrue. There's clearly a basis.
What happens when he just has Democrats in the senate executed? You can't be prosecuted if you can just kill the prosecutors without repercussions.
Which is why you need an impeachment as punishment for it can include being barred from holding public office.
How can you impeach someone who can stop the impeachment by quasi legally murdering you?
That particular scenario isn't a well protected for scenario in the US Constitution. In theory Capitol Police should be able to protect individual senators and congressfolk. But we did see how that broke down on J6.
This however enforces the reality that Trump should have been impeached with earnest when he was the second time (and honestly Congress should have listened to James Comey when he handed them an impeachment for Obstruction of Justice on a silver platter instead of fumbling it).