[butterdezillion]

I’m torn about which way this should go.

If it’s about the ability to charge Presidents with genuine crimes done while in office - like bribery, ordering assassinations, leaving the border wide open as an accessory to both election fraud and destabilization of the country on behalf of the countries who bribe you, etc... there should not be immunity.

But for good-faith governance, where life-and-death decisions have to be made, there are differing opinions on what is the best route, and there is a compelling Presidential duty involved, that’s a different story.

I think the issue has to be considered along with what accountability there is for PROSECUTORS who engage in criminal activity. The country and Constitution need to be protected from them as well. Bringing false charges of crimes for political gain or to cover up the crimes of the Deep State need to be prosecutable also. But who is there to prosecute the prosecutors?

As President, Trump had the duty to insure that the election was secure. Providing a means for corrected/accurate certifications to be effective is not criminal. What crime is there in seeking to fully verify the integrity of the election? The govt dude talked about there being a proper way to question election results, but the courts shut down almost every judicial avenue, the J6 plot by Pelosi and the Deep State shut down the Constitutional remedy of requiring investigations before certifying suspected-fraudulent electoral votes, and as Clarence Thomas stated in one of the cases that came before SCOTUS there is just not time to do real legal-quality investigations within the existing timeframe. All that has to be addressed too.

Is forcing all government agencies to do Get-Out-the-Vote work a President’s duty? Is it a crime? Is pressuring social media companies to silence your political oppenent a crime? Is White House collusion to conduct warfare on your political opponent a crime?

Seeing what is happening in Bragg’s case against Trump, where there isn’t even a crime actually stated that justifies felony charges, and knowing how corrupt NYC, DC, etc are as jury pools... I think SCOTUS would have to be idiots to not address both issues: potentially criminal Presidents, and potentially criminal prosecutors, judges, and juries.

[Kathy in OC]

Trumps lawyer is arguing that a president should have immunity for accepting bribes and assassinating rivals, among other things, such as selling our nuclear secrets to a foreign power. He would have to be impeached and convicted first on the nuclear secrets issue. Would that mean that Biden could lawfully assassinate Trump?

[itsahoot]

The govt dude talked about there being a proper way to question election results, but the courts shut down almost every judicial avenue

Including the Supremes that are hearing this case.

[JoSixChip]

If it’s about the ability to charge Presidents with genuine crimes done while in office - like bribery, ordering assassinations, leaving the border wide open as an accessory to both election fraud and destabilization of the country on behalf of the countries who bribe you, etc... there should not be immunity.

Good God! it kills me how stupid the American public has become. Of course the POTUS is immune from prosecution outside of impeachment and the 25th amendment. What the hell do you think impeachment and the 25th are for?

[PIF]

The Constitution addresses criminal Presidents - its up to Congress to bring charges, convictions and removal.

It should not be up to some random prosecutor to charge a President for anything, else there is no point in having a President.