Posted on 04/25/2024 10:06:27 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Thursday on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The justices have taken up the monumental question of if, and if so to what extent, former presidents enjoy immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during their time in office.
The high court's decision will determine if Trump stands trial before the November election on four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Throughout arguments, multiple of the justices made clear they were looking past the immediate example of Trump and what their decision will mean for the future of the presidency.
"This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency and for the future of the country, in my view," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"Whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents," said Justice Samuel Alito......
Justice Samuel Alito addressed the "layers of protection" against bad faith prosecutions raised by the DOJ......
In a recurring point of interest for the court as it questioned the government, Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the question of the "risk" of a "creative prosecutor" using "vague" criminal statutes -- including obstruction and conspiracy, which Trump faces -- against any president if they can't claim immunity......
Asked by Justice Clarence Thomas why previous presidents were not prosecuted for controversial actions, prosecutor Michael Dreeben said "this is a central question."
"The reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not crimes," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Lying under oath about a sexual tryst with an intern is not a crime?
P
Trump immunity case updates: Justice says immunity may ‘embolden’ criminal presidents
__________________________________________________________
Do Presidents lack the boldness to do criminal things now? Biden has flaunted his student loan forgiveness program in defiance of the SCOTUS. Why should Trump be the only one to suffer prosecution?
I’ll be so happy when she gets her ‘come uppins’.
Nice answer-yea classified docs being stored all over God’s green earth wasn’t criminal until now.
Our system is obv extremely dependent on prosecutorial discretion-anything short of SCOTUS smacking the daylights out of the obvious politically motivated persecution is going to be a huge disappointment.
The enemy that rules, make the rules!
VOTE wisely!
Truth be told...
Just about every president has violated the law, one way or another. Strict enforcement of every law/regulation/rule, would handicap a president. And some who did become president, likely violated the law before being elected president.
A perfect president is not possible with humans.
Wake-up call for those expecting the Courts to protect Trump. If they were going to help they would have long ago.
ABC= Always Bull Crap.
Trump isn’t going to win this one.
I read the several links to this story but did NOT see any lines that mention the story headline or the justice who said “embolden” future criminal presidents.”
Has anyone here found which of the nine said it? “ Justice says immunity may ‘embolden’ criminal presidents”
They unexpectedly overturned Roe.
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.
“Immunity may embolden criminal presidents”
Sounds like Bill the hit man Clinton !
Judges must comprehend that now they will determine whether this nation will remain a Republic or be matamorphosed — with a Banana Republic being their end-product.
“”The reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not crimes,” he said.:
And they let the fool get away with that?
I have heard Mark Levin give dates and times when previous presidential elections were challenged in the same way and no one was charged with a crime.
There are legal ways already enshrined in law that prescribe how elections are challenged. Challenging an election has never been a crime in this country until Trump did it. Democrats have been doing it for decades.
Then you should prepare to be disappointed mightily.
And of course ABC is lying. It should read "To STOP the certification of a corrupt election."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.