In a sane and rational country where the Constitution is still followed you’d be right.
Sadly, I don’t believe we are in a sane and rational country anymore.
L
I stand in agreement!
Fair enough. On what are you basing you predictions upon? I agree that should be the case, but I have little faith in some of the so-called Supreme Court “conservative” judges who tend to rule based upon their personal beliefs, not the Constitution itself. Quite similar to how the liberal judges rule.
Agreed, but they have Congress by the ba!!s and own everyone at DOJ.
They are fearless of EVERYTHING but Trump’s return to the Executive.
If they succeed in their election fraud, I can only hope the Russians follow through.
Let’s hope, this persecution of Trump is beyond belief, we need some sanity in our justice system.
And why did courts refuse to address 2020 and why will SCOTUS rule against DJT here? Three words:
SCOTUS will not want to be accused...yet again...of handing the Presidency to a particular candidate. And that goes double for handing it to DJT.
I hope to God I'm wrong.
PS: it's obvious even to Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley that any guilty verdict handed down in these cases will be overturned on appeal...but that won't be until next year...or 2026...or 2027.
Seems reasonable, but is there something beyond impeachment and Senate conviction for treason?
(Asking for obvious reasons.)
I expect they will declare Presidents are immune from prosecution for most “official acts as President” but not from everything any President may have done while in office.
The question will then become, in this case, what is Trump claiming was an official act that he is now being prosecuted for.
They may rule on that as well, but in typical fashion will probably kick that back down to the lower court for further debate first.
Suppose Biden ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump. Would Biden be completely immune from any prosecution as long as 34 of the Democrats in the Senate refused to convict him on an impeachment vote?
A sweeping claim of presidential immunity sounds fine as long as you like the President who’s claiming it.
I am not saying that I disagree with you, but suppose hypothetically that the POTUS murders his wife a week before his term ends. How can a former POTUS be impeached, convicted, and removed from office, when he is no longer in office? The crime doesn’t even have to be a homicide. What if it is learned that the now former POTUS allegedly embezzled millions of dollars from the government while in office? Are you suggesting that the constitution prevents prosecution because the alleged crimes occurred while former POTUS was still in office?
The same SCOTUS that abdicated its Constitutional responsibility to hear the Texas 2020 election suit? Sure.
The question is, can any president be pursued legally for anything he did or said the moment he steps out of the white house at the end of his term?
SCOTUS will have to go for immunity. Obama gave approval to kill a US citizen with a Hellfire missile. They’re not going to expose him legally.
Fearless Prediction #2:
Even if Prediction #1 becomes True, they will still find him guilty and lock him up in late October.
Democrats are notorious for pushing for extremes to attack their opponents, and then reversing their positions to protect their own.
Hillary gets off scott-free, so dies Biden, but Trump gets the book thrown at him. Bill Clinton avoided all the quid-pro-quo allegations and campaign finance allegations with China, but Trump gets an expired NDA statute of limitations allegation bootstrapped into a felony. And then sometime in the future I'm sure Obama will get the white-glove treatment.
Better to nip it in the bud now and take this bit of lawfare off the table forever.
-PJ
Will know more once the case is fully briefed and oral arguments have concluded.