Posted on 01/18/2024 3:17:36 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
NO to complete and total immunity.
That is why impeachment exists.
No president should be above the law.
Clinton claimed Presidential immunity while in office when Paula Jones sued him.
The courts denied his claim.
What about resident pecker head biden talk about lawlessnessness!’’!
The headline is deceptive. Trump said, “SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH “GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT.”
His point is that presidents are bound to make mistakes and if they are can be indicted for every misplaced jot and tittle then the presidency is over.
A comparison would be to indict Congressmen who passed bills that did not turn out right or failed to accomplish its goals.
“If he truly said we “just have to live with Presidents who cross the line”
He did not say that. Read his post.
Just to be clear, you are saying you would defend Obama, if he tweeted on the night before Michelle took office as President, in all caps, his belief that all Presidents should be granted permanent, blanket immunity, for all actions that they took while President. You would you agree with him/Michelle in that situation?
The constitution makes provisions.
They must be really explicit, if you'd be willing to defend Michelle Obama over it. Care to share? I can be convinced, and am only looking for the truth. Thanks.
Then you’ll see a whole lot of presidents prosecuted over political B/S after they leave office and a whole lot of government officials prying open presidential communications.
Thanks. That's my recollection as well. And when I did a time-based search on Google for Presidential Immunity, there is basically nothing out there except here very recently for Trump, then back when Clinton was President.
—> Just to be clear, you are saying you would defend
No.
I will defend the constitutional provisions of the presidency.
If you don’t like our Constitution, pursuade the states to change it.
Simple as that.
Sounds like you should reread the Constitution.
It isn’t long.
No need to. Nowhere in the Constitution are Presidents given “COMPLETE & TOTAL IMMUNITY” to criminal prosecution. Certainly not after they leave office.
Yes Sir, I agree that's certainly possible. Many glass ceilings have been broken the last 20 years, and the pieces can't be put back together on most of them. But I believe the answer is to always follow the Constitution, and our conservative principles, to the best of our ability.
And in this case, unlimited Presidential power to potentially break the law, with impunity, is the core issue at stake. The President is already the most powerful person on the planet, by far. There are very few restraints on this power, as it has grown year by year over the history of this country.
Many powers, such as the ability to unilaterally and essentially declare war on another nation, without consulting Congress, is in violation of the Constitution, but now accepted as the modern norm. Presidents are routinely negotiating treaties with other nations, again against the Constitution, which grants that authority solely to the Senate. These are just a few obvious examples, there are of course many more.
Therefore, I am more concerned about the growing and unbridled power of the President, than I am of a President being unfairly accused of abusing those powers. Trump and Clinton both proved a President can even govern while being impeached, and that the American people are often sympathetic to their Presidents being persecuted as well. Bottom line I believe a government should be balanced, fair, follow the rule of law at all times, and hold those accountable who break the law.
I realize that you and others may feel differently, especially as it is Trump putting forth this argument, but I would ask you consider from a conservative viewpoint, of limited government and personally accountability, to understand my position as well. Thank you again, very much.
Yes, but he was sued while he was president. But to be fair, the courts held off the case until after he left office.
There is no constitutional authority to prosecute the president for crimes committed during his term either before or after he leaves office.
Just to be clear, when I say “In this case” and further throughout my post #73, I am strictly referring to the appeal to the US Supreme Court by Trump regarding “Presidential Immunity” and not the originating case in lower Federal court regarding the electoral college vote on J6. Sorry if that wasn’t clear, and thanks again.
you have a habit of making comments, not based on facts or evidence.
presidents already have a system where they can be remove for acts they commit while in office.
you’re just imposing your twisted, tds interpretation that Trump says all presidents can deliberately commit acts against laws, rule or regulations, because Trump wants to be free to do so
The American President is the Roman Emperor. I believe that we've crossed the Rubicon. We can't go back to what it was. It's probably the fundamental flaw of the Constitution. The States, the Congress and the Supreme Court, for whatever reason, they do not have enough powers to check the President.
Here we go again...yet another total coincidence that the handful of anti-Trump trolls are all on a single thread at once.
Huh...damn odd coincidence I get....
You fing trolls still don’t understand everyone here can see what you are doing.
OR...I guess your paid posts warrant the stupidity you spew.
Unlike too many folks around here, I read the article. It's reproduced in its entirety in post #1 or #2 on this thread.
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.