Posted on 02/06/2024 2:15:14 PM PST by Dr. Franklin
I think the idea is there is immunity from charges relating to your official duties. Trump was arguing that fighting election fraud related to his official duties.
“Plotting” to overturn his election defeat? Isn’t that just freedom? Gore did it, Hillary did it, why can’t Trump”
Tipllub, you nailed it.
If this stands (it won’t) Biden can be indicted for withdrawing Trump executive orders. Why not? It was the law when he negated the law. That’s a crime.
EC
“Yes, it does, dbags, for what those former occupants did while they were in office, but not anything they may do after leaving office. “
Thanks for that. I was uncertain about the scope of the immunity, as I am a quick and un-thorough reader.
This board helps me a lot.
A punt.
Nobody will touch it.
This must go all the way to the Supreme Court
Do Federal judges have immunity from prosecution when they carry out their duties? I am not talking about committing criminal acts. What Trump is accused of was not a crime when he did it what he did that they are now trying to fashion into a crime.
Nixon is different. He willingly and wilfully engaged in a cover-up.
“Do Federal judges have immunity from prosecution when they carry out their duties?”
According to Mike Davis on War Room now, they do have immunity. At least that’s how I understand him.
Well now I think it is time to indict Obama for leading the ”Fast and Furious” program which let people purchase weapons it knew would end up in criminals and the cartel in Mexico in order to track them.
Of the known 2,000 guns involved in the program, 1,400 were never accounted for.
The program resulted in the death of a Border Patrol officer. I think Manslaughter would be appropiate.
So does the President when they are carrying out official duties. For example, if Biden were to steal a Secret Service SUV and drive it through a crowd - NO IMMUNITY
Trump should immediately release that he will indict Bush and Cheney for the Iraq war since there is no immunity.
?
tommy daschle too
“Nixon is different. He willingly and wilfully engaged in a cover-up.”
The reason Nixon was different is that he was not indicted. He was pardoned before any charges were made so the issue of Presidental Immunity was not to addressed.
EXACTLY.
Indict them all. Every single one of them. Tie them up in court and drain their bank accounts.
Both of them conceded. They just weren’t thrilled about it. Trump never conceded.
In other words, Trump probably does not have immunity from the NY “Stormy Daniels” bogus charges because that does not relate to his official duties. But the DC case clearly does. Any alleged wrongful action by the president, as relating to his official duties, has to be addressed through impeachment or the electoral process.
Gore waited quite a while before conceding, I recall. If that is illegal now, what does it matter how long it was? The truth is that Democrats don’t like it when their election integrity is questioned. If they weren’t cheating, there would be no reason for it.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Are there any Attorney Generals or DAs who have the guts to file criminal charges against Biden, Obama, Camel, et al.? Please pile them on! There must be a few. There are IMHO certainly enough credible claims.
Hello Texas? Hate to put another thing on your Great Republic, but you’re probably the only one with the clout to get this done. (OK, maybe South Dakota too.)
Well said.
“Trump probably does not have immunity from the NY “Stormy Daniels” bogus charges because that does not relate to his official duties”
Lordy - hard to keep up with this stuff.
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.