THE TRUMP 2024 THREAD

vantexan

Well-Known Member
That would be illegal for them to do. They don’t have presidential immunity like the president would have in this scenario. Biden could order every one of them assasinated, which is exactly what trump is arguing for in court right now

It’s insane you’re arguing for this. I guarantee you if it was Biden in court saying he should be able to assasinate his political opponent, you would be up in arms.

ok, let’s make this all simpler. Please answer me this

Biden gets presidential immunity, he declares that trump is an enemy to our country and orders him to be assasinated. You think that’s ok and he should be able to do that? Biden could go right up to Trump and shoot him himself

You’re saying he shouldn’t be tried in court for that, because then other presidents could also be tried in court from their political rivals. Do you see how silly this is?
You're going off into fantasy. Won't happen. And it's all because you want Trump imprisoned. At the point Biden had the CIA or whoever assassinate Trump or another top rival we devolve into full on civil war. Everyone knows this. If Trump gets assassinated before November expect the country to fall apart. It's not going to happen, and no president is going to argue he has immunity to do it.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
Today the surpreme court is hearing oral arguments on whether the president should have presidential immunity, and be above the law, which trump is arguing for.

What is everyone’s opinion on this?

Trying to overturn an election doesn't seem like an official act that would be covered by some sort of Presidential immunity.
 

HarryWarden

Well-Known Member
You're going off into fantasy. Won't happen. And it's all because you want Trump imprisoned. At the point Biden had the CIA or whoever assassinate Trump or another top rival we devolve into full on civil war. Everyone knows this. If Trump gets assassinated before November expect the country to fall apart. It's not going to happen, and no president is going to argue he has immunity to do it.
And you don’t think we should have safe guards to protect that from happening?

You want Biden to not be held to the law. You keep saying “he can’t do that because of the constitution” but you can’t answer what would happen if he broke the constitution

Again, you are wayyyy too wrapped up in Biden vs trump and are not thinking big picture

Whatever, I guess agree to disagree. I feel that if Biden is president, and democrats control both the house and senate and say they won’t impeach him for anything, I think he should still have to follow the law, and if he breaks the law he should still be held accountable. You think Biden should have presidential immunity, and that as long as congress decides not to impeach him, he can do whatever he wants, and the only thing stopping him from breaking the law is threat of civil war. Crazy
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
And you don’t think we should have safe guards to protect that from happening?

You want Biden to not be held to the law. You keep saying “he can’t do that because of the constitution” but you can’t answer what would happen if he broke the constitution

Again, you are wayyyy too wrapped up in Biden vs trump and are not thinking big picture

Whatever, I guess agree to disagree. I feel that if Biden is president, and democrats control both the house and senate and say they won’t impeach him for anything, I think he should still have to follow the law, and if he breaks the law he should still be held accountable. You think Biden should have presidential immunity, and that as long as congress decides not to impeach him, he can do whatever he wants, and the only thing stopping him from breaking the law is threat of civil war. Crazy
He has to obey the Constitution just like everyone else. He can't just ignore it and take away our rights. You live in a fantasy world.
 

HarryWarden

Well-Known Member
Trying to overturn an election doesn't seem like an official act that would be covered by some sort of Presidential immunity.
Trumps lawyers are arguing it is. They’re going even farther than that.

This is what trumps lawyers argued today in defense of presidential immunity

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military … to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” Sotomayor asked.

“That could well be an official act,” Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, said.
 

HarryWarden

Well-Known Member
He has to obey the Constitution just like everyone else. He can't just ignore it and take away our rights. You live in a fantasy world.
And he has to obey the constitution because it’s THE LAW. If he had PRESIDENTAL IMMUNITY, and BROKE THE LAW, what do you think happens next?

Who decides when the law is broken?
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
Trying to overturn an election doesn't seem like an official act that would be covered by some sort of Presidential immunity.
He thinks immunity is a get out of jail free card that allows the president to do whatever he likes.
That’s exactly what it is lmao, are you serious?


Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s absolute immunity claims​


"Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson spent much of the argument quizzing the attorneys on the potential implications of Trump’s absolute immunity position.

In one of the many hypotheticals the liberals tossed at Trump’s attorney, Kagan asked what would happen if a president ordered the military to stage a coup. Could that be prosecuted under Trump’s theory?

Sauer responded that a president would first have to be impeached and convicted before he could be charged criminally. Kagan fired back by asking what would happen if the order came on the final days of a presidency and there was not time to impeach or convict.

“You’re saying that’s an official act? That’s immune?” Kagan asked.

Sauer had to acknowledge that, under Trump’s theory, “it could well be.”

“That sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” Kagan responded.

Echoing a more fundamental argument the special counsel raised earlier in the case, Jackson said she was concerned Trump’s argument would put presidents above the law.

“If there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?” Jackson said. “I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country.”
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
And you don’t think we should have safe guards to protect that from happening?

You want Biden to not be held to the law. You keep saying “he can’t do that because of the constitution” but you can’t answer what would happen if he broke the constitution

Again, you are wayyyy too wrapped up in Biden vs trump and are not thinking big picture

Whatever, I guess agree to disagree. I feel that if Biden is president, and democrats control both the house and senate and say they won’t impeach him for anything, I think he should still have to follow the law, and if he breaks the law he should still be held accountable. You think Biden should have presidential immunity, and that as long as congress decides not to impeach him, he can do whatever he wants, and the only thing stopping him from breaking the law is threat of civil war. Crazy
I've already said that Trump is likely to get limited immunity from SCOTUS. They aren't going to give the president the right to do whatever he pleases. And they aren't going to open up the presidency to frivolous or vindictive lawsuits where the president is afraid to make a decision for fear the opposition would ruin him when he leaves office.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member

Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s absolute immunity claims​


"Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson spent much of the argument quizzing the attorneys on the potential implications of Trump’s absolute immunity position.

In one of the many hypotheticals the liberals tossed at Trump’s attorney, Kagan asked what would happen if a president ordered the military to stage a coup. Could that be prosecuted under Trump’s theory?

Sauer responded that a president would first have to be impeached and convicted before he could be charged criminally. Kagan fired back by asking what would happen if the order came on the final days of a presidency and there was not time to impeach or convict.

“You’re saying that’s an official act? That’s immune?” Kagan asked.

Sauer had to acknowledge that, under Trump’s theory, “it could well be.”

“That sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” Kagan responded.

Echoing a more fundamental argument the special counsel raised earlier in the case, Jackson said she was concerned Trump’s argument would put presidents above the law.

“If there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?” Jackson said. “I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country.”
Luckily greater judicial minds than hers are pointing out the likelihood of limited immunity. Unlike the Trump haters seeking to ruin Trump SCOTUS has to think about the effects on the presidency going forward.
 

UnionStrong

Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
Never mind Trump, or the democrats or republicans, as soon as the so called representatives realized there was money to be made from lobbyists, we were doomed…….And here we are.
 

HarryWarden

Well-Known Member
I've already said that Trump is likely to get limited immunity from SCOTUS. They aren't going to give the president the right to do whatever he pleases. And they aren't going to open up the presidency to frivolous or vindictive lawsuits where the president is afraid to make a decision for fear the opposition would ruin him when he leaves office.
You’ve yet to answer this very simple question.

If the president breaks the law and the constitution, and congress refuses to impeach him, what do you think the next step should be?
 
Top