Criticize republicans for that one, it was a Republican led investigation, they’ve spent countless tax payers money and hours wasted investigating and yet have not brought forth any charges, whether criminally or through impeachment, I wonder why?Probably best to elect a president with dementia so all changes will be dropped because of mental capacity. I guess that isn’t being above the law…Sound familiar?
Right now Republicans control the House. If they impeach it's highly unlikely that Schumer will allow a trial in the Senate. But it's a moot point. SCOTUS isn't going to give the presidency unlimited immunity. So your question doesn't matter. What Trump is likely to get is limited immunity. Which pretty much makes the D.C. trial go away. SCOTUS may also send this case to a Federal district court which takes it out of Smith's hands. I know y'all were salivating at the thought of Trump getting reamed in multiple courts but so far all that's happened is he got a ludicrous judgement against him that will likely be overturned on appeal.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?
They've got tons of evidence but as the Mayorkas impeachment attempt demonstrated the Democratic controlled Senate isn't going to allow a trial. So best to go after Biden and family after Biden leaves office. Limited immunity won't protect Biden for accepting millions from our adversaries.Criticize republicans for that one, it was a Republican led investigation, they’ve spent countless tax payers money and hours wasted investigating and yet have not brought forth any charges, whether criminally or through impeachment, I wonder why?
Really? An insurrection would be allowed under Presidential immunity?Trying to overturn an election doesn't seem like an official act that would be covered by some sort of Presidential immunity.
Really? An insurrection would be allowed under Presidential immunity?
Unbelievable! And I suppose you believe the vaccine was safe and effective, and you probably still wear a mask too, Mr. Secret Squirrel. LolReally? An insurrection would be allowed under Presidential immunity?
Oh wow, imYou're the one cumming in your britches, disappointing your boyfriend.
President Trump said it was safe and effective, why would you vote for someone who would lie about such a big thing?Unbelievable! And I suppose you believe the vaccine was safe and effective, and you probably still wear a mask too, Mr. Secret Squirrel. Lol
Right now Republicans control the House. If they impeach it's highly unlikely that Schumer will allow a trial in the Senate. But it's a moot point. SCOTUS isn't going to give the presidency unlimited immunity. So your question doesn't matter. What Trump is likely to get is limited immunity. Which pretty much makes the D.C. trial go away. SCOTUS may also send this case to a Federal district court which takes it out of Smith's hands. I know y'all were salivating at the thought of Trump getting reamed in multiple courts but so far all that's happened is he got a ludicrous judgement against him that will likely be overturned on appeal.
But to your point the Cabinet can vote to remove a president. Lawsuits can be filed in Federal court that SCOTUS can rule on. What you're suggesting is what stops Biden from becoming a dictator? Everyone who takes their oath seriously to uphold the Constitution will stand up to him. The court isn't going to give the presidency the power to do whatever he likes in violation of the Constitution.
Lmao. What are these guidelines for “limited” immunity, whatever that means. You’re basically saying it will cover everything trump is accused of but not BidenThey've got tons of evidence but as the Mayorkas impeachment attempt demonstrated the Democratic controlled Senate isn't going to allow a trial. So best to go after Biden and family after Biden leaves office. Limited immunity won't protect Biden for accepting millions from our adversaries.
Said no such thing. SCOTUS has to consider the presidency going forward. Limited immunity means if Obama drones an American citizen he isn't tried in court for it after leaving office. He made a decision as president to eliminate a terrorist. Same for Bush taking us to war. If however Trump was to send troops into Mexico with orders to kill every man, woman, and child they encountered he would be guilty of war crimes and tried for that. Most likely impeached, removed in a Senate trial, then tried in criminal court. These current trials Trump is dealing with are such a stretch that even if convicted they'd likely be overturned. That's the kind of lawfare that SCOTUS will seek to protect all presidents from going forward. Limited immunity. We don't want presidents hobbled by charges brought by political opposition for legitimate actions they took as president.What exactly do you think presidential immunity means? I don’t think you understand
Lmao. What are these guidelines for “limited” immunity, whatever that means. You’re basically saying it will cover everything trump is accused of but not Biden
that’s already the case, because the laws says those thing are not illegal for a president to do. Obama couldn’t be charged for that because he didn’t break the law, the law specifies military involvement and accidental civilian death. Trump would be charged for the example you gave because that is against the law.Limited immunity means if Obama drones an American citizen he isn't tried in court for it after leaving office. He made a decision as president to eliminate a terrorist. Same for Bush taking us to war. If however Trump was to send troops into Mexico with orders to kill every man, woman, and child they encountered he would be guilty of war crimes and tried for that. Most likely impeached, removed in a Senate trial, then tried in criminal court. These current trials Trump is dealing with are such a stretch that even if convicted they'd likely be overturned. That's the kind of lawfare that SCOTUS will seek to protect all presidents from going forward. Limited immunity. We don't want presidents hobbled by charges brought by political opposition for legitimate actions they took as
Obama didn't accidentally kill a civilian. An American was involved at a high level with al-Qaida and Obama gave the go ahead to take him out. Several American citizens were accidentally killed in other strikes but the one guy was specifically targeted. Brought a lot of angst directed at the Obama administration for essentially killing a citizen without due process. The ruling that SCOTUS is considering will determine if a president can make such decisions and not face prosecution.that’s already the case, because the laws says those thing are not illegal for a president to do. Obama couldn’t be charged for that because he didn’t break the law, the law specifies military involvement and accidental civilian death. Trump would be charged for the example you gave because that is against the law.
This scenario of presidential immunity is absurd, and you’re being manipulated and not thinking logically. It hasn’t been a problem for any of the other presidents being criminally charged unnecessarily and excessively by political rivals before trump, and it isn’t happening to Biden either, because it is only a problem for trump, because he is breaking the law.
Exactly what cases are a sham that will be overturned that you’re referencing?
And you keep ignoring the scenario of a Congress that wont impeach and remove.
Cases Trump is being persecuted with:that’s already the case, because the laws says those thing are not illegal for a president to do. Obama couldn’t be charged for that because he didn’t break the law, the law specifies military involvement and accidental civilian death. Trump would be charged for the example you gave because that is against the law.
This scenario of presidential immunity is absurd, and you’re being manipulated and not thinking logically. It hasn’t been a problem for any of the other presidents being criminally charged unnecessarily and excessively by political rivals before trump, and it isn’t happening to Biden either, because it is only a problem for trump, because he is breaking the law.
Exactly what cases are a sham that will be overturned that you’re referencing?
And you keep ignoring the scenario of a Congress that wont impeach and remove.
And guess what? Obama wasn’t charged for that by political rivals. You know why? Because he didn’t break the law. And like every other president before him wasn’t worrying about it and asking for presidential immunityObama didn't accidentally kill a civilian. An American was involved at a high level with al-Qaida and Obama gave the go ahead to take him out. Several American citizens were accidentally killed in other strikes but the one guy was specifically targeted. Brought a lot of angst directed at the Obama administration for essentially killing a citizen without due process. The ruling that SCOTUS is considering will determine if a president can make such decisions and not face prosecution.
Presidential immunity wouldn’t even apply to this, why are you bringing this up?Cases Trump is being persecuted with:
The case brought by New York AG Letitia James claiming Trump committed fraud in the valuation of his property to get business loans.
and so was Vice President mike pence. Know why? They gave the documents back when asked. Trump was asked and warned multiple times, and made multiple attempts to hide and lie about the documents.Prosecuting Trump for having classified documents and yet both Biden and Hillary were let off without charges in spite of much worse violations.
Again, why are you bringing this up? This would have nothing to do with presidential immunityThe E. Jean Carroll case where she claimed Trump raped her. No proof, no witnesses, couldn't remember when exactly it happened, claimed outfit she was wearing on Vanity Fair cover was same one she was wearing when she was raped but turned out manufacturer didn't make that outfit until years after she claimed she was raped. Didn't matter to NY jury, and he gets slammed for millions
Again… nothing to do with presidential immunity, happened before he was president….
The case in Manhattan brought by District Attorney Bragg where he claims Trump wrongly entered payments to Stormy Daniels as business expenses. If true it's normally a Federal campaign misdemeanor. Federal prosecutors declined to try him over it but Bragg, a local DA, has turned the misdemeanors into felonies.
You asked what cases I thought were a sham so I told you. And it's laughable that you say I'm making this all about Trump. You and your ilk won't be happy until he's destroyed. Get a life.And guess what? Obama wasn’t charged for that by political rivals. You know why? Because he didn’t break the law. And like every other president before him wasn’t worrying about it and asking for presidential immunity
Presidential immunity wouldn’t even apply to this, why are you bringing this up?
and so was Vice President mike pence. Know why? They gave the documents back when asked. Trump was asked and warned multiple times, and made multiple attempts to hide and lie about the documents.
Again, why are you bringing this up? This would have nothing to do with presidential immunity
Again… nothing to do with presidential immunity, happened before he was president…
It’s really strange, you’re making this all about trump, and not the big picture with our country. You’re obsessed, and that’s why you’re thinking is so illogical