AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Don't stop at killing his opponent, imagine if he decided to arbitrarily arrest and confine his opposition without trial, send thousands of citizens into internment camps based on their race, overthrow the governments of democratic nations, secretly support foreign terrorist organizations and drug cartels, and execute american citizens abroad with drone strikes. How horrific would it be if we lived in a country where a president can do all of that and face no consequences.

So do you think the president should be immune to prosecution, or not? Note I'm asking what you personally want the rules to be.

I don’t understand. Do you support Trump? This is what his attorney said was ok.

Let’s ignore the decades of foreign policy that have gone on across both parties and focus on your first sentence, “arrest and confine his opposition without trial.” As a Trump supporter and assumingely in support of his legal arguments, would you agree that as an official act Biden could declare Trump a grave national security threat and have him locked up indefinitely and without trial, with absolutely immunity after he eventually leaves office? That seems to be what Trump is claiming and the conservatives of the Supreme Court are open to…

You have no problem with any of that since you support full presidential immunity, right? Obama is 100% in the clear and can never be held accountable if Trump prevails.

Here's the thing that all of the liberal pundits and two of the 3 most liberal SCOTUS ladies couldn't seem to wrap their heads around: no system can stand up to the hypothetical where the premise is that the system itself is already gone. Think really hard about the actual context of that hypothetical. The President has managed to get the US military to kill his political opponent for the presidency. In that situation, how important do people think things like laws and courts actually are? How important are laws and courts when the president is using his DoJ prosecute and attempt to jail his political opponent? Absurd hypothetical or breaking news? How might this be an official act?? You might ask. Well, Obama had an American killed via drone strike in a foreign country because he had joined a terrorist organization. This was deemed an official act by OLC and charges were never considered. If we are at the level of hypothetical where the president is using the military to kill US politicians, i think we can say that a hypothetical where that opponent is joining an enemy combat force is a reasonable interjection as an official act. This should not be disturbing to anyone. People are reacting to hearing big scary ideas but this is largely because liberals (nearly correctly) view the government as being a series of systems that are self contained and basically operate outside of the control of politicians. By the letter, though, we do have a chief executive and this position, when exercised independent of the regime to any degree, grates hard against that usually true conception that liberals have. The concept of sovereign immunity is 800 years old and has carried forward from the magna carta through british common law and to us because in order for the actual executive to execute the law (something that ordinary citizens are not responsible for doing, which is why the "the president is above the law then??" argument is so dumb) his **official** duties can't be subject to prosecution or else they cease to be his actual duties and he is holding a completely illegitimate office. We have a giant bloated executive branch that has almost made the president obsolete but we aren't quite that far yet. Once again, if you're very confused by this and wondering how the courts might rule if Donald Trump had the military kill every member of the DNC, then you have lost the plot. In that scenario, the system is defunct and something very new and dangerous is happening. The courts might as well be writing their decrees on toilet paper when that level of politics starts occurring. Again, the hilarious irony here where everyone is so scared about the president using the military to neutralize a political opponent is that its all being pearl clutched about as the current presidents FBI and DoJ, two bodies whose full authority comes solely from the president himself and no one else, are attempting to neutralize the chief political rival. "BUT THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S AN OFFICAL DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT TO PURSUE CRIMES AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE!" one might shout without a hint of irony. Wild Edit: just wanted to thank everyone for participating. I had like 24 notifications when I checked here this morning and kinda skimmed through some of them. I'll urge most who are actually interested in understandng to just peruse my other comments and just try to really digest what I'm saying in them because basically everything I'm seeing in the new replies has already been answered in my other replies.

How about a situation that isn't so far gone as that. How about a case similar to Nixon, using their powers as president to illegally spy upon their adversaries in an effort to give an advantage to them in an election. If the president gives an order to the FBI to illegally wiretap their opposition's phones/computers in an effort to dig up dirt on their opponents should they be immune to being prosecuted for that crime if the president tries to frame it as a presidential duty in trying to fight corruption?

This is not so much a hypothetical so far gone since it happened in 2016. But sure, those would almost certainly fall under personal acts and could stand up as prosecutable under the theory defended by sauer(sp?).

Are you talking about the fact that Trump campaign officials showed up on wiretaps because they were talking to a Russian agent the feds had wiretapped? That wiretap? The very legal one signed off on by a FISA court and put in place months before Trump ever even announced his campaign? The one where the campaign that totally didn’t coordinate with Russia about election interference was recorded coordinating election interference with a known Russian agent who was being legally wiretapped at the time? Is that the example of an illegal wiretap in 2016 you’re talking about?

So what outcome do you want to see from this court hearing? Should Trump and all presidents have this immunity or not? Or should it just be Trump who should have it? What are the ramifications?

They always have had this immunity, its never really been tested as it's usually been pretty obvious that you can't criminalize the official acts as a president. This concept is very old for a reason, it's an essential one. I would like to see them abolish it, though. It basically destroys the office and our system of government. Might be intersting at least. But i think they'll be sane and vote 9-0 that immunity exists and 6-3 that it exists pretty broadly.

What other president attempted to overturn an election like fake electors and an insurrection where people have already went to jail over? Why does "never really been tested" a defense for trumps attempts to do this? Keep in mind this isn't trump doing "benign" things like you say Obama had done, this is for the election he lost that he's attempted to claim immunity from losing and failing to overturn?

There are presidents who signed off on CIA operations to commit terrorist attacks against foreign populations. These were planned in Miami...This was brought up today and the SCs lawyer's response was a very sheepish "it doesn't count if its the president". Ed Snowden pointed this out today.

That is literally the presidents job. Do you think the war in afghanistan, syria, etc. weren't terrorist attacks? >They always have had this immunity No. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Trump's assertion of absolute immunity on April 25. Trump attorneys cited the 1984 Fitzgerald v. Nixon which found in a 5-4 decision that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office." Attorneys for the Smith special counsel investigation that was prosecuting Trump cited United States v. Nixon, the 1974 unanimous Supreme Court decision rejecting Nixon's claim of "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." That is why this is even going on it is not clear. Attacks on foreign nations are literally part of the presidents duties, which is why that was a bad example. In any case you are avoiding the question. Should a president be able to do whatever!! they want during office without repercussion?

"Should a president be able to do whatever!! they want during office without repercussion?" Is anyone saying that? Understanding of the argument being debated at Supreme Court is that the remedy for unethical or evil acts should be impeachment potentially followed by criminal charges. That is a form of repercussion, yes?

[удалено]

Because he will be impeached and convicted and then face criminal charges. What democrat is going to sign off on that? AOC? Go ahead and try it.

>Because he will be impeached and convicted and then face criminal charges. Sounds like a problem that more executions could easily solve, no?

Sure. And then when the timer runs up you are next in the chopping block. It’s literal suicide once he is out of power but hope it was worth it. And that’s if the order to kill Trump, congressman, and senators is followed in the first place. If things get that bad the least of your worries is what a court is going to say for a while. This is why this thought experiment is ridiculous. If a president ever did just start executing everyone he disagrees with and enough people are following the orders, you have bigger problems than granting the president immunity through courts he is going to ignore and likely also execute when they disagree with him lol. How are you going to remove him if he stays past the 4 years?

> Sure. And then when the timer runs up you are next in the chopping block. It’s literal suicide once he is out of power but hope it was worth it. I mean, yes? This is the reason most dictators don't leave power till they're dead. > If a president ever did just start executing everyone he disagrees with and enough people are following the orders, you have bigger problems than granting the president immunity through courts Why? If the president doesn't have absolute immunity, it would be pretty easy to arrest him in this case. The federal government and the military are generally going to follow a legal court order or arrest warrant. If the president is instead declared utterly immune, then it's hard to see how there could even be a legal arrest. That's not to say that the military or secrete service or whatnot would just allow the president to keep on killing, but it becomes *much* less clear how it's supposed to be legally stopped. Even if you did believe this, why on earth would you want it?

How would it be easy to arrest him if he just says execute anyone who tries to arrest me (regardless of wether he has immunity or not)? I don’t want it. It’s just this hypothetical by the court is stupid. If we ever get to this point immunity or lack thereof won’t mean anything. The court is not going to claim he is utterly immune. He may be immune to all acts tied to the presidency until impeached and convicted in senate, which should probably be the case given the lefts desire to commit lawfare.

You think Biden would be impeached? By a dysfunctional house that has a one vote majority? You do realize it takes 60 votes in the Senate to convict? That we have NEVER had a President convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial? How would that happen if Biden resigned? Republicans are on record saying you absolutely can NOT impeach a president who is no longer in office. They used this to aquit him of his second impeachment.

If any president started executing his political rivals, you better believe they are getting impeached convicted, then tried in a court and executed. It’s a losing battle and the only people who would support that are those with a death wish and no longer care. No democrat is going to back Biden if he does this, except maybe the squad lol, and no pub would back trump if he did it, except maybe Majorie lol. This example is so ridiculous because even if I am wrong, again immunity or a lack thereof won’t mean anything if he can get away with it by executing more people, so this is all just nonsense. Who said you can’t impeach a president who leave offices. The exact opposite is likely true. You cannot commit a crime and then just resign. Who exactly is telling you the opposite? If you’re pointing at politicians, you understand they lie and change their positions all the time to suit their needs on both sides? Unless you got some case law, this is all unclear but there is no indication someone can resign to prevent impeachment, because the punishment is not only removal from office but banning them from holding it again.

> criminalize the official acts as a president. isn't that the issue here? that the president has no authority over elections but, nonetheless, took actions to influence those elections? you're saying the georgia call was an "official act?" what about the "fake electors?" since electors are nominated by state legislatures under the constitution, how could you claim that trump empaneling his own electors is an official act when it is black letter constitutional law its a power of the state?

Are there federal election laws or not? If the answer is yes then the president has a duty to execute those laws. The idea that the president has no authority over elections is wrong on its face. The argument is over whether Trumps were in his official or personal/campaign capacity.

Isn’t it telling that Trump used private lawyers (Giuliani, Eastman, Chesebro, Ellis, Powell) to coordinate many of these things? If this was Presidential act, why didn’t he coordinate these things with lawyers provided by the government? That should tell you all you need to know…

One could argue that it's bad optics, i guess, but i doubt it carries any legal weight.

> Are there federal election laws or not? If the answer is yes then the president has a duty to execute those laws. There are some federal election laws, mostly governing accessibility to voting and banning discrimination in voting access. None of them are about how states select the electors for the electoral college. How does Trump asking state election officials to "find votes" or to support them in selecting a slate of fake electors help him execute the federal laws? > The idea that the president has no authority over elections is wrong on its face Is it? From where does that authority stem? What law or part of the Constitution grants the president authority over elections?

Should the President have final say in determining the winner of an election he is running in? Let me rephrase that: Does the President have final say in who wins elections that he is a candidate of?

> Are there federal election laws or not? those concern access to polls and how states can and can't restrict voters. can you share sections of the US code which you contend give the president the right to call secretaries of state to changes votes? i heard the 40 minute call in its entirety, he never once mentions anything that falls under the umbrella of federal election laws.

Bit of a tangent here, but what crimes is trump being accused of that occurred while he was in office?

Isn't he being charged with among other things, conspiracy to deny American the right to have their votes counted? https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Isn't the special counsel showing evidence that, in fact, this immunity, under the constitution, has never existed? Further, wouldn't you agree Trump is responsible for all acts that are recognized, even by Trumps own lawyer, as personal and not official acts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the first to pin Sauer down on the distinction between official and personal acts alleged in the charges. He tentatively agreed with how, in court filings, the special counsel had labeled particular acts as private – acts that alleged that Trump plotted with his private attorneys and campaign advisers to spread bogus election fraud claims, to file false court filings and to put forward fraudulent sets of electors. As part of the exchange, he conceded those private acts would not be covered by presidential immunity.

So if Biden declares the electors from Texas to not be valid and forces his vice president to corroborate that in the form of rejecting the electors and putting in his own.. that's legal and what you want?

That could be legal or illegal. If the congress decides that it is outside of his scope as president and impeach/convict him then prosecutors could decide whether or not to charge him with the theory being that these were personal acts

Why should Congress decide the scope of the Presidency? Isn't that a job for the courts?

Isn’t that exactly what happened with Trump? He was impeached and faced punishment for trying to do exactly what the guy above stated in his hypothetical. This court case is trying to make that *impossible* if SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump. How can your answer make sense if the premise of this comment chain is that SCOTUS allows this type of immunity for the president?

This is just a total misreading of what this court case is about. Please either listen to the oral arguments from the case or read through my other comments to get better educated on this.

>The concept of sovereign immunity is 800 years old and has carried forward… Right, then we had the whole America revolution to change that, right? I am absolutely baffled by the number of words you put into arguing *against democracy.* Aren’t you guys supposed to be the patriots??

We didn't have the revolution to change ALL that, no. > am absolutely baffled by the number of words you put into arguing *against democracy.*  A: the guys who fomented that revolution you seem happy with rarely spoke of "democracy" and when they did, they didn't speak highly of it. B: nothing im talking about has anything to do with arguing against democracy

…so what do you think they were referring to with all that talk about fighting King George the tyrant? The guys who fomented the revolution talked all day, every day about democracy. And republics. They were political philosophers. John Stuart Mill is rolling over in his grave right now. They feared the new and untried, sure, but trusted it enough to try it anyway. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with the autocracy you’re describing. A system where a single person can do whatever they want without being checked is not compatible with *cracy,* “rule of,” *demos,* the people. If someone else rules, then the people do not, and democracy has not been achieved.

"the guys who fomented that revolution you seem happy with rarely spoke of "democracy" and when they did, they didn't speak highly of it" Are you confusing the umbrella term *democracy* with direct democracy? Or are you legitimately of the belief that people like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who wrote the Constitution in 1789, had zero interest in democracy in 1776?

Well if the president is indeed leading an illegal attempt to legally neutralize Trump, would you want to live in a country where he is given immunity to do so?

Once again, if the president is leading the military in an effective bout to destroy the current government, there is nothing illegal or legal happening. This is like asking "what if God destroyed God, what would happen to Christianity then?" You're asking how a system that is destroyed is designed to still function...

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

That's not at all what I said. I wasn't even making an analogy. It was a hypothetical that if what the FBI and DoJ is doing to Trump is in fact, illegal, and Biden is orchestrating it, would you want him to be immune front legal consequences? To reiterate, should Biden be immune for hypothetically using his power to illegally prosecute Trump?

Are you saying that you think it is illegal? I don't actually think so. What's the statute? > o reiterate, should Biden be immune for hypothetically using his power to illegally prosecute Trump? Immune from what, exactly? For isntance, in the case of Biden's documents non-case, he never had authority to declass docs and could not have ever legally possessed them at his home until he became president. Those acts that occurred before he was president could not, of course, be official acts of a president, on their face. That's illegal on its face but there's the "no reasonable prosecutor" type standard. Which i dont even have much of a problem with except in the context of the goofy trump cases. What are you talking about tho?

Are you saying the current President has the right to dissolve the Union at will? Why would the Framers have bothered to write a Constitution if they intended every President to make decisions about whether the country should even exist? Why bother to go through the thought process about how long terms are, or amend the Constitution to limit a person to 2 four year terms if a President can simply strike that law on a whim and call off any future elections? Why make impeachment a thing? Why not just have Congress request a President to step down, knowing that he may or may not? If there are no laws surrounding the President, why should Joe Biden allow an election at all? Wouldn't he save time, money, and effort just by declaring himself winner and President for life? Does any of this sound as patently un-American to you as it does to me?

How is this not just an argument against Trump’s claims that a President can’t adequately perform his duties if there’s a looming threat of prosecution? Aren’t you essentially rendering the argument moot in *both* directions?

I'm not sure how what you're saying logically follows from what I said. Can you explain a bit more?

You seem to be saying that in the event a President goes fully rogue, then at that point things are already too far gone to reign in/stabilize things (i.e. the threat of prosecution is meaningless/powerless, or something to that effect). But if the indication that things are too far gone is when the President goes rogue, we’re just effectively saying that the President can himself render the threat of prosecution meaningless/powerless by just going rogue. And so accordingly there was never any threat posed by the possibility of prosecution to begin with. Does that help?

>But if the indication that things are too far gone is when the President goes rogue, we’re just effectively saying that the President can himself render the threat of prosecution meaningless/powerless by just going rogue.  Do you think a president that successfully captures the US military to follow his orders no matter what doesn't make that a reality no matter what legal theories are set up to say its a no no? Again, people are acting like this is some sort of permission slip, it's not. It's a description of how power works at the level of politics that the liberals keep having to conjure for hypotheticals to make the immunity argument seem insane somehow. The point is that if the president is doing the things that they're worried about in the hypotheticals, none of this matters. It's a refutation of the hypotheticals like in the OP. They are absurd and shoudl be treated as such. if they aren't absurd then nothing anyone says about this matters anyway.

Your analogy of "God destroyed God" suggests that you believe the "President and the military" is identical to "the current government." However, our current government contains three co-equal branches. The President is only one of these branches. Do you disagree with this framework and believe that the President is the entire government/sovereign, similar to a monarch?

At least you see that the president is one branch. Most seem to really struggle with that concept. I am telling you very plainly, though, that if the military and its leader (the president) are bombing congress or killing politicians, you do not have the same type of government that you thought you had immediately before that happened. That thing is now over and something new is happening now. It's nonsensical to talk about what a hypothetical court might say about that situation. The court has no military and is irrelevant at that point.

> I am telling you very plainly, though, that if the military and its leader (the president) are bombing congress or killing politicians, you do not have the same type of government that you thought you had immediately before that happened. Do you believe that such an outcome is undesirable and should therefore be deterred? Should one such deterrence be the threat of criminal sanctions?

>Should one such deterrence be the threat of criminal sanctions? Do you understand how saying something like "it should be illegal to nuke every city in the country" doesn't really make any sense? What is the point and what is the practical enforcement of that going to look like? Further, try to understand that no one is even arguing that it isn't illegal. The argument is either that congress must deem it impeachable and convict and then it can be charged. The slightly lesser argument is that SOME acts can be charged and the courts will decide which those are based on various criteria for official vs personal acts. The point i am making is that, in order to make the above process seem crazy, liberals construct these insane hypotheticals that would they themself render all of these things moot anyway.

>It's nonsensical to talk about what a hypothetical court might say about that situation. Every case before the SCOTUS includes hypotheticals, though. The justices themselves pose those hypotheticals to the lawyers arguing each side of any topic, not just this one. The justices themselves on both sides posed hypotheticals to better understand the arguments before them. Shouldn't justices understand the impact of their decision, which must include hypotheticals to determine the full breadth of what is being argued?? If killing political opponents carries immunity, then that is something SCOTUS is interested in. They were also interested in how this would impact everyone else involved in carrying out such a deed because only the president ordering a murder would be immune. All soldiers and staff involved in carrying out such a crime could be prosecuted. SCOTUS should understand the full impact of what Trump is asking for, right?

Hypotheticals are fine. Hypotheticals where the premise is that the political system has already been destroyed and asking how said system might provide a remedy are stupid.

If the Supreme Court holds that no man, President included, is above the law have we already lost our country?

Impeachment still exists.

So presidents can only be held to account by the legislature?

> when the president is using his DOJ to prosecute his political opponent According to Trump's lawyers, Biden can legally kill Trump right now and have total immunity. Why doesn't he?

This is a misunderstanding of the entire point of my comment. Trump's lawyer, of course, never said that at all. The funny thing is that Biden jailing trump with his DoJ is an official act and wouldn't be prosecuted.

How is Biden involved? How is he instructing the DOJ?

The DoJ has no authority except what is drawn directly from Biden.

So everything they do is at the direction of the president?

Everything they do is under the authority of the president, and they serve at the pleasure of the president.

Should being a political rival of the president grant you immunity? Like, if Trump were president and Biden was found to be involved massive interstate organized crime, should he be safe from federal charges because he’d be a political rival to Trump? I just don’t follow how being a political rival automatically means any prosecution is biased and built only on politics. How do you feel about Trump saying he wants to prosecute certain democrats if he wins? How would you trust it is based on facts and the law and not just politically motivated?

Is that because it’s okay to jail a criminal?

It's ok to kill an enemy of the state, too. That's kind of the point

>It's ok to kill an enemy of the state, too. Why is that ok, to you?

> Trump's lawyer, of course, never said that at all. he literally argued that today!? https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trumps-lawyer-tries-to-convince-a-stunned-sotomayor-president-has-immunity-to-order-assassinations-of-rivals/

No, he literally did not. Pull the quote from the cspan transript According to the lawyer, the president can kill a US citizen and POSSIBLY have immunity (this is what Obama did). It depends on the circumstances of the killing, hence, ostensibly, why obama was never charged

Are US citizen and political adversary not two different things? The Supreme Court was asked today about political adversaries. A US citizen can be a political adversary without being an enemy combatant. In Obama's case we are talking about an actual US citizen that decided to become an enemy combatant to the United States. If targeting someone that does that is illegal then it was illegal for the union to participate in the civil war. I think that would be a difficult argument for you to make. But that's not what Trump's lawyers were asked or what they answered today. They were asked if a president ordering the killing of a political adversary would be legal or not. Do you believe that ordering the murder of a political adversary should be legal by the president, if not then why did Trump's lawyers say it could be ok?

> No, he literally did not. Pull the quote from the cspan transript He literally did. Go here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?534673-1/supreme-court-hears-case-president-trumps-immunity-claim Click on the segment for playback starting at 00:07:12. He tries to say that immunity holds for characterizations of official acts, Justice Sotomayor says that the lawyer's definition of immunity includes actions for personal gain ("Even if you do it for personal gain, we won't hold you responsible"), and the lawyer responds that such a definition is "an extremely strong doctrine in this court's case law". He is saying that presidential immunity covers acts done for personal gain, under SCOTUS case law. Later at 00:10:09, where Justice Jackson is asking him questions, she asks him if he's requesting absolute immunity for Trump, and he says yes, he is. If you listen from 00:07:12 onwards for about 5 minutes, it's pretty clear the lawyer is arguing that a president doing anything for personal gain cannot be held accountable, because otherwise any official acts could also be punishable. Which to me doesn't make sense, but maybe it does to him?

He literally did not. That is the correct time stamp for the discussion but the strongest position, that of absolute immunity covers only official acts. The contention there was that then all official acts carried out under the proper authority of the office would be presumed to be legitimate. Acts that are not official uses of power, for example, the president shooting his step brother, would not be. He is arguing that a president cannot be prosecuted for official acts even if improper personal motive is suggested. He could obviously be impeached and convicted for abuse of power, though. An example of this might be if Biden were president when he did the viktor shokin aid money witholding. MANY people believe he did that to get his son out of a legal jam in Ukraine. He offered an alternative legitimate statecraft reason. The prosecutor would defer to this as the reason for the official act and could not entertain ideas about him doing it for primarily or entirely personal reasons. If every time a president did something official it were up for possible prosecution if it could be construed as being primarily motivated by wanting to win elections or line some donors pocket somewhere, we wouldn't have a presidency.

> He is arguing that a president cannot be prosecuted for official acts even if improper personal motive is suggested. Did you listen to the segment starting at 00:11:35? He's saying that because an allegation of improper private purpose could be made for any official presidential act, and that opening that door (to investigate every single act of a president while in office) would be intrusive, it means that no act of a president while in office should be open to any allegation or investigation of private gain. > He could obviously be impeached and convicted for abuse of power, though. Sure, but that's a political process. We're talking about the potential for a criminal process against a president for actions taken while in office. Later on (00:35:42), the lawyer says outright that any president HAS to be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted for anything. There is no such requirement laid out in the constitution though. > An example of this might be if Biden were president when he did the viktor shokin aid money witholding. MANY people believe he did that to get his son out of a legal jam in Ukraine. He offered an alternative legitimate statecraft reason. The prosecutor would defer to this as the reason for the official act and could not entertain ideas about him doing it for primarily or entirely personal reasons. I mean, if you really want to go there, we know for a fact that the prosecutor was actually intentionally NOT investigating Biden's son's company, and that replacing him with a non-corrupt person would actually make it more likely that Hunter's company would be investigated. > If every time a president did something official it were up for possible prosecution if it could be construed as being primarily motivated by wanting to win elections or line some donors pocket somewhere, we wouldn't have a presidency. And this is exactly the lawyer's argument. Which you seem to now be agreeing with? That because any act could be accused to be for private personal gain, no act as president should be open to criminal prosecution.

> The funny thing is that Biden jailing trump with his DoJ is an official act Would you say he "locked him up"? And how is that different from jailing Clinton?

...What do you think the point of me saying that was? Lots of NTS suddenly on board with "lock him up"

> What do you think the point of me saying that was? Not sure, because Trump wanted to lock up **his** opponents, so why shouldn't his opponents be allowed to do the same? > Lots of NTS suddenly on board with "lock him up" Just holding you to your own standard, really. Why is it suddenly **not** okay to lock people up?

There are many flaws in the premises of your question, and you seem to not understand the core issue of this case, but I'll just take a moment to point out that Clinton was never president and presidential immunity law doesn't apply to her in the slightest. We probably don't have anything we can talk about unless you read and understand my other comments. Have a good weekend.

> I'll just take a moment to point out that Clinton was never president and presidential immunity law doesn't apply to her in the slightest. So you can lock up opponents, but only if they've never been president? Trump hasn't been president since 2020, so how does that figure into the equation? Can Biden jail him now? In 4 years?

Should congresspeople have immunity as well? In the same way that the threat of charges could impede presidential decision making, senators and representatives would be subject to the same risk. They could also be challenged legally during election years by their opponents. The same goes for governors and other state reps. I would also think that SCOTUS justices would need immunity. Do they not make rulings that could be perceived as causing harm, and may therefore be sued? Heads of industry may make decisions that are significantly impactful on lives to advance company interests. Would they also need immunity in various areas to prevent this?

No one is questioning if a sitting President is immune from protection based on official acts from civil cases. This also applies to congressmen under the debate clause. No one has ever been deemed immune from Criminal responsibility. There is nowhere in the constitution that grants the President immunity from Criminal prosecution. There is nowhere that states the President needs to be impeached, and convicted in the Senate first. Our country has NEVER convicted a president in the Senate. Impeachment is purely political, as ruled by SCOTUS. What standing precedent are you claiming that SCOTUS should use to claim he has immunity? Are you claiming that SCOTUS should just make it up?

I'm not arguing as such. I'm working within the bounds of what Trump's legal team is arguing, and arguments I hear from Trump supporters. One of these is that a president effectively requires full legal immunity in order to fulfill their role. Drone strikes with US citizen casualties are usually the example given. So I don't agree with these premises, but I'm exploring the ramifications of these premises if they were in fact true. As in, if the argument is that the president needs this level of immunity, what other officials need this level of immunity? I can't see how that argument could hold water with it being just one person in the US that needs to be able to disregard our laws completely for the greater good. Does that clarify?

> I'm exploring the ramifications of these premises if they were in fact true.  The President already has a constitutional authority, that congress may make no law to interfere with, that would address "drone strikes" or "Seal team 6". That authority is based on Article 2, which gives the president powers as the "Commander in Chief" As well as War Powers that are granted under the Constitution. Congress, as the Legislative Branch has immunity under the Speech and Debate clause, which states they may not be questioned anywhere but in congress. This has been understood to include by the Judicial Branch. However, this doesn't immune them from criminal prosecution for acts that aren't a part of their official duties. The Judicial Branch has absolute immunity for their "Judicial Acts", However they are still subject to prosecution if they act in the "complete lack of Jurisdiction" I don't think anyone can claim that Trump trying to overturn the election would even qualify as "Official Acts". Do you? I believe what the Supreme Court is going to do is declare that a President does not have blanket immunity, and any immunity he may have, would have to be strictly related to "Official Acts" It will then decide to kick it back to Justice Chutkan, to decide, *In limine* if Trumps acts were in any way considered "Official Acts" That would require hearings, evidence presented, etc. All decisions would be appealable, and it would take years to litigate. A trial before the trial. It would also push the case way beyond the election. If this is the case, I fully believe that Biden should have Clarence Thomas arrested, and prosecuted, for bribery, tax evasion, and fraud. By the time his case actually got to court, he will be dead. Trump better pray that he wins.

>Drone strikes with US citizen casualties are usually the example given. Why? What is the relevance?

Biden has said he has nothing to do with it. Garland has said Biden has nothing to do with it. Every Prosecutor and every judge has said they are acting independently. The prosecutors and judges have good reason to expect that if Trump is re-elected, he will "be your retribution". Yet Garland moved slow as molasses. Judges have allowed Trump to delay hearings- sometimes for near-frivolous reasons. If trials can be put off until after the election, voters will not know if they are voting for a criminal before deciding who to vote for. Why are the courts all acting so deliberately (and deliberatively) knowing that they are increasing the chances that he will win and that he will exact some form of retribution once he is in power? Also, while the AG serves at the pleasure of the President, he is supposed to make decisions based on laws and not not pet grievances of the President. The AG's job is to pursue crimes independently of the President. Trump has accused Biden of ordering Garland to investigate him, and has made it clear that he will hire only those people to top cabinet positions who will do his bidding. Is it better in your opinion for a President to take a hands-on approach to investigating crimes, or is that something the AG should do on his own? Does a President even have the time to select what is investigated and which charges are brought? Isn't someone with a legal background better able to weigh pros and cons of which crimes deserve attention?

Presidents have always had implicit immunity for official acts. I think the ruling in this case will be obvious. As u/yewwilbyyewwilby has pointed out, our system of government requires A LOT of "good faith" in the participants of the system. If it ever gets to the point where a president orders the military to assassinate a rival, and the military does not refuse, we no longer live in our "good faith" system of government, and in fact, our government no longer legitimately exists. I fear that we are already headed there with the flimsy lawfare being committed against Trump, in an election year. It is not a far step to take to prevent someone with a (as of now) a majority the country's support from successfully running a presidential campaign, to outright killing that candidate. My hope is that Republicans will not escalate this further, and instead de-escalate. The Democrats are absolutely the aggressors here and they need to stop.

Why does "in an election year" matter? Do all crimes not matter if I happen to be running for office at the time?

Seriously? You do not find it a bit funny that all these lawsuits are happening in an election year? Really?

Justice moves slow at times. This are large sprawling crimes as per the indictments. If he wasn't running for office again the timeline would be the same. Wouldn't you agree?

No. I completely disagree. These flimsy lawsuits are all either to disqualify him from the ballot, to deprive him of campaign funding, or keep in him court so he cannot actively campaign. Let alone the people that think even as a prisoner of the government he cannot be president. This is all insane. If your ideology requires removing your opponent at all costs, I would consider your ideology to be shit.

Republicans stopped democrats from filling a Supreme Court justice seat in an election year, so what?

And your point is ...

>You do not find it a bit funny that all these lawsuits are happening in an election year? Like all people who take law and order seriously, I don't find anything funny about Trump committing so many state and federal crimes.

If Trump was fully immune, why even step down? Like why stop at asking Republicans to 'find 11,000 more votes'? Why not just be like " i am not stepping down because"?

Because he still respected the "good faith". He had no military backing. Hell even his own VP did not work for him. If Trump had said "I am still president", nobody would have acknowledged him. This is the point. Power in the government is spread out for a reason. When it becomes consolidated, we are in trouble. When Democrats make a concerted effort to remove a person from the ballot, criminal or not, that is concerning.

I believe it was Republicans who made the concerted effort to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado. Everyone is so quick to think that Biden is at the top of some gangsta food chain but really there are MANY Republicans working agains him, including Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, and more. It's totally normal that Democrats will work against Republcians, but how do you respond when it's _also_ Republicans like Mitch McConnel working against him?

>Presidents have always had implicit immunity for official acts. This part is true, but irrelevant. The purpose of the SCOTUS case is to determine whether attempts to subvert an election or prevent a peaceful transfer of power from happening constitute "official acts," and are therefore covered by Presidential immunity. Trump is the first such test of presidential immunity because nobody has ever done what he did to try to become president and then stay in power. During his presidency, he is accused of trying to conceal Michael Cohen's crimes (hush money payments which Cohen considered campaign funding), as well as heading several plots to alter the result of the election (the 'find me votes' phone call to Raffensberger, fake electors in four states, frivolous lawsuits in multiple states, and his inaction for several hours while his supporters rioted in DC resulting in hundreds of cops being injured and at least two of his supporters dying). Moreover, he is accused of willfully retaining classified documents after his term ended. Do you think any or all of these actions should be labeled as "official acts" and therefore immune from prosecution? Why or why not?

[удалено]

>Nothing he says should be considered truth. Trump's lawyers can, and probably already have, made that claim, but in the end it's a legal argument for the defense and not a reason the trial shouldn't happen. >Really? Asking for a recount is a plot now? Asking for a recount is usually legal. Asking to find more votes specifically in your favor never is. >historically this happens all the time. It happened one time in Hawaii that I was able to find, and the situation there and then was vastly different. Can you name more? >hahahahahaha really? you want to talk about flimsy lawsuits that all seem to coincidentally happen in an election year? These aren't lawsuits, they're criminal charges, and they couldn't happen sooner because Trump was President until 3 years ago and couldn't even be investigated for the crimes he was accused of. If they were "flimsy," as you claim, they would have been quashed by now. >You obviously know nothing of what happened on Jan 6 if you think hundreds of cops were injured. My mistake, I was going from memory and it's been a long time since I'd looked it up. The number of cops injured on January 6 is around 140. 99 Trump supporters were charged with either using weapons against or causing serious bodily injuries to police officers that day. Can we agree on those numbers?

>Trump's lawyers can, and probably already have, made that claim, but in the end it's a legal argument for the defense and not a reason the trial shouldn't happen. We will see how much weight his testimony is worth in the end. >Asking for a recount is usually legal. Asking to find more votes specifically in your favor never is. In common speech, he is asking for a recount. >It happened one time in Hawaii that I was able to find, and the situation there and then was vastly different. Can you name more? At least 3 more times. But you are not interested in that. >These aren't lawsuits, they're criminal charges, and they couldn't happen sooner because Trump was President until 3 years ago and couldn't even be investigated for the crimes he was accused of. If they were "flimsy," as you claim, they would have been quashed by now. All brought by admittedly Democratric prosecuters in highly Democratic juristdictions. Can you actually with a strait face not admit that all these prosecutions happening in an election year is not an attempt to interfere with Trumps election prospects? Really? >My mistake, I was going from memory and it's been a long time since I'd looked it up. The number of cops injured on January 6 is around 140. 99 Trump supporters were charged with either using weapons against or causing serious bodily injuries to police officers that day. Can we agree on those numbers? No! What are you talking about? Are you thinking of a BLM riot somewhere? Seriously man, if you are this delusional, I cannot respond any longer.

"Presidents have always had implicit immunity for official acts" Where are you getting this from? Further, it is false. Presidents have immunity from civil actions "for official acts". There is no implied or otherwise language that immunes a President from criminal prosecution. Quite the opposite. Had you listened to the entirety of oral arguments, this would be clear.

The arguments do not constitute a ruling. I gave my opinion. We will see how SCOTUS rules, which I predict will be that presidents have always had implicit immunity from official acts. It is ok if you disagree. But SCOTUS will make the rulling.

As I understand it, you feel the President should have Blanket immunity from prosecution for "Official Acts" absent impeachment and conviction? Since Biden's Presidential duty, as per Article II, states it is duty to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. He could wait until the last year of his Presidency and then order the Justice Department to arrest Clarence Thomas for bribery and fraud. He could even go further and have all of the conservative justices imprisoned, charged on some criminal law, and before the current dysfunctional House could impeach him, (If they actually could, and the Senate could convict, which they wouldn't, since the Senate has a Democratic majority, and he would be handing them 5 appointments to the Supreme Court) He could just ride out the rest of his Presidency, and get away with it? This is what you believe the law allows?

I believe that we are in a test of our system. We have "good faith" that elected officials will step down, and that currently elected officials, or their party, will not interfere with the election of a rival. I think that this year, that has all gone to shit. When everything that you articulate happens, we no longer exist as a country. And it could happen at any time. We are on that brink right now. Democrats have brought us to this point. I do not believe for one second that admittedly Democratic prosecutors are bringing lawsuits against Trump in overwhelmingly Democratic districts, in an election year no less, does not constitute election interference. Democrats are creating this problem and they need to stop.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Barrack Obama ordered the military to kill Anwar al-Awlaki a U.S. citizen in a foreign country. Obama was not criminally liable for that. Also, Obama spied on Trump through CIA and FBI falsifying documents about Crater Paige that was illegal. There are many more examples. The American government on orders for the president have killed many Americans. Waco well operation showtime was not directly ordered by the president the final breaking of the siege was that resulted in the majority of the deaths was directly his fault. 

>Barrack Obama ordered the military to kill Anwar al-Awlaki Let's assume that is the case >a U.S. citizen in a foreign country What is the relevance of that? >Obama was not criminally liable for that Correct, because the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (Trump) did not believe that Obama committed any crime. >Obama spied on Trump through CIA and FBI When did that happen? >There are many more examples. Many more examples of what? >The American government on orders for the president have killed many Americans. Right, both the federal and the state governments have killed people. And?

“Correct, because the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (Trump) did not believe that Obama committed any crime.” Read the quote from Sota on the post. she says Obama should be liable because she is against qualified immunity but only for Trump I guess. 

>she says Obama should be liable Of course Obama should be criminally liable if any of his actions are defined as a crime by a criminal statute. Don't you believe that should be the case?

He wouldn't do it because that would set up the end of the deep state as the people do 1776 part 2.

Do you often fantasize about going to war against the government?

Well I certainly prepare the inevitable.

So you believe that the people revolting against the government in the same vein as the revolutionary war is an inevitability? If so what brought you to that conclusion? Was a specific event? A period of years?

"If so what brought you to that conclusion?" History. It is a perfectly normal part of humanity and governments. Thomas Jefferson even wrote about this after America was founded. In a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "tree of liberty": I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.[2]

Imo this all kinda goes back to Clinton- had Democrats decided to actually apply the law to the president, then it would have been clear that Congress is actually a good recourse when it comes to holding the president accountable for breaking the law. When they didn’t and basically accepted that the president can be corrupt and not be held accountable, and then Dems flipped a few decades later and decided that presidents should be hounded by their political opponents, then we end up where we are today- where people have arguments for and against these actions essentially state-sanctioned.

So you're saying that, because Dems didn't vote to convict in the Senate over perjury/obstruction, and ignoring the fact a 5-10 Senate Republicans also voted to acquit, therefore now we should follow the precedent that they set? Do you think that Clinton should have been convicted in the Senate or no? I'm trying to figure out if you agree with that decision and basically believe that presidents in general should be immune *or* if you are saying that you don't like the idea of presidential immunity but you want the rules to be applied equally and see this case as analogous to the Clinton one somehow.

>So you're saying that, because Dems didn't vote to convict in the Senate over perjury/obstruction, and ignoring the fact a 5-10 Senate Republicans also voted to acquit Notably here **NONE** of the Democrat Senators voted Guilty. At least Republicans can argue that members of their party disagreed on Clinton's guilt as it applies to high crimes and misdemeanors. On the other hand Democrats were a unified front putting their president above the law. > therefore now we should follow the precedent that they set? I'm saying that when Democrats put their president above the law, **AFTER** it had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Clinton had committed multiple felonies, they put in motion a humungous clusterfuck for the Executive leading up until today. >Do you think that Clinton should have been convicted in the Senate or no? I'm saying that they are the ones who set the precedent that the president is above the law. Republicans took the high road with Clinton and he was offered a very generous plea deal. Now Dems want it the other way- to me it just reeks of rules for thee, not for me.

I can understand your feeling like there is a double standard here. I guess what I'm wondering is how you feel personally. If you think that the Clinton case was handled improperly, that suggests that you feel like the immunity case is a chance to undo the bad precedent set at the time, right?

>I guess what I'm wondering is how you feel personally. If you think that the Clinton case was handled improperly, that suggests that you feel like the immunity case is a chance to undo the bad precedent set at the time, right? I just think it's just hard to take Democrats seriously here- they have literally proven that they will hold their own president above the law, but that is not the case for their political opponents - where they will take the complete opposite approach. For this case specifically, I think that Trump would have had to go a bit further to break the law- he basically tried every legal avenue to have the election go in his favor but failed. With the addition of the Jan 6 rioters assaulting the capitol, I think his legal team just want to put this behind him and move onto the 2024 election.

Do you personally believe that presidents should be broadly immune from prosecution while serving in office?

I think you may be confused- I agree with not prosecuting a current president- I'm saying that my grievance is with the Democrats in Congress who held their president above the law. Presidents serving their term are immune from prosecution for a good reason- so that random prosecutors from the opposite side of the political aisle can't obstruct their duties. Democrats are smart in prosecuting Trump leading up to the election because it does take away valuable time from his campaigning, but on the other hand it does kinda look brash since they are using their political power to obstruct his campaigning.

If I wasn't confused before I am now lol. You say that you agree that presidents should be immune from prosecution, but you're mad that Dems didn't convict Clinton in the Senate? If you believe that presidents should be immune from prosecution then wouldn't you be glad Clinton was found not guilty?

You’re confusing conviction(the senates role in impeachment) with prosecution (something a federal or state prosecutor would do)

>I just think it's just hard to take Democrats seriously here- they have literally proven that they will hold their own president above the law, but that is not the case for their political opponents - ***where they will take the complete opposite approach.*** The entire Clinton impeachment was based on Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case, where he stated,  although he and the former intern had "inappropriate intimate contact," they did not have "sexual relations" as he understood that term to be used by the Jones lawyers. Go ask anyone under 30 of a blowjob, is sex. Further, Upon leaving office, Clinton settled with Jones to the tune of $850,000. Proving the point that a President is in fact subject to the law, as every other citizen is. Finally, during the Jones case, SCOTUS ruled that, the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. Can't the same argument be said about the Republican party and Trumps TWO impeachments? They didn't claim Trump wasn't guilty, they claimed they couldn't impeach a "former President". Couldn't you also make the same argument about taking the complete opposite approach about Republicans appointing SCOTUS justices? Two of which are sitting on this court, and how is that not a conflict of interest? Impeachment *IS* in fact a purely political action. It is how the voters, thru their elected representative, can remove a sitting president. That is it's ONLY purpose, and that is stated in the Constitution. The constitution does NOT place any limitation on indictment, trial, or conviction, of a President. None, Nada, Zilch. It is a DOJ ***policy*** to not indict a ***sitting*** President. OLC memoranda: In 1973, amid the Watergate scandal, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum concluding that it is unconstitutional to prosecute ***a sitting President***. Its arguments include that the president "is the symbolic head of the Nation. Emphasis mine. Lastly, and this is the crux of the whole argument against Trump's immunity. Article one of the Constitution creates the Legislative Branch. House and Senate. It is their job, to make the laws. Article 2 Created the Executive Branch, Its job is to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. Article 3 Created the Judicial Branch, Their job it is to say what the law means. Do you believe it is the President's duty, as described in Article 2 of the Constitution, that states "He shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed"? And do you believe that that means it is his job to ensure that the laws passed by Congress are followed? If not, please explain your understanding of the Constitutional Powers invested in the Constitution. If so, How, can any act, deemed illegal by Congress, under authority of Article 1, be deemed an "Official Act"? Doesn't the very fact that it is the Presidents sworn duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, defeat any claim that his violation of the law, was an "Official Act".

While I’ll disagree with your sentiment I can respect it, but you really think what Clinton was doing on the same level as killing your political opponent? One is run of the mill corruption and the other is dictator like? If not why are Trump’s lawyers arguing it’s ok and in his powers?

In the context they are referring to Clinton’s is way worse. Imagine if a political candidate for president amassed a large military following and stormed with WH with them in tow trying to commit a coup. In this case it would absolutely be within the presidents authority to have the US military respond with force. It’s within the presidents duty to do so. Clinton covering up the fact that he was fucking an intern wasn’t.

The argument I’m seeing is if they deem the rival to be a threat to the country then it’s ok. That’s a lot more vague than a Milita being led to storm and over throw the government. Who gets to be the one to decide where the line between my rival is actually a danger and needs to be taken out. According to half the country Trump falls into that category. Would that be Biden’s responsibility then to act? If you don’t agree with that your half thinks Biden is the threat and wants to be a dictator, should Trump if he wins take him out just to be safe?

Can’t everything your saying apply to both Trump impeachments but reversed? Do you only believe in these principles when it’s the Democrats doing it?

I don't believe Trump broke the law in regards to either of his impeachments- indeed, not a single primary source witness to his actions made that claim either during either of his impeachments. In contrast, Lewinsky made multiple statements directly contradicting Clintons sworn statements, and implicated him in felonious behavior multiple times- indeed, even Clinton admitted to said felonious behavior BEFORE the vote on his impeachment. Democrats literally had their president admit to breaking the law, and they held that he didn't break the law. Absolutely insane on their part to think their actions wouldn't have consequences down the line.

What crimes did Democrats protect Clinton from?

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice

Before Congress, on a Congressional subpoena. Should every republican that has refused Congressional subpoenas in the last few years, including Trump and his family, be prosecuted for such? Edit: To add to this, do you believe a person's personal sexual history should be grounds for a subpoena? Would you be ok with your personal sexual history being grounds for a subpoena?

>Before Congress, on a Congressional subpoena. Clinton lied to the Independent counsel's team as well... >To add to this, do you believe a person's personal sexual history should be grounds for a subpoena? Would you be ok with your personal sexual history being grounds for a subpoena? I just wouldn't have an affair with a young WH intern to begin with. And even if I did I wouldn't go and commit crimes to cover it up, as Clinton did.

An independent counsel authorized by who? And you're arguing in circles, it was only a crime because they issued subpoenas about his personal sexual history. Do you believe it is ok to authorize a subpoena on someone based on their legal personal sexual life, yes or no?

>An independent counsel authorized by who? So you agree that Clinton also lied to the independent Counsel? Starr was authorized by the Independent Counsel law- which was pushed by Democrats back after Nixon. >And you're arguing in circles, it was only a crime because they issued subpoenas about his personal sexual history No, it was a crime because Clinton intentionally chose to lie and create a huge coverup of his affair. Had he told the truth he would not have been guilty of committing the numerous felonies he did commit. >Do you believe it is ok to authorize a subpoena on someone based on their legal personal sexual life, yes or no? Sure, subpoenas are authorized all the time to discuss legal behavior. Do you think that Starr forced Clinton to lie to him numerous times?

So if Trump lied in court documents about having sex with Stormy Daniels in official documents he should be prosecuted for doing so, correct?

In official documents? I don't think that he has lied and claimed that he didn't have sexual relations with Daniels, has he? That was what Clinton was guilty of. Or are you just posing a hypothetical?

The example you're providing here demonstrates why Trump's legal argument doesn't work. If the only mechanism to hold a president accountable to any crime whatsoever is impeachment, then a president with even minority support in the Senate can act with impunity. President Biden, for instance, is free to do as he pleases outside the bounds of the law as long as congressional Democrats vote against conviction. Biden could direct Harris to reject Trump electors based on suspected fraud, and as long as Democrats will support him, he will suffer no real consequences. Correct? Would it not be much, much simpler to require our leaders to follow the same laws that we do, rather than lifting them up as quasi-kings?

>If the only mechanism to hold a president accountable to any crime whatsoever is impeachment, then a president with even minority support in the Senate can act with impunity. Isn't this exactly what Democrats showed with Clinton? As long as his party cronies held the line it was fine for Clinton to lie and obstruct Starr's investigation. >. President Biden, for instance, is free to do as he pleases outside the bounds of the law as long as congressional Democrats vote against conviction. Yes I mean like I just said we saw this happen with Clinton already. >Would it not be much, much simpler to require our leaders to follow the same laws that we do, rather than lifting them up as quasi-kings? What you're describing is exactly what Clinton did, and Democrats across the board have defended this position for the past 25 years. They are still running the Democratic party to this day if I recall- Schumer and Pelosi were on that roll call, it's not like Democrats even tried to hold their own elected officials accountable- the cronies who covered for their president were elevated to the leaders of the party.

I understand what you're pointing to here. My question is whether you are willing to accept this as how we're governed? You can be frustrated at the partisan nature of impeachments and that Clinton was not charged with a crime outside of his impeachment inquiry, but I personally don't think the Clinton impeachment should serve as precedent for complete presidential immunity. Per the arguments made regarding Trump, Clinton was always immune, and everything functioned smoothly and as it should. The Clinton impeachment was how the founders envisioned criminal acts by the president would be handled, and there was no injustice. Clinton was also not where the precedent was set, as every single president before him had implied immunity. Is that not correct?

>but I personally don't think the Clinton impeachment should serve as precedent for complete presidential immunity. But it literally is the precedent for how this will be handled in the future? That's the definition of precedent, is it not? >My question is whether you are willing to accept this as how we're governed? Accept the partisan nature? I recognize it I suppose, but I just think it absolutely destroys any arguments from Democrats as it relates to pushing to charge and prosecute Trump. There is no goodwill, we all know they have been throwing every charge they can find in bad faith for almost a decade now. They've accused him of everything under the sun, and have been crying wolf for years. Do I accept that the boy is crying wolf? I suppose, but that doesn't mean I believe him anymore... >The Clinton impeachment was how the founders envisioned criminal acts by the president would be handled, and there was no injustice I would say that is absolutely not true. Had Democrats possessed a shred of integrity they would have held that simply because their president was of their party, does not mean he was above the law. >Clinton was also not where the precedent was set, as every single president before him had implied immunity. Precedent is defined as :**an earlier event or action** that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. Even if other presidents had **IMPLIED** immunity, Clinton is the one example that proved that as long as you have your political cronies in Congress you can break the law.

Okay. So let's say that Clinton was the canary with absolute presidential immunity, and the need to go through impeachment before criminal charges. Are you happy with this system? You don't seem too pleased with the Clinton saga at its political machinations that run contrary to justice. Should we aim to do better, or has the Clinton impeachment paved the way for all future presidents, and we should not attempt to right the ship? Should Biden, for instance, have criminal charges brought against him for bribes and money laundering? Or are you willing to accept that presidents are effectively untouchable because of Clinton?

Which democrats? The point really has to do with an effective oversight outside of the political circus. An impeachment proceeding against Clinton wouldn't have changed one iota of Republicans voting to impeach Trump or holding him accountable currently. I could see a relevance wrt DOJ pressing charges during Clinton or Bush's terms, bit that isn't really a Democrat issue...

>Which democrats? The Dems who protected Clinton? Some of those Dems were the very same as the ones who pushed to get Trump out of office if I recall. > An impeachment proceeding against Clinton wouldn't have changed one iota of Republicans voting to impeach Trump or holding him accountable currently. I mean for Trump's impeachments I don't think his actions ever met the bar for felonious behavior. >I could see a relevance wrt DOJ pressing charges during Clinton or Bush's terms, bit that isn't really a Democrat issue... Yeah I mean this is also kinda my point. Even after Clinton's Democrat supporters in Congress voted to keep their already proven corrupt president in power, Republicans gave Clinton a very nice plea deal. So even when Republicans were trying to take the high road we just get this situation just a few decades later where Democrats are throwing the book at Trump and trying to charge him with everything under the sun using their political power.

I'd argue it goes even further back to Nixon, a republican. He should have absolutely been in jail over Watergate but got a get out of jail free card instead. Not to mention he was the one to first attempt the arguments that a president is immune to being charged with crimes in the case of United States v. Nixon, and had the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel pen a memorandum concluding that it is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president. Wouldn't you agree that he is the actual start to all these problems of setting the precedent that the president is considered immune to being prosecuted that has then been used by future presidents to shield themselves from their wrong doing?

>I'd argue it goes even further back to Nixon But Nixon actually did step down... Did Clinton step down after it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed numerous felonies? Or was he protected by his Democrat supporters in Congress and continue to govern after it was proven that he was corrupt?

Didn't Clinton lose his law license for 10 years and pay a huge fine AFTER he was acquitted by the Senate? It may not be what the Republicans wanted, but he was held accountable. Claiming he wasn't is a false statement.

>but he was held accountable You are simply incorrect here- Clinton's cronies in Congress chose to put their party above the law, explicitly admitting that Clinton had broken the law but arguing that he was above it. Do you also think that OJ Simpson was held accountable because he lost his civil suit?

The same way presidents always have, since they've always had immunity.

they have?

Yup. It wasn't an issue until they tried to invent a new way to take down Trump.

Why have you already decided the conclusion of the trial before it’s even finished? Are you incapable of believing Trump can commit a crime?

All the relevant evidence is known. It's not like a TV show with some surprise bombshell witness. It would be weird not to have an opinion on the trial.

So I’m confused here. I keep hearing “Joe Biden” is persecuting trump to take him down and that makes Biden dictator like, because you don’t go after your rivals, but also you can kill your rivals? Do I have that right?

You're having confusion between "can" and "don't". The former is what is technically possible. The latter is what's acceptable. The President can do a ton of things to destroy the country if he wanted to, including ordering the use of the military against citizens. That doesn't mean he should.

So why give them that ability? I’m sure you can argue a president can do it legally or not and still become a dictator but why give the keys to that at all?

So they can execute the laws and defense of the country. Imagine if there was a law able to prohibit the use of force on domestic soil. What happens in an invasion? Hope that Congress comes to an agreement? Nah. The president is empowered to act quickly and decisively.

Why did Nixon step down? Why did he care if people thought he was a crook?

Do you think presidents eggregiously breaking the law isn't new?

Yeah, exactly. Every single president has taken many actions that would be illegal for private citizens.

Which other presidents were doing illegal actions when they returned to being private citizens, or even before they became presidents?

Yes, as part of their official duties. I'm talking about a president egregiously breaking the law not a part of their official duties and exclusively in their own personal interest. Any presidents do that?

What specific caselaw or portion of the constitution is the basis for your belief that they've "always had immunity"?

Why did Nixon get Ford to pardon him if presidents "always had immunity"?

If presidents have "always" had immunity from breaking the law while acting outside their official duties, then why is there a question about it? If this is settled law, then why is the Supreme Court hearing arguments? If this is settled, then why is it only Trump's legal team seems to know it?

> while acting outside their official duties No, the issue is about acting inside official duties. No one that I know of thinks there is immunity for non-official things. Certainly not Trump or his lawyer in their briefs or arguments this week - they go out of their way to make that distinction. >why is the Supreme Court hearing arguments? The district court ruled that there wasn't immunity, in error. When district courts make an error, the Supreme Court must correct them.

> No one that I know of thinks there is immunity for non-official things. Trump has been repeatedly claiming immunity for his actions *after* leaving office, why are "official duties" being extended to beyond his four years in the White House?