Trump's Quest for Presidential Immunity: A Dangerous Fantasy

[Social Media]

 

As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals weighs the question of whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution, his vocal assertions on social media and at rallies shed light on his desire for what he terms "presidential immunity." However, legal experts argue that Trump's analogies to police and priests are flawed, emphasizing that such immunity doesn't shield individuals from criminal prosecutions.

 

Flawed Analogies and Legal Realities:
Trump's analogies comparing himself to police officers and priests, asserting the need for immunity to carry out their duties, face legal scrutiny. Legal experts emphasize that the doctrine of qualified immunity, designed to protect government officials from civil lawsuits, does not extend to criminal prosecutions. Notable cases in history, such as President Richard M. Nixon's resignation and subsequent pardon, illustrate that presidents are not immune from criminal charges.

 

Presidents, Police, and Priests: No Blanket Immunity:
Contrary to Trump's claims, there is no constitutional provision granting blanket immunity to presidents, police officers, or priests from criminal prosecution. The legal system does allow officials to mount defenses based on the argument that they were performing their duties, but it doesn't absolve them of accountability for criminal actions.

 

Trump's Desire for Unaccountability:
Beyond legal nuances, Trump's push for immunity suggests a broader desire to shield himself from scrutiny and accountability. Critics argue that he envisions a scenario where all his actions, regardless of legality, remain immune from examination—an assertion reminiscent of an emperor seeking to evade accountability.

 

Pro-Police Bias and Its Consequences:
By leaning into the "rogue cop" analogy, Trump inadvertently highlights the pro-police bias prevalent in society. This bias, evident in data on police shootings and subsequent legal actions, showcases a systemic issue where public servants benefit from an unspoken social contract that grants leniency even in the face of wrongdoing.

 

Challenges to Accountability:
Implicit biases, reluctance by prosecutors to pursue cases against public officials, and societal perceptions contribute to challenges in holding powerful individuals accountable. Trump's quest for immunity seeks to formalize and institutionalize this protection, potentially paving the way for unchecked actions by those in positions of power.

As the legal battle over Trump's potential immunity unfolds, it raises critical questions about accountability, the rule of law, and the dangers of formalizing protections that could shield individuals from criminal prosecution. The American future, as envisioned by Trump, appears to prioritize unaccountability over the principles of justice and transparency.

 

25.01.24

Source

 

[Walker88]

Very simple. The Founders could have just used the Magna Carta as the guiding document. They did not. Instead---well aware of the power an absolute monarch or authority would have---they specifically and intentionally wrote that all are equal under the law.

 

trump has committed criminal acts. He is already a convicted sex offender, a convicted charity fraudster and a convicted bank and insurance fraudster. He has an additional 91 felony indictments facing him. One---the stolen documents case---is a slam dunk, as he had no right to willfully be in possession of such material. His other indictments, if the indictment documents are anything to go by, are close enough to a slam dunk that he should be getting his affairs in order. Even house arrest would send the wrong signal, as it places him above the average citizen. If a democracy like Suth Korea can jail3 convicted Presidents, certainly the US can, too.

 

He must be tried, and if found guilty (likely if not guaranteed), he must pay the same penalty any citizen would face. He is not above any law and not above any citizen.

[shipwrecked]

10 hours ago, Walker88 said:

convicted sex offender,

What was he charged with and when was he convicted, and when did he become a sex offender. Can you link to the charging indictment, conviction record, adjudication process concerning the "convicted sex offender" you refer to and also provide same for the statement you attest to of Trump is a "convicted charity fraudster", charging indictment, court records showing fraud conviction (conviction in criminal court) and also the charging records, indictments for Trumps convictions for bank and insurance fraud.

 

You will be able to somehow recreate these non existent criminal convictions for all these fraud and "sex offender" charges?

 

If you can, then you would be the fraud, and trying desperately to misinform about what you know not what it is you are talking about while making a fool of yourself. Prove me wrong. 

[be05546]

Well, being European, I am not sure I have understood all the details of the Law and the functioning of the Justice system in your country. But to simplify the debate on the total immunity that Trump claims for all his decisions as President, I believe that we must distinguish between “sanction” and “guilt”. There can be no question of punishing a president for decisions taken in the exercise of his or her function without running the risk of slowing down or blocking the entire system when he or she is faced with questions and problems of citizens and institutions. However, it is perfectly logical and desirable that decisions or lack of decisions be examined to define whether they are consistent with the interests of the Nation and respectful of the Constitution. A judgment, which can only belong to the Supreme Court, can then establish whether such decisions or lack of decisions are admissible or condemnable regardless of any question of penalty or compensation. A president is no less “guilty” than anyone else of his or her actions or decisions. This judgement is of paramount importance when it comes down to the rule of Equal Treatment for All as well as the application of restrictions on civil rights which may exist in the Constitutions of certain countries including the United States. Nothing can justify that a former president can be exonerated from his responsibilities in relation to the non-compliance established by a judgment of a Supreme Court. Immunity certainly allows him to avoid the criminal consequences but he cannot, in any way, escape his own Constitutional guilt like everyone else. This immunity cannot, under any circumstances, transform a “guilty” judgment into “not guilty”. Consequently, ''Section 3'' of the 14^th Amendment is applicable to anyone found ''guilty'' of acts and offenses in the course of an official and sworn function while leaving Congress the possibility of confirming or to invalidate this “ineligibility” by a two-thirds vote of each Chamber.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, be05546 said:

Consequently, ''Section 3'' of the 14^th Amendment is applicable to anyone found ''guilty'' of acts and offenses in the course of an official and sworn function while leaving Congress the possibility of confirming or to invalidate this “ineligibility” by a two-thirds vote of each Chamber.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment permits Congress to remove the disability, it does not state Congress has any part in deciding if the disability has been applied by the actions of the individual under consideration.

[be05546]

Correct, only the Supreme Court can decide on the disability. Congress can only decide to apply the disability or not.

[Danderman123]

Nope.

 

Under Section 3, Congress can restore the right of a person to hold office if they have previously been found ineligible due to being an insurrectionist.

[scorecard]

On 1/27/2024 at 6:04 PM, be05546 said:

 

Well, being European, I am not sure I have understood all the details of the Law and the functioning of the Justice system in your country. But to simplify the debate on the total immunity that Trump claims for all his decisions as President, I believe that we must distinguish between “sanction” and “guilt”. There can be no question of punishing a president for decisions taken in the exercise of his or her function without running the risk of slowing down or blocking the entire system when he or she is faced with questions and problems of citizens and institutions. However, it is perfectly logical and desirable that decisions or lack of decisions be examined to define whether they are consistent with the interests of the Nation and respectful of the Constitution. A judgment, which can only belong to the Supreme Court, can then establish whether such decisions or lack of decisions are admissible or condemnable regardless of any question of penalty or compensation. A president is no less “guilty” than anyone else of his or her actions or decisions. This judgement is of paramount importance when it comes down to the rule of Equal Treatment for All as well as the application of restrictions on civil rights which may exist in the Constitutions of certain countries including the United States. Nothing can justify that a former president can be exonerated from his responsibilities in relation to the non-compliance established by a judgment of a Supreme Court. Immunity certainly allows him to avoid the criminal consequences but he cannot, in any way, escape his own Constitutional guilt like everyone else. This immunity cannot, under any circumstances, transform a “guilty” judgment into “not guilty”. Consequently, ''Section 3'' of the 14^th Amendment is applicable to anyone found ''guilty'' of acts and offenses in the course of an official and sworn function while leaving Congress the possibility of confirming or to invalidate this “ineligibility” by a two-thirds vote of each Chamber.

 

The bottom line is very simple, nobody regardless of how you define anything, assess anything, try any case etc., is above the law, nobody.

 

Also, the US makes no secret that most / all justices on the supreme court are political appointments and there is an open expectation that each supreme court judge will vote in accordance with the beliefs of the party which put him/her on the supreme court.

 

Therefore there must be a factor which ultimately puts a block in the system. Again, nobody is above the law, nobody. 

[candide]

On 1/27/2024 at 12:04 PM, be05546 said:

 

Well, being European, I am not sure I have understood all the details of the Law and the functioning of the Justice system in your country. But to simplify the debate on the total immunity that Trump claims for all his decisions as President, I believe that we must distinguish between “sanction” and “guilt”. There can be no question of punishing a president for decisions taken in the exercise of his or her function without running the risk of slowing down or blocking the entire system when he or she is faced with questions and problems of citizens and institutions. However, it is perfectly logical and desirable that decisions or lack of decisions be examined to define whether they are consistent with the interests of the Nation and respectful of the Constitution. A judgment, which can only belong to the Supreme Court, can then establish whether such decisions or lack of decisions are admissible or condemnable regardless of any question of penalty or compensation. A president is no less “guilty” than anyone else of his or her actions or decisions. This judgement is of paramount importance when it comes down to the rule of Equal Treatment for All as well as the application of restrictions on civil rights which may exist in the Constitutions of certain countries including the United States. Nothing can justify that a former president can be exonerated from his responsibilities in relation to the non-compliance established by a judgment of a Supreme Court. Immunity certainly allows him to avoid the criminal consequences but he cannot, in any way, escape his own Constitutional guilt like everyone else. This immunity cannot, under any circumstances, transform a “guilty” judgment into “not guilty”. Consequently, ''Section 3'' of the 14^th Amendment is applicable to anyone found ''guilty'' of acts and offenses in the course of an official and sworn function while leaving Congress the possibility of confirming or to invalidate this “ineligibility” by a two-thirds vote of each Chamber.

As other posters have stressed, under the current constitution, there is no immunity. Trump is asking courts to change that, and introduce immunity for a President.

 

It makes sense that Presidents may have a certain level of protection about their Presidential duties, I.e. defining and implementing policies (in most cases as approved by Congress).

 

However, it cannot be seriously claimed that asking a person in charge of supervising elections to find him 11,800 votes, a fake elector plot, or watching fans assaulting the Capitol for hours without telling them to stop at once, is part of Presidential duties.

[Walker88]

In 2018, trump Tweeted an image of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama behind bars, saying they should be jailed "for treason". trump claimed both Presidents "spied" on his campaign, that it represents treason, and they should be jailed.

 

1) Neither President "spied" on his campaign

 

2) Even if they did spy on it, that does not represent treason. Treason is aid and comfort to an enemy against which Congress has declared war.

 

3) Since trump said both men should be jailed, he obviously has no problem with Presidents being immune. The only reason he now demands Presidents---or at least him---get total immunity WH to grave (he stole and kept the classified documents AFTER leaving office, so apparently he wants immunity for all acts for life) is because he knows he committed crimes for which he could go to jail or worse.

[Walker88]

On 1/25/2024 at 9:23 AM, shipwrecked said:

What was he charged with and when was he convicted, and when did he become a sex offender. Can you link to the charging indictment, conviction record, adjudication process concerning the "convicted sex offender" you refer to and also provide same for the statement you attest to of Trump is a "convicted charity fraudster", charging indictment, court records showing fraud conviction (conviction in criminal court) and also the charging records, indictments for Trumps convictions for bank and insurance fraud.

 

You will be able to somehow recreate these non existent criminal convictions for all these fraud and "sex offender" charges?

 

If you can, then you would be the fraud, and trying desperately to misinform about what you know not what it is you are talking about while making a fool of yourself. Prove me wrong. 

If you are going to comment, shouldn't you at least spend a few seconds Googling, so that you do not come across as clueless?

 

In the civil trial where E. Jean Carroll sought damages for trumps actions and words, the judge ruled that trump committed sexual violence against Ms. Carroll, after hearing the evidence and the defense. That makes him a convicted sex offender.

 

In the NY bank and insurance fraud trial, trump was given a choice between a jury trial or a bench trial. He chose bench trial. That means only the judge can rule on the evidence presented. Judge Engoron ruled that trump was guilty of both bank and insurance fraud. Now the only matter is assessing the penalty and fine for which trump has been convicted. It is an actual criminal conviction, not a "non-existent criminal conviction" as you wrote.

 

Both of these trials are matters of public record and the documents related to them are open source and public. You are welcome to go find them yourself.

Edited January 29 by Walker88

[Tug]

12 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

If you are going to comment, shouldn't you at least spend a few seconds Googling, so that you do not come across as clueless?

 

In the civil trial where E. Jean Carroll sought damages for trumps actions and words, the judge ruled that trump committed sexual violence against Ms. Carroll, after hearing the evidence and the defense. That makes him a convicted sex offender.

 

In the NY bank and insurance fraud trial, trump was given a choice between a jury trial or a bench trial. He chose bench trial. That means only the judge can rule on the evidence presented. Judge Engoron ruled that trump was guilty of both bank and insurance fraud. Now the only matter is assessing the penalty and fine for which trump has been convicted. It is an actual criminal conviction, not a "non-existent criminal conviction" as you wrote.

 

Both of these trials are matters of public record and the documents related to them are open source and public. You are welcome to go find them yourself.

Don’t feed the you know what comes to mind!obviously trump is trying everything to delay confuse question everything to no avail he’s darn lucky he’s in a liberal democracy many countries would have had him shot for what he tryed to and continues to do.personally sometimes I find it discouraging it’s taking so long to put this abomination were he belongs and when it does happen it will be even sweeter LOCK HIM UP!!!

[shipwrecked]

On 1/30/2024 at 5:39 AM, Walker88 said:

That makes him a convicted sex offender

So, when did this conviction take place? What was the criminal charge associated with this "conviction" you allude to? When was the criminal indictment or charge laid by prosecutors and in what court? The only thing you are sure of is how to spell google maybe but you certainly know not what you are talking about and seem to be be confused between civil, criminal, liable, conviction and their legal definition, applicability, use, etc . Also, are you even  the slightest bit aware of the jury findings as entered on the jury verdict in the civil case brought by E Jean Carrol??  If you did, you would stop trying to make a fool out of yourself. Capiche yet?

 

Now go use google and try to learn something.

[Walker88]

The court issued it's opinion:  Presidents are NOT immune.

 

The Circuit Court issued a 57-page opinion is so thorough and complete, it suggests that there is no need to consider this further in the Supreme Court. The SC can still take it up, but with such an extensive opinion issued, it is unlikely the court will bother.

 

The opinion is so thorough, it even notes trump's attempt to interfer in the election, specifically noting that overturning an election is absolutely not a Presidential "duty", and that what trump did "represents an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government".

 

The opinion further notes that having a President subject to criminal prosecution acts as a check on unbridled Presidential power and additionally supports the Founders system of checks and balances.

 

From Page 40 of the Opinion:

 

"We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a
President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that
would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive
power — the recognition and implementation of election
results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the
Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual
citizens to vote and to have their votes count.
* * *
From Page 39 of the Opinion:

 

"Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in
power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an
unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He
allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President
has no role — the counting and certifying of the Electoral
College votes — thereby undermining constitutionally
established procedures and the will of the Congress. "

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6 by Walker88

[Danderman123]

It's all bad for Trump.

 

As I told you guys last month, 2024 is going to be filled with bad news for Trump.

[Danderman123]

It's all bad for Trump.

 

As I told you guys last month, 2024 is going to be filled with bad news for Trump.

[Tug]

Ahhh sooo sweet I can’t stop myself from chortling he he he.!.!.!anyway it’s a good day for rule of law,democracy,and our United States!Now I’m sure he will appeal to the Supreme Court im hoping they decide not to hear it and let the appeals court ruling stand id bet money they would love to dodge the bullet on this one!!oh and we’re are all trumps fluffers?getting programmed?

[Walker88]

I guess some of donny's goobers can make sweet lemon out of his defeat. Had the court ruled that Presidents do have total immunity, Biden could have done what one of the Justices asked trump's lawyer: ordered Seal Team 6 to kill trump.

 

So Biden cannot have donny killed, and donny cannot try to overthrow the government or steal highly classified documents.

[Walker88]

13 hours ago, shipwrecked said:

So, when did this conviction take place? What was the criminal charge associated with this "conviction" you allude to? When was the criminal indictment or charge laid by prosecutors and in what court? The only thing you are sure of is how to spell google maybe but you certainly know not what you are talking about and seem to be be confused between civil, criminal, liable, conviction and their legal definition, applicability, use, etc . Also, are you even  the slightest bit aware of the jury findings as entered on the jury verdict in the civil case brought by E Jean Carrol??  If you did, you would stop trying to make a fool out of yourself. Capiche yet?

 

Now go use google and try to learn something.

The jury ruled trump sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll. The judge in the case actually said trump raped her. You are welcome to read the court transcript and educate yourself. It matters not that it was a civil case.

 

trump is a convicted sex offender. Capiche yet?

 

trump is also a convicted bank fraudster, a convicted insurance fraudster, and a convicted charity fraudster. With a bit more time, it's quite possible trump will be a convicted insurrectionist, or even better (if SC Smith changes the indictment, as he is allowed to do) a convicted Seditionist (a capital offense)

Edited February 6 by Walker88

[thaicurious]

14 hours ago, shipwrecked said:

So, when did this conviction take place?

 

Perhaps I can word it more to your approval:

 

At least the virus against democracy who has just been found to have no immunity doesn't have to register as a criminally convicted sex offender, but he has been civilly judged in a court of law as a sex offender who was also then found liable to pay $80+ million for defaming his sex offended victim that he had forcibly stuck his tiny fingers in E Jean Carroll's where the sun don't shine.

 

Better?