Should President Biden have the same presidential immunity that Trump has asserted he should have? (house of representatives, Putin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would the left media be like without their propaganda?
It appears that the 'real' question was not about immunity, this was the actual question:
"Could a President order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?"
<side note, the question is talking about a "political rival" and not about those who are putting our national security at risk, like known terrorists, etc.>
To which Trump's lawyer said [a President] "would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosection".
That ignorant question, that those judges had asked Trump and that the left media is spinning, was slapped down by three former high-ranking military leaders.
LOL at "three former high-ranking military leaders"--will pass on the vid, but thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee
Please stop believing in and spreading propaganda.
A bit melodramatic.
As I understand it, it was a hearing to review a Trump motion to toss the election interference charges, claiming presidential immunity.
Team Trump was responding to the hypothetical that Judge Pan offered in her grilling of Trump's attorney Sauer about "what ifs" regarding the parameters of presidential immunity.
Sauer answered "qualified yes" meaning that, YES, even the act of the president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be barred from prosecution unless he were impeached and convicted first by the Senate FIRST.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,555 posts, read 12,525,568 times
Reputation: 10473
Quote:
Originally Posted by AguaDulce
LOL at "three former high-ranking military leaders"--will pass on the vid, but thanks.
A bit melodramatic.
As I understand it, it was a hearing to review a Trump motion to toss the election interference charges, claiming presidential immunity.
Team Trump was responding to the hypothetical that Judge Pan offered in her grilling of Trump's attorney Sauer about "what ifs" regarding the parameters of presidential immunity.
Here are the "three former high-ranking military leaders" that you are dismissive of and sneering at, just because you don't like what they'd said in response to the idiotic question:
Amici curiae are three former high-ranking military leaders. Their military and Pentagon service spans more than a half-century, under ten Presidents of both political parties and widely divergent policy agendas.
Amicus Secretary Robert Wilkie served in the Pentagon as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy—the third-highest-ranking position in the Pentagon—under President Donald Trump. He served in the United States Navy and the United States Air Force Reserves, attaining the rank of Colonel. He concluded his public service as a Cabinet-rank official in the Trump Administration, serving as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. He is currently a Distinguished Fellow for American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
Amicus Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg is a Vietnam veteran who was the Commander of the 82d Airborne Division, and served as Commander of Special Operations Command Europe. He later served in the Trump Administration as Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff of the National Security Council in the White House, as National Security Advisor to the Vice President, and as Acting National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. He is currently Co-Chair of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
Amicus Retired Lieutenant General William Gerald “Jerry” Boykin had a distinguished combat career that included the attempted rescue of Americans in the Iranian Hostage Crisis under President Jimmy Carter. As a Colonel, he was Commander of the Army’s elite Delta Force, and commanded all the Green Berets and the JFK Special Warfare Center, which trains the Green Berets. He also served in the Pentagon in the civilian role of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and served a tour with the Central Intelligence Agency. He is currently the Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council.
Here is the whole of their response, in the following link:
"would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosection".
Quote:
Sauer answered "qualified yes" meaning that, YES, even the act of the president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be barred from prosecution unless he were impeached and convicted first by the Senate FIRST.
Can a sitting president be tried in a criminal court of law while in office? Link showing where that can happen?
Everything I'd always read said that cannot happen - while the president is in office. But it can happen after the president is out of office.
So yes, that lawyer was correct in saying that a sitting president would be barred from being tried in a criminal court of law until the president is out of office.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,555 posts, read 12,525,568 times
Reputation: 10473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Waltz
Trump and Biden should have the same regardless of who asserts what.
I agree, all presidents should have the same/similar. But the OP is posing a loaded question where there is no real answer unless people know exactly what constitutes an allowable immunity and what doesn't. I wonder if there's some list somewhere that shows all of that? Probably not, it's most likely handled on a case-by-case basis. But presidents do need some immunity or else they would not be able to do their jobs.
Does a former president having classified info constitute an allowable immunity? Seems so, since other former presidents apparently have/had some. That might mean it was allowable for Trump to have classified docs, but it certainly does not mean the same for Biden*, since he'd apparently taken all of his when he was Senator and VP.
Now in the matter of going after political opponents, and using the alphabet agencies to help, NO president (Obama and Biden*) should have immunity from that.
For handling classified documents and official duties while in office, yes. But for using political office position for influence peddling should never be immune from conviction. To accept cash from foreign nationals in exchange for using position to that foreign national’s benefit through actions of the office he or she holds should always be grounds for removal from office and potential criminal convictions.
As for using government agencies to spy upon or harass them through unwarranted investigations,…that also should not be a subject of presidential immunity. As for those agencies that engage in such practices under orders of the president,..,they are like the enlisted in the military. They have the legal right to refuse an illegal order. As members of a law enforcement agency, they know the laws better than an enlisted soldier and so they too should be subject to disciplinary actions and or criminal convictions depending on the severity of their actions.
Here are the "three former high-ranking military leaders" that you are dismissive of and sneering at, just because you don't like what they'd said in response to the idiotic question:
Amici curiae are three former high-ranking military leaders. Their military and Pentagon service spans more than a half-century, under ten Presidents of both political parties and widely divergent policy agendas.
Amicus Secretary Robert Wilkie served in the Pentagon as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy—the third-highest-ranking position in the Pentagon—under President Donald Trump. He served in the United States Navy and the United States Air Force Reserves, attaining the rank of Colonel. He concluded his public service as a Cabinet-rank official in the Trump Administration, serving as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. He is currently a Distinguished Fellow for American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
Amicus Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg is a Vietnam veteran who was the Commander of the 82d Airborne Division, and served as Commander of Special Operations Command Europe. He later served in the Trump Administration as Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff of the National Security Council in the White House, as National Security Advisor to the Vice President, and as Acting National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. He is currently Co-Chair of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
Amicus Retired Lieutenant General William Gerald “Jerry” Boykin had a distinguished combat career that included the attempted rescue of Americans in the Iranian Hostage Crisis under President Jimmy Carter. As a Colonel, he was Commander of the Army’s elite Delta Force, and commanded all the Green Berets and the JFK Special Warfare Center, which trains the Green Berets. He also served in the Pentagon in the civilian role of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and served a tour with the Central Intelligence Agency. He is currently the Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council.
Here is the whole of their response, in the following link:
"would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosection".
Can a sitting president be tried in a criminal court of law while in office? Link showing where that can happen?
Everything I'd always read said that cannot happen - while the president is in office. But it can happen after the president is out of office.
So yes, that lawyer was correct in saying that a sitting president would be barred from being tried in a criminal court of law until the president is out of office.
The part people are concerned with is the argument that impeachment must occur before any conviction after they have left office.
There's an easy way out if this was true...they could resign. Out of office, but not impeached...so according to this line of thought, too bad, nothing can be done.
They really need to be separate ideas. Having enough in their party could also potentially keep them from impeachment even if they don't resign. We'd like to think that if it was a terrible enough act, they would vote correctly, but pffft, parties are so polarized these days it's not a given.
Impeachment is a political process for Congress to decide if he should be removed. Should not be conflated with the judicial process of prosecution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
