-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Presidential Immunity?
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
KenH
Well-Known Member
“In the first place the office of president of the United States appears to me to be clothed with such powers as are dangerous. To be the fountain of all honors in the United States - commander in chief of the army, navy, and militia; with the power of making treaties and of granting pardons; and to be vested with an authority to put a negative upon all laws, unless two thirds of both houses shall persist in enacting it, and put their names down upon calling the yeas and nays for that purpose-is in reality to be a king, as much a king as the king of Great Britain, and a king too of the worst kind: an elective king.”
- excerpt from Antifederalist No. 70, December 11, 1787
- excerpt from Antifederalist No. 70, December 11, 1787
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I don’t think “presidential immunity” means immunity from prosecution of any or all crimes.
It seems to me that DT is arguing there are some decisions a POTUS makes in the course of his official duties that are immune from prosecution.
Challenging election results and handling classified docs fall under that theory.
I guess we will see what SCOTUS says
peace to you
It seems to me that DT is arguing there are some decisions a POTUS makes in the course of his official duties that are immune from prosecution.
Challenging election results and handling classified docs fall under that theory.
I guess we will see what SCOTUS says
peace to you
A parallel question concerns the President's power, while in office, to pardon all offenses (except impeachment). It follows that the office bestows upon the President, while in office, pardon of all offenses, he or she may have committed. These pardons would need to remain in effect after he or she left office, just as the President's pardons remain in effect after leaving office.
The idea of establishing a way to determine if an action is lawful, i.e. protected by Presidential immunity, and if not "lawful" then not covered by Presidential immunity, seems farfetched. The concept that an action can be deemed unlawful by political enmities, provides no protection for even well intended actions of the President.
The idea of establishing a way to determine if an action is lawful, i.e. protected by Presidential immunity, and if not "lawful" then not covered by Presidential immunity, seems farfetched. The concept that an action can be deemed unlawful by political enmities, provides no protection for even well intended actions of the President.
Presidential immunity?... Who is pulling the strings?... Brother Glen
HatedByAll
Active Member
The problem with any Supreme Court decision is that it establishes precedence. If Donald Trump is granted universal immunity, the same would be granted to Joe Biden and every other president from here on out.
Joe Biden has very likely committed real crimes that the Supreme Court may believe should be investigated when an Attorney General may be in office who would actually pursue a case against Joe. If you grant immunity to Trump the Court is granting it to Biden just as well.
Joe Biden has very likely committed real crimes that the Supreme Court may believe should be investigated when an Attorney General may be in office who would actually pursue a case against Joe. If you grant immunity to Trump the Court is granting it to Biden just as well.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Yes, just as saying that Donald Trump does not have immunity would mean that Joe Biden does not have immunity or the next president or the next president or the next president, etc. And I am all for every president not having immunity. Probably 90% of what presidents have done for decades is unconstitutional, just as probably 90% of what the Congress has involved itself in for decades has been unconstitutional. All of them - presidents and members of the House and the Senate - should be called on the carpet for it.
Trump, the former President, has demanded that in his public statements, but that's not what is requested in court. During his Presidency, Trump essentially claimed something similar, that Article II of the Constitution let him do anything he wanted. It was a ridiculous claim on its face, and demonstrated that either Trump didn't know a thing about the office he occupied, or he wanted the public to believe that he was essentially a king. It's possible both were true.
Yes, but his attorneys claim broad immunity for "official acts" as well as anything in the "outer perimeter" of official acts -- which would include things like bribery, where receipt of money or favor is connected to an official act by the President.
Since the President has no official role in elections (they are handled by the states), the immunity he requests would not apply. However, they also claim that Trump was somehow in charge of elections and the certification in the Electoral College, but that is a losing argument.
Classified documents fall under official acts (nuclear secrets are an exception), but Trump is only being charged with willful retention of classified documents after he was no longer President, so that kind of immunity is irrelevant.
It is not nearly as difficult as Trump's defenders make it out to be. The first 44 Presidents didn't have any trouble, except for Nixon. Nixon needed a pardon because he knew that he could be prosecuted.
Exactly. It turns the office of the President into a monarch, with terrible consequences for democracy. Trump's lawyers have EXPLICITLY argued that a President can have his/her political rivals/opponents assassinated as an "official act" with full immunity. The only exception would be that the President might fact impeachment in the House and potential conviction in the Senate. However, if the President had any sense, he/she would have his opponents in Congress assassinated as well, so there would be no impeachment worries at all.
Seriously, that's what Trump is arguing. Don't believe me? Listen to the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court yesterday: [beginning at 1:29].
Challenging election results doesn't fall under that theory because that isn't a crime.
Also, the Democrats challenged the previous election results, and called Trump a fake President. Clinton claimed she really won and the election was stolen.
As far as mishandling classified documents, the only ones that should be in question are documents after Trump's presidency. Those wouldn't fall under that theory.
While not an excuse, it is common for politicians to mishandle classified information. The trials are political.
Not the majority of the Democratic Party. And frankly, I don't recall ever hearing any prominent Democrat call Trump a "fake President." Can you cite an incident?
I keep hearing this claim repeated, but I don't ever remember her saying such a thing. Clinton conceded the election as soon as the results were clear (same evening) and held a press conference the next day acknowledging that Trump won. Are you converting the allegation that Russia had influenced the election (there's plenty of evidence that they did) and interpreting her to mean that the election was stolen?
I want to remind you that Trump was the one who DID NOT accept the results of the 2016 election, claiming that millions of "illegals" cost him the popular vote. He established a commission on voting integrity to find evidence for his claim and they came up empty.
Trump is being prosecuted for willfully retaining documents, many of them classified, and making false statements about them to the government. And many documents are still missing.
They are political because the crimes alleged have to do with the integrity of our elections, the peaceful transfer of power, and national security. Trump has made one's position on prosecution a political test of loyalty to him.
Yes (several, in fact). But I was referring to Clinton's statement in 2019 (speaking of the upcoming Biden election) that Trump was an Illegitimate President who would lose to Biden.
That was September 2019.
Earlier that year she said that Trump was a fake President who knew he stole the election.
In 2020 Clinton repeated that Trump was a fake president who stole the election.
Jimmy Carter said that Trump lost the election and the Russians put him in power (2019).
In 2017 John Lewis said that Trumo was a fake president.
In 2016 Nancy Pelosi said that Trump was an Illegitimate President who hijacked and stole the election.
In 2016 several Democrat electors pushed for state electors to go against the vote and vote for Clinton.
Several Democrats attempted to block Trump from being inaugurated after the election. One approach was voiced by Hayes, who said that states could ignore the election and give their electoral votes to Clinton.
KenH
Well-Known Member
@JonC Perhaps you can refresh my memory, but exactly when was it that a Democratic presidential candidate who lost, stirred his supporters into such a rabid frenzy that they stormed the U.S. Capitol, forced the members of Congress to flee, and threatened to hang Vice President Pence if he did not do their bidding?
As far as the "stirring" goes, Hilary Clinton was the last time.
The problem is that we judge the actions of these people by the outcome rather than the actual actions (remember the call for protests by those like Waters, Clinton, and Pelosi concerning Trump stealing the election....also the misinformation about Russia by the Clinton campaign that contributed just as much to Jan 6 as Trump's comments).
One thing about the United States is our freedoms. Clinton could cry that Trump stole the election with Waters crying for protests without being responsible for protestors who become violent. And when riots do occur and they are adventatious to their agenda Democrats can ignore, even encourage to an extent, without violating a law.
Both the GOP and DNC are equally responsible for Jan 6. They merely point hypocritical fingers at one another.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Huh? Don't we generally judge people by their actions?
By their actions, yes. That is my point.
You are judging Trump not by his actions but by the actions of others. His actions alone were inconsequential.
It there could have just as easily been a riot started the previous election by comments and actions of Clinton. Or by Waters comments encouraging extreme measures. Or by Pelosi's claim the election had been stolen. Or Clinton's comments that Trump was a fake president.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Personally, I don't recall all of these comments you are referring to, but the bottom line is that it was supporters of Donald Trump who rioted and stormed the U.S. Capitol, not supporters of Hillary Clinton.
And for the record, I think that every president after Grover Cleveland has been awful. And I think that the least awful one has been Ronald Reagan.
It was supporters of the Democrats that caused the riots the years prior, to include several deaths.
If one condemns Trump for the actions of some of his supporters and not the Democrats for the actions of their supporters then that person is a hypocrite.
Both sides are equally evil.
KenH
Well-Known Member
I don't recall, at least during my lifetime, the supporters of any Democratic presidential candidate rioting and storming the U.S. Capitol to try to overturn the Electoral College result.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Of course, they are. We human beings are evil in our natural state, in our flesh: Romans 3:9-18.
Last edited:
Before the Democrat Party became a front organization for the godless left, no left wing group coordinated by the White house, used law-fare to interfere with political opponents.
But let us discuss Mr. Nixon's pardon by Mr Ford. The presidential pardon power does not protect him or her from charges of impeachment. Thus an impeached President, whether or not convicted in the Senate, might be charged in a criminal court for those same impeachment charges. Thus the pardon cut through the possibility of subsequent prosecution.
Here again the key issue is whether immunity is lost when impeached for the impeachment charges, or whether immunity is lost for those charges only if the Senate convicts. As far as I am aware, SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue, one way or the other.
Last edited: