Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

Here
and
Now

opinions

Supreme Court to decide whether Trump is immune from federal prosecution

15 Comments
By ERIC TUCKER, ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and MARK SHERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


15 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The President only gains immunity for doing things specific to his position as President, not anything else. Last time I checked, inciting a riot isn't in the list of Presidential responsibilities any more than causing a traffic accident or jaywalking is. Any President that does those things needs to be held accountable - in office or after he loses the office.

This isn't hard.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Supreme Court to decide whether they want to be seen throwing another election more like.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This isn't hard.

either was roe v wade. never underestimate just how bizarre this court can rule.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The President only gains immunity for doing things specific to his position as President, not anything else. Last time I checked, inciting a riot isn't in the list of Presidential responsibilities any more than causing a traffic accident or jaywalking is. Any President that does those things needs to be held accountable - in office or after he loses the office.

This isn't hard.

Then that means, any President going forward can bring Obama on charges for killing some kids in an Afghan village, and droning an American citizen and Bush can be indicted for Iraq and Clinton for his marital indiscretions and illegal bombing of Kosovo, that is where this is going, but if the Dems want to go by that standard is fine by me, the one silver lining in all of this is that liberals will not always be in power or have majorities always, that is a fact. The Dems did the same exact thing when they got rid of the filibuster in the Senate and that bit them big time in the a** because it helped Trump and Mitch appoint 3 conservative justices to the bench, which helped the GOP and will for some time, now the Dems never, ever learn, but if they want to go down that same road again, good luck. Like they say, be careful about what you wish for.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

bass4funkToday 12:55 pm JST

Then that means, any President going forward can bring Obama on charges for killing some kids in an Afghan village, and droning an American citizen and Bush can be indicted for Iraq and Clinton for his marital indiscretions and illegal bombing of Kosovo, that is where this is going,

They can try but they will be laughed out of court and owe the legal fees. Also those were official duties.

the one silver lining in all of this is that liberals will not always be in power or have majorities always, that is a fact.

You're not going to have sixty votes in the Senate ever.

The Dems did the same exact thing when they got rid of the filibuster in the Senate and that bit them big time in the a** because it helped Trump and Mitch appoint 3 conservative justices to the bench, which helped the GOP and will for some time, now the Dems never, ever learn, but if they want to go down that same road again, good luck. Like they say, be careful about what you wish for.

Yes, the ol' Russian logic of, "you stole something, so now we are unleashed to rape/pillage/murder!!!". Better hope Thomas stays healthy the whole year and potentially the whole next Biden term. Saying presidents cannot do whatever they heck they feel like is not a radical proposition.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They can try but they will be laughed out of court and owe the legal fees. Also those were official duties. 

No, not when they have the DOD, the Presidency, and the Senate, and will find a more leaning conservative court. Again, it takes two to Tango.

You're not going to have sixty votes in the Senate ever.

Because you say so? Lol

Yes, the ol' Russian logic of, "you stole something, so now we are unleashed to rape/pillage/murder!!!". Better hope Thomas stays healthy the whole year and potentially the whole next Biden term.

The same if Trump wins, see some retirements coming on the left as well.

Saying presidents cannot do whatever they heck they feel like is not a radical proposition.

This President and his admin. seem to think so.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

bass4funkToday 01:13 pm JST

You're not going to have sixty votes in the Senate ever.

Because you say so? Lol

Quite obvious why. The era of bipartisanship is dead.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Quite obvious why. The era of bipartisanship is dead.

That goes for both sides.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Quite obvious why. The era of bipartisanship is dead.

That goes for both sides.

lol. Just perfect.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The judge squarely rejected Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, saying in December that the office of the presidency does not confer a “lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

An appeals court in February held the same, with a three-judge panel saying that for the purposes of this case, “former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.”

Get ready for strike three...and he's out...of weak, pathetic excuses...

A court ruling in Trump's favor should have no bearing on the hush-money trial now underway in New York in part because that state-level case involves actions Trump took before he became president. And though Trump's lawyers have made the same immunity argument in a federal case in Florida charging him with hoarding classified documents, that case accuses Trump of illegally retaining the records and obstructing efforts to get them back after he left office — rather than during his presidency.

Even if he wins here, which he won't, he's still going to jail for violating a subpoena, lying in writing to the FBI, and destroying evidence...

And he'll go broke defaming E Jean Carroll, then paying our millions, then defame her again, and pay out more millions, etc., etc...

"Bing, Bam, Boom"....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump’s lawyers, by contrast, say former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity. 

"Absolute" as in on Jan 6th, Pence comes back to the White House after refusing to indorse the fake slates of electors, and Trump tells his aides to bring out the noose, then proceeds to "hang Mike Pence" in the Oval Office....

No crime there - he's "immune"....

Welcome to MAGA-law-and-order-world...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Get ready for strike three...and he's out...of weak, pathetic excuses...

He doesn’t need to, the Dems are doing the work for the GOP going forward.

Even if he wins here, which he won't,

Harry Reid thought that as well…meanwhile 3 conservative justices later.

he's still going to jail for violating a subpoena, lying in writing to the FBI, and destroying evidence...

Not going to happen.

And he'll go broke defaming E Jean Carroll, then paying our millions, then defame her again, and pay out more millions, etc., etc...

She won’t get a dime, crumbs perhaps.

"Bing, Bam, Boom"....

Hall&Oats

"Absolute" as in on Jan 6th, Pence comes back to the White House after refusing to indorse the fake slates of electors, and Trump tells his aides to bring out the noose, then proceeds to "hang Mike Pence" in the Oval Office....

Who?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Get ready for strike three...and he's out...of weak, pathetic excuses...

He doesn’t need to, the Dems are doing the work for the GOP going forward.

What?

Even if he wins here, which he won't,

Harry Reid thought that as well…meanwhile 3 conservative justices later.

Who?

he's still going to jail for violating a subpoena, lying in writing to the FBI, and destroying evidence...

Not going to happen.

ROFL...

And he'll go broke defaming E Jean Carroll, then paying our millions, then defame her again, and pay out more millions, etc., etc...

She won’t get a dime, crumbs perhaps.

Why?

"Bing, Bam, Boom"....

Hall&Oats

Indeed...

"Absolute" as in on Jan 6th, Pence comes back to the White House after refusing to indorse the fake slates of electors, and Trump tells his aides to bring out the noose, then proceeds to "hang Mike Pence" in the Oval Office....

Who?

And?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Absolute presidential immunity is a bonkers proposition. If that were recognized by SCOTUS, it would effectively turn the presidency into a potential absolute monarchy.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Absolute presidential immunity is a bonkers proposition.

Dems were fine with it back in 1999

If that were recognized by SCOTUS, it would effectively turn the presidency into a potential absolute monarchy.

No, if the left get their way then it would turn the presidency into a useless mockery, like I said, the groundwork would be set that any party can target their opposition rival President for whatever reason, both sides can play that game. If the Dems were smart (lol) they would try and do this the old fashioned way, they would just let the people decide instead trying to take away half of the country’s chosen Presidential candidate.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Amen.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites