Supreme Court (finally) takes up Presidential Immunity

[Dill]

(04-25-2024, 05:55 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They have indicted him 91 times so the liberals and Biden D.O.J. passed the threshold a long time ago attempting to put Trump in jail. 
Why didn't Smith, Bragg or Fani indict him in 2021 or 2022?
Simple, they can't win the legal cases, this is about trying to tarnish him and keep him in a court room.

I believe the bolded is one of those items that has been explained to you before. 

In the New York case, Trump's weaponized DOJ stepped in and stopped the investigation/prosecution.
https://newrepublic.com/article/180726/trump-election-interference-prosecution-doj-bill-barr
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-reason-doj-didnt-prosecute-trumps-hush-money-case-rcna75887

(04-26-2024, 02:12 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The check and balance are Congress. It is Congress's responsibility to prosecute a POTUS. 
The example brought up about murdering someone came from left field from the liberal justices. 
Our system of Congress over seeing the POTUS (constitution) has worked for 284 years. 

And Congress failed to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice after the Mueller investigation,
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/mueller-report-transcript-trump-obstruction-justice-1281245

and then failed to impeach him twice--including after he sicced a mob on the Capitol to intimidate Pence into halting
his only ritual task of confirming an election already won, in conjunction with 7 slates of false electors already
prepared as part of the effort overturn a valid election.   And after the second failed impeachment, the GOP head of the Senate, 
who agreed Trump had done something very wrong and very prosecutable, said the president could be held accountable once out of office. 
Now he says he will vote for Trump.

The current GOP is the first regime party the US has had. The framers never imagined that possibility that that check would 
someday no longer be in place--and for a president who, thanks to said GOP Majority leader's underhandedness, 
got to appoint 3 members to the Supreme Court now overseeing his appeal for IMMUNITY. 

The final check, which would ultimately preserve our democracy, would be the voters, who as you never tire
of reminding us, prefer the autocratic and lawless Trump over Biden at the moment.

(04-26-2024, 02:12 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Again, we have an example of Obama ordering a drone strike and killing US citizens on foreign soil. Should he be prosecuted by a GOP controlled AG for murder?  If no immunity, it opens a huge can of worms.

In the more normal, pre Trump era, it would have been difficult to call the Al-Awaki killing a "murder," since he declared himself an enemy of the US and was actively abetting the killing of Americans in the US. And the president is sworn to protect the US from such enemies. That's a very different act from trying to coerce the head of a foreign country to investigate a rival presidential candidate. Tying a president's hands with a murder charge in such a case would open a bigger can of worms, limiting a potential defense of the US.
 
I think there should have been Congressional hearings on the matter, which resulted in legislative checks creating more transparency and accountability in the targeting process. 

But so unstable, unpredictable and politicized is the system now that it is not impossible that GOP controlled House/Senate could re-open a case like that and charge Obama, or Clinton, because "Dems did it to Trump."  The legal guardrails are falling away as millions of Americans are fine with setting aside evidence of Trump's criminality because they are so worried Biden has "weaponized" the DOJ by upholding rule of law.