PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Username on March 01, 2024, 06:14:40 AM
-
A case is going to the Supreme Court regarding immunity for "criminal" acts by a sitting or former president. President Trump asserts that he has absolute immunity from prosecution. His opponents say otherwise. I honestly don't know. Searching around, I can't find any absolute answer other than there is already a remedy through impeachment. What do y'all think?
-
A case is going to the Supreme Court regarding immunity for "criminal" acts by a sitting or former president. President Trump asserts that he has absolute immunity from prosecution. His opponents say otherwise. I honestly don't know. Searching around, I can't find any absolute answer other than there is already a remedy through impeachment. What do y'all think?
I’ll go with Styx’s absolute answer. Makes total sense. It’s just 5 minutes:
https://rumble.com/v4geg8n-dumbass-judge-in-illinois-tries-to-remove-trump-from-the-ballot.html
-
That does make sense. Thanks! I'm expecting a total meltdown from the MSM and the left that will be fun to watch.
-
A case is going to the Supreme Court regarding immunity for "criminal" acts by a sitting or former president. President Trump asserts that he has absolute immunity from prosecution. His opponents say otherwise. I honestly don't know. Searching around, I can't find any absolute answer other than there is already a remedy through impeachment. What do y'all think?
The communist are opening a can of worms if they can get the court to say Trump didn't have immunity during Jan 6th. Now any setting president will have to think long and hard before doing anything, even if it benefits the country out of fear of being prosecuted.
BHO had American citizens murdered with drone strikes. Yes, they were involved in terrorism, but where was their trial and due process? So if the court rules DJT didn't have immunity, it's logical to say the relatives of the Americans murdered by BHO could bring charges against Obama.
Take the recent murder of the nursing student by the Venezuelan illegal. FJB enabled this murderer to enter the country, so that makes FJB an accessory to murder.
There are other examples as well. The lunatic left wants to believe this would only apply to Trump, but it won't.
So the question becomes do we want to totally cripple the presidency? We already have another court prosecuting the former president for seeking legal advise while in office.
-
Of course, under Communist rule that would not be applied equally.
-
(https://image.cagle.com/282927/889/282927.png)
-
The communist are opening a can of worms if they can get the court to say Trump didn't have immunity during Jan 6th. Now any setting president will have to think long and hard before doing anything, even if it benefits the country out of fear of being prosecuted.
I'm trying to think, from a libertarian view, why it's a bad thing to reign in presidential actions that would otherwise be illegal for Joe citizen. The whole immunity issue is, IMHO, beside the point since Trump didn't break any laws and was within his rights. Yeah, it sucks that he has to defend himself and the courts are biased/rigged, but if the supreme court does rule that presidents aren't immune in some cases I'll notch that as a small win against the imperial presidency. I don't see such a win as actually hurting Trump though. So maybe a double win by hanging threats over future presidents while Trump's actions are found legal.
-
If the President isn't immune, then all he has to do is pardon himself for any and all acts...
-
The case of Richard Nixon, whom many of you may recall, seems pertinent here.
-
The case of Richard Nixon, whom many of you may recall, seems pertinent here.
I guess that by pertinent you meant that he wasn't prosecuted after he resigned under threat of impeachment.
Impeachment is the remedy for a sitting President.
-
Ford pardoned Nixon.
-
I guess that by pertinent you meant that he wasn't prosecuted after he resigned under threat of impeachment.
Impeachment is the remedy for a sitting President.
True, though what I meant was that he had a similar view of Presidential immunity and I believe he famously stated that because he did it it was legal.