Should a POTUS (any POTUS) be granted immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office?

Should a POTUS (any POTUS) be granted immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
PorterhouseMusic

PorterhouseMusic

Mitakuye Oyasin
Just curious... how folks feel about this relatively important question. Yes or no?

FWIW - I am talking about any crime(s). Any breach of any law which is currently on the books.

Thanks for participating.
 
I voted no but I am gonna paste my comment from the other thread:

"If it's an either/or then nay. In practice I think a limited immunity may be appropriate but it's a serious can of worms. In the context of the supreme court case it's a legal error to pursue."

A concern is the way "lawfare" has come to the fore where laws seem to be malleable and subject to interpretation based on intent of the prosecution. It seems like a lot of the charges against Trump in the various cases are silly bullshit brought to hinder his campaign with no legitimate legal merit. Maybe a decent compromise is that cases may not come to court while the subject is in office or campaigning for same. It's widely accepted that were Trump not running most of these charges would never have been brought.
 
I think that's it's an interesting consideration that several of the conservative SCJ's are widely considered "originalists" - with regard to how the constitution is interpreted and how how the framer's intent is to be interpreted. Considering that - is there any mention anywhere in the constitution (or anywhere else FTM) of "presidential immunity"? If not - why would they even be considering it? Fair question - yes, no?
 
PorterhouseMusic said:
I think that's it's an interesting consideration that several of the conservative SCJ's are widely considered "originalists" - with regard to how the constitution is interpreted and how how the framer's intent is to be interpreted. Considering that - is there any mention anywhere in the constitution (or anywhere else FTM) of "presidential immunity"? If not - why would they even be considering it? Fair question - yes, no?
Click to expand...
This x’s infinity. All you Trump supporters: ask yourself how the hell we even got here discussing this. This is scary ass shit. Yet here we are. This is why he cannot be in the White House again.
 
leddy said:
All you Trump supporters: ask yourself how the hell we even got here discussing this. This is scary ass shit. Yet here we are. This is why he cannot be in the White House again.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the problem is. I think it's good to have some definitions settled. If not for Trump would it even be considered? But if there is a loophole there best to close it by way of defining it and ruling out future exploitation. This will apply to all presidents past and future.
 
leddy said:
This x’s infinity. All you Trump supporters: ask yourself how the hell we even got here discussing this. This is scary ass shit. Yet here we are. This is why he cannot be in the White House again.
Click to expand...
Perhaps all the Bill Clinton supporters should be questioning themselves as to why the question of Presidential immunity wasn't on the table at the time of his "crime" in the Oval Office when he and ML were engaged in below the desk maneuvers. That, in and of itself wasn't a crime. The real crime was that he lied (under oath) before Congress. He was impeached and found not guilty by the Senate. Receiving a blow job in the Oval Office isn't a crime, but lying under oath is a crime.

You're right, @leddy. It's a mystery as to why we didn't manage to get here discussing Presidential immunity until now. I think we both know why.
 
Sky Blue Lou said:
I'm not sure what the problem is. I think it's good to have some definitions settled. If not for Trump would it even be considered? But if there is a loophole there best to close it by way of defining it and ruling out future exploitation. This will apply to all presidents past and future.
Click to expand...
A big part of this is him stacking the scotus with boot lickers. Combine that with his assertion that a president is immune from prosecution…he’s basically trying to combine 2 of the 3 branches of government. That’s the problem. What if the scotus sides with Trump? Can you imagine what that could bring?
 
Last edited:
60's guy said:
Perhaps all the Bill Clinton supporters should be questioning themselves as to why the question of Presidential immunity wasn't on the table at the time of his "crime" in the Oval Office when he and ML were engaged in below the desk maneuvers. That, in and of itself wasn't a crime. The real crime was that he lied (under oath) before Congress. He was impeached and found not guilty by the Senate. Receiving a blow job in the Oval Office isn't a crime, but lying under oath is a crime.

You're right, @leddy. It's a mystery as to why we didn't manage to get here discussing Presidential immunity until now. I think we both know why.
Click to expand...
I honestly do not follow what you are trying to say. I would be against presidential immunity regardless of who it was or what the allegations are.

Furthermore, impeachments are political, not judicial. You can be guilty of a crime and not impeached, or not guilty and successfully impeached. They are different events.
 
Last edited:
I was taught a long time ago... if you can't be part of the solution, at least try not to be part of the problem.

Chaos perpetuates and feeds upon itself, and is usually avoided by discerning adults. However, during times of war, in order to divide and conquer, interjecting chaos is a very useful strategic tool. These days, those who proclaim "chaos" the loudest are obviously politically driven; As evidenced by a lack of definition, and an emotional investment in blame only. Chaos will essentially define itself if you can successfully attach a name/face to it, but hindsight is always embarrassingly clear and undeniable. Those who propagate chaos ultimately own the results.

If the end justifies the means, then chaos and blame are the ultimate arbiters of ruin; You never fail to reap what you sow...

The easiest way to propagate chaos/confusion is to lawfully hold groups of people accountable to ridiculous standards of integrity in the name of morality. As if men are even capable of cooperative peaceful perfection...

What I notice most about Trump haters is their ceaseless character assassination of the man; Instead of a fair assessment of his performance as an elected public official. Elected by an imperfect but highly forthright and opinionated public.

For example...
If I voice a dissenting opinion, especially regarding politics in the company of anti-constitutional liberals, I'm immediately castigated as a Nazi. But, if I say my thoughts are in common with my Christian faith, then I'm immediately dismissed as a duplicitous hypocrite. To which, my habitual knee-jerk response has recently become, "Go Fuk'Yerself!"
Does that complicate my integrity as a Christian?
Maybe... but I don't give a $h!t.
I'm just a man...

America needs to return to a traditional mindset of common sense, law abiding social order, intolerance of lying duplicity, self reliance, self respect, and the acceptable practice of punching blathering idiots in the mouth. Give the libtarded idiots the war that they've been begging for... What's the point of arguing?
 
JAPOV said:
I was taught a long time ago... if you can't be part of the solution, at least try not to be part of the problem.

Chaos perpetuates and feeds upon itself, and is usually avoided by discerning adults. However, during times of war, in order to divide and conquer, interjecting chaos is a very useful strategic tool. These days, those who proclaim "chaos" the loudest are obviously politically driven; As evidenced by a lack of definition, and an emotional investment in blame only. Chaos will essentially define itself if you can successfully attach a name/face to it, but hindsight is always embarrassingly clear and undeniable. Those who propagate chaos ultimately own the results.

If the end justifies the means, then chaos and blame are the ultimate arbiters of ruin; You never fail to reap what you sow...

The easiest way to propagate chaos/confusion is to lawfully hold groups of people accountable to ridiculous standards of integrity in the name of morality. As if men are even capable of cooperative peaceful perfection...

What I notice most about Trump haters is their ceaseless character assassination of the man; Instead of a fair assessment of his performance as an elected public official. Elected by an imperfect but highly forthright and opinionated public.

For example...
If I voice a dissenting opinion, especially regarding politics in the company of anti-constitutional liberals, I'm immediately castigated as a Nazi. But, if I say my thoughts are in common with my Christian faith, then I'm immediately dismissed as a duplicitous hypocrite. To which, my habitual knee-jerk response has recently become, "Go Fuk'Yerself!"
Does that complicate my integrity as a Christian?
Maybe... but I don't give a $h!t.
I'm just a man...

America needs to return to a traditional mindset of common sense, law abiding social order, intolerance of lying duplicity, self reliance, self respect, and the acceptable practice of punching blathering idiots in the mouth. Give the libtarded idiots the war that they've been begging for... What's the point of arguing?
Click to expand...
Nice word salad. Here’s some common sense questions for you: should the federal reserve be subject to political influence? Should the potus be able to operate above the law?

You speak of law abiding social order. Perhaps your walk can match your talk.

Edited - previous was too hostile and I apologize.
 
Last edited:
I would say it depends on the level and type of the crime, whether it was committed as part of Presidential duty/administration, or a personal matter. That is what’s being considered in the Supreme Court currently. Obviously relative to the trials against The Donald happening now, I DO NOT find it acceptable to go after someone for crimes years ago at a time convenient to interfere with a viable candidate’s right to campaign for Presidency. Go after him if you want (even well after the crimes occurred) but with Due Process and scheduling that doesn’t interfere with his right to campaign and voters’ rights to have a fair Presidential race. This is really a dirty tactic Dems are using, in fear/desperation and understandably so. But it undermines freedom of choice by impeding one candidate’s right to campaign and focus on that campaign. It seems somewhat similar to PRC and Russian elections by eliminating or suppressing the opposing the challengers. I’m not a fan of bi-partisan politics and both major parties have shriveled into lethargic, bloated special interest establishments. But I don’t think I’ve ever been so opposed to either of them more than I am now. Our political system at this moment is just like a national Jerry Springer show: Shameful, unethical and without self-respect. No ever thought I’d see this kind of political buffoonery from either side, let alone both, in my lifetime.
 
leddy said:
The irony of Trumpers calling themselves patriots…
Click to expand...
So a bit of injustice that particular generalization. There is a certain school of thought that Trump is more patriotic than the current Dem party operators, candidates and followers. I am not talking about Magatards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top