7
7
0
The Supreme Court, hearing a last-ditch appeal from Donald Trump, appeared open Thursday to granting some level of immunity to protect former presidents from being prosecuted for alleged crimes committed while in office. Over nearly three hours of oral argument, the court’s conservative majority expressed greater concern that a future president might flinch from bold action for fear of prosecution than the possibility that Trump could avoid accountability on charges he attempted to steal the 2020 presidential election from Joe Biden. The risk, said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was that a Trump trial could open the door to a new era of American politics where prosecution of ex-presidents became routine, much as the use of special counsels accelerated after the Watergate scandal
wsj.com
Posted from wsj.comPosted in these groups: 
Donald Trump
Supreme Court
Donald Trump Supreme Court
Posted 8 mo ago
Responses: 1
4
4
0
Immunity for a POTUS has to be restricted or defined somehow because of potential abuse.
(4)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
I don't see why anyone is calling for any level of Presidential immunity for criminal conduct. We shouldn't want to live in a country where a President can commit a crime and get away with it. We've survived for nearly 250 years under this reality of Presidents not being above the law. Why it needs to change, and why one particular ex-President needs to be protected, is beyond me. Nobody should be above the law.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Dale Johnson
LTC Kevin B. - I am not calling for immunity for Criminal Misconduct, nor for conduct or actions that of itself would be beneficial to the person of the President. In the Litigious time we are in I am surprised more people have not attempted to sue or bring charges against the President for actions while in office that are in the best interest of the country even if it may negatively impact a particular group or individual.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
LTC Kevin B. It is a difference between official actions and not.
EJKs are considered criminal by pretty much every court everywhere. Yet the President orders them to happen.
Drone strikes on innocents happen, as does collateral damage.
Baby Bush order the effective suspension of Habeas Corpus and the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Constitution.
Obama separated families and put kids in cages.
Pretty much every President has either ordered or authorized government actors to commit acts that violate one or more federal laws.
Is the solution to the above truth criminal prosecution as soon as they leave office?
If you argue that these official acts SHOULD be prosecuted, then how do you expect a President to make the hard decisions?
If the above should NOT be Prosecuted, then why should any of Trump's official acts, no matter how misguided, be prosecuted?
Now, the line, at least for me, is between official acts and personal acts. And in many cases the line can be difficult to find.
IMHO, all OFFICIAL acts should be immune - unless convicted in an impeachment. If anyone wants to try a former President for acts taken while in office, they must first satisfy a pre-trial inquiry that the act was NOT an official act. If it was an Official act AND the President was not convicted in impeachment, then no trial and charges dropped.
The same would hold true for governors in regard to state (but not federal) prosecution.
While I understand the specifics of this situation, the court must weigh their decision as it applies to this and all future cases.
EJKs are considered criminal by pretty much every court everywhere. Yet the President orders them to happen.
Drone strikes on innocents happen, as does collateral damage.
Baby Bush order the effective suspension of Habeas Corpus and the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Constitution.
Obama separated families and put kids in cages.
Pretty much every President has either ordered or authorized government actors to commit acts that violate one or more federal laws.
Is the solution to the above truth criminal prosecution as soon as they leave office?
If you argue that these official acts SHOULD be prosecuted, then how do you expect a President to make the hard decisions?
If the above should NOT be Prosecuted, then why should any of Trump's official acts, no matter how misguided, be prosecuted?
Now, the line, at least for me, is between official acts and personal acts. And in many cases the line can be difficult to find.
IMHO, all OFFICIAL acts should be immune - unless convicted in an impeachment. If anyone wants to try a former President for acts taken while in office, they must first satisfy a pre-trial inquiry that the act was NOT an official act. If it was an Official act AND the President was not convicted in impeachment, then no trial and charges dropped.
The same would hold true for governors in regard to state (but not federal) prosecution.
While I understand the specifics of this situation, the court must weigh their decision as it applies to this and all future cases.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google