By Ponderer January 9, 2024 5:36 am Category: History (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

So in about an hour, Trump's flailing, Hail Mary court hearing to assess his claim of presidential immunity will begin. It's going to be covered live, but audio only. No cameras.

The outcome is sure to be one that all here in SelectSmart will be satisfied with, when the court determines that no, a former president does not have "presidential immunity", or immunity of any other kind from prosecution for crimes committed while serving in the office of president. No such immunity exists and he ain't gettin' it.

I feel secure on this assertion because I believe that all of us here are of the opinion that no one is above the law, that it applies to everyone, and that Trump must stand in court to face the legal ramifications of his criminal actions and serve his sentence if convicted.

I don't recall anyone here, even his staunchest supporter and defender, ever saying that they believe that he does have any such immunity. So I believe that this forgone conclusion of a verdict will easily sate the desire for justice of all in this little club.


Something I've thought about recently is that let's say Trump got his wish and it is determined that a former president is completely immune from prosecution for any criminal activity they ever engaged in. They can't go after him for anything.

How is Trump then going to expect that as the next president, he can get "retribution" by weaponizing the Justice department against Biden as he declares and promises he is going to if Biden is also just as immune from prosecution as he was?

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 5:58 am I agree that Trump will lose this round. I can't imagine the implications if he doesn’t. If Trump ultimately does win on this issue, pb thinks, it'll be up to the Supreme Court to make that call... ...but, I'll repeat what I've already said. The Legal Goobers pb follows suggest that this ain't the absurd no-brainer you want it to be. The President is subject to impeachment. You may recall that Trump actually was impeached... EFFINtwice!... and was not convicted. The reasoning is not that the President is above the law but that the remedy, under the Constitution, ain't criminal prosecution. So, po, don't count them there chickens too soon. Having said that, pb's Legal Goobers are saying that Trump's argument is an important one and that it should be made... and is valid. But, that the Supreme Court will, almost certainly, reject it. The real shocker on this issue is if the Supreme Court refuses to take up Trump's appeal of today's loss. by islander on January 9, 2024 7:35 am ” The reasoning is not that the President is above the law but that the remedy, under the Constitution, ain't criminal prosecution. So, po, don't count them there chickens too soon.” ~ Hate There is a difference between prosecuting a sitting president and a former president. Keep that in mind. We are NOT talking about prosecuting a president; we are talking about prosecuting a private citizen (Trump). The reasons for making it harder to prosecute a sitting president are legitimate. Those reasons don’t work for a former president. There is, for good reason, nothing in the Constitution that says a former president can’t be prosecuted for crimes he or she has committed. The reason Trump was not found guilty in his second impeachment is because he was not the president so naturally; he could not be removed from office since he was already out of office. ” James Madison argued that presidential immunities should be considered during the Philadelphia Convention when discussing protection of the Congressional immunities, but given that the matter never received a debate, many argue that it was clear no support existed for broad presidential immunities. Further, individuals on both sides of the partisan divide then saw the lack of presidential immunities as embodying a key part of American Constitutionalism: the head of government is not above the law, unlike their monarch counterparts in Europe. Thus, the argument goes that the lack of presidential immunities was an intentional action on the part of the Constitutional Convention to ensure the president remains a citizen that cannot ignore the law. Further, in interpreting Article I, Sec. 3, many argue this clause means that impeachment remains separate from prosecution, and therefore, the president can be indicted and punished regardless of whether impeachment has occurred.” law.cornell.edu by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 7:47 am pb thinks that Trump's team is raising a question that must be asked. Trump was President until the moment the Former Truck Driver placed his hand on the Bible. Trump was, most certainly, President on J6. More significantly, Trump was impeached on charges relating to J6... ...and, acquitted. For all of you who want Trump to suffer in every way possible, just remember that the Constitution applies even to him and the liberties guaranteed to all citizens by the Bill of Rights actually do apply to Trump. by islander on January 9, 2024 8:23 am You know better than that , Hate. Trump’s Jan 6 impeachment trial took place after he was out of office. Like Mitch McConnell said, Congress couldn’t remove Trump from office since he did not hold that office but he could be prosecuted for his crimes in a criminal trial. You see, a president cannot be immune from prosecution if, after losing an election, he refuses to step down and acknowledge that he is no longer president. by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 8:34 am But, if the immunity applies to Trump's acts as President, everything he did until the Former Trucker's Bible thing, he did while President... by islander on January 9, 2024 9:04 am “The Supreme Court to concluded that the president couldn’t be sued civilly for his official acts. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court said [that private lawsuits grounded on the president’s official acts] would lead to distraction and distortion — the president would be distracted from his official duties and he might change his official policies in the wake of a civil suit.” Trump was not president when he was charged with and indicted for his crimes, therefore the reason for a sitting president’s limited immunity is not there and can’t be used by Trump to avoid accountability. by Ponderer on January 9, 2024 9:20 am I have to admit to being a little bit disappointed. I was really hoping to hear Trump's lawyer explain how under any conceivable hypothetical, trying to alter the results of a free and fair election that he lost so he could stay in power, despite the legally established will of the voting public, could be considered "official duty" of any sitting president of the United States. 😢 by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 9:22 am Trump was not president when he was charged with and indicted for his crimes, therefore the reason for a sitting president’s limited immunity is not there and can’t be used by Trump to avoid accountability. That doesn't make sense to me. Here's pb's Legal Goober #2 on the issue. Short video. Touches on several points. As you'll be able to tell, pb's a disciple. Seems reasonable and fair: View Video by Ponderer on January 9, 2024 9:30 am Isle, you're never going to succeed in getting him to make sense of the fact that Trump needs to be held to account for his crimes. The only thing that makes sense to him is letting Trump go on all charges because he didn't do anything wrong. And if he did do anything wrong, he is totally immune from being held accountable for those crimes. There is simply too much bone in his thick skull to allow much more than that to make sense to him. by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 9:38 am Isle, you're never going to succeed in getting him to make sense of the fact that Trump needs to be held to account for his crimes. Bull$#!t. Where has any poster on SS ever suggested that? There is simply too much bone in his thick skull to allow much more than that to make sense to him. D@ngit. You know that every libertarian wishes they were smart enough to be progressive. It ain't fair that we ain't!!!!! by islander on January 9, 2024 9:42 am "you're never going to succeed in getting him to make sense of the fact that Trump needs to be held to account for his crimes." ~ Pondy I think Hate knows that but what he will never do is admit it !! by Ponderer on January 9, 2024 10:09 am Well you know how I hate calling him a liar, but that would make him a liar, Isle. by Ponderer on January 9, 2024 10:15 am Isle, you're never going to succeed in getting him to make sense of the fact that Trump needs to be held to account for his crimes. "Bull$#!t. Where has any poster on SS ever suggested that?" -Hate Ain't that a hoot, Isle? I actually just suggested that he could never make sense of the fact that Trump needs to be held to account for his crimes, and it caused so much a confusion to his brain that he can't see that I am on SS and actually just suggested that! There are a great many things that will never make sense to him it sadly appears. by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 10:16 am C'mon, po, gimme a break. You know d@ngwell I'm stoopid. It's all honest stoopidity. Baha. Ha! by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 11:26 am MSNBC video on Trump immunity hearing... ...and it went pretty much like pb predicted. View Video by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 11:52 am pb's Legal Goober #1: "chance of partial Trump victory before the Supreme Court" View Video by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 11:55 am pb's Legal Goober #3 will be on "the gay Guy Curt never heard of" radio show. 4:35 EST today. by islander on January 9, 2024 3:06 pm "C'mon, po, gimme a break. You know d@ngwell I'm stoopid. It's all honest stoopidity. Baha. Ha!" ~ Hate From you posts here, while you really do come across as "stoopid", I don't think you are really that stoopid. While I'm sure some it is willful ignorance, I think it's mostly due to your narcissistic need for attention, good or bad, no matter how you get it...as long as you get it. by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 4:03 pm C'mon, isle, gimme a break. How many dozens of times over the years have you advised me that I don't UNDERSTAND!!!!!? You know I'm stoopid! by oldedude on January 9, 2024 4:10 pm Lead. He doesn't know enough for you to ask a question outside of the "book." po- This went as expected. I was really for the sake of the REPUBLIC, it didn't go the other way. AND I'm happy they didn't ask the applet court to draw the lines in the sand. That's a job for SCOTUS down the road. So it's not a happy or angry or sad, it's more "that's what needed to happen." Yet again, I don't look at the person and if I like them or not. by Ponderer on January 9, 2024 7:28 pm Cool, od. 👍 Yeah I have no real fear any longer that these judges won't do the right thing. Trump's counsel's arguments were far more ridiculous once I heard them spelled out like that end to end. This whole nonsense about how a former president can only be held criminally responsible for a crime if the Congress impeached and convicted him of it was the most asinine thing I have heard spouted in a court in like ever. Don't you agree? Talk about a Hail Mary, eh? Trump's lawyer actually made a case for Biden being able to order a hit man to take out Trump... and then unless he is impeached by Congress for it and convicted by them, he could never be criminally prosecuted for it by anyone anywhere. He could have a majority of Congress want to convict him. But if they were only 4 votes short of the super majority that they need, then he gets away with that crime for the rest of his life. Trump's lawyer believes that right now, Joe Biden is absolutely immune from criminal liability for any crime he wants to commit. Anyone here think that Trump's lawyer is wrong...? by HatetheSwamp on January 10, 2024 3:21 am Anyone here think that Trump's lawyer is wrong...? po, Unlike you, I'm not a professor of EFFINConstitutional law. What, in the Constitution, calls that reasoning into question...IYO? by islander on January 10, 2024 8:29 am "On the day the Senate voted to acquit Donald Trump in February 2021, the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stood up to explain why 43 Republicans, including himself, voted to let Trump off the hook for trying to violently overturn the 2020 election results. Doing so required some careful sidestepping by McConnell, especially given that he agreed with the basic facts presented by the House impeachment managers. McConnell acknowledged that there was “no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events” of the deadly riot that unfolded on Jan. 6, and that Trump’s feeding of “wild falsehoods” was a “disgraceful dereliction of duty.” But McConnell explained that he and all but seven of the chamber’s Republican senators had decided that because their vote was coming after Trump had left the White House, there were more appropriate legal avenues where he could be held accountable for his actions as President. “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” McConnell said. McConnell was echoing a legal argument that Trump’s own lawyer, David Schoen, had made to the Senate just days before. “We have a judicial process in this country; we have an investigative process in this country to which no former officeholder is immune,” Schoen said. Now Trump’s trying to get the courts to forget all that." yahoo.com by Curt_Anderson on January 10, 2024 8:41 am What is going on with Donald Trump‘s lawyer’s voice? It sounds like it was electronically altered the way that might be done to protect a whistleblower or a mafia informant. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page