Supreme Court Oral Arguments 4.25.2024 - Are PRESIDENTS IMMUNE From Later Being Prosecuted.

a reply to: chr0naut

"Above the law" used so frequently nowadays, very few officials seem to care if Joe Biden was given a pass for keeping Highly Classified National Security Documents in his Basement and Garage, over many years.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: matafuchs

Id say that rubicon was crossed under obama when he launched a drone strike on an american citizen and everyone said well he was a bad guy.

eta: Considering the hit job by the media on trump at the behest of the left, if we follow this to the logical conclusion I fully expect a stazi style hit before Nov.

Yeah, but that was "an act of war". If someone wanted to hold Obama accountable for killing American citizens in an act of war, it wouldn't be done in the circuit courts. It would be done by military in some kind of tribunal.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: matafuchs

Id say that rubicon was crossed under obama when he launched a drone strike on an american citizen and everyone said well he was a bad guy.

eta: Considering the hit job by the media on trump at the behest of the left, if we follow this to the logical conclusion I fully expect a stazi style hit before Nov.

Yeah, but that was "an act of war". If someone wanted to hold Obama accountable for killing American citizens in an act of war, it wouldn't be done in the circuit courts. It would be done by military in some kind of tribunal.

If you want to call it an "Act of War" then legally we would have to have been at war under Obama's term.

Our last Declaration of War was in 1942.

All others since then have been an “authorization to use military force.”

Details matter.

a reply to: Lumenari

Details matter.

Indeed they do! Got any?
I didn't think so.

In the meantime, here, the official government MEMO that justifies the killing of Shykh Anwar al-Aulaki and his 16 year old son, under the rules of war.

And, as I was saying, if anyone did want to hold Barry accountable, they wouldn't be doing it in civil courts.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It doesn't really matter if there is law to support it......

All it takes is for a politically motivated county/state to file some type of charges.

Today, it's Trump.

In less than a year, Biden could be sitting in a Texas Court as an accessory to rape for allowing men to use women's locker rooms.

a reply to: Daughter2v2

It doesn't really matter if there is law to support it......

All I'm saying is that for Obama to be held accountable, I believe that would have to be done by some kind of military tribunal, not the US Civil Court. Because, you know, he used the military and its personnel to commit the alleged crime.

I'm not saying that he can't be held accountable.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not really, last time we had declared war was 1942, everything since then is a police action.

Dont get me wrong I am not shedding tears for that particular person, but it clearly crossed a line in regard to our bill of rights as the target did not get their day in court, did not get to face their accusers just got their ticket punched to an in person meeting with their deity of choice.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Dont get me wrong I am not shedding tears for that particular person, but it clearly crossed a line in regard to our bill of rights as the target did not get their day in court,

Neither did the hundreds of American citizens at Guantanamo Bay. We can thank the Patriot Act for the erosion of those kinds if pesky due process rights.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

not arguing that point, shame neither party will let that monster die as they should.

SCOTUS MAJORITY AGREE - PRESIDENTS HAVE SOME IMMUNITY FROM FUTURE PROSECUTION.

What could be next...

Arguments revealed that a majority appears to agree that presidents do enjoy some scope of immunity after their term in office, but the ultimate question will be the establishment of a standard.

If the Court institutes a test, it would vacate (i.e., strike) the lower court decision that former presidents have no immunity, sending that case back to trial court. That court would then undergo a painstaking point-by-point analysis on each fact to determine if immunity exists.

That process could take months. And the Supreme Court appears likely to hold that decision itself would be appealable.

That course, if the Court takes it, would ensure the final outcome of a Trump trial in D.C. comes well after the November 5, 2024 Election Day – a stinging blow to Smith and President Joe Biden, Smith’s boss and Trump’s opponent in that election.

More at: www.breitbart.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

Details matter.

Indeed they do! Got any?
I didn't think so.

In the meantime, here, the official government MEMO that justifies the killing of Shykh Anwar al-Aulaki and his 16 year old son, under the rules of war.

And, as I was saying, if anyone did want to hold Barry accountable, they wouldn't be doing it in civil courts.

I know that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least take the time to learn the legal definition between a Declaration of War, War Powers of the President and a Congressional Article to use the Military.

Obama is not covered under the War Act for what he did.

We were not under a War Declaration.

Think harder.

Or in your case, at least think for yourself.

CNN does not determine the Laws of the Constitution.

a reply to: Lumenari

Obama is not covered under the War Act for what he did.

LOL
If YOU say so.
So, you got no details. Just your opinion.

White Paper at 10–15. Use of lethal force also does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (2006) (The War Crimes Act)

LINKY

Maybe you think the circuit and civil courts are up to job of determining what's legal when it comes to the military and the rules of war and under the Patriot Act, but I don't. I think that issue would need to be decided in a military court.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

butwhatif it's later determined Obama had motive and intent to kill the victim(s) for other private reasons? 😧

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

butwhatif it's later determined Obama had motive and intent to kill the victim(s) for other private reasons? 😧

How about the time Barry.,,,

“Between November 2009 and January 2011, Team Obama arranged for licensed firearms dealers to sell guns to straw buyers, who transferred them to known violent criminals in Mexico. Among these firearms, two AK47s were found near Rio Rico, Ariz., where suspected smugglers fatally shot Terry, a 40-year-old former Marine, on Dec. 15, 2010.

While Terry epitomizes those whom Fast and Furious has harmed, he is not its sole casualty.

In another Obama administration “gun-walking” escapade, in February 2011 in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, members of Los Zetasdrug gang ambushed two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Jaime Zapata, 32, was fatally shot and Victor Avila was wounded.”
www.police1.com...
Over 300 people dead from Barry’s program.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A US citizen was killed intentionally with no due process. We have a constitution for a reason. So if the immunity thing is ruled that Trump has no immunity, then smarter folks than you or I will be arguing this point in the near future, along with Joetatoe's border snafu. But I doubt Joe will surivive long enough to be prosecuted.

a reply to: Vermilion

Barry had best be hoping Trump wins the immunity thing. Or he might have some splainin to do.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

butwhatif it's later determined Obama had motive and intent to kill the victim(s) for other private reasons? 😧

How about the time Barry.,,,

“Between November 2009 and January 2011, Team Obama arranged for licensed firearms dealers to sell guns to straw buyers, who transferred them to known violent criminals in Mexico. Among these firearms, two AK47s were found near Rio Rico, Ariz., where suspected smugglers fatally shot Terry, a 40-year-old former Marine, on Dec. 15, 2010.

While Terry epitomizes those whom Fast and Furious has harmed, he is not its sole casualty.

In another Obama administration “gun-walking” escapade, in February 2011 in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, members of Los Zetasdrug gang ambushed two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Jaime Zapata, 32, was fatally shot and Victor Avila was wounded.”
www.police1.com...
Over 300 people dead from Barry’s program.

Bingo!

and Nail on Head 😃

a reply to: network dude

A US citizen was killed intentionally with no due process. We have a constitution for a reason.

Again, tell that to the hundreds of American citizens who have been locked up at Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act is a bitch!

So if the immunity thing is ruled that Trump has no immunity,

This is a false dichotomy. No one is saying that presidents have no immunity, but Trump is claiming that he, as president, had absolute immunity.

The question, which SCOTUS avoided, is whether or not what the lower courts deemed the personal actions of candidate Trump really "official acts" that were covered by presidential immunity.

Also, I think it was Kagan that pointed out, the president's job is to appoint ambassadors, so that's an official act. But, if the president was to accept a bribe for appointing a certain person, the president would not be immune from prosecution.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But, if the president was to accept a bribe for appointing a certain person, the president would not be immune from prosecution.

That’s seems like a high crime or misdemeanor, an impeachable offense.

a reply to: Vermilion

Sure. But if nobody found out about it until he had left office, are you saying he couldn't be prosecuted later, when the evidence was revealed?