SCOTUS should NOT Make Former Presidents Immune to Prosecution for Crimes Committed in Office.

Did we all not know that the President has immunity for official acts? This will now go to Judge Chutkin to hold hearings as whether the charges were official acts or not. Even Comey Barrett stated in a footnote that she believes the fake elector scheme is not an official act.

If ATS believes the ruling states that all acts are official, then there is a President currently in office that could commit all sorts of crimes that he could never be charged for.

a reply to: frogs453

Did you perhaps miss the parts where Roberts stated that a presidents interactions with public officials, purview of election law enforcement were official?

As to your second paragraph, we know.


We also know it's not a new phenomenon among POTUS'.

What is new is the lack of presumption of innocence and actual evidence of alleged crimes......

Not a good couple of weeks for the Democrats.

Now that they are extremely desperate following the collapse of their lawfair campaign, Joe Biden’s debate performance, and not doing better at fundraising, what will they do?

My assumption is that the Democrats will have their judge in New York attempt to put Donald Trump in prison. Their logic will be "If Trump is prison he wont be able to campaign."

originally posted by: frogs453
Did we all not know that the President has immunity for official acts? This will now go to Judge Chutkin to hold hearings as whether the charges were official acts or not. Even Comey Barrett stated in a footnote that she believes the fake elector scheme is not an official act.

If ATS believes the ruling states that all acts are official, then there is a President currently in office that could commit all sorts of crimes that he could never be charged for.

Who is "Officially" ATS? 📎

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: EndTime

They have been doing exactly that.......

Given Trump's polling and campaign funds, it would now appear it is clear that the American people do not approve.

Regardless of legality.


I'm happy to see however that you remain committed to the approved and regurgitated talking points.

You're providing a valuable service.

Up until i get banned ofcourse, I am happy to provide a dissenting opinion.

a reply to: EndTime

And you have.

Which is a reflection of the intelligence of the opiner......

a reply to: JinMI

No I did not. Concocting a scheme of fake electors seems a bit outside the purview of election law?

Whelp, it will be for the lower court to decide.

They did also reject the claim by Trump attorneys that a President must be convicted in an impeachment before he can be charged.

a reply to: Threadbarer

you are one blood thirsty individual, coming up with any and all excuses to let Biden take out Trump as a "threat to national security"

a reply to: PorkChop96

I'm just reading the SCOTUS' ruling as written. Still agree that it's a good decision?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

No I did not. Concocting a scheme of fake electors seems a bit outside the purview of election law?

Whelp, it will be for the lower court to decide.

They did also reject the claim by Trump attorneys that a President must be convicted in an impeachment before he can be charged.

Alternate electors. Have have been used historically.

So now, by going through courts, public officials and of course following legal precedent I would t say he is at all outside his purview.

What the court said is that there is little evidence to support the impeachment argument. Yet it doesn't have anything at all to the contrary.

a reply to: JinMI

We've been over this many times. The fake electors are not duly selected by the state, yet claimed they were.

In this world, when someone claims to be something they are not we call them fake.

a reply to: Threadbarer

You, and several others, are coming up with any and every excuse you can to make this a viable option to kill anyone and everyone you see fit from the president's office.

There are still laws in place to protect private citizens from being "assassinated" by our federal government. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but Biden trying to get Trump killed would go over like a fart in church.

But then again, what are we worried about, Biden couldn't find his own ass with a map and both hands directly on it, let alone be cognitive enough to call a hit on a rival.

a reply to: Threadbarer

We have been over this. They were duly elected by their party. Not signed off on by the states representation. SoS, Governor etc.

Nor did they claim to be. Nor was it without historical precedent.

As you were also shown....historically.

a reply to: JinMI

Really? Because in the states where fake electors have been charged they signed documents stating they were duly-selected by the State and filed those documents with Congress and the Archivist.

a reply to: Threadbarer

The documents you tried to pass off as evidence last time we had this discussion were absent an officials signature.


Did you find something new?

a reply to: PorkChop96

The DOJ has stated the President can kill people that present a threat to national security.

SCOTUS says the President is immune from being prosecuted for official acts.

So if a President has a political opponent killed and claims that it was because they presented a threat to national security, what course is there now to investigate whether or not that's true and then punish them if it's not?

a reply to: Threadbarer

There still exists an impeachment process.

a reply to: JinMI

For high crimes and misdemeanors. But if a President cannot be prosecuted for official acts, then that act is not a crime.

Also, remember, SCOTUS just ruled that a President's motives cannot be questioned and their communications cannot be used as evidence. So how can Congress make their impeachment case without mens rea or evidence?

a reply to: Threadbarer

You do know that impeachments are congressional, not judicial....right? That being political and not exactly judicial.


These ad absurdum "what ifs" are merely an act of desperation and not rooted in reality.

The answer however is likely even more scary. That being that it's been on the table our entire history as a nation and the thought of that much freedom must be horrifying for you

a reply to: Threadbarer

We have already been over this, that DOJ document was for killing a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida, not a private citizen with no threat to the US at all.

Killing a private citizen is not an "official act", no matter how many times you say it.