Rudy

[jpl458]

Only if it is for official duties, which the Trump team are claiming. You are arguing for something the Trump team are not seeking. They are not seeking immunity for something outside of official duties.

Influence peddling and extortion by Biden is not an official duty.

Read this.

Trump claims Constitution gives him immunity − here’s why judges and the Supreme Court may not agree

The Constitution makes clear that a president who was impeached and convicted can still be prosecuted − but what about one who is acquitted in two impeachment trials?

theconversation.com

 

[Jon]

Read this.

The article states:

As a scholar of constitutional law, I know that both questions will have to be resolved, either by the Supreme Court or the appeals court – or both – before Trump’s trial can proceed.

In other words, these are not resolved issues, regardless of the opinion of the person writing the article. Legal boundaries are often only clarified through litigation.

 

[Jon]

Unless they don't like the person, in which case they can do whatever they want.

The law is the law, except in a banana republic Joe Biden's America.

 

[Jon]

It most certainly is! He is providing the influence of his office to people who transfer money to one of the Biden crime family's 22 LLC's and has been since his days as a senator. AND HE IS ON VIDEO TAPE CONFESSING TO THE CRIME!!!!!! Nobody cares about Hunter being the bag man. The point is, benefits to any family member, not just to the President or member of Congress personally constitute a crime.

What I mean Pat is that extortion is outside of the remit of his office, and therefore he should not get immunity for that extortion, if proved. He may be using the influence of his office, but that is not an official duty (when used criminally), if you see what I mean. He cannot hide behind presidential immunity for these crimes.

 

[Jon]

Trump was impeached for a perfect phone call where they said he lent on the Ukrainian president. If it was, it was the mildest of mild leanings. Very opaque. Compare that to Hunter Biden's phone call which sounded more like a threat from The Mob involving both him and his father as Mafia boses.

 

[jpl458]

The article states:


In other words, these are not resolved issues, regardless of the opinion of the person writing the article. Legal boundaries are often only clarified through litigation.

Agreed. But, what if the former President is granted immunity, would it not apply to current and future Presidents?

 

[Jon]

Agreed. But, what if the former President is granted immunity, would it not apply to current and future Presidents?

I think it would depend on the case, but in general, yes. If cases were identical, I would imagine you would refer to the previous precident.

 

[Isaac]

Wouldn't it set a leagle precedent? The former President claims that he is immune because he was President. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, in less than leagle terms. But our laws and the edjudication of those laws is, a lot of time set by precident.

Like all precedents, it would be either more or less applicable towards future situations depending on the 2 situations (original precedent and new one)'s set of unique facts, yes. Even jurisdiction of the deciding court will influence how the precedent controls in the future. (maybe not relevant here, but generally).

Keep something in mind. Most of what conservatives want to prosecute Biden for wasnt' even during his time as President. It was during his time as Senator and as Vice President. This fact may make our current conversation less useful, as he couldn't argue Presidential immunity while he was a senator, for example.