Seagull58
In the Algarve
The article you attached in your post refers to Trump's presidential immunity defence, which will end up at SCOTUS, so I have commented on the likely SCOTUS decision and the consequences of making the wrong decision ( giving Biden immunity to do anything he wants to stay in power).You literally failed to understand my post or the legal issues under discussion- That is not what my post said at all!! I made absolutely no mention of immunity with regard to the SCOTUS Appeal let alone ‘absolute immunity’.
For your benefit- Very specifically Trump is appealing to SCOTUS on two grounds - whether Art 14 means ‘incitement to insurrection’ and if Trump committed that and whether if so, Section 3 of that Amendment (which bars anyone who is guilty of that offence while serving as an ‘officer of the State’ from standing in future elections) applies to Trump. Since he will argue that as ‘President’ he does not fall within the scope of Section 3 - he is not Appealing for immunity from conviction but appealing against Colorado SC decision to remove him from the ballot and to be allowed to stand in the coming Election.
Trump is also arguing in a completely different case - the Columbia District Federal Courts that a sitting President can not be convicted of a crime - ( On this issue is the Columbia District has left it open for Trump to argue that but in the meantime the case will be tried anyway) - that issue will need to be referred back to SCOTUS. it will take a lot for a very heavily weighted right wing SCOTUS to rule that a sitting President can be convicted of a crime. This has not happened before because sitting Presidents have hitherto been impeached and resigned before it came to that.
The Constitution is silent on whether a sitting President can be convicted. The Republicans in the Senate addressed this in the Senate at his impeachment- I posted that above - and argued not but it is very much open to question..
I also posted several links to both these cases above, an explanation of the SCOTUS Appeal re. Staying on the ballots and also I posted the full indictment of the Jan 6 charges by the District of Columbia.
I have no idea why you are bringing Biden into this - the current President has nothing to do with Trumps criminal charges or the SCOTUS appeal. The AG brings charges not the President of the United States. The President also can’t lock people up or ‘remove’ Justices of the Court - a President simply does not have that role or power, it he did, it would be anarchy and he would be removed by Congress under articles of Impeachment - and even if he were immune from being convicted he is not immune from being charged once he leaves the Presidency.
I suggest you read a little background on the role of the judiciary vis an vis the role of POTUS and it might help you understand the points of law in the Constitution I have outlined re. The Appeal. Also read the background to the Columbia District case with regard to the charges Trump faces relating to January 6 - it is nothing to do with the insurrection act but 4 charges relating to interference of the election and trying to overturn it.
Edit: I read and understood your (long) post very well. I have specifically commented on the consequences of his likely appeal to SCOTUS regarding absolute presidential immunity.
Last edited: