No. of Recommendations: 4
The key question I have is:
When, in our 200 year history, was criminal immunity required for the President to make the correct choice for the country?
Judge Luttig blasts SCOTUS for avoiding ‘key question’ at the heart of Trump immunity case, April 28, 2024
The narrow and only question for the USSC is:
Can Trump be prosecuted for the specific offenses he committed while trying to overturn the 2020 election?
How do you draw the line between using hypotheticals ... versus discussing the very specific thing that you're talking about?...
It's fundamental to the judicial process that a court only decide what is before it, and no other issue... The Supreme Court barely discussed the straightforward question before it... It resembled a law class discussing all of the possible crimes a President could commit.
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/judge-lutti...==================
hypotheticals in USSC oral arguments. The President needs criminal immunity for official acts such as: assassination of rival, election fraud, giving nuclear secrets to enemies, stage a coup, bribery, quid pro quo gifts, lying to Congress, unwarranted drone strikes, unlawfully inducing immigration, peaceful protest, to encourage a peaceful transfer of power.
If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?
What is plausible about the president insisting and creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates?
If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?
How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?
What if the president appoints a particular individual to a country, but it's in exchange for a bribe.
Justice Scalia wrote an opinion for a unanimous Court in which he used a hypothetical about what would happen if the president received a sports replica jersey at a typical White House event. Would that violate Section 201(c)?
Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq?
Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike?
Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies?
So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II?
A president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a piece of legislation that's going through.
An incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?
