Is it when they leave office?
Does immunity carry forward after leaving office for acts while potus ?

I'd argue the latter, broadly speaking.

Otherwise you invite all kinds of chaos a la the late Roman Republic.

jt2hunt said:

---

Is it when they leave office?
Does immunity carry forward after leaving office for acts while potus ?

---

Define the "acts" and who is the judge and jury. While in office, house and senate act as judge and jury.

Im afraid this topic could open doors that further destroy this country.

No elected officials in the US have immunity.

As long as a president is acting in a way they believe to be fulfilling their oath of faithfully executing the laws of the US, their actions are not criminal acts. That is not immunity. If the president is acting in a way that is problematic, the remedy is impeachment and removal.

The claim by Trump for immunity was never going to be accepted, nor should it. Regardless of how you feel about his presidency, his actions during the presidency, or his actions after, nothing he did was remotely in violation of any US law. This witch hunt is even more absurd than the claim of immunity.

In an honest system, it would depend on the act in question.

Acts done in the capacity as President such as ordering a military strike would be immunity for life, so as long as the act wasn't done with an underlying criminal intent, such as using a military strike to cover up a crime he or she had committed.

An act done outside of the role as President would not have immunity such as financial crimes (see: Joe & Hunter Biden) or something way off the rails like stabbing someone to death in the Oval Office.

If a criminal act occurs while in office, it is the job of Congress to remove the President. Impeachment and removal from office does not prevent prosecution for the crime after being convicted in the Senate trial.

Again, in an honest system.

Rapier108 said:

---

In an honest system, it would depend on the act in question.

Acts done in the capacity as President such as ordering a military strike would be immunity for life, so as long as the act wasn't done with an underlying criminal intent, such as using a military strike to cover up a crime he or she had committed.

An act done outside of the role as President would not have immunity such as financial crimes (see: Joe & Hunter Biden) or something way off the rails like stabbing someone to death in the Oval Office.

If a criminal act occurs while in office, it is the job of Congress to remove the President. Impeachment and removal from office does not prevent prosecution for the crime after being convicted in the Senate trial.

Again, in an honest system.

---

If a criminal act occurs while in office, it is the job of Congress to remove the President. Impeachment and removal from office does not prevent prosecution for the crime after being convicted in the Senate trial.

So, in your opinion, only after a conviction a president can be prosecuted in a court system?

Why?

Are they going to re-open the Whitewater file?

What about crimes committed before they're elected president? Like if a Senator steals classified documents from a SCIF and stores the documents for years in his garage and then is elected to be president years later? Is he immune or does it depend if he's in charge of the DOJ?

Quote:

---

his actions during the presidency, or his actions after, nothing he did was remotely in violation of any US law.

---

Just trying so subvert the results of an election, no biggie.

What about executing a US citizen with a drone strike without a jury trial or due process?

C@LAg said:

---

depends whether the president is democrat or republican.

---

Agreed. According to Trump, Republican presidents (or at least just him) get to have absolute immunity ad infinitum

President Ford gave the ultimate Pardon for Nixon who was going to face significant jailtime, there is no such thing as immunity for Presidents.

The Kraken said:

---

Quote:

---

his actions during the presidency, or his actions after, nothing he did was remotely in violation of any US law.

---

Just trying so subvert the results of an election, no biggie.

---

The sad part is that you actually believe this.

You also believe the election wasn't even questionable with the results, much less outright rigged via blatant violations of election law and protocol.

Htownag11 said:

---

What about executing a US citizen with a drone strike without a jury trial or due process?

---

A US citizen who was serving with a foreign terrorist organization on foreign soil.

No different than if a US citizen today went and joined ISIS and got killed by a US bomb or missile in Syria or Iraq.

jt2hunt said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

In an honest system, it would depend on the act in question.

Acts done in the capacity as President such as ordering a military strike would be immunity for life, so as long as the act wasn't done with an underlying criminal intent, such as using a military strike to cover up a crime he or she had committed.

An act done outside of the role as President would not have immunity such as financial crimes (see: Joe & Hunter Biden) or something way off the rails like stabbing someone to death in the Oval Office.

If a criminal act occurs while in office, it is the job of Congress to remove the President. Impeachment and removal from office does not prevent prosecution for the crime after being convicted in the Senate trial.

Again, in an honest system.

---

If a criminal act occurs while in office, it is the job of Congress to remove the President. Impeachment and removal from office does not prevent prosecution for the crime after being convicted in the Senate trial.

So, in your opinion, only after a conviction a president can be prosecuted in a court system?

---

No my opinion, but until recently, it was accepted that if the President committed a crime in office, it was the job of Congress to remove him, and then let any criminal prosecution happen afterwards.

Now everything has been corrupted so the system is broken and cannot work as intended.

And yet Trump's lawyers couldn't come up with the evidence needed in all 62 legal challenges that they lost....so Trump and Giuliani tried influencing election officials to "find more votes", asked legislative leaders to send different electors, considered ordering martial law, tried to get Mike Pence to do something he couldn't do, etc.....

Rapier108 said:

---

Htownag11 said:

---

What about executing a US citizen with a drone strike without a jury trial or due process?

---

A US citizen who was serving with a foreign terrorist organization on foreign soil.

No different than if a US citizen today went and joined ISIS and got killed by a US bomb or missile in Syria or Iraq.

---

He was serving with a foreign terrorist organization according to who?

I don't disagree with the sentiment that he probably deserved to die, but does the President now serve as judge, jury, and executioner for Americans suspected of wrongdoing?

I think you understand the illustrative example I was giving.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

I'd argue the latter, broadly speaking.

Otherwise you invite all kinds of chaos a la the late Roman Republic.

---

But this begs the question...at least do date. Since no past presidents have been charged with a crime after their term ended. So is the assumption that its because immunity carried forward, or because no one felt the need to attempt it because of something they did in office?

In other words, how can we say that would invite chaos if we haven't to date experienced that? I will admit, however, that we are now in a time where it seems we are headed for a tit for tat with every change in power in congress and the white house. Is the new norm impeaching anyone appointed by the opposing side because they impeached someone on our side?

I also think we are at a point where there is a not insignificant number of folks that are okay ignore any SCOTUS opinions that don't go their way. The collapse of faith in our legal system (and not just anonymous internet talk) will be a disaster for our country. That's how we end up with anarchy....or martial law

zephyr88 said:

---

Why?

Are they going to re-open the Whitewater file?

---

This is an interesting point. Can we assume the answer is not because Nixon still has immunity? Or because no one wants to attempt to bring charges because he resigned and the country moved on? Plus I think he was pardoned anyway....which again begs the question...Why would he need a pardon?

False maplethorpe

The Kraken said:

---

And yet Trump's lawyers couldn't come up with the evidence needed in all 62 legal challenges that they lost....so Trump and Giuliani tried influencing election officials to "find more votes", asked legislative leaders to send different electors, considered ordering martial law, tried to get Mike Pence to do something he couldn't do, etc.....

---

Mike Pence could not do what?

I am guessing he means Pence could not decide on his own that because there were fake electors from 7 states that meant no electors could be deemed validly appointed in those States; meaning total number of electors appointed was 454, so only 228 was needed to win (rather than 270).

I'm further guessing he meant that Pence could not then gavel Trump as being re-elected because Trump had 232.



do you think he could?

Pence could have refused to certify the electoral college.

I see you missed my question.

do you think Pence could do what I wrote above? yes or no?

I do not know the answer of that question. But I do believe that Pence could've refused to certify the results of the electoral college.

well lets hope the answer is "no" otherwise Kamala will have the power to throw out texas' electors if Beto and his buddies claim to the "real electors" and declare Biden to be the winner

Quote:

---

But I do believe that Pence could've refused to certify the results of the electoral college.

---

even Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow knows thats not a valid argument.

the congress votes on objections to the electors. not the VP.

quote the language from statute or constitution that says VP can not certify the results.