Today’s SCOTUS argument on Trump’s criminal immunity revealed an activist conservative majority that wants to provide presidential immunity. To do so, they must get around Nixon v Fitzgerald (1982), which clearly states there is no criminal immunity for presidents. For example, as stated in Nixon v Fitzgerald, in Chief Justice Burger’s concurring ruling in the 5-4 decision creating civil immunity: “… there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. The Constitution itself provides that impeachment shall not bar ‘Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.’ Art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Similarly, our cases indicate that immunity from damages actions carries no protection from criminal prosecution.”
@JohnWDean If this is all you cling too to win the argument in SCOTUS, you’ve already lost.
@JohnWDean “… activist conservative majority …” You are ridiculous. They are Constitutional originalists. The activists are in the leftist minority. That was made obvious during their confirmation hearings. We have not forgotten that.
@JohnWDean What is the crime? Name the crime. Not what you would like the crime to be, the actual crime?
@JohnWDean Iōsēpha Bīdēn futuere
@JohnWDean So what you are saying is we can prosecute Obama for killing that 16 year old US citizen?
@JohnWDean There was no crime. This is persecution of political rivals. Coordinated with the WH. They should all go to jail.
@JohnWDean Shall we let SCOTUS make the ruling? Of course, the court is flawed. One member can't define what a woman is.