Trump v United States (Immunity Ruling)

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I thought I would start a thread to discuss the actual ruling and what it says and what it does not say. Some people are saying this allows presidents to do anything or are kings now. These accusations are false and should be retracted. Here is what it actually says.

Here is what Trump is claiming from page 1:

Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment's allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump's motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.

The court decided Page 1:

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

They only decided on immunity for official acts not unofficial acts. On page 2 they say His authority to act necessarily stems either from an act of Congress or from the constitution itself. (Youngstown Sheet vs Sawyer).

When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.

This makes sense that congress cannot make a law that forces the President to break the law. The president is immune to criminal prosecution based on their duties to execute the laws congress passes.

Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.

It goes on to say a president needs to be able to make decisions without having in the back of their mind a possible criminal charge.

The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750. Appreciating the “unique
risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.

The clarify about presidential subpoenas and getting evidence from presidents do not have absolute immunity but they have executive privilege.

By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. During the treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, for instance, Chief Justice Marshall rejected President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that the President could not be subjected to a subpoena. Marshall simultaneously recognized, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper[s].” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 14,694) (CC Va.). And when a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon, the Court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 703.

They agreed with this ruling about what prosecutors must show to criminally charge a president.

At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.

They make it clear the President has no immunity for unofficial acts

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of
separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

Prosecutors must show any acts that they want to criminally charge for was done as an unofficial act.

So basically presidents have presumptive immunity for official acts but none for unofficial acts and prosecutors need to show the acts were not an official act to prosecute them. There is a lot more in the decision, history and citing many past cases.

These quotes from the left are lies:

"The framers of the Constitution envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people. They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity. - Hakeem Jefferies

"This decision will give Donald Trump cover to do exactly what he's been saying that he wants to do for months, which is an act of revenge and retribution against his political enemies. Quenton Fulks - Bidens campaign manager

"This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy. The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president." Chuck Schumer

These are lies that should be rejected based the actual decision. You can be against the decision but at least be against the decision and not against what you think is the decision.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Marshall simultaneously recognized, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper[S ].”

Because of the S within square brackets above (spacing mine to avoid rendering strikethrough), the software has struck through all subsequent text in your post.

Would you like me to remove it from the OP? Alternatively, I can enclose it in inline-code tags, rendering it as intended without the strikethrough, although there would be a rectangle around it like so:

official paper[S]

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because of the S within square brackets above (spacing mine to avoid rendering strikethrough), the software has struck through all subsequent text in your post.

Would you like me to remove it from the OP? Alternatively, I can enclose it in inline-code tags, rendering it as intended without the strikethrough, although there would be a rectangle around it like so:

Oh I did not notice. That would be great thanks. Was it because I copied it from the court ruling?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Oh I did not notice. That would be great thanks. Was it because I copied it from the court ruling?

No, it's because [S ] (without spaces) is recognized by the forum software as the tag for strikethrough. Its closing tag is [/ S] (again, without spaces), which the software automatically added at the end of your post.

I will enclose it in inline-code tags to remove the strikethrough from your post.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, it's because [S ] (without spaces) is recognized by the forum software as the tag for strikethrough. Its closing tag is [/ S] (again, without spaces), which the software automatically added at the end of your post.

I will enclose it in inline-code tags to remove the strikethrough from your post.

Done!

 

[Left Coast]

I thought I would start a thread to discuss the actual ruling and what it says and what it does not say. Some people are saying this allows presidents to do anything or are kings now. These accusations are false and should be retracted. Here is what it actually says.

Here is what Trump is claiming from page 1:

Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment's allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump's motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.

The court decided Page 1:

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

They only decided on immunity for official acts not unofficial acts. On page 2 they say His authority to act necessarily stems either from an act of Congress or from the constitution itself. (Youngstown Sheet vs Sawyer).

When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.

This makes sense that congress cannot make a law that forces the President to break the law. The president is immune to criminal prosecution based on their duties to execute the laws congress passes.

Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.

It goes on to say a president needs to be able to make decisions without having in the back of their mind a possible criminal charge.

The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750. Appreciating the “unique
risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.

The clarify about presidential subpoenas and getting evidence from presidents do not have absolute immunity but they have executive privilege.

By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. During the treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, for instance, Chief Justice Marshall rejected President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that the President could not be subjected to a subpoena. Marshall simultaneously recognized, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper[s].” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 14,694) (CC Va.). And when a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon, the Court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 703.

They agreed with this ruling about what prosecutors must show to criminally charge a president.

At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.

They make it clear the President has no immunity for unofficial acts

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of
separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

Prosecutors must show any acts that they want to criminally charge for was done as an unofficial act.

So basically presidents have presumptive immunity for official acts but none for unofficial acts and prosecutors need to show the acts were not an official act to prosecute them. There is a lot more in the decision, history and citing many past cases.

These quotes from the left are lies:

"The framers of the Constitution envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people. They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity. - Hakeem Jefferies

"This decision will give Donald Trump cover to do exactly what he's been saying that he wants to do for months, which is an act of revenge and retribution against his political enemies. Quenton Fulks - Bidens campaign manager

"This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy. The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president." Chuck Schumer

These are lies that should be rejected based the actual decision. You can be against the decision but at least be against the decision and not against what you think is the decision.

When Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to find 11,000 votes for him so he could win, was that an official act or an unofficial one?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to find 11,000 votes for him so he could win, was that an official act or an unofficial one?

Are elections the sole purview of the states? If so, the President has no official part to play in Georgia's election.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

When Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to find 11,000 votes for him so he could win, was that an official act or an unofficial one?

I would say unofficial, however it was not illegal. He never asked anyone to makeup votes. He said to find the votes he believed were there and the illegal votes that he thought were there as well. The transcripts are available to read for yourself.

 

[Left Coast]

I would say unofficial, however it was not illegal. He never asked anyone to makeup votes. He said to find the votes he believed were there and the illegal votes that he thought were there as well. The transcripts are available to read for yourself.

When you pressure an election official not to certify the results of an election until they "find" enough votes for you to win, how is that not election interference, in any reasonable sense?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I thought I would start a thread to discuss the actual ruling and what it says and what it does not say. Some people are saying this allows presidents to do anything or are kings now. These accusations are false and should be retracted. Here is what it actually says.

Here is what Trump is claiming from page 1:

Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment's allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump's motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.

The court decided Page 1:

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

They only decided on immunity for official acts not unofficial acts. On page 2 they say His authority to act necessarily stems either from an act of Congress or from the constitution itself. (Youngstown Sheet vs Sawyer).

When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.

This makes sense that congress cannot make a law that forces the President to break the law. The president is immune to criminal prosecution based on their duties to execute the laws congress passes.

Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.

It goes on to say a president needs to be able to make decisions without having in the back of their mind a possible criminal charge.

The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750. Appreciating the “unique
risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.

The clarify about presidential subpoenas and getting evidence from presidents do not have absolute immunity but they have executive privilege.

By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. During the treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, for instance, Chief Justice Marshall rejected President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that the President could not be subjected to a subpoena. Marshall simultaneously recognized, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper[s].” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 14,694) (CC Va.). And when a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon, the Court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 703.

They agreed with this ruling about what prosecutors must show to criminally charge a president.

At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.

They make it clear the President has no immunity for unofficial acts

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of
separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

Prosecutors must show any acts that they want to criminally charge for was done as an unofficial act.

So basically presidents have presumptive immunity for official acts but none for unofficial acts and prosecutors need to show the acts were not an official act to prosecute them. There is a lot more in the decision, history and citing many past cases.

These quotes from the left are lies:

"The framers of the Constitution envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people. They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity. - Hakeem Jefferies

"This decision will give Donald Trump cover to do exactly what he's been saying that he wants to do for months, which is an act of revenge and retribution against his political enemies. Quenton Fulks - Bidens campaign manager

"This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy. The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president." Chuck Schumer

These are lies that should be rejected based the actual decision. You can be against the decision but at least be against the decision and not against what you think is the decision.

That won't stop the nutball deranged and hysterical crowd from going ape ****.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

When you pressure an election official not to certify the results of an election until they "find" enough votes for you to win, how is that not election interference, in any reasonable sense?

Have you read the entire transcript? Trump told everyone on the call where he thought the votes were for him to win and where the fraud was as well. He said to find them he did not tell them make them up.

 

[Left Coast]

Have you read the entire transcript? Trump told everyone on the call where he thought the votes were for him to win and where the fraud was as well. He said to find them he did not tell them make them up.

I don't know if you're familiar with this, but Trump lies pathologically. Examples are legion. The mystery votes weren't there, and thus Trump lost Georgia because the SoS did his job, despite Trump attempting to pressure him otherwise. Again I ask you: how is that not election interference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to find 11,000 votes for him so he could win, was that an official act or an unofficial one?

Official! He was officially trying to steal the election!

 

[crossfire]

<...>
They make it clear the President has no immunity for unofficial acts

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of
separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

Prosecutors must show any acts that they want to criminally charge for was done as an unofficial act.

<...>

I keep saying this, and I'll say it again: Per the Constitution, the President cannot exercise any official acts until they take the Oath of Office.

The Oath of Office from Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​

So the Oath of Office is a prerequisite for any Official Acts. Therefore, any act that violates the Oath of Office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, cannot be construed as a Official Act, as the requisite Oath of Office is violated by the act.
Two examples of violation of Oath of Office would be pressuring Mike Pence into not performing his Constitutionally mandated duty of certifying the election as enumerated in Article II, Section 1, amended by amendment XII. Another example would be sending "alternative slate of fake electors." Again, Article II section 1 states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.​

The Constitution specifically states that is is the States who select the electors according to their legislation, not the President. This is definitely breaking the Oath of Office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It is undermining the Constitution and usurping States Constitutional duties and powers-violating the Oath of Office. Since the intact Oath of Office is a prerequisite for any Official Act, neither of these acts can be construed as Official Acts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Frankly, anyone who thinks that Trump or much of his support base cares about the law or the Courts' rulings is just not paying attention.

 

[wellwisher]

The bottom line is Biden is the current President and he will be the first to feel or take advantage of the ruling. Trump is not President, so the ruling will not apply to him, unless he wins and how he behaves in the future. You guys are whining hypotheticals and avoiding the actuals, now that the line in the sand has been set by this court ruling. You guys are the one's who started the dangerous precedent of going after a former President, that resulted in this ruling. The court had to act on unprecedented injustice it was seeing, where no distinction was being made between official and unofficial acts. You guys are blaming everyone, but are the ones who started this and forced this ruling that now applies to you.

Is going after a former President and current opposing Party prime candidate, with Kangaroo Courts, an official act as President? Biden will be the first real time test of the new precedent. You fear is your crimes will come back to bite you. This is take away your game and makes it appear like election interference.

For example, Hunter Biden was about to get a sweet heart deal, until that was caught by a Judge. Is helping a member of your family escape the legal system an official act of a President? A President can pardon anyone, but I am not sure about legal tampering, to avoid the political blow back from such a pardon. The President does not make laws but enforces them.

What about failing to release the tapes of his interview with the FBI that allowed him to avoid prosecution for taking classified documents home. Is this other act of placing his thumb on the scale of injustice and is that an official act as President? The President is the head of the Executive Branch; President, DOJ and FBI, etc. and the buck stops at the Big Guy. If his subordinates so something, like Nixon's Aids in Watergate, the President takes the heat, since he is the commander and chief and the buck stops there. Nixon was not allowed any buffer excuse with the middlemen scapegoated, who then get pardoned.

We have the election coming up and the Biden team had been accused of election tampering in 2020. Although the buck stops at Biden, he never allowed a deep investigation into those serious charges, to help unite the country. Is neglect of duty the job of the President? The first amendment allows for the airing of grievances against the Government, and the Government needing to act and set the minds of citizens at ease with an internal investigation of any alleged corruption. Was the lack of over sight an admission of guilt?

What about the death of US civilians, due to illegal immigration; the drugs pouring over the border, human trafficking, crime against citizens, and now even possible future terrorism caused by his reckless and self serving open door policies? Does the blood count as an official duty as president? This is the type of question that may come up in the future after the bodies are counted and reach a milestone.

This new blame game of the Left; blame Trump, is another Russia, Russia, Russia, scam to set up a future defense with an early offense. If one is vulnerable and fears a future attack, you attack first, to keep your opponent off balance, so he cannot mount a good offense. Trump learned from being the victim of this game; Russian Collusion offense for defense.

For example, President Obama and the VP Biden spied on the Trump campaign in a style worse than Nixon. Nixon also spied, but in a milder civilian way. Nixon did not use the FBI, yet he is still the poster child of corruption. What that illegal spying an official act for Obama? That coverup could explain the need for the Russian Collusion campaign; a good offense can also be a good defense. Is covering up crimes like illegal spying by a President, the job of a President or can he/she be brought to trial, seeing that the Democrats weaponize that option against Trump who was also a former President and the same political opponent who was spied on.

The DNC is again trying to make two sets of rules. They can throw a sucker shots since 2016, but the victim cannot. I believe the victim gets his shoot and maybe even monetary compensation due to being the initial victim. That may require draining the Swamp and their bank accounts for legal defense. Expensive legal defense was part of the original sucker shot and still is.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The bottom line is Biden is the current President and he will be the first to feel or take advantage of the ruling. Trump is not President, so the ruling will not apply to him, unless he wins and how he behaves in the future. You guys are whining hypotheticals and avoiding the actuals, now that the line in the sand has been set by this court ruling. You guys are the one's who started the dangerous precedent of going after a former President, that resulted in this ruling. The court had to act on unprecedented injustice it was seeing, where no distinction was being made between official and unofficial acts. You guys are blaming everyone, but are the ones who started this and forced this ruling that now applies to you.

Is going after a former President and current opposing Party prime candidate, with Kangaroo Courts, an official act as President? Biden will be the first real time test of the new precedent. You fear is your crimes will come back to bite you. This is take away your game and makes it appear like election interference.

For example, Hunter Biden was about to get a sweet heart deal, until that was caught by a Judge. Is helping a member of your family escape the legal system an official act of a President? A President can pardon anyone, but I am not sure about legal tampering, to avoid the political blow back from such a pardon. The President does not make laws but enforces them.

What about failing to release the tapes of his interview with the FBI that allowed him to avoid prosecution for taking classified documents home. Is this other act of placing his thumb on the scale of injustice and is that an official act as President? The President is the head of the Executive Branch; President, DOJ and FBI, etc. and the buck stops at the Big Guy. If his subordinates so something, like Nixon's Aids in Watergate, the President takes the heat, since he is the commander and chief and the buck stops there. Nixon was not allowed any buffer excuse with the middlemen scapegoated, who then get pardoned.

We have the election coming up and the Biden team had been accused of election tampering in 2020. Although the buck stops at Biden, he never allowed a deep investigation into those serious charges, to help unite the country. Is neglect of duty the job of the President? The first amendment allows for the airing of grievances against the Government, and the Government needing to act and set the minds of citizens at ease with an internal investigation of any alleged corruption. Was the lack of over sight an admission of guilt?

What about the death of US civilians, due to illegal immigration; the drugs pouring over the border, human trafficking, crime against citizens, and now even possible future terrorism caused by his reckless and self serving open door policies? Does the blood count as an official duty as president? This is the type of question that may come up in the future after the bodies are counted and reach a milestone.

This new blame game of the Left; blame Trump, is another Russia, Russia, Russia, scam to set up a future defense with an early offense. If one is vulnerable and fears a future attack, you attack first, to keep your opponent off balance, so he cannot mount a good offense. Trump learned from being the victim of this game; Russian Collusion offense for defense.

For example, President Obama and the VP Biden spied on the Trump campaign in a style worse than Nixon. Nixon also spied, but in a milder civilian way. Nixon did not use the FBI, yet he is still the poster child of corruption. What that illegal spying an official act for Obama? That coverup could explain the need for the Russian Collusion campaign; a good offense can also be a good defense. Is covering up crimes like illegal spying by a President, the job of a President or can he/she be brought to trial, seeing that the Democrats weaponize that option against Trump who was also a former President and the same political opponent who was spied on.

The DNC is again trying to make two sets of rules. They can throw a sucker shots since 2016, but the victim cannot. I believe the victim gets his shoot and maybe even monetary compensation due to being the initial victim. That may require draining the Swamp and their bank accounts for legal defense. Expensive legal defense was part of the original sucker shot and still is.

You've bought into conspiracy theories lock, stock and barrel, it seems. Obama "spied" on Trump's campaign? Nope:

No evidence has been found that legal surveillance, as part of Crossfire Hurricane, was at the direction of Obama, Obama administration political officials or improper deep state influence, or that the Steele dossier was used to launch the Russia probe, or that the surveillance was designed to surveil the Trump campaign and Trump White House transition team for political purposes.

 

[ratiocinator]

I will enclose it in inline-code tags to remove the strikethrough from your post.

FYI, to avoid it looking like code, you can use the [plain]....[/plain] tag: [s]No strike-through[/s], [b]No bold[/b].

Sorry, bit of a sad geek sometimes....

 

[Debater Slayer]

FYI, to avoid it looking like code, you can use the [plain]....[/plain] tag: [s]No strike-through[/s], [b]No bold[/b].

Sorry, bit of a sad geek sometimes....

Thanks! I didn't know the forum software had such a tag. Good to know.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I keep saying this, and I'll say it again: Per the Constitution, the President cannot exercise any official acts until they take the Oath of Office.

The Oath of Office from Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​

So the Oath of Office is a prerequisite for any Official Acts. Therefore, any act that violates the Oath of Office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, cannot be construed as a Official Act, as the requisite Oath of Office is violated by the act.
Two examples of violation of Oath of Office would be pressuring Mike Pence into not performing his Constitutionally mandated duty of certifying the election as enumerated in Article II, Section 1, amended by amendment XII. Another example would be sending "alternative slate of fake electors." Again, Article II section 1 states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.​

The Constitution specifically states that is is the States who select the electors according to their legislation, not the President. This is definitely breaking the Oath of Office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It is undermining the Constitution and usurping States Constitutional duties and powers-violating the Oath of Office. Since the intact Oath of Office is a prerequisite for any Official Act, neither of these acts can be construed as Official Acts.

Trump was president at the time. And the constitution says the individual states legislatures get to make the rules for federal elections, not governors or courts. That was the reason Trump wanted Pence to send the electors back to some states for review. Pennsylvania and Georgia had election laws changed by the governors and court systems in the weeks leading up to the election violating the US constitution.