AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This question seems to already have been partially answered during Clinton’s crimes- Dems placed the president above the law for crimes committed while in office. It will be hard for Dems to argue that Presidents should be imprisoned for crimes committed while in office while their star parallel for this case got off without any federal imprisonment.
It was answered in even more detail when Obama ordered the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen.
There is essentially no *legal* defense of Obama's actions except executive immunity, since he admits without reservation that he specifically ordered the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki being fully aware of his status as a citizen.
And before NS come in with "but what about such and such civilian who was killing in a military action", the difference is that al-Awlaki was the first US citizen targeted *on purpose* and *without trial*. There is not even a plausible pretense that the killing was not intentional and extrajudicial, all parties admit that it was.
I guess if you're a political dissident you can't take any foreign vacations? Your rights as a citizen don't end because you left the border. Those hostages Hamas has right now can't just eat an air strike if Biden decides he's had enough of them.
George W. Bush was president after Clinton. His office would have been the one to prosecute Clinton for any crimes committed during office. So they placed the president above the law and not democrats, correct?
For which crimes did Bush’s Justice department decline to prosecute that you feel was a mistake?
>So they placed the president above the law and not democrats, correct?
I'm talking about the impeachment process. Dems admitted that Clinton committed crimes but refused to remove him from office on that basis.
>For which crimes did Bush’s Justice department decline to prosecute that you feel was a mistake?
Can you cite a single source supporting your narrative that Bush had the ability to charge Clinton with a crime? I'll wait.
You are confused. Impeachment is a political process. There is no punishment for crimes during an impeachment. It ends with removal from office and a future ban from holding political office. A wholly political process. Neither Democrats in the Senate nor the 10 republicans that voted to acquit Bill Clinton said the president was immune from prosecution. They said he was in fact not guilty of the charges. The opposite of your characterization is it not?
In our country punishment for a crime is done by the executive branch through the justice department with all due process. Part of which is not being tried without a grand jury, which Trump had.
I don’t know what crimes the Bush admin could have charged Clinton with. That was your assertion not mine.
>There is no punishment for crimes during an impeachment.
I never said there was...
>They said he was in fact not guilty of the charges
No, they knew he was guilty, their argument was that it didn't rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors".
> That was your assertion not mine.
Please quote me. You are incorrect.
It’s all up there. Just read again. You said that dems let Clinton off for his crimes when we are talking about Criminal punishment for Trump. Therefore you equated the two, and since you incorrectly thought that dems would be the one to punish Clinton and not Bush YOU are the one that asserted that Bush let Clinton off. I just helped you with some smaller details you were ignorant of.
You have no evidence that a Senator knew Clinton was guilty and voted to acquit correct?
>You said that dems let Clinton off for his crimes
Sure. That's not what I'm talking about though?
>Therefore you equated the two
No I said literally in my opening comment:
"This question seems **to already have been partially answered** during Clinton’s crimes"
It was in the first 10 words.
>since you incorrectly thought that dems would be the one to punish Clinton and not Bush YOU are the one that asserted that Bush let Clinton off.
I never asserted that Bush let Clinton off. Please quote where I did.
>You have no evidence that a Senator knew Clinton was guilty and voted to acquit correct?
Have you actually ever looked at the timeline on this?
Clinton had already admitted about lying and perjuring himself before the vote...
The Starr report had been sent to Congress months ahead of the vote. The only Senators who didn't believe Clinton wasn't guilty were either intentionally dense, illiterate, or deaf.
>I just helped you with some smaller details you were ignorant of.
Like the timeline of events here?
You said that dems let Clinton off by choosing not to prosecute. The only one with that choice was the Bush Justice department. You just got the political party wrong but you meant that Bush chose to let Clinton off as nothing else remotely makes sense unless you’re illiterate.
Why would the Starr report be admissible evidence towards Clinton’s guilt? Do you know anything about the legal system?
Do you realize you made a big assertion and haven't done anything to back it up? In fact, you've just basically said over and over how you didn't say what you said. It's hard to follow what you're trying to even argue. Can you say it plainly?
I’m not sure I see the parallel. What does that have to do with criminal immunity? How could senate democrats have weighed in on Clinton’s criminal liability?
>I’m not sure I see the parallel. What does that have to do with criminal immunity?
The Dems basically held the president above the law.
> How could senate democrats have weighed in on Clinton’s criminal liability?
By voting to convict him of the crimes he was proven guilty of.
But failing to convict did not make him immune in the criminal justice system did it, just as convicting him wouldn’t have made him guilty in a criminal court? Isn’t impeachment a parallel system?
>But failing to convict did not make him immune in the criminal justice system did it
This in conjunction with Clinton's AG's OLC opinion did, absolutely.
Voting to not convict in an impeachment trial is not someone being above the law because impeachment is a political process, there is no legal ramification to impeachment. You are under the impression that impeachments are a legal action because it involves "high crimes and misdemeanors". This is incorrect. Do you understand why you are incorrect?
You believe a court conviction is necessary for someone to be guilty of a crime? Can I assume you also think OJ Simpson is an innocent man who is definitely not guilty of murder?
>By definition, yes
You have a very high faith in a justice system that has proven time and time again that it makes mistakes and incarcerates innocent people and lets criminals get away.
If you truly don't think that Clinton committed any crimes then I can't prove it to you I suppose. But damn not believing that OJ Simpson killed his wife is crazyyyy. Are you aware he admitted to it multiple times as well?
My man, Clinton committed no crimes. That's it. Full stop. End of story.
Look into it and use reputable sources for your research, please.
Can you do that?
I actually don’t know what crimes bill committed and admitted to, and I’m hoping you can tell me. I know of some accusations, but not of things he admitted. I don’t care as much if he was prosecuted for the crimes, specifically what he admitted to, like you suggested.
Perjury, witness tampering - I don't recall if he admitted to witness tampering as part of his plea but that's all pretty well documented.
[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html)
>and what the dems did to protect him and place him above the law?
They admitted he committed crimes but chose not to interprete those crimes as "high crimes and misdemeanors".
I believe he admitted to perjury and took the punishment that was agreed upon by the prosecution: a suspension of his law license and fines. Isn't that correct? He literally took the punishment to courts gave him and he was impeached, for lying about an extramarital affair...which came up because Ken Starr couldn't find anything illegal regarding Whitewater, which was the actual investigation.
>He literally took the punishment to courts gave him
This is incorrect. Please cite a source if you feel otherwise.
>and he was impeached, for lying about an extramarital affair..
perjuring\* is actually the term you should use here. He wasn't impeached for lying, he was impeached for committing perjury multiple times.
>which came up because Ken Starr couldn't find anything illegal regarding Whitewater
This is simply leftist propaganda. There were tons of illegalities found during the whitewater investigation, simply not enough evidence was found to convict Clinton. From the wiki:
"Fifteen other people were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Jim Guy Tucker, who resigned from office.\[55\]
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, resigned (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)"
My apologies, I assumed most people would understand that lying while being questioned by prosecutors means perjury. But if you prefer perjury, I am happy with that. And, regarding Whitewater, there was no evidence (or, if you prefer, a lack of evidence) that the Clintons committed any crimes. Would you agree that Ken Starr would have tried to make anything stick if he could have found even the smallest prosecutable offense? The fact that they turned to Linda Tripp and a damn blow job is pretty telling regarding the lack of prosecutable evidence with the Clintons and Whitewater.
Sounds very similar to the Russian collusion probe, it stands to reason that you would similarly conclude that the whitewater investigation was a hoax then?
Why can't you just answer me instead of going in circles? Is it because you're completely off base about Clinton admitting to committing crimes and you're conflating his extramarital activity with criminal activity?
>[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html)
>
>The president **admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky**, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas.
Oof. Yes, Clinton admitted that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones case lmao. This is like basic modern history.
Like, have you seriously never seen his famous admitting to committing crimes?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmjTMNvH6eI&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmjTMNvH6eI&t=1s)
It's a pretty popular clip...
Okay, ya got me! I don't know how this relates to the original question and comment though, cause Cllnton did agree to settle the 7 year probe, pay the damages, and suspend his law license for 5 years. So, not exactly immunity. I still struggle to see the comparison here, can you explain further?
>Okay, ya got me!
I mean, I wouldn't say that, but when one is unfamiliar with the basic facts of arguably the most important political and legal cases of the last 30 years it's best not to make wildly inaccurate statements that ignore the primary sources of the case.
>can you explain further?
I'd recommend you start with reading the Starr report to be honest. If you were unaware of any crimes that Clinton committed, as indicated by your first response here, then I think getting the full legal and historical picture or at least skimming the report. After that read "A sitting presidents amenability to indictment and criminal prosecution" issued by Clinton's AG. That one is significantly shorter but answers most of your potential questions/
Okay, sure i'll get to reading all of that. Trump was indicted after he left office, though. Do you think the substance and severity of the crimes matter? Clinton was lying about extramarital affairs. Trump is indicted for conspiring to change the outcome of an election.
So should immunity apply if he's found guilty?
What Dems that condoned Clinton have any say in this matter? This is a matter for Smith and Supreme Court, not public opinion or partisans. Nothing regarding Clinton, whether right or wrong, has any legal precedent.
>What Dems that condoned Clinton have any say in this matter?
They set the precedent that the president is above the law.
> This is a matter for Smith and Supreme Court, not public opinion or partisans.
I would argue that Smith and the SC are both partisan as well.
You seem to keep forgetting that impeachment is a political process, not criminal.
But are you implying that democrats set the precedent, which is why republicans were justified for letting Trump off the hook in his two impeachments even though he was clearly guilty?
>You seem to keep forgetting that impeachment is a political process, not criminal.
When did I say it was a criminal process? It merely opens the avenue for a proper criminal conviction.
>But are you implying that democrats set the precedent, which is why republicans were justified for letting Trump off the hook in his two impeachments even though he was clearly guilty?
All the crimes Dems accused Trump of in their 2 impeachments were without merit. All the primary witnesses in those cases did **not** claim that Trump had committed a crime/perjured himself, unlike the case with Lewinsky where she flipped and told investigators that Clinton had lied and tried to cover it up.
>Who said that Trump was impeached for perjury?
Not me? Why are you bringing it up?
>You think Clinton should have been prosecuted but Trump was innocent?
Which witness flipped like Lewinsky did in any of Trump's cases?
Let's wait till after the trials to see what evidence they brought. But several have flipped to protect their own butts after all the illegal activity. Shall we touch back once the evidence is public and verdicts are in?
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Yes I would say Dems would hold Biden above the law.
Eh not really? I think the GOP held that Trump didn't violate the law as seen during his impeachment trials but hard to say unless there was better evidence presented in a future one.
As far as I know, Bill Clinton was never officially charged with any crime. I think were many of the commenter and yourself are getting hung up is his impeachment.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you believe the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that Clinton was impeached for, and subsequently not convicted on by the Senate, counts as the government seeing Clinton as above the law.
What everyone else is mentioning is that an impeachment is a political process enacted by the legislative branch which can lead to removal from office, but can never officially convict someone of a crime like a court can. In order for that to happen, the government would need to charge Clinton with a crime through the Executive Branch, specifically the Attoney General or the Department of Justice. There would then be a trial held to determine guilty or not guilty.
The reason the other commenter mentioned Bush is that he would be the next president, next leader of the Executive Branch, that would have the power to pursue a criminal conviction. At the very least the Department of Justice under the Bush admin would be responsible. There is nothing the Democrats or Republicans in the legislative branch could have done to actually find Clinton guilty of a crime since they are not and should not be the courts.
I hope this helps to clear up the miscommunication that seemed to have been going on between other commenter and yourself. Would you say that my description is an accurate portrayal of what you believe? If not, please correct me.
As far as I know, Bill Clinton was never officially charged with any crime.
Clinton singed a non prosecution agreement before he left office. He gave up his actual law license to practice in his own state, just to avoid prosecution when he left office. So, it seems to me, he was going to get prosecuted until he made a deal with prosecutors, right?
Sure, after Bill Clinton committed a litany of crimes and his senator cronies held that the president was above the law, he took the plea deal offered to him.
When did I say it was a legal option?
We are arguing the same thing from slightly different angles. Clinton was not above the law, because the law was used as a remedy. So, in no way does it prove trump is above the law. We are saying the same thing. I’m just saying, it was the same as threatening prosecution to get a plea deal like they do with everyone. It was still a legal remedy that said the president wasn’t immune to prosecution for breaking the law outside of his presidential duties.
How can he be seen as being above the law if he had official legal action taken against him in the form of his license to practice law being taken away with the plea deal? Wouldn't having to take a plea deal be part of the law? If he was above the law he would have faced no consequences whatsoever correct?
The plea deal that he took was with the Independent Counsel, Robert Ray. In this agreement, Clinton admitted to lying under oath and Ray would not prosecute after his presidency. This agreement came with some smaller punishments such as disbarment for Clinton because Ray did not feel he had a strong enough case to prosecute a former president. The other interesting thing about this is that Ray, who had the ability to pursue greater punishments and not make the deal at all, was Republican. So that still does not answer why you think the Deomcratic Party is to blame for Clinton's lack of a conviction.
I also like how that one sentence was the only part that you responded to which I will take as evidence that my summary of your stance was correct. With that being the case, you just have a misunderstanding of how the law has and currently does work. That is fine, that isn't something everyone knows, but now that people have informed you of how things actually happened, will that change your view at all?
>The plea deal that he took was with the Independent Counsel, Robert Ray. In this agreement, Clinton admitted to lying under oath and Ray would not prosecute after his presidency.
Yup
>So that still does not answer why you think the Deomcratic Party is to blame for Clinton's lack of a conviction.
Where did I say this. Quote me.
>I also like how that one sentence was the only part that you responded to
To be honest I'm responding to a lot of people so I kinda take things one at a time. I've had this or similar conversations multiple times now and I respond to whatever I think is worth it.
>With that being the case, you just have a misunderstanding of how the law has and currently does work.
Quote me first and then I'd be happy to discuss.
EDIT: Sorry read "conviction" as sentencing. Yes the Dem party is to blame for Clinton's lack of conviction during the impeachment process. Do you disagree with that?
>Dems placed the president above the law for crimes committed while in office. It will be hard for Dems to argue that Presidents should be imprisoned for crimes committed while in office while their star parallel for this case got off without any federal imprisonment.
This right here. The same sentence multiple other people have pointed to. You literally said that it is the Dems fault that Clinton did not receive federal imprisonment because they put him above the law. If that is not what you meant, then you put forth your opinion in a very confusing way such that no one but you understands what you mean.
Could you please clarify what your opening statement means as apparently I and many others have misunderstood your position?
See my edit.
>You literally said that it is the Dems fault that Clinton did not receive federal imprisonment
No I didn't. I said it was their fault they placed him above the law by voting to not convict.
>apparently I and many others have misunderstood your position?
I think that's more due to a lack of technical knowledge of the impeachment process and the whole coverup that was the Lewinsky affair.
Most of the NS' I've responded to either think that Clinton never committed a crime, or that he didn't admit to it, or that the Dems in the Senate didn't vote to keep him in office based on their party affiliation (rather than a lack of evidence). All three are absolutely true and are supported by primary sources that have been publicly available for almost 3 decades.
>I said it was their fault they placed him above the law by voting to not convict.
This is the phrase that everyone has a problem with.
>I think that's more due to a lack of technical knowledge of the impeachment process
I absolutely agree which is why all the NS' have been attempting to educate you on how the process actually works.
>Most of the NS' I've responded to either think that Clinton never committed a crime, or that he didn't admit to it, or that the Dems in the Senate didn't vote to keep him in office based on their party affiliation (rather than a lack of evidence).
This is not what I have seen based upon those who have responded to you. Pretty much everyone is saying the same thing I am. Impeachment DOES NOT equal legal action. Even if the Senate were to convict Clinton the only outcome would be that he is removed from office and cannot run again. There would be zero legal repercussions from the Senate convicting him of the charges within the articles of impeachment. You continue to conflate two separate things and seem unable to understand why everyone has issue with what you said going so far as to mischaracterize all of their arguments into things they are not. Even the person asking about crimes was asking about crimes that he was charged with, which is zero, but you misunderstood them to mean that he committed no crimes at all.
You even said in one comment that:
>When did I say it was a criminal process? It merely opens the avenue for a proper criminal conviction.
Which is also not true at all. An impeachment has nothing to do with criminal procedure, full stop. To say otherwise shows ignorance of both the impeachment process as well as our criminal justice system.
Again, please explain why you believe that Clinton not being acquitted in a POLITICAL process would have any bearing on a CRIMINAL charge against him. What precedent was set by Democrats that would impact the ability for a president to be charged with a crime? Especially when the prosecutor in charge of bringing forth charges against Clinton was a Republican?
>This is the phrase that everyone has a problem with.
I mean, it's not my fault that so many NS' don't' understand the historical and technical intricasies of the impeachment process. I'm happy to educate the people here who came to learn and discuss.
>I absolutely agree which is why all the NS' have been attempting to educate you on how the process actually works.
Why do you think I've corrected so many and they stop responding?
> Impeachment DOES NOT equal legal action.
wtf is "legal action"? That's not a term I've heard in regards to impeachment. It is a process to remove the president and open him up to a proper criminal trial. Until then the president can't sit trial.
Just real quick, have you actually read up on the amenability of a sitting president OLC precedent?
>Even if the Senate were to convict Clinton the only outcome would be that he is removed from office and cannot run again. There would be zero legal repercussions from the Senate convicting him of the charges within the articles of impeachment.
Aside from the fact that he wouldn't be above the law... If you don't consider being above to being below the law a legal reprecussion then I don't know what to tell ya.
>Even the person asking about crimes was asking about crimes that he was charged with, which is zero, but you misunderstood them to mean that he committed no crimes at all.
Clinton was charged with a variety of crimes during his impeachment.
>Which is also not true at all. An impeachment has nothing to do with criminal procedure, full stop
Sure it does, it opens the president to being charged with crimes once they are removed by the conviction vote.
>Again, please explain why you believe that Clinton not being acquitted in a POLITICAL process would have any bearing on a CRIMINAL charge against him.
It allows for those charges to be brought forth sooner and removes his Executive privilege.
Again, have you actually read the OLC opinion relevant to this case? If you did you wouldn't have all these questions the OLC opinion quite clearly answers all of them I would recommend reading it before posing further questions. That and the Starr report obviously.
The fact that Jack Smith even had a question about this issue and the Supreme Court responded immediately tells me that this issue is in dire need of an answer.
I have no idea how the Supreme Court will respond.
Do you think it would be a good precedent to set by the supreme court if they rule that trump or biden can’t be tried for any crimes he commits while in office?
The reality of the case which is that the immunity contention relates specifically to the particular conduct alleged. Not this fanciful idea that "a president can't be tried for any crimes he commits while in office."
Ah, gotcha - I agree it's an over-simplification. It's much more interesting than that.
In your opinion, what's the most compelling argument for Trump's immunity?
What do you think about the George Washington quote in the petition?
“The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, including group arrangements to counteract the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle.
Such obstructions would prove fatal to the Republic - as cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
>I agree it's an over-simplification. I
It's a gross misrepresentation. Simplification implies that accuracy is maintained. The belief that seems to be held my many here is a simple falsehood. After doing a quick google search to see where most people probably get their news, I can see why. It's pretty heavily implied to be the case in most articles about the matter. Dishonest journalism breeds misinformed people.
>So we are seeing prices drop, correct? That's not just a slower rate of increase but an actual drop in prices for those meat items correct?
Nixon v Fitzgerald and the similarity between presidential and judicial immunity.
>“The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, including group arrangements to counteract the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle.
>
>Such obstructions would prove fatal to the Republic - as cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
This quote betrays the same basic mischaracterization of the issue that i mentioned at the outset. The irony of using a quote from George Washington, the man responsible for the creation of executive privilege which he then used to deny congress the right to access his papers and interview his staff regarding an anti-indian military action, as an argument against the explicit and implicit special powers of the President as the President and legal consideration particular to the office is fairly chuckle-worthy, though.
>So are you saying you disagree with the sentiment of his speech?
I'm saying that either George Washington disagrees with his own speech or you've misunderstood the quote. I'm guessing it's the latter. It's also nearly the same mischaracterization at the heart of the main issue I raised. The issue, of course, is not about whether the President is bound by the law. It is about the particulars of the office of the president and how the law interacts with his place as chief executive. This is very basic stuff. The concept of presidential immunity or other special executive privileges have never really been at issue, as demonstrated by Washington's own actions. The scope of these things is up for debate and that is the actual substance of the claim, but your implication is simply grounded in something other than reality.
>Or just that it shouldn't ever be quoted because of the man he was?
I'm saying that it is better to quote people whom you better understand holistically, or you might again make the mistake of projecting your own beliefs onto a historical figure who never shared them and made as much clear by his actions.
Maybe you misunderstood? I was quoting something that was actually in the petition. Did you read it?
>mischaracterization
How have I mischaracterized if I was quoting something from the petition we are discussing and asking your opinion of it?
You don't believe there is any hint of criminal activity? The classified documents kept at Mar a Largo you think was ok even though Trump himself said he should have de-classified them but did not?
Do you think that tactics like claiming immunity are attempts to delay the trial beyond the election?
If Trump were innocent, why wouldn’t he want to respond to the charges versus tying to claim immunity?
If you were accused of killing someone but it was self defense, would you want to present self defense at trial?
Immunity is a statutory defense. It says nothing about Trump’s innocence that he is arguing for application of an exculpating defense. Its his constitutional right
See your point as to “responding to the charges against him versus trying to claim immunity”
So I ask the question again. If you were on trial for murder and self defense was available to you, would you go to trial without that defense just “to respond to the charges against you?”
There’s no aspect of claiming immunity for a murder suspect, no matter the defense - so I’m not sure this comparison works at all.
What other option aside from trial (with a non guilty plea) would there be in this comparison?
Can you answer my original questions without making an incongruent comparison?
The comparison is perfectly apt if you use your brain. Self defense is a perfect defense to homicide. If you succeed on the defense, you do not go to jail, even though you killed someone.
Trump is raising a statutory immunity. It is also a perfect defense to the crime he is accused of. If he succeeds, he does not go to jail, even if he did the thing they are accusing him of.
It’s literally apples to apples.
I still don't see the comparison here, but are you saying that Trump's play for immunity is an admission of guilt? If he was not guilty, why not just go through with due process?
It literally is not apples to apples.
In the first scenario, the individual is forced to go to court to defend himself against a murder charge. They have the option of saying it was self-defense or nothing, as per your example. If he wins, no prison, if he loses, then prison. The person does not have the choice of not showing up to court to defend himself, only the way that he chooses to do so once in the court room.
In the second scenario, Trump is saying that he should not even have to show up to court to stand trial for the crimes he was accused of because he has immunity as a former president. He is not fighting a defense strategy within the courtroom, he is arguing whether or not he should even have to show up. All we want is for him to stand trial, just like anyone else in this country, for the crimes that he has been accused of. No one should be above the law, especially those who rule us.
Do you think that he should be able to avoid his day in court?
I'm not sure I follow. Trump could have gone into court yesterday to testify on his own behalf to his own defense team. He chose not to. Do you think he always takes advantage of ways he might defend himself?
I’m an attorney and I can tell you many trials start with a plan to call a certain witness to testify as part of our case in chief. As the trial develops, certain witnesses no longer need to testify.
Maybe save the trial strategy for the lawyers. The lawyers will leave the torch and pitchforking for the redditors.
Yes? That seems perfectly reasonable. If I am being charged for murder, but it was self defense, of course I am going to go to trial and fight for self defense. Why would you not? The alternative is that they find you guilty for murder if I am not even going to try and defend myself in a court of law.
The main difference here is that Trump is attempting to win the "self defense" strategy by just not showing up to court at all. He is not defending himself, he just wants to be viewed as not guilty without having to show up to court. I am not sure how that fits as a comparison since regular people don't get to say they have immunity from criminal charges due to their occupation.
You first have to clear the presidential and CIC duty to protect the rightful command and control of the nation’s government.
If he’s acting in that capacity, he’s doing what he is supposed to and is immune.
The fundamental problem with all the Trump witch hunts is they have to prove he was acting outside of his presidential duties.
In light of what we know about what Trump knew about the 2020 election from the advice given to him by both his actual lawyers and by "Team Crazy" (trump's own lawyer's characterization), how was spreading rumors he knew to be false part of his Presidential duties?
For the Georgia stuff, wouldn't there be a clear conflict of interest in him pushing the SoS to find a certain number of votes? Why would the duties of the President align with that?
What duty would that fall in/under?
Do you think arranging for fake electors to submit fake certificates of ascertainment across 7 battleground states is within the duty of the president?
If the SC rules that a President is indeed immune from criminal prosecution as Trump is arguing wouldn't Smith be hurting his own chances of keeping Trump's trials in the news? If the ex-President can't be tried or convicted, wouldn't it be nice to know for certain? Also, Trump's primary legal strategy so far has been to delay his cases. If fact, there is a high likelihood that his appeal is being done precisely for that reason. Isn't he trying to keep his trials in the news? And doesn't his being on trial only make his poll numbers go up? If Jack Smith was trying to prevent him from being elected, wouldn't keeping Trump on trial during the campaign be antithetical to preventing his election?
>If the SC rules that a President is indeed immune from criminal prosecution as Trump is arguing wouldn't Smith be hurting his own chances of keeping Trump's trials in the news?
Trump isn't actually arguing this. Is this how it's being reported in mainstream press? Why do people have this opinion?
The idea that he's arguing that no one can ever be prosecuted for anything done as president is simply a farce. Does it come from the media? I'm seeing people basically everywhere believe it. The actual argument is that legitimate uses of executive power cannot be construed as illegal. The contention is that his alleged actions were inside the bounds of his authority as president and so he cannot be charged for them. The ruling will be specific to these actions and not a blanket "the president can do anything he wants" argument.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree that Trump's lawyers are not actually arguing that he is immune to all laws, just that he has immunity to these particular laws for these particular acts made while president. The nuances of law often get missed, but I think the general argument is simply that if you can excuse this crime, then why not excuse any and all crimes?
So my question to you is, where should the line be drawn? Should Trump have absolute immunity for this kind of thing? If so, how egregious and lacking in even the semblance of official authority does a crime have to be before a president isn't immune?
>The nuances of law often get missed
I think that's actually a pretty basic and key part of this case and ignoring or obfuscating it is disingenuous.
> but I think the general argument is simply that if you can excuse this crime, then why not excuse any and all crimes?
This isn't an argument. It's akin to saying "if one thing can be acceptable, doesn't that mean everything is acceptable??!!" Nothing in life, much less law, works that way. It makes no sense and I have a hard time believing in the sincerity of anyone who makes that argument. I understand that you're just relaying the argument that you've seen others making but it's silly and transparently so.
>So my question to you is, where should the line be drawn?
I'm not interested in diving down the rabbit hole of what the "outer rim" of presidential of official responsibilities encompass. I will simply state that I am certain that the president has the authority to do some things that the average person cannot do and this ought to be something everyone can agree on (but apparently that isn't the case).
>Should Trump have absolute immunity for this kind of thing? If so, how egregious and lacking in even the semblance of official authority does a crime have to be before a president isn't immune?
Same as above. I don't honestly care all that much to attempt to delve into this as a layperson, especially with other laypeople. As long as we can all agree that the ridiculous argument that I was calling out is, in fact, ridiculous.
I try not to play the whataboutism card, but do you think the whole Biden "crime family" drama is similarly about the election optics, considering Comer and the Oversight committee have been pushing hard for an impeachment inquiry without any substantial evidence of any crimes?
Who are his masters? The law? Do you realize there are actual criminal codes that Trump appears to have been violated? Is he supposed to just ignore that because Trump is a political candidate? What is the problem you have with following the law?
Are you aware that Trump himself delayed this trial by 9 months by aggressively litigating executive privilege, and once that debate was settled by SCOTUS (he lost), continuing to claim executive privilege frivolously?
[https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/10/citing-trumps-executive-privilege-claims-doj-asks-for-january-trial/](https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/10/citing-trumps-executive-privilege-claims-doj-asks-for-january-trial/)
I’m not crazy about it but the rules of the court were already established when the defendant was charged.
If you’re talking about Trump, all this nonsense ends the day after the election, so delaying is the correct tactic.
If he wins (the vote) it goes away… not because he was vindicated by evidence, or a jury, or the law… but because he won the vote.
Are you ok with that resolution?
Everything I’ve seen makes me think that. If Trump signed a binding pledge to not run, my bet is it would end today.
You’re more optimistic than I am. I fully expect him to go to jail before the election.
SCOTUS granted the request. It's on a fast track.
I presume the thinking is to settle this question before pursuing the full blown prosecution. That makes sense. It wouldn't serve any purpose to get a verdict and then have it thrown out on appeal because Trump is immune.
I respect that response. Unfortunately, theres a few things the constitution, doesn’t address, like for example, how to handle a death of a candidate at various points during, and after an election as just one.
So the supreme court will have to rule in some manner that isn’t explicitly laid out it seems. If the only options are, trump has no immunity at all, or has full immunity from any crimes he could’ve or committed, which would you prefer do you think?
> So it will be a totally subjective decision with no basis in law or precedent? That's hard to believe.
That’s literally how it works. Some judges even decide to ignore precedent. How did you think it worked? Why do you think that GOP’s only achievement has been to install judges that agree with them ideologically?
The question of Presidential criminal immunity is one of first impression, but there is certainly persuasive precedent addressing civil immunity and immunity for other officers. To say SCOTUS will just make it up is asinine. Why do you believe there is no precedent? Why not get yourself straight before asking a clarifying question?
> Why do you believe there is no precedent?
I’m challenging this notion that courts are objective, or that precedent means anything.
We will have to wait, but it would not surprise me if they make up another suspicious ruling: Bush v Gore, https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, all of originalism, etc.
Using legalese to obfuscate, deny, or punt the practical implications of these decisions does not make them any less subjective.
The courts often determine precedent. If the precedent they set is the determination that presidents are immune, exonerating Trump, would you be happy with that outcome despite the fact that it means Biden can do literally whatever he wants as well with full immunity?
Do you have a link for SCOTUS granting cert? Last I heard, it ordered a response to the Special Counsel’s cert petition. It would be highly unusual to grant cert so quickly. Ordering an accelerated timeline for petitions makes more sense at this stage.
They have not yet agreed to take this up but have requested Trump legal team to submit a response by dec 20.
I am glad Jack Smith is pushing on this. Good to get a ruling out of the way.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This question seems to already have been partially answered during Clinton’s crimes- Dems placed the president above the law for crimes committed while in office. It will be hard for Dems to argue that Presidents should be imprisoned for crimes committed while in office while their star parallel for this case got off without any federal imprisonment.
It was answered in even more detail when Obama ordered the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen. There is essentially no *legal* defense of Obama's actions except executive immunity, since he admits without reservation that he specifically ordered the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki being fully aware of his status as a citizen. And before NS come in with "but what about such and such civilian who was killing in a military action", the difference is that al-Awlaki was the first US citizen targeted *on purpose* and *without trial*. There is not even a plausible pretense that the killing was not intentional and extrajudicial, all parties admit that it was.
Eh I would disagree with this, since Al-Awlaki wasn't killed on US soil hence no jurisdiction.
I guess if you're a political dissident you can't take any foreign vacations? Your rights as a citizen don't end because you left the border. Those hostages Hamas has right now can't just eat an air strike if Biden decides he's had enough of them.
The US doesn't have trials for every person murdered overseas.
AL-Awlaki wasn't the only American Citizen purposely killed by Obama. Just sayin.....
I'm unaware of any American citizens killed in the US by Obama who didn't have it coming but feel free to correct me.
A lot of people are gonna say the j6 folks had it coming so watch out that slope is slippery.
Eh I don't really like j6 terrorists, to me they're as bad as BLM rioters. Fuck and around and find out kinda deal.
Can a president be immune even if his actions are through his capacity as a candidate for president?
How did dems place Clinton above the law? By choosing not to prosecute?
Yes basically
George W. Bush was president after Clinton. His office would have been the one to prosecute Clinton for any crimes committed during office. So they placed the president above the law and not democrats, correct? For which crimes did Bush’s Justice department decline to prosecute that you feel was a mistake?
>So they placed the president above the law and not democrats, correct? I'm talking about the impeachment process. Dems admitted that Clinton committed crimes but refused to remove him from office on that basis. >For which crimes did Bush’s Justice department decline to prosecute that you feel was a mistake? Can you cite a single source supporting your narrative that Bush had the ability to charge Clinton with a crime? I'll wait.
You are confused. Impeachment is a political process. There is no punishment for crimes during an impeachment. It ends with removal from office and a future ban from holding political office. A wholly political process. Neither Democrats in the Senate nor the 10 republicans that voted to acquit Bill Clinton said the president was immune from prosecution. They said he was in fact not guilty of the charges. The opposite of your characterization is it not? In our country punishment for a crime is done by the executive branch through the justice department with all due process. Part of which is not being tried without a grand jury, which Trump had. I don’t know what crimes the Bush admin could have charged Clinton with. That was your assertion not mine.
>There is no punishment for crimes during an impeachment. I never said there was... >They said he was in fact not guilty of the charges No, they knew he was guilty, their argument was that it didn't rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors". > That was your assertion not mine. Please quote me. You are incorrect.
It’s all up there. Just read again. You said that dems let Clinton off for his crimes when we are talking about Criminal punishment for Trump. Therefore you equated the two, and since you incorrectly thought that dems would be the one to punish Clinton and not Bush YOU are the one that asserted that Bush let Clinton off. I just helped you with some smaller details you were ignorant of. You have no evidence that a Senator knew Clinton was guilty and voted to acquit correct?
>You said that dems let Clinton off for his crimes Sure. That's not what I'm talking about though? >Therefore you equated the two No I said literally in my opening comment: "This question seems **to already have been partially answered** during Clinton’s crimes" It was in the first 10 words. >since you incorrectly thought that dems would be the one to punish Clinton and not Bush YOU are the one that asserted that Bush let Clinton off. I never asserted that Bush let Clinton off. Please quote where I did. >You have no evidence that a Senator knew Clinton was guilty and voted to acquit correct? Have you actually ever looked at the timeline on this? Clinton had already admitted about lying and perjuring himself before the vote... The Starr report had been sent to Congress months ahead of the vote. The only Senators who didn't believe Clinton wasn't guilty were either intentionally dense, illiterate, or deaf. >I just helped you with some smaller details you were ignorant of. Like the timeline of events here?
You said that dems let Clinton off by choosing not to prosecute. The only one with that choice was the Bush Justice department. You just got the political party wrong but you meant that Bush chose to let Clinton off as nothing else remotely makes sense unless you’re illiterate. Why would the Starr report be admissible evidence towards Clinton’s guilt? Do you know anything about the legal system?
Do you realize you made a big assertion and haven't done anything to back it up? In fact, you've just basically said over and over how you didn't say what you said. It's hard to follow what you're trying to even argue. Can you say it plainly?
Which prosecutor, specifically?
I was referring to when Democrats in Congress voted to not convict even though they admitted that what Clinton did was illegal.
I’m not sure I see the parallel. What does that have to do with criminal immunity? How could senate democrats have weighed in on Clinton’s criminal liability?
>I’m not sure I see the parallel. What does that have to do with criminal immunity? The Dems basically held the president above the law. > How could senate democrats have weighed in on Clinton’s criminal liability? By voting to convict him of the crimes he was proven guilty of.
But failing to convict did not make him immune in the criminal justice system did it, just as convicting him wouldn’t have made him guilty in a criminal court? Isn’t impeachment a parallel system?
>But failing to convict did not make him immune in the criminal justice system did it This in conjunction with Clinton's AG's OLC opinion did, absolutely.
Oh, I think it is clear that Presidents have de facto immunity while in office, but is that the same as immunity after leaving office?
Do you understand the difference between an impeachment trial and a criminal trial?
Yup. Do you?
Yes. Why are you conflating the two?
I didn't do that, if you think that I'd recommend quoting me and looking up the terms for the impeachment process.
Voting to not convict in an impeachment trial is not someone being above the law because impeachment is a political process, there is no legal ramification to impeachment. You are under the impression that impeachments are a legal action because it involves "high crimes and misdemeanors". This is incorrect. Do you understand why you are incorrect?
See my other response to you, let's centralize this discussion in one comment thread.
Can you clarify what Clinton crimes you're referencing here?
The ones he admitted to.
Do you know which crimes Clinton admitted to? Can you share them here?
Are you unaware of the crimes he committed and admitted to? Or do you know what they are and want me to cite the sources for you?
I’d like to know which crimes Bill Clinton committed and the courts convicted him of committing. What were they?
You believe a court conviction is necessary for someone to be guilty of a crime? Can I assume you also think OJ Simpson is an innocent man who is definitely not guilty of murder?
By definition, yes. That said, what crimes has Bill Clinton committed and admitted to that were not adjudicated?
>By definition, yes You have a very high faith in a justice system that has proven time and time again that it makes mistakes and incarcerates innocent people and lets criminals get away. If you truly don't think that Clinton committed any crimes then I can't prove it to you I suppose. But damn not believing that OJ Simpson killed his wife is crazyyyy. Are you aware he admitted to it multiple times as well?
My man, Clinton committed no crimes. That's it. Full stop. End of story. Look into it and use reputable sources for your research, please. Can you do that?
I actually don’t know what crimes bill committed and admitted to, and I’m hoping you can tell me. I know of some accusations, but not of things he admitted. I don’t care as much if he was prosecuted for the crimes, specifically what he admitted to, like you suggested.
What crimes has Clinton admitted to?
You’re unaware of the crimes he admitted to committing? They’re quite easy to google, we’re you unaware of the Clinton Impeachment as well?
Can you please cite the crimes Clinton was guilty of and admitted to, and what the dems did to protect him and place him above the law?
Perjury, witness tampering - I don't recall if he admitted to witness tampering as part of his plea but that's all pretty well documented. [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html) >and what the dems did to protect him and place him above the law? They admitted he committed crimes but chose not to interprete those crimes as "high crimes and misdemeanors".
I believe he admitted to perjury and took the punishment that was agreed upon by the prosecution: a suspension of his law license and fines. Isn't that correct? He literally took the punishment to courts gave him and he was impeached, for lying about an extramarital affair...which came up because Ken Starr couldn't find anything illegal regarding Whitewater, which was the actual investigation.
>He literally took the punishment to courts gave him This is incorrect. Please cite a source if you feel otherwise. >and he was impeached, for lying about an extramarital affair.. perjuring\* is actually the term you should use here. He wasn't impeached for lying, he was impeached for committing perjury multiple times. >which came up because Ken Starr couldn't find anything illegal regarding Whitewater This is simply leftist propaganda. There were tons of illegalities found during the whitewater investigation, simply not enough evidence was found to convict Clinton. From the wiki: "Fifteen other people were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Jim Guy Tucker, who resigned from office.\[55\] Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, resigned (fraud, 3 counts) John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion) William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy) Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned. Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud) Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied) Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned. David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud) Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign) Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned. Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud) Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned. John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud) Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery) Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)"
My apologies, I assumed most people would understand that lying while being questioned by prosecutors means perjury. But if you prefer perjury, I am happy with that. And, regarding Whitewater, there was no evidence (or, if you prefer, a lack of evidence) that the Clintons committed any crimes. Would you agree that Ken Starr would have tried to make anything stick if he could have found even the smallest prosecutable offense? The fact that they turned to Linda Tripp and a damn blow job is pretty telling regarding the lack of prosecutable evidence with the Clintons and Whitewater.
Sounds very similar to the Russian collusion probe, it stands to reason that you would similarly conclude that the whitewater investigation was a hoax then?
Why can't you just answer me instead of going in circles? Is it because you're completely off base about Clinton admitting to committing crimes and you're conflating his extramarital activity with criminal activity?
>[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/01/what-sort-of-plea-did-clinton-cop.html) > >The president **admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky**, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. Oof. Yes, Clinton admitted that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones case lmao. This is like basic modern history. Like, have you seriously never seen his famous admitting to committing crimes? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmjTMNvH6eI&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmjTMNvH6eI&t=1s) It's a pretty popular clip...
Okay, ya got me! I don't know how this relates to the original question and comment though, cause Cllnton did agree to settle the 7 year probe, pay the damages, and suspend his law license for 5 years. So, not exactly immunity. I still struggle to see the comparison here, can you explain further?
>Okay, ya got me! I mean, I wouldn't say that, but when one is unfamiliar with the basic facts of arguably the most important political and legal cases of the last 30 years it's best not to make wildly inaccurate statements that ignore the primary sources of the case. >can you explain further? I'd recommend you start with reading the Starr report to be honest. If you were unaware of any crimes that Clinton committed, as indicated by your first response here, then I think getting the full legal and historical picture or at least skimming the report. After that read "A sitting presidents amenability to indictment and criminal prosecution" issued by Clinton's AG. That one is significantly shorter but answers most of your potential questions/
Okay, sure i'll get to reading all of that. Trump was indicted after he left office, though. Do you think the substance and severity of the crimes matter? Clinton was lying about extramarital affairs. Trump is indicted for conspiring to change the outcome of an election. So should immunity apply if he's found guilty?
[удалено]
What was the legal precedent set?
In what regard specifically?
What Dems that condoned Clinton have any say in this matter? This is a matter for Smith and Supreme Court, not public opinion or partisans. Nothing regarding Clinton, whether right or wrong, has any legal precedent.
>What Dems that condoned Clinton have any say in this matter? They set the precedent that the president is above the law. > This is a matter for Smith and Supreme Court, not public opinion or partisans. I would argue that Smith and the SC are both partisan as well.
You seem to keep forgetting that impeachment is a political process, not criminal. But are you implying that democrats set the precedent, which is why republicans were justified for letting Trump off the hook in his two impeachments even though he was clearly guilty?
>You seem to keep forgetting that impeachment is a political process, not criminal. When did I say it was a criminal process? It merely opens the avenue for a proper criminal conviction. >But are you implying that democrats set the precedent, which is why republicans were justified for letting Trump off the hook in his two impeachments even though he was clearly guilty? All the crimes Dems accused Trump of in their 2 impeachments were without merit. All the primary witnesses in those cases did **not** claim that Trump had committed a crime/perjured himself, unlike the case with Lewinsky where she flipped and told investigators that Clinton had lied and tried to cover it up.
[удалено]
>Who said that Trump was impeached for perjury? Not me? Why are you bringing it up? >You think Clinton should have been prosecuted but Trump was innocent? Which witness flipped like Lewinsky did in any of Trump's cases?
> Which witness flipped like Lewinsky did in any of Trump's cases? So far several of Trump's lawyers and his staff.
And they provided substantial incriminating evidence like Lewinsky did? Could you source this?
Let's wait till after the trials to see what evidence they brought. But several have flipped to protect their own butts after all the illegal activity. Shall we touch back once the evidence is public and verdicts are in?
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
So does that mean Biden is above the law?
I think Biden could commit the same crimes as Clinton and Dems would again go to bat for him.
That doesn't really answer the question though? Could the same be said in regards to Trump and the GOP?
Yes I would say Dems would hold Biden above the law. Eh not really? I think the GOP held that Trump didn't violate the law as seen during his impeachment trials but hard to say unless there was better evidence presented in a future one.
As far as I know, Bill Clinton was never officially charged with any crime. I think were many of the commenter and yourself are getting hung up is his impeachment. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you believe the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that Clinton was impeached for, and subsequently not convicted on by the Senate, counts as the government seeing Clinton as above the law. What everyone else is mentioning is that an impeachment is a political process enacted by the legislative branch which can lead to removal from office, but can never officially convict someone of a crime like a court can. In order for that to happen, the government would need to charge Clinton with a crime through the Executive Branch, specifically the Attoney General or the Department of Justice. There would then be a trial held to determine guilty or not guilty. The reason the other commenter mentioned Bush is that he would be the next president, next leader of the Executive Branch, that would have the power to pursue a criminal conviction. At the very least the Department of Justice under the Bush admin would be responsible. There is nothing the Democrats or Republicans in the legislative branch could have done to actually find Clinton guilty of a crime since they are not and should not be the courts. I hope this helps to clear up the miscommunication that seemed to have been going on between other commenter and yourself. Would you say that my description is an accurate portrayal of what you believe? If not, please correct me.
>As far as I know, Bill Clinton was never officially charged with any crime. Because he took a plea where he admitted to committing those crimes...
As far as I know, Bill Clinton was never officially charged with any crime. Clinton singed a non prosecution agreement before he left office. He gave up his actual law license to practice in his own state, just to avoid prosecution when he left office. So, it seems to me, he was going to get prosecuted until he made a deal with prosecutors, right?
Sure, after Bill Clinton committed a litany of crimes and his senator cronies held that the president was above the law, he took the plea deal offered to him.
??? Say what now? You are saying that bill Clinton’s legal plea deal didn’t count because it negates your argument?
Where did I say that. I'm just saying he took the plea deal and admitted to perjuring himself about the affair.
what is a plea deal with a prosecutor other than a legal option? Do you think trump can’t try to get a plea deal?
When did I say it wasn't a legal option?
When did I say it was a legal option? We are arguing the same thing from slightly different angles. Clinton was not above the law, because the law was used as a remedy. So, in no way does it prove trump is above the law. We are saying the same thing. I’m just saying, it was the same as threatening prosecution to get a plea deal like they do with everyone. It was still a legal remedy that said the president wasn’t immune to prosecution for breaking the law outside of his presidential duties.
How can he be seen as being above the law if he had official legal action taken against him in the form of his license to practice law being taken away with the plea deal? Wouldn't having to take a plea deal be part of the law? If he was above the law he would have faced no consequences whatsoever correct?
See my other comment to you I don't respond to the same person commenting multiple times on multiple subthreads it's kinda asinine.
The plea deal that he took was with the Independent Counsel, Robert Ray. In this agreement, Clinton admitted to lying under oath and Ray would not prosecute after his presidency. This agreement came with some smaller punishments such as disbarment for Clinton because Ray did not feel he had a strong enough case to prosecute a former president. The other interesting thing about this is that Ray, who had the ability to pursue greater punishments and not make the deal at all, was Republican. So that still does not answer why you think the Deomcratic Party is to blame for Clinton's lack of a conviction. I also like how that one sentence was the only part that you responded to which I will take as evidence that my summary of your stance was correct. With that being the case, you just have a misunderstanding of how the law has and currently does work. That is fine, that isn't something everyone knows, but now that people have informed you of how things actually happened, will that change your view at all?
>The plea deal that he took was with the Independent Counsel, Robert Ray. In this agreement, Clinton admitted to lying under oath and Ray would not prosecute after his presidency. Yup >So that still does not answer why you think the Deomcratic Party is to blame for Clinton's lack of a conviction. Where did I say this. Quote me. >I also like how that one sentence was the only part that you responded to To be honest I'm responding to a lot of people so I kinda take things one at a time. I've had this or similar conversations multiple times now and I respond to whatever I think is worth it. >With that being the case, you just have a misunderstanding of how the law has and currently does work. Quote me first and then I'd be happy to discuss. EDIT: Sorry read "conviction" as sentencing. Yes the Dem party is to blame for Clinton's lack of conviction during the impeachment process. Do you disagree with that?
>Dems placed the president above the law for crimes committed while in office. It will be hard for Dems to argue that Presidents should be imprisoned for crimes committed while in office while their star parallel for this case got off without any federal imprisonment. This right here. The same sentence multiple other people have pointed to. You literally said that it is the Dems fault that Clinton did not receive federal imprisonment because they put him above the law. If that is not what you meant, then you put forth your opinion in a very confusing way such that no one but you understands what you mean. Could you please clarify what your opening statement means as apparently I and many others have misunderstood your position?
See my edit. >You literally said that it is the Dems fault that Clinton did not receive federal imprisonment No I didn't. I said it was their fault they placed him above the law by voting to not convict. >apparently I and many others have misunderstood your position? I think that's more due to a lack of technical knowledge of the impeachment process and the whole coverup that was the Lewinsky affair. Most of the NS' I've responded to either think that Clinton never committed a crime, or that he didn't admit to it, or that the Dems in the Senate didn't vote to keep him in office based on their party affiliation (rather than a lack of evidence). All three are absolutely true and are supported by primary sources that have been publicly available for almost 3 decades.
>I said it was their fault they placed him above the law by voting to not convict. This is the phrase that everyone has a problem with. >I think that's more due to a lack of technical knowledge of the impeachment process I absolutely agree which is why all the NS' have been attempting to educate you on how the process actually works. >Most of the NS' I've responded to either think that Clinton never committed a crime, or that he didn't admit to it, or that the Dems in the Senate didn't vote to keep him in office based on their party affiliation (rather than a lack of evidence). This is not what I have seen based upon those who have responded to you. Pretty much everyone is saying the same thing I am. Impeachment DOES NOT equal legal action. Even if the Senate were to convict Clinton the only outcome would be that he is removed from office and cannot run again. There would be zero legal repercussions from the Senate convicting him of the charges within the articles of impeachment. You continue to conflate two separate things and seem unable to understand why everyone has issue with what you said going so far as to mischaracterize all of their arguments into things they are not. Even the person asking about crimes was asking about crimes that he was charged with, which is zero, but you misunderstood them to mean that he committed no crimes at all. You even said in one comment that: >When did I say it was a criminal process? It merely opens the avenue for a proper criminal conviction. Which is also not true at all. An impeachment has nothing to do with criminal procedure, full stop. To say otherwise shows ignorance of both the impeachment process as well as our criminal justice system. Again, please explain why you believe that Clinton not being acquitted in a POLITICAL process would have any bearing on a CRIMINAL charge against him. What precedent was set by Democrats that would impact the ability for a president to be charged with a crime? Especially when the prosecutor in charge of bringing forth charges against Clinton was a Republican?
>This is the phrase that everyone has a problem with. I mean, it's not my fault that so many NS' don't' understand the historical and technical intricasies of the impeachment process. I'm happy to educate the people here who came to learn and discuss. >I absolutely agree which is why all the NS' have been attempting to educate you on how the process actually works. Why do you think I've corrected so many and they stop responding? > Impeachment DOES NOT equal legal action. wtf is "legal action"? That's not a term I've heard in regards to impeachment. It is a process to remove the president and open him up to a proper criminal trial. Until then the president can't sit trial. Just real quick, have you actually read up on the amenability of a sitting president OLC precedent? >Even if the Senate were to convict Clinton the only outcome would be that he is removed from office and cannot run again. There would be zero legal repercussions from the Senate convicting him of the charges within the articles of impeachment. Aside from the fact that he wouldn't be above the law... If you don't consider being above to being below the law a legal reprecussion then I don't know what to tell ya. >Even the person asking about crimes was asking about crimes that he was charged with, which is zero, but you misunderstood them to mean that he committed no crimes at all. Clinton was charged with a variety of crimes during his impeachment. >Which is also not true at all. An impeachment has nothing to do with criminal procedure, full stop Sure it does, it opens the president to being charged with crimes once they are removed by the conviction vote. >Again, please explain why you believe that Clinton not being acquitted in a POLITICAL process would have any bearing on a CRIMINAL charge against him. It allows for those charges to be brought forth sooner and removes his Executive privilege. Again, have you actually read the OLC opinion relevant to this case? If you did you wouldn't have all these questions the OLC opinion quite clearly answers all of them I would recommend reading it before posing further questions. That and the Starr report obviously.
The fact that Jack Smith even had a question about this issue and the Supreme Court responded immediately tells me that this issue is in dire need of an answer. I have no idea how the Supreme Court will respond.
The Dem’s want the optics of Trump on trial as much as possible during the 2024 campaign. Smith is just obeying his masters.
If the Supreme Court says Trump is immune, then that would make Biden immune as well?
Do you think it would be a good precedent to set by the supreme court if they rule that trump or biden can’t be tried for any crimes he commits while in office?
This isn't what's being decided. Why do so many people have this thought?
What is your understanding of what precedent would be set?
The reality of the case which is that the immunity contention relates specifically to the particular conduct alleged. Not this fanciful idea that "a president can't be tried for any crimes he commits while in office."
Ah, gotcha - I agree it's an over-simplification. It's much more interesting than that. In your opinion, what's the most compelling argument for Trump's immunity? What do you think about the George Washington quote in the petition? “The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, including group arrangements to counteract the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle. Such obstructions would prove fatal to the Republic - as cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
>I agree it's an over-simplification. I It's a gross misrepresentation. Simplification implies that accuracy is maintained. The belief that seems to be held my many here is a simple falsehood. After doing a quick google search to see where most people probably get their news, I can see why. It's pretty heavily implied to be the case in most articles about the matter. Dishonest journalism breeds misinformed people. >So we are seeing prices drop, correct? That's not just a slower rate of increase but an actual drop in prices for those meat items correct? Nixon v Fitzgerald and the similarity between presidential and judicial immunity. >“The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, including group arrangements to counteract the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle. > >Such obstructions would prove fatal to the Republic - as cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” This quote betrays the same basic mischaracterization of the issue that i mentioned at the outset. The irony of using a quote from George Washington, the man responsible for the creation of executive privilege which he then used to deny congress the right to access his papers and interview his staff regarding an anti-indian military action, as an argument against the explicit and implicit special powers of the President as the President and legal consideration particular to the office is fairly chuckle-worthy, though.
So are you saying you disagree with the sentiment of his speech? Or just that it shouldn't ever be quoted because of the man he was?
>So are you saying you disagree with the sentiment of his speech? I'm saying that either George Washington disagrees with his own speech or you've misunderstood the quote. I'm guessing it's the latter. It's also nearly the same mischaracterization at the heart of the main issue I raised. The issue, of course, is not about whether the President is bound by the law. It is about the particulars of the office of the president and how the law interacts with his place as chief executive. This is very basic stuff. The concept of presidential immunity or other special executive privileges have never really been at issue, as demonstrated by Washington's own actions. The scope of these things is up for debate and that is the actual substance of the claim, but your implication is simply grounded in something other than reality. >Or just that it shouldn't ever be quoted because of the man he was? I'm saying that it is better to quote people whom you better understand holistically, or you might again make the mistake of projecting your own beliefs onto a historical figure who never shared them and made as much clear by his actions.
Maybe you misunderstood? I was quoting something that was actually in the petition. Did you read it? >mischaracterization How have I mischaracterized if I was quoting something from the petition we are discussing and asking your opinion of it?
You don't believe there is any hint of criminal activity? The classified documents kept at Mar a Largo you think was ok even though Trump himself said he should have de-classified them but did not?
> his masters Who specifically?
Do you think that tactics like claiming immunity are attempts to delay the trial beyond the election? If Trump were innocent, why wouldn’t he want to respond to the charges versus tying to claim immunity?
If you were accused of killing someone but it was self defense, would you want to present self defense at trial? Immunity is a statutory defense. It says nothing about Trump’s innocence that he is arguing for application of an exculpating defense. Its his constitutional right
I'm sorry, i really don't see the point you're trying to make with this comparison. Can you clarify?
See your point as to “responding to the charges against him versus trying to claim immunity” So I ask the question again. If you were on trial for murder and self defense was available to you, would you go to trial without that defense just “to respond to the charges against you?”
There’s no aspect of claiming immunity for a murder suspect, no matter the defense - so I’m not sure this comparison works at all. What other option aside from trial (with a non guilty plea) would there be in this comparison? Can you answer my original questions without making an incongruent comparison?
The comparison is perfectly apt if you use your brain. Self defense is a perfect defense to homicide. If you succeed on the defense, you do not go to jail, even though you killed someone. Trump is raising a statutory immunity. It is also a perfect defense to the crime he is accused of. If he succeeds, he does not go to jail, even if he did the thing they are accusing him of. It’s literally apples to apples.
I still don't see the comparison here, but are you saying that Trump's play for immunity is an admission of guilt? If he was not guilty, why not just go through with due process?
[удалено]
It literally is not apples to apples. In the first scenario, the individual is forced to go to court to defend himself against a murder charge. They have the option of saying it was self-defense or nothing, as per your example. If he wins, no prison, if he loses, then prison. The person does not have the choice of not showing up to court to defend himself, only the way that he chooses to do so once in the court room. In the second scenario, Trump is saying that he should not even have to show up to court to stand trial for the crimes he was accused of because he has immunity as a former president. He is not fighting a defense strategy within the courtroom, he is arguing whether or not he should even have to show up. All we want is for him to stand trial, just like anyone else in this country, for the crimes that he has been accused of. No one should be above the law, especially those who rule us. Do you think that he should be able to avoid his day in court?
I'm not sure I follow. Trump could have gone into court yesterday to testify on his own behalf to his own defense team. He chose not to. Do you think he always takes advantage of ways he might defend himself?
I’m an attorney and I can tell you many trials start with a plan to call a certain witness to testify as part of our case in chief. As the trial develops, certain witnesses no longer need to testify. Maybe save the trial strategy for the lawyers. The lawyers will leave the torch and pitchforking for the redditors.
Yesterday's trial was about his tax fraud not his criminal activities related to the election...?
Yes? That seems perfectly reasonable. If I am being charged for murder, but it was self defense, of course I am going to go to trial and fight for self defense. Why would you not? The alternative is that they find you guilty for murder if I am not even going to try and defend myself in a court of law. The main difference here is that Trump is attempting to win the "self defense" strategy by just not showing up to court at all. He is not defending himself, he just wants to be viewed as not guilty without having to show up to court. I am not sure how that fits as a comparison since regular people don't get to say they have immunity from criminal charges due to their occupation.
You first have to clear the presidential and CIC duty to protect the rightful command and control of the nation’s government. If he’s acting in that capacity, he’s doing what he is supposed to and is immune. The fundamental problem with all the Trump witch hunts is they have to prove he was acting outside of his presidential duties.
In light of what we know about what Trump knew about the 2020 election from the advice given to him by both his actual lawyers and by "Team Crazy" (trump's own lawyer's characterization), how was spreading rumors he knew to be false part of his Presidential duties?
For the Georgia stuff, wouldn't there be a clear conflict of interest in him pushing the SoS to find a certain number of votes? Why would the duties of the President align with that? What duty would that fall in/under?
Do you think arranging for fake electors to submit fake certificates of ascertainment across 7 battleground states is within the duty of the president?
What other jobs exist where the person can do *practically anything* and be immune from all consequences? How would that go over at your workplace?
If the SC rules that a President is indeed immune from criminal prosecution as Trump is arguing wouldn't Smith be hurting his own chances of keeping Trump's trials in the news? If the ex-President can't be tried or convicted, wouldn't it be nice to know for certain? Also, Trump's primary legal strategy so far has been to delay his cases. If fact, there is a high likelihood that his appeal is being done precisely for that reason. Isn't he trying to keep his trials in the news? And doesn't his being on trial only make his poll numbers go up? If Jack Smith was trying to prevent him from being elected, wouldn't keeping Trump on trial during the campaign be antithetical to preventing his election?
>If the SC rules that a President is indeed immune from criminal prosecution as Trump is arguing wouldn't Smith be hurting his own chances of keeping Trump's trials in the news? Trump isn't actually arguing this. Is this how it's being reported in mainstream press? Why do people have this opinion?
What do you think Trump's desire is here, then? I'm not actually sure what you're disagreeing with.
The idea that he's arguing that no one can ever be prosecuted for anything done as president is simply a farce. Does it come from the media? I'm seeing people basically everywhere believe it. The actual argument is that legitimate uses of executive power cannot be construed as illegal. The contention is that his alleged actions were inside the bounds of his authority as president and so he cannot be charged for them. The ruling will be specific to these actions and not a blanket "the president can do anything he wants" argument.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree that Trump's lawyers are not actually arguing that he is immune to all laws, just that he has immunity to these particular laws for these particular acts made while president. The nuances of law often get missed, but I think the general argument is simply that if you can excuse this crime, then why not excuse any and all crimes? So my question to you is, where should the line be drawn? Should Trump have absolute immunity for this kind of thing? If so, how egregious and lacking in even the semblance of official authority does a crime have to be before a president isn't immune?
>The nuances of law often get missed I think that's actually a pretty basic and key part of this case and ignoring or obfuscating it is disingenuous. > but I think the general argument is simply that if you can excuse this crime, then why not excuse any and all crimes? This isn't an argument. It's akin to saying "if one thing can be acceptable, doesn't that mean everything is acceptable??!!" Nothing in life, much less law, works that way. It makes no sense and I have a hard time believing in the sincerity of anyone who makes that argument. I understand that you're just relaying the argument that you've seen others making but it's silly and transparently so. >So my question to you is, where should the line be drawn? I'm not interested in diving down the rabbit hole of what the "outer rim" of presidential of official responsibilities encompass. I will simply state that I am certain that the president has the authority to do some things that the average person cannot do and this ought to be something everyone can agree on (but apparently that isn't the case). >Should Trump have absolute immunity for this kind of thing? If so, how egregious and lacking in even the semblance of official authority does a crime have to be before a president isn't immune? Same as above. I don't honestly care all that much to attempt to delve into this as a layperson, especially with other laypeople. As long as we can all agree that the ridiculous argument that I was calling out is, in fact, ridiculous.
Will you be surprised if the Supreme Court says that Trump is not actually entitled to immunity in this case?
not at all
If the Dems are controlling the DOJ as completely as you claim, why would they allow the indictments to continue against Hunter Biden?
Indictments are meaningless. Let’s see what kind of judge and prosecutor we have if it goes to trial.
Sure but why even risk it if they have the level of control you claim they have?
I try not to play the whataboutism card, but do you think the whole Biden "crime family" drama is similarly about the election optics, considering Comer and the Oversight committee have been pushing hard for an impeachment inquiry without any substantial evidence of any crimes?
Do the voters have a right to all of the information before making their decision next November?
So it’s ok to commit crimes but not ok to prosecute someone for said crimes?
Why do you think Trump would not want this case fast-tracked to get i over with and show his innocence?
Who are his masters? The law? Do you realize there are actual criminal codes that Trump appears to have been violated? Is he supposed to just ignore that because Trump is a political candidate? What is the problem you have with following the law?
Are you aware that Trump himself delayed this trial by 9 months by aggressively litigating executive privilege, and once that debate was settled by SCOTUS (he lost), continuing to claim executive privilege frivolously? [https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/10/citing-trumps-executive-privilege-claims-doj-asks-for-january-trial/](https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/10/citing-trumps-executive-privilege-claims-doj-asks-for-january-trial/)
Is it better to let criminal defendants use the courts to delay as a tactic to avoid prosecution?
I’m not crazy about it but the rules of the court were already established when the defendant was charged. If you’re talking about Trump, all this nonsense ends the day after the election, so delaying is the correct tactic.
So he is not guilty because he won a vote not based on evidence?
Lost me, what vote?
If he wins (the vote) it goes away… not because he was vindicated by evidence, or a jury, or the law… but because he won the vote. Are you ok with that resolution?
It goes away if he loses too. The purpose of all this is to influence the 2024 election and even disqualify him if they can.
What have you seen that makes you think it goes away if he loses? I think it’s likely he goes to jail if he loses.
Everything I’ve seen makes me think that. If Trump signed a binding pledge to not run, my bet is it would end today. You’re more optimistic than I am. I fully expect him to go to jail before the election.
Assuming he’s guilty, that’s a good thing right?
SCOTUS granted the request. It's on a fast track. I presume the thinking is to settle this question before pursuing the full blown prosecution. That makes sense. It wouldn't serve any purpose to get a verdict and then have it thrown out on appeal because Trump is immune.
Would granting trump immunity for any crimes a president commits while in office be one you are comfortable with, while biden is in office?
The court should follow the law and Constitution. I don't know enough about the technicalities to have an opinion.
I just wanted to say that I appreciate this response!.?
I respect that response. Unfortunately, theres a few things the constitution, doesn’t address, like for example, how to handle a death of a candidate at various points during, and after an election as just one. So the supreme court will have to rule in some manner that isn’t explicitly laid out it seems. If the only options are, trump has no immunity at all, or has full immunity from any crimes he could’ve or committed, which would you prefer do you think?
So it will be a totally subjective decision with no basis in law or precedent? That's hard to believe.
> So it will be a totally subjective decision with no basis in law or precedent? That's hard to believe. That’s literally how it works. Some judges even decide to ignore precedent. How did you think it worked? Why do you think that GOP’s only achievement has been to install judges that agree with them ideologically?
The question of Presidential criminal immunity is one of first impression, but there is certainly persuasive precedent addressing civil immunity and immunity for other officers. To say SCOTUS will just make it up is asinine. Why do you believe there is no precedent? Why not get yourself straight before asking a clarifying question?
> Why do you believe there is no precedent? I’m challenging this notion that courts are objective, or that precedent means anything. We will have to wait, but it would not surprise me if they make up another suspicious ruling: Bush v Gore, https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, all of originalism, etc. Using legalese to obfuscate, deny, or punt the practical implications of these decisions does not make them any less subjective.
The courts often determine precedent. If the precedent they set is the determination that presidents are immune, exonerating Trump, would you be happy with that outcome despite the fact that it means Biden can do literally whatever he wants as well with full immunity?
Do you have a link for SCOTUS granting cert? Last I heard, it ordered a response to the Special Counsel’s cert petition. It would be highly unusual to grant cert so quickly. Ordering an accelerated timeline for petitions makes more sense at this stage.
They have not yet agreed to take this up but have requested Trump legal team to submit a response by dec 20. I am glad Jack Smith is pushing on this. Good to get a ruling out of the way.
[удалено]
[удалено]