A History of American Intervention: Americans should be paying attention to what happens when presidents act above the law

[robosmith]

It's not a pretty picture, which is why it's not taught in HS history classes.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/891286423352750 VIDEO

[John Stone]

SCOTUS ruled in 2024 that Presidents are immune to prosecution. 

The ruling upends more than two centuries of legal precedent, for the first time shielding U.S. presidents from criminal accountability.

 

[gatomontes99]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

It's not a pretty picture, which is why it's not taught in HS history classes.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/891286423352750 VIDEO

We stopped Hitler. Was that a bad thing?

[gatomontes99]

7 minutes ago, John Stone said:

SCOTUS ruled in 2024 that Presidents are immune to prosecution. 

The ruling upends more than two centuries of legal precedent, for the first time shielding U.S. presidents from criminal accountability.

 

The ruling changed nothing. As SCOTUS said, the proper prosecutorial path is impeachment and then prosecution. That has always been the proper path. Democrats tried to pull an end around on the law rather than following it.

The President (and many other officials) MUST have qualified immunity or they will spend their entire term and post term defending nuisance claims of violating the law. This would cripple our leadership. As we have seen with Trump, effective leadership is successful and maligned. 

[John Stone]

48 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The ruling changed nothing. As SCOTUS said, the proper prosecutorial path is impeachment and then prosecution. That has always been the proper path. Democrats tried to pull an end around on the law rather than following it.

The President (and many other officials) MUST have qualified immunity or they will spend their entire term and post term defending nuisance claims of violating the law. This would cripple our leadership. As we have seen with Trump, effective leadership is successful and maligned. 

................ agree ...... but it has introduced a malaise.

SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity really does have (could have) significant implications for the so-called, legal landscape surrounding the presidency. The ruling establishes a precedent for the xtent of immunity that former presidents can claim for their official act. No question this ruling could influence future legal challenges and prosecutions that involve former presidents. 

Impeachment and prosecution are actions conducted while in office - the Segway for removal - SCOTUS ruling deals with post-presidency.  

it does provide immunity from prosecution for acts conducted while in office and that goes for the black or white cat. 

 

Edited January 5 by John Stone

[gatomontes99]

9 minutes ago, John Stone said:

............... agree ...... but it has introduced a malaise.

SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity really does have (could have) significant implications for the so-called, legal landscape surrounding the presidency. The ruling establishes a precedent for the xtent of immunity that former presidents can claim for their official act. No question this ruling could influence future legal challenges and prosecutions that involve former presidents. 

No. Nothing changed. The ruling reinforced what was already known. It can't have consequences if it changed nothing. 

 

10 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Impeachment and prosecution are actions conducted while in office - the Segway for removal - SCOTUS ruling deals with post-presidency.  

No. Let's take another example. Let's say congress decided that Obama was in violation of his duties to instruct the CIA to make up Russian collusion. They would have to impeach and convict Obama in the House and Senate. Then, the DOJ could prosecute Obama. Conviction in the Senate is necessary for removal, we all know that. But it is also necessary for prosecution. It has never been done. But it is an option. 

[User]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

It's not a pretty picture, which is why it's not taught in HS history classes.

What is not a pretty picture? You are just a lazy spambot. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, John Stone said:

SCOTUS ruled in 2024 that Presidents are immune to prosecution. 

The ruling upends more than two centuries of legal precedent, for the first time shielding U.S. presidents from criminal accountability.

Only for official acts. It remains to be seen whether an ACT OF WAR unauthorized by Congress is an official act.

And Trump is STILL on the hook for his incitement of insurrection during a CAMPAIGN SPEECH and predecessor planning and incitements.

Edited January 5 by robosmith

[gatomontes99]

48 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Only for official acts. It remains to be seen whether an ACT OF WAR unauthorized by Congress is an official act.

No it doesn't.  That is settled law. The War Powers act still gives the President broad latitude to act unilaterally. However, prolonged engagements require a declaration of war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

However, congress has given the President the power to use the military to combat terrorism: https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/how-single-phrase-defined-war-terror

Maduro was indicted under for terrorism. 

[John Stone]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. Nothing changed. The ruling reinforced what was already known. It can't have consequences if it changed nothing. 

 

No. Let's take another example. Let's say congress decided that Obama was in violation of his duties to instruct the CIA to make up Russian collusion. They would have to impeach and convict Obama in the House and Senate. Then, the DOJ could prosecute Obama. Conviction in the Senate is necessary for removal, we all know that. But it is also necessary for prosecution. It has never been done. But it is an option. 

Exactly, impeachment is a process to remove a sitting president............ we know that it is a political process  

But what is the process to indict a President who is out of office?

It is as you say .............but SCOTUS has provided immunity to acts committed while in office, acting in the capacity of POTUS.  

Can a President be indicted for (example) war crimes, on his own turf, for acts he ordered while in office? 

SCOTUS decision leans towards,  no. 

Barring a WWII  era Nuremberg the idea is absurd (losing a war notwithstanding). 

Interesting times ahead ..........

Edited January 5 by John Stone

[gatomontes99]

5 minutes ago, John Stone said:

But what is the process to indict a President who is out of office?

Impeachment. After a President is impeached and the Senate removes qualified immunity protections, then the DOJ can prosecute. Likely in DC. 

[John Stone]

20 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Impeachment. After a President is impeached and the Senate removes qualified immunity protections, then the DOJ can prosecute. Likely in DC. 

Agree - the impeachment process is to get him out of office (political) - then the fun can begin with the courts 

[gatomontes99]

50 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Agree - the impeachment process is to get him out of office (political) - then the fun can begin with the courts 

No. You are not getting it. We can go back and impeach Reagan if we had a reason. It would be moot, but it can be done. Impeachment is not just for removal from office. Impeachment is the one and only means of prosecuting a president (present or past). 

[John Stone]

53 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. You are not getting it. We can go back and impeach Reagan if we had a reason. It would be moot, but it can be done. Impeachment is not just for removal from office. Impeachment is the one and only means of prosecuting a president (present or past). 

We seem to be having  a good discussion.

However, impeachment is NOT the means to prosecute a president, rather it is a process that allows Congress to bring charges against a president for serious misconduct, which can include treason, bribery or my fav phrase, high crimes and misdemeanors - akin to a grand jury indicting a ham sandwich. 

It's a political, one of several, that can be used to remove a president from office. 

SCOTUS' ruling had nothing to do with that. 

I'll paraphrase - once Congress has taken his nutz - the legal system is free to prosecute. 

Never happen of course. (impeachment & removal)