Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

I substantially agree, although as you know, I think Clinton is also a lying, dishonest, and immoral actor.  Maybe not as lying, dishonest, and immoral as Trump, but certainly a more sophisticated and crafty lying, dishonest, and immoral actor.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I'll try not to get too sanctimonious, but you are exasperating me!  

Clearly you would interpret the Constitution in a special fashion just because Trump was President.  What else can, "The fact that you can have someone as lying, dishonest and immoral as Trump occupying the White House is reason enough that the immunity decision from the cons on SCOTUS can't stand" mean if not that you want a new and special rule just to get Trump?  

That would be a horrible precedent!   Do you want Biden stripped of immunity for official acts just because of Trump?  Do you want Harris stripped of immunity for official acts just because of Trump?

How about Congress?  They too have civil and criminal immunity for their official acts.  Same with the judiciary, they all have civil and criminal immunity for official acts.

Please think this through Rod.  First, there is no criminal immunity for acts by the president outside the scope of his or her official duties.  If Smith can prove that Trump incited insurrection, well, inciting insurrection is hardly within the scope of the President's official duties.  Immunity does not apply.   

On the other hand, there is criminal immunity for acts that are clearly within the scope of the president's official duties.  Think about what it would mean if there were no criminal immunity for official acts!!  If you don't like the way President X, Y, or Z discharges his or her legitimate official duties, you vote them out, you do not have their successor prosecute them!  Not in the United States anyway.

I bet you can not name one official act that warrants criminal prosecution, by Trump or any other president.      

I can name plenty of official acts that warrant immunity.  How about Biden approving arms sales to Israel.  Some, not me or you of course, but plenty of people think that those arms sales are fostering and actively promoting genocide.  Do you want some future President prosecuting Biden for genocide because he chose to sell arms to Israel?  

In my view, presidential immunity for official acts is absolutely mandatory.  If/when the president commits a crime while acting outside of his or her constitutional authority, then prosecute away if the facts support it.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod, if you, James or anyone else think the following is an incorrect summary, please let me know.  I am going from memory:

1.  In the hush money case, the judge said that immunity does not apply.   Not sure how it would have, since Trump was not president at the time and concealing a payment to your porn star paramour is hardly an official act.

2.  The documents case was dismissed because in the Judge's (hotly contested) opinion, Jack Smith was inappropriately appointed.  This is being appealed.  We have not had an immunity ruling.

3.  I have no idea what is going on in Georgia, but the incompetence of the prosecutors has possibly killed that case.

4.  The immunity ruling came down in Jack Smith's Jan 6 case.  The Supreme Court did not and never does make a factual ruling on a fact issue.  Instead, they laid out the three situations where immunity applies, does not apply, or may apply.  They then sent the case back to the trial court for factual rulings on whether or not immunity applies.  Jack Smith filed a new indictment a few weeks ago, that is supposed to only charge Trump with acts that are outside of his presidential capacity.  It would be interesting to compare the original charges with the new ones.  Has anyone done that?  Presumably the stuff Smith dropped in the new indictment he believes is likely to be subject to an immunity ruling.  Presumably the stuff he kept in the new indictment he feels strongly are acts not subject to immunity.   If I can find an analysis comparing the former charges to the new charges I'll post it.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Who should I believe, an Astromart post or my own lying eyes???

Originally Posted by James Brown

We agree on all that.  I might have to start reading Drudge, that is a funny cover.  But in your opinion did this debate do much to sway the undecideds in swing states?  That is what I am not so sure about.

Originally Posted by Maurice Clark

No thank you. I prefer more unbiased reporting.

Maurice

Originally Posted by James Brown

Genuine undecideds are probably hard to find.  That is not good for Harris.