Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "Takeaways from Supreme Court arguments on Trump immunity claim" video.

Even considering the Republican viewpoint, that a US President has to be impeached before being prosecuted, what stops a sitting US President, who lost the Presidential election in November, but is still in office as President until January, from doing whatever he or she wanted to do without really fear of being impeached before leaving office? Get out of jail card, full immunity for any and all crimes committed in that time period? Really?
122
Consider the following: a. The impeachment clause in the Constitution is whether or not a person retains their position in the Government. b. The justice system determines whether that person does it from jail or not.
10
I agree. The USA Supreme Court is no longer impartial. They are currently siding with former President Trump it appears with delay tactics.
3
Also a take away from the SC hearing today: A person does not have Presidential immunity before or after being President. Former President Trump clearly had classified documents that he should not have had after he left the Presidency. Additionally, Former President Trump apparently obstructed the justice system from doing it's job as Trump moved around and hid still held classified documents. There should be no President immunity for this.
1
@ashfield1425 Consider the following: a. The impeachment clause in the Constitution is whether or not a person retains their position in the Government. b. The justice system determines whether that person does it from jail or not.
1
@ashfield1425 Sure, if a sitting US President is impeached, they would no longer be a sitting US President and therefore be open to prosecution. Likewise, a US President leaves office even via normal means, they are no longer a sitting US President and therefore be open to prosecution. In a way, that is not the issue here. The issue seems to be dealing with ONLY when a person is a sitting US President. The current leaning of the SC as I currently understand it to be is that ONLY when the President is acting as President doing Presidential type duties they would receive Federal immunity, (and even State immunity for those items specifically listed in the Constitution as duties of the President). But even if a sitting US President takes actions that are not part of their Presidential duties, (for example: campaigning), and they violate a law, the sitting US President could still be subject to prosecution. Now also, I do not know if others especially the SC court sees the impeachment clause as I do: The impeachment clause is ONLY to determine as to whether a person retains their position in the Government or not. The Justice system is still the Justice system and it could even be possible that a sitting US President oversees America from prison. Impeachment could come after the fact of a sitting US President being in prison if Congress decided to do so at that time.
1
@peterdaniel66 What's to stop an unhinged sitting US President from doing whatever he or she wants with no accountability? Also, the US Military swears an oath to the US Constitution, not to a person. For the sake of a military a national democracy might be saved.
1
@kudr66 Do you? If any person were to become a US President, many say is the most powerful person on this Earth, and have absolutely no accountability for their actions, would you and others truly want to live on this Earth that way? It's up to 'We The People' in this system of self governance whereby 'We The People' need to govern. Even per the Declaration Of Independence if any government does not keep 'We The People' safe and happy as 'We' and 'We' alone determine that safe and happy to be, 'We' can not only alter but entirely abolish any government and to set up another government that 'We' and 'We' alone determine would make us safe and happy. Fortunately, the US Constitution has only had to be Amended and not abolished, yet. If you and/or others do not like how the US Constitution and the US Government is, then Amend the US Constitution that the US Military will help preserve and protect.
1
@peterdaniel66 The US Military swears an oath to the US Constitution, not to a person.
1
@kudr66 And if the Senate does not impeach their fellow political party representative?
1
@kudr66 Back at you: ""If you and/or others do not like how the US Constitution and the US Government is, then Amend the US Constitution" This is what I would recommend to you and others who don't get it."
1
@kudr66 " "And if the Senate does not impeach their fellow political party representative?" Then the immunity applies.: Absolute and total immunity, even if a sitting US President decided to be a King, or Queen or Dictator over America. But also: My view but not everybody's view: a. Impeachment discerns whether a person retains their position in Government or not. b. The Justice system discerns whether a person does it from jail or not. In other words, a Government official could still rule over America from jail if not impeached.
1
@kudr66 Agreed. But the Republican party and Trump are claiming 'absolute and total immunity' for a sitting US President. Hence the issue at hand.
1
@kudr66 a. My complete viewing habits are none of your business. b. It has been said by numerous sources that basically: A sitting US President has to be impeached BEFORE being prosecuted. No impeachment, no prosecution. A major political party that has a President of the same political party could possibly never impeach a sitting US President and therefore the sitting US President would never be prosecuted. Basically the sitting US President gets away with all the crimes they could get away with, with no recourse from 'We The People'. Note: I disagree with this interpretation by the Republican party.
1
@kudr66 CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Concerning Presidential Immunity: Kind of like a choose your own adventure. In a system of 'self governance' what do we, individually and as a society of individuals choose? a. A single person who has possibly the most power and authority on this Earth and is completely immune from all prosecution. If so, that is the path the nation would go down. b. No person is above the law, not even a sitting US President. A law in a small town is just as valid as the US Constitution. The law is the law. A sitting US President violates even a small town's law, the US President is held accountable for their crime. If so, that is the path the nation would go down. c. Some line in between the 2 extremes. Whatever and wherever that line is, that would be the path the nation would go down. * So, what path do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to go down? Only 1 single path is allowed. Not choosing and one is automatically chosen for us, whatever system we have is the system we have. If we choose, what path do we choose?
1
@kudr66 If you listen to Trump's actual words on various media sites, Trump claims that a sitting US President should have total and complete immunity. You can agree or disagree with me, but that is how I understand current reality to be.
1
@kudr66 Sure, Trump wines about a lot of things, some things that only a child would wine about. But also, Trump has said in public numerous times that he believes that a sitting US President should be 'a' above, not 'b' nor 'c'. Even yourself said it was never 'a'. But yet, Trump wants to claim 'a'. Hence the issue at hand.
1
@kudr66 It seems clear to me that you do not know me and yet you seem to think you know me. And regardless of whatever immunity a US President may or may not have, it does not apply to the person when they are not a sitting US President. Trump is also being charged with potential crimes when he was not a sitting US President. Presidential immunity does not apply when Trump is not a US President.
1
@kudr66 I guess I agree to disagree with you and as such, I guess we are done here. Have a nice day.
1
The US Supreme Court is no longer impartial.
1