Comments by "" (@charlesvan13) on "SCOTUS steps up to plate for 'complicated' Trump immunity case" video.

Maybe we should reconsider the absolute immunity judges have? A limited immunity would be more appropriate. For example, there are DC judges who have held people for over 3 years without trial and prosecuted some with a felony charge for basically trespassing.
32
The Dem freakout is so ridiculous. Why wouldn't the SCOTUS take this case. It's their job to settle these issues.
4
@Magnetroman The appellate court ruled that former presidents have "no immunity". They didn't rule that they don't have absolute imunity.
3
@stallwarning13 "From a legal point of view, no one is immune from criminal law, " That's obviously not settled, because the SCOTUS took the case. Again, judges have immunity, so that's not true.
2
@henrybutchy3242 So? The question isn't whether the president has absolute immunity. The appellate court ruled the president has "no immunity" because they're NPC democrats.
2
Presidents, besides Trump, were always given deference, in effect immunity. The extreme actions have often been taken by Democrat presidents. Obama assassinated two US citizens. Bush wasn't held accountable for the torture program and extraordinary rendition because the Democrat congress was behind it.
1
@stallwarning13 You don't know what you're talking about. Judges have immunity. The SCOTUS took the case because the appellate court ruled that there was "no immunity". It's nuanced issue. And they obviously have no interest in Democrats goal of removing Trump from the Nov. election.
1
@stallwarning13 Immunity from the consequences of their legal rulings. That's similar to what they're ruling on in the Trump case. As president, he had an prerogative to investigate the election. The presidential documents he took, were taken when he was president.
1
@stallwarning13 Um...BIden is using the DOJ to effect the election results. Step back and reconsider what you just wrote. The prosecution has no right to fast track anything. The right to a speedy trial is only that of the defendant. The SCOTUS has zero concern for your hope for a trial and verdict before the election. The DOJ even has a policy that trials are not to be scheduled regarding elections. What you're doing is stating political opinions as if the laws needs to accommodate them. The role of the SCOTUS is to prevent people like you from abusing the law.
1
@seanblankenship5404 "§ 11.411 Criminal trespass. ....... An offense under this section constitutes a petty misdemeanor if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. Otherwise it is a violation." Democrats have become rabid drooling authoritarians (to people not in their party).
1
@seanblankenship5404 Not only is trespass NOT a felony. If you leave when asked, it's an infraction, ie. a parking ticket.
1