Feel free to gander at the United States' DEC 30th filing (attached).
Link: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24250214-special-counsel-trump-immunity-filing-dc-circuit-12-23-23
I know… we can’t allow political prosecutions or it would never end and disrupt our governmental functioning. If Trump wins I expect he will be persecuted all four years. It’s one reason I don’t want him to be the nominee. He actively invites these activities.
in the real world...
------------------
Critical border enforcement activities: As numbers continue to fluctuate, this Administration is committed to treating individuals and families humanely as we expedite the removal process and deliver tougher consequences under Title 8 for those who do not have a legal basis to remain. The supplemental requests funding for border enforcement to reflect the evolving needs of the Department and funds additional resources for CBP, ICE, and USCIS to cover projected shortfalls and hire additional personnel to help right-size a system that was not built to manage the level of encounters we are experiencing. This includes:
An additional 1,300 Border Patrol Agents to work alongside the 20,205 agents funded in the FY2024 Budget. The funding will also include 300 Border Patrol Processing Coordinators and support staff to help ensure Border Patrol Agents can focus on their critical national security mission in the field.
An additional 1,600 Asylum Officers and associated support staff to hear migrant claims and facilitate timely immigration dispositions, including expedited removal for those without a valid claim to remain in the United States. As required by statute, expedited removal is not possible if USCIS asylum officers are not readily available to interview those asserting a fear of return. USCIS has never been resourced to adequately manage the growing number of referrals coming in from CBP and ICE. Supplemental dollars will provide the critical resources of USCIS to significantly expand its current credible fear interview capacity.
Additional detention beds to sustain our current significantly increased use of expedited removal and provide necessary surge capacity. Our experience after the lifting of Title 42 demonstrates that enacting quick consequences on those who fail to use available lawful pathways works. Additional ICE bedspace will allow DHS to process more recent border crossers on expedited timelines when we see increased encounters and swiftly remove those without a legal basis to stay in the country.
ICE is not funded to hold the number of individuals they currently have in custody year long, this funding provides much needed support to sustain that level of work and offer necessary surge capacity for any periods of elevated encounters.
With more displaced persons in the hemisphere than ever before, it is of vital importance that we add this surge capacity in order to prevent overcrowding and dangerous conditions in Border Patrol Facilities and avoid instances of high releases directly to border communities.
Since May 12, DHS has processed 110,000 individuals under expedited removal procedures and completed an average of 4,000 cases each week in which a noncitizen has claimed a credible fear of persecution, which is double the previous high.
We are also requesting funding for transportation, including an increase in removal flights and resources for Alternatives to Detention in part to enable our Family Expedited Removal Management, or FERM, program. We are also seeking authorization to allow DHS to use transportation funded by appropriated funds to facilitate the movement of non-citizens who choose to depart from the United States in lieu of removal proceedings (“voluntary departure”).
New non-custodial housing options for noncitizens in expedited removal. In instances where detention is not appropriate for those going through expedited removal, these non-custodial options could include community-based residential facilities with housing, legal orientation, and medical care. We are also requesting this authority to allow additional flexibility for DHS to fund temporary housing facilities and services to manage noncitizens and facilitate their removal for those who are not able to prove a legal basis to stay.
1,470 additional attorneys and support staff to match the 375 new immigration judge teams to adjudicate and process immigration cases more quickly and help reduce the caseload backlog.
Ongoing funding for Department of Defense support provided along the southwest border in FY 2024.
Resources for third countries to conduct their own repatriation flights and help reduce the flow of migrants to the United States. We are also requesting the authority to provide assistance to foreign countries to conduct these repatriations if the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State determine that support is in the national interest.
Authorization to allow electronic delivery of Notices to Appear (eNTA), which initiate immigration court proceedings.
-------------------
Time to stop daydreaming and conjuring up conspiracy theories...deal with reality...or are you promoting yourself as the next "Sydney Powell"? ;-)
Link: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/10/20/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-supplemental-funding-request#:~:text=An%20additional%201%2C300%20Border%20Patrol,security%20mission%20in%20the%20field.
Or because I know how you gas light aide and abet someone who seeks in and doesn't claim asylum and commits a crime?
In a federal case, the elements of aiding an d abetting include:
The accused specifically intended to aid in the commission of the crime, for the purpose of making the endeavor successful;
The accused took positive action to aid, or participated in some element of, the commission of the crime, though the level of participation may be relatively small;
Someone other than the accused actually committed the underlying crime.
It is not absurd to charge Biden for aiding and abetting an insurection at our border.
Link: https://amac.us/newsline/national-security/joe-bidens-silent-insurrection/?utm_objective=website_traffic
(no message)
Thank God for Joe Biden and the Democrats.
(no message)
The DOJ and FBI have been protecting the president and his family from prosecution for quite some time now, letting statutes of limitations pass, trying to exonerate people in unprecedented plea bargains, not bringing cases, and perhaps the worst: persuading media outlets to suppress evidence.
Regarding Trump, on the other hand, we have the Dems acting like Putin, trying to remove a major candidate from the ballot so that the people don't have a chance to vote. Lawyers who defend Trump get ethics complaints filed against them in their state bars. Again, politicization by the Left of formerly a-political, professional organizations.
It is what it is. It will take a while to recover from what the Dems are still trying to do. The first step is for them to admit their mistakes. I won't hold my breath.
see my linked post..
What are the odds he'd do it again if elected in 2024?...clearly Ned must now oppose DJT given the evidence...let's not hold our breaths..
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=126403
You are one crazy ass loon.
On these facts, I believe he does have immunity. Or at least a colorable argument that he does.
Excerpts from his brief below (The Lexis link requires a subscription.)
The structure of our government, the text of the Constitution and its early
commentators, common-law immunity doctrines, our political history, the Supreme
Court’s analogous immunity doctrines, and the policy considerations rooted in the
separation of powers all dictate that no President, current or former, may be
criminally prosecuted for his official acts unless he is first impeached and convicted
by the Senate. Nor may a President face criminal prosecution based on conduct for
which he was acquitted by the U.S. Senate. The indictment against President Trump
is unlawful and unconstitutional. It must be dismissed.
* * * *
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I. President Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts
as President. The indictment alleges only official acts, so it must be dismissed.
A. Seven considerations mandate the recognition of presidential immunity
from prosecution for official acts. First, criminal immunity has deep roots in the
separation of powers. Under Article II, § 1, the President is vested with the
Executive Power. The Judicial Branch may not sit in judgment, criminal or
otherwise, over his exercise of that power. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in
Marbury v. Madison, the President’s official acts “can never be examinable by the
courts.” 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 165-66 (1803).
Second, the text of the Constitution, through the Impeachment Judgment
Clause, presupposes criminal immunity. That Clause dictates that a President may
be criminally charged only if he is the “Party convicted” in an impeachment trial.
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Alexander Hamilton reinforced this understanding by
writing in The Federalist that the President may face criminal prosecution only
“afterwards” or “subsequent” to impeachment and Senate conviction. President
Trump was acquitted, not convicted, by the Senate after an impeachment, so he
retains immunity for his official acts.
Third, early commentators on the Constitution—including Chief Justice
Marshall, George Washington’s Attorney General Charles Lee, Alexander Hamilton,
Justice Joseph Story, and others—confirm that a President’s official acts are not
examinable by the Judicial Branch.
Fourth, at common law, immunity from criminal prosecution was far more
central to the concept of immunity than immunity from civil liability. The prospect
of senior officials facing “criminal charges” before a “possibly hostile judiciary” was
the “chief fear” that official immunity was designed to prevent. United States v.
Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 180-82 (1966).
Fifth, the 234-year tradition of not prosecuting Presidents for official acts—
despite ample motive and opportunity to do so—provides powerful evidence that the
power to do so does not exist. “Perhaps the most telling indication of a severe
constitutional problem” with this “wholly unprecedented” prosecution “is a lack of
historical precedent to support it.” Seila Law, LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2201
(2020) (cleaned up).
Sixth, analogous immunity doctrines for legislators and judges, which are also
rooted in the separation of powers, support criminal immunity for a President’s
official acts. Legislative immunity “prevent[s]” legislative acts “from being made
the basis of a criminal charge against a member of Congress.” Johnson, 383 U.S. at
180. Excluding cases of bribery, which were long prosecutable at common law,
judicial immunity shields a judge from “indictment for any act done … by him,
sitting as judge.” Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 494 (1896). Presidents’ official
acts are equally, if not more so, immune.
Seventh, policy considerations rooted in the separation of powers support
immunity. The President handles “especially sensitive duties,” Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
at 746. The Presidency requires “bold and unhesitating action.” Id. at 745. The
threat of future prosecution risks “crippl[ing] the proper and effective administration
of public affairs.” Id. at 745 (quoting Spalding, 161 U.S. at 498). The President is
most likely to be “harassed by vexatious actions.” Spalding, 161 U.S. at 495. The
threat of indictment, conviction, and imprisonment by a politically motivated
successor—or by hundreds of local prosecutors, many in enclaves of political
hostility to the President—before a possibly hostile judiciary poses a far greater
deterrent to bold, fearless Executive leadership than civil liability.
Link: https://advance.lexis.com/f/courtlinkdocument/jobstatus/downloadfile/5554cba8-a52e-4545-ae36-1790d86d1a6c/urn:contentItem:69Y3-T5Y3-RRRR-W0HX-00000-00/0/0/d753532443e4243/0/blob/US_APP_CADC_23_3228_d753532443e4243_APPELLANT_BRIEF_2033200_filed_by_Donald_J
Special Counsel counters this assertion, beginning on page 15 of the Government's brief.
Trump is saying, in essence, that any action by a President in office, is part his "official duties" and therefore, immune from prosecution.
(no message)
Unless you expand them to the point that he can do just about anything illegal.