Liberal Forum

maineman » 16 Jan 2023, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2023, 9:48 am

If a president of the united states took a highly classified document with names of hidden and embedded US agents on it and for no rational reason other than his own personal enrichment gave this supposedly declassified document to a russian government official in return for favorable financing terms for his new office building in Moscow, and the clear result of that disclosure was the execution of all of those agents he had disclosed, and their deaths undoubtedly caused the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, it is your assertion that the mere statement of declassification of those documents somehow magically changed them into harmless sheets of paper, the deaths of those agents became  perfectly acceptable and the president was immune from indictment because the "unclassified document" somehow was no longer sensitive based solely on the decree of the rogue president??  Do yo have any idea how ridiculous that assertion of yours is?
 

Don't you think that after the 400th attempt to beat this dead horse over and over and over as you try to resurrect it over and over and over, you would stop beating it???

ONLY an ABJECT MORON would do what you are doing. It's been PROVEN over and over and over that the President of the United States has immunity from prosecution while he is President. PERIOD!!! The ONLY remedy for that is IMPEACHMENT and then they can be brought before a jury to try those crimes.

Now to answer your question- the PRESIDENT is IMMUNE from all INDICTMENTS from any acts committed RELATING TO the acts of his AS PRESIDENT. Which includes ANY AND ALL exercising ANY AND ALL POWERS granted BY THE CONSTITUTION. Foreign policy, Commander and Chief of the Military, among others are some of those OFFICIAL duties. Read the SCOTUS decision Nixon vs Fitzgerald. Here is a SUMMATION of that decision.....

Finally, with respect to civil liability, the Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that the President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the outer perimeter of his official duties.15 The Court’s close decision was premised on the President’s unique position in the constitutional scheme, that is, the Court conducted a kind of ‘public policy’ analysis of the policies and principles that may be considered implicit in the nature of the President’s office in a system structured to achieve effective government under a constitutionally mandated separation of powers.16 Although the Constitution expressly afforded Members of Congress immunity in matters arising from speech or debate and was silent on presidential immunity, the Court nonetheless considered immunity to be a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.17

So MORON, you lose again.

Note to your MORONIC SELF- this is the VERY LAST TIME I kick your ARSE on this since you keep repeating the SAME CRAP without ANY CASE LAW to back you up. I have PLENTY to back me up. So run along now, take your mutilated ARSE WITH YOU and end the STINK you have perpetrated on this thread!!!

Your NEXT POST ON THIS SENDS YOU TO THE IGNORE BIN unless its one that ACCEPTS YOU ARE WRONG!!!