[Tom Bishop]

Presidents are treated by law enforcement to have criminal immunity until a court rules otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office. No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity.[4]

So if Biden rigged the election, he is immune from prosecution since he did it while in office?

Yes. This is why the investigations into Biden are mainly all pre-presidency. The influence peddling is assuredly still going on, what with Hunter Biden's sudden career shift from lawyer to painter, selling paintings for hundreds of thousands each. However you can tell that this is not the focus of the investigation.

[markjo]

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

[markjo]

Looks like Trump might not be on the Maine ballot either.
https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee

[Lord Dave]

Looks like Trump might not be on the Maine ballot either.
https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee

I really hope the appeals court just kicks it to scotus asap.  This needs to be answered.

[Action80]

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.

[markjo]

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.

Maybe not, but it was established long before Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to the position.  What's your point?

[Lord Dave]

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.

Maybe not, but it has was established long before Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to the position.  What's your point?

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

[Action80]

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.

Maybe not, but it was established long before Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to the position.  What's your point?

There is no, "Maybe not."

How long the availability of the position has been open is irrelevant.

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

Wrong, again...as usual.

In the end, as was the case with the whole fake appointment of Mueller and that fake news story, this particular trial will end up as fake news too. As will the ballot removals and the civil trial in NY and the Georgia trial...

Just more CNN reporters in front of prop trees with helmets on, whispering about incoming Scuds...

[Lord Dave]

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

Wrong, again...as usual.

In the end, as was the case with the whole fake appointment of Mueller and that fake news story, this particular trial will end up as fake news too. As will the ballot removals and the civil trial in NY and the Georgia trial...

Just more CNN reporters in front of prop trees with helmets on, whispering about incoming Scuds...

How does a real trial become fake news?  Are you saying there is no trial and Trump is angry over something that isn't real?

[Action80]

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

Wrong, again...as usual.

In the end, as was the case with the whole fake appointment of Mueller and that fake news story, this particular trial will end up as fake news too. As will the ballot removals and the civil trial in NY and the Georgia trial...

Just more CNN reporters in front of prop trees with helmets on, whispering about incoming Scuds...

How does a real trial become fake news?  Are you saying there is no trial and Trump is angry over something that isn't real?

You may be having some difficulty following along over these past few years.

[markjo]

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

[Lord Dave]

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

Or take that to any federal court, really.

[Action80]

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

You are a huge advocate of willy-nilly legal processes.

[markjo]

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

You are a huge advocate of willy-nilly legal processes.

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Or is it imperative to have all these legal woes continue as long as possible so that Trump can keep playing the victim and milk every dime that he can out of his supporters?

[Action80]

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

You are a huge advocate of willy-nilly legal processes.

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Or is it imperative to have all these legal woes continue as long as possible so that Trump can keep playing the victim and milk every dime that he can out of his supporters?

There is no spoon.

[Tom Bishop]

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of these blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

[markjo]

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of this blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

Not going anywhere?  The trial dates are already set.  That's somewhere, isn't it?

The only reason that they might look like they "are not going anywhere" is because of various appeals that are destined to fail (a.k.a., delay, delay, delay).

[Lord Dave]

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of these blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

That makes sense.  If he were to be exonerated now, he'd lose popularity AND alot of funding to 'fight the injustice' or whatever.  Hard to play the victim when you aren't being punished.

[Action80]

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of this blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

Not going anywhere?  The trial dates are already set.  That's somewhere, isn't it?

If they are going anywhere, then why is the jackass top-notch prosecutor making a jackassed argument in an arena out-of-turn?

The only reason that they might look like they "are not going anywhere" is because of various appeals that are destined to fail (a.k.a., delay, delay, delay).

So far, the only thing that has failed is the prosecution. TIme, and time again.

[markjo]

Not going anywhere?  The trial dates are already set.  That's somewhere, isn't it?

If they are going anywhere, then why is the jackass top-notch prosecutor making a jackassed argument in an arena out-of-turn?

One more time.  The question of presidential immunity is Trump's argument, not Smith's.  Smith just wanted to get the question answered as soon as possible.  Trump would rather drag the process out as long as possible.

The only reason that they might look like they "are not going anywhere" is because of various appeals that are destined to fail (a.k.a., delay, delay, delay).

So far, the only thing that has failed is the prosecution. TIme, and time again.

Have any of the charges against Trump been dismissed yet?