Of course there were. It's at state level. Trump had a Portland protestor, extrajudicially executed. This won't be forgotten. Expect to see an investigation of this. Michael Reinoehl was a political killing by the POTUS.
Bull1Shit2 right here The Washington State Patrol Crime Lab matched a .380 casing found in Reinoehl’s vehicle after the police shooting to the .380 pistol in his possession. Reinoehl was the only person with a .380 caliber weapon on the scene, according to the investigator managing the case, Lt. Cameron Simper. “The casing to that was found inside his vehicle in a position that would be consistent with him firing out that window,” Simper said. Reinoehl did have a loaded .380 pistol on him when he was killed, but it was found inside his right front pants pocket. Despite that, investigators insist that, based on law enforcement and witness statements, they believe Reinoehl fired the round, was shot by police*, and put his gun inside his pants pocket. Michael Reinoehl Screenshot obtained by OPB/ProPublica Those investigators could not find the bullet Reinoehl allegedly shot at police. * in a hail of fire of at least 38 shots. The autopsy report found that Reinoehl had been shot five times, including once in the head and four times in the torso.
This motion that Trump's attorneys have filed in the DC case is a great move. Basically using the Presidential Immunity Clause to stop from being prosecuted for actions as president that fall even on the outer perimeter of presidential power. This was designed to prevent exactly what is going on right now which is political persecution. First, the judge will rule and we know she'll turn the motion down and then a fast track appellate process will begin that could get to SCOTUS fairly quickly. If we have any justice system left, Trump will have all charges thrown out on the DC, Document and Georgia "cases". As far as the Stormy Daniels case, that is ridiculous on it's face and should get thrown out after conviction if it makes it to jury.
There is no "Presidential Immunity Clause" and Nixon v. Fitzgerald was 1982 not 1782. A term being bandied about and taken as read by Trumpchumps no doubt. This is the depth of ignorance the children of 20th century immigrants usually display. Add it to I gotta right and Itsa free country.
Although untested, but very sound, is the notion that presidents are immune from prosecution for things that occurred during their term, unless they were impeached and convicted for those items. I look forward to this test as it's an extremely strong argument.
Not a clause. There are numerous exceptions to immunity detailed in the 1982 ruling which you should study to prevent heartache. The SC did this to prevent "nobody is above the law" becoming meaningless.
2. The Impeachment Clause(The Presidential Immunity Clause) This view is also rooted in the actual text of the Constitution. The impeachment clause of Article I provides that, although impeachment proceedings do not themselves carry a punishment beyond removal from office, a party convicted after impeachment, “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” By specifying that a president impeached and convicted could be subject to indictment, etc., the Constitution plainly and clearly implies that absent impeachment and conviction a president cannot be criminally prosecuted for his official acts. Democrats impeached President Trump twice, and on both occasions the Senate acquitted him. Absent a conviction at an impeachment trial, presidential immunity applies to all of President Trump’s acts that fall within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and for these acts at least he cannot be prosecuted.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/watergate-prosecutor-predicts-donald-trump-082038189.html Watergate Prosecutor Predicts Donald Trump Will Be ‘Destroyed' In Latest Legal Move Lee Moran Updated Fri, October 6, 2023 at 2:38 PM GMT+2·1 min read Jill Wine-Banks on Thursday poured cold water on a bid by Donald Trump’s lawyers to dismiss his charges in special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case by claiming the protection of “presidential immunity.” Trump would be “destroyed on cross-examination” if he used that argument, Wine-Banks, one of the prosecutors in the Watergate scandal that took down President Richard Nixon, said on MSNBC’s “The Beat.” It would only work if Trump “was doing something presidential, something within his job description” when he did what he is alleged to have done, said Wine-Banks. But “it was his job as a candidate, and candidate is a different thing,” she added. Trump can’t claim he was “acting as president when he was trying to take down the election.” “That is a question of fact that will have to be determined,” she said. “The jury will say, ‘Yes, he was trying to take it down.’ He’s saying, ‘No I wasn’t, I was trying to protect election integrity.’ There is no evidence that supports that,
According to FactCheck.org, the earliest known instance of Trump saying he would only believe the 2020 election was fair if he won was on August 17, 2020, at a rally in Wisconsin. He said: "The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged, remember that. It's the only way we're going to lose this election. So we have to be careful. " https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-transcript-wisconsin-august-17 Trump was telegraphing very blatently that he intended to reject the election results without evidence of cheating. He made false claims about voter fraud repeatedly in the months leading up to the election, and he continued to do so after the election, even after multiple recounts and audits confirmed that Biden won fairly. Trump's actions in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election suggest that he was not acting presedentially. He did not take proactive steps to prevent fraud, and instead he worked to undermine the legitimacy of the election. He interfered with state and local election officials, and he pressured them to overturn the results These gaslighting actions were an attempt to make the American people question their own sanity, perception, or memory of the election. Guess the year: "“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he illegally stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong any [sic] why he got more votes than anticipated. Bad!” Trump posted to Twitter, followed shortly by a demand for a do-over. “Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.” Then, after he secured the Republican nomination in 2016, he told supporters at his rallies that Democrats were working to rig the election against him. “I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged,” he said at a rally in Ohio. “The only way we can lose, in my opinion…is if cheating goes on,” he said days later in Pennsylvania."
“Prolonged exposure to Trump is injurious to intelligence and fatal to principles,” said Mac Stipanovich*, a longtime Republican consultant in Florida. “It is like a disease. You are exposed to it, become infected and succumb to it. The people I know who I once thought well of who have now lost their minds are legion. It’s depressing.” *He is a Democrat but consults for both sides.