Protection from obviously fraudulent lawfare to the degree that you'd need evidence so solid that a trial would be unnecessary, not to mention at the risk of sedition charges if you fail (A SET OF STEAK KNIVES)? Absolutely.
OK, but functionally the difference between total immunity and a pre-trial "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is with total immunity the president has to be impeached by congress before trial, whereas with the standard you suggest, one judge can go "yeah, you met the standard, he's guilty." And if you think my second scenario is absurd, this is literally what happened in his New York fraud case.
Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't agree with this dumb legal argument or Biden will be free to behave as a complete dictator with zero consequences as he would have complete immunity to any future prosecution.
Biden already has immunity, or didn't you notice? DoJ/FBI isn't even just not prosecuting, they're actively carrying the bag for him.
Supposing that Trump can fire half of Justice and replace them with people who would actually prosecute Biden, the problem is solved anyway at that point. Putting a senile octogenarian in prison for a year before he dies or forgets why he's there is meaningless.
I am not sure that it is desirable for presidents to have full immunity. I can see a case for either side: allowing total lawlessness or allowing politically motivated prosecutions as now.
That said, it's not as much Trump asking for full immunity for the president as much as his lawyers making that argument. If you get into legal trouble, your lawyers will make any argument that might stick.
Immunity? Hell no.
Protection from obviously fraudulent lawfare to the degree that you'd need evidence so solid that a trial would be unnecessary, not to mention at the risk of sedition charges if you fail (A SET OF STEAK KNIVES)? Absolutely.
I agree with your take wholeheartedly.
I am also against Trump being prosecuted by Democrat lawfare but what Trump is asking for from the Supreme Court would be a disaster if granted.
The Presidency must not become a dictatorship where you receive full immunity for even actual crimes committed.
OK, but functionally the difference between total immunity and a pre-trial "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is with total immunity the president has to be impeached by congress before trial, whereas with the standard you suggest, one judge can go "yeah, you met the standard, he's guilty." And if you think my second scenario is absurd, this is literally what happened in his New York fraud case.
Pretty sure he does that to attract attention.
If he could do that, maybe he would
Caps Lock is the cruise control for cool.
Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't agree with this dumb legal argument or Biden will be free to behave as a complete dictator with zero consequences as he would have complete immunity to any future prosecution.
Biden already has immunity, or didn't you notice? DoJ/FBI isn't even just not prosecuting, they're actively carrying the bag for him.
Supposing that Trump can fire half of Justice and replace them with people who would actually prosecute Biden, the problem is solved anyway at that point. Putting a senile octogenarian in prison for a year before he dies or forgets why he's there is meaningless.
I am not sure that it is desirable for presidents to have full immunity. I can see a case for either side: allowing total lawlessness or allowing politically motivated prosecutions as now.
That said, it's not as much Trump asking for full immunity for the president as much as his lawyers making that argument. If you get into legal trouble, your lawyers will make any argument that might stick.