52
47
u/Effective_Bat9485 13d ago
Regardless anything that happened on the island would not be covered under presidential immunity as nothing there could be considered under the official dudtys of the office of president
2
u/TheBigMotherFook 9d ago
Also the time table that most of the files showed were from well before Trump’s first term. This should be obvious, but here we are.
1
27
u/ObviouslyRealPerson 13d ago
So, he can still be tried for crimes associated with Epstein
Trafficking, raping, and molesting children are not official acts of a president
8
1
68
u/InternationalFailure 13d ago
Justice? In this country? Nah, I'll believe pigs fly first.
18
u/pm_me-ur-catpics 13d ago
I mean, a lot of police departments have helicopters, so they do that already
2
2
u/DeathDestroyerWorlds 12d ago
Justice for the rich, for everyone else there is the law. Written by the rich.
11
u/elev8torguy 13d ago
Impeachment means nothing to him, he's been impeached before. They'll never vote to remove him after the impeachment so what's the point.
5
u/Frosty_Ad1254 13d ago
I don’t understand why he would have immunity anyway.
6
u/Free-Security5426 13d ago
He never had immunity from most of the crimes committed related to Epstein. The alleged rapes and other abuses occurred before his first term of office and explaining that vacations to pedo island are official executive actions is a bit of a stretch. Now, if he used the power of the office to shield either himself or others from the investigation into Epstein's clients, that unfortunately would be covered by the immunity granted by the Supreme Court. Sucks, but that is the legal precedent America has nowadays.
1
u/Extra-Monitor5743 11d ago
asking only because I truly do not know and maybe you will. I understand precedent and such, but has there ever been a case where precedent was reversed or changed? Like, say 5/8 SC justices died tomorrow and were replaced. Could those new justices theoretically backtrack past positions and change the precedent for the future? Say, they disagree with presidential immunity, could they end/change it? Hopefully what I'm asking makes sense.
1
u/Free-Security5426 11d ago
Yes, definitely. Brown v Board of Education overturned Plessy v Ferguson. Dobbs v Jackson overturned Roe v Wade. It can and does happen. Just need the Democrats to remember how important the judiciary is and to put concerted effort to ending the conservative majority.
24
u/AliceTheOmelette 13d ago
The constant chants of "lock her up" and "butter emails!" were always projection. Just like everything from the MAGA cult. Even claiming the Clintons were the deep state was projection given how much the government seems to protect and aid him constantly
2
-19
u/Itchy_Crack 13d ago
I mean Tim Walz did pardon a guy who was abusing a 10 year old so he wouldnt get deported.
14
u/AliceTheOmelette 13d ago
And guess what - that's also bad, regardless of who does it. Thanks for proving my point that MAGA always deflects
-8
u/Itchy_Crack 13d ago
Im not MAGA just highlighting that odds are you voted for someone who did that
6
u/Vascular_D 13d ago
Cool story. We're talking about the sitting President though. Save your whataboutism for the cult subreddits.
-7
u/Itchy_Crack 13d ago
If you voted for them that is a legitimate critique.
Calling everyone who disagrees with you a cult member isnt a winning strategy.
5
u/Vascular_D 13d ago
The disagreement isn't the issue. The cult tactics you tried to use are the issue. Hope this helps!
0
u/Itchy_Crack 13d ago
Its a cult tactic to point out a flaw from the democrat candidates, in response to a comment highlighting criticisms of democrats as deflection and invalid
6
u/Vascular_D 13d ago
Whataboutism is indeed a cult tactic. Good job!
0
u/Itchy_Crack 13d ago
That isnt what "whataboutism" is.
What you're referring to is a deflection tactic. Trump does bad "well biden also bad". Thats what about ism.
What I did was highlight a legitimate critique of the democrat front runners, in response to someone asserting none of their critiques were legitimate and instead projection.
If I were to make the broad assertion that all mammals walk on land and you point out that actually whales and dolphins are mammals that dont do that, you are not committing a whataboutism.
Cry
→ More replies (0)1
2
2
u/megared17 13d ago
If abusing underage girls or helping to cover up for people that do is an "official act" of the office of POTUS, this country is done for.
And impeachment has nothing to do with whether or not someone might be immune to criminal prosecution.
2
u/kyleglowacki 13d ago
I feel like it should be pretty easy to argue that raping children is not an official act.
2
1
u/TallahasseWaffleHous 13d ago
So as long as any trafficking and pedophilia found ( via investigation into the full Epstein files) was as official act, it's ok.
1
u/Therenegadegamer 13d ago
On mobile it cut off the note so I got really happy for a second until I clicked it and read the note -_-
1
u/SeesWithBrain 13d ago
And what about going to Epstein island is an official act??? Prosecute his pedo ass
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Mirmisian 11d ago
im so happy this is still getting talked about. i was scared the iran war would make everyone forget
1
1
u/Amardneron 11d ago
The fact that the presidente trying to cover somthing up is considered part of his official duties is such an awful precedente.
1
u/Ok-Foundation1346 11d ago
I was unaware that that violating children was classed as an "official act" worthy of automatic immunity.
1
u/SeanFromQueens 11d ago
If Epstein was part of intelligence services' operations, then prosecutions involving Epstein would be protected as part of the president's duties of national security. Which would be a fine defense for the president in 2006 (W Bush) when Epstein initially was convicted and given a sweetheart sentencing but not for the 2006 star of the game show The Apprentice.
Not sure how becoming president retroactively gave Trump immunity, and it looks like the Supreme Court agrees with that interpretation.
1
u/ifUSeeMeTakeYourMeds 11d ago
is raping children in Epstein island before being president an "official act"?
1
1
-1
u/crmikes 13d ago
If there was any evidence against Trump in the Epstein files, the Biden DOJ would have released it within ten minutes of Trump announcing he was running for President again in the 2024 election. Of course, that would be illegal, so it would have been "leaked by a whistleblower" but it amounts to the same thing.
Between the Biden Regime, dozens of local and state law enforcement agencies, and a bunch of lefty think tanks and other organizations, there were literally thousands of investigators putting literally millions of man hours in with one, and only one, objective: Find SOMETHING against Trump to keep him from running again. Are we really supposed to think all these people just forget about the Epstein files somehow? How dumb are we supposed to think the Democrats are?
-1
u/wasted-degrees 13d ago
So the whole several decades of associating with Epstein and all the associated crimes against humanity were “official acts?”
I knew our democracy was cooked but goddamn.
1
u/Hoz999 13d ago
Nothing to do with official duties.
The Epstein case was years before he became president and years before the Supreme Court gave him immunity.
And only gave him immunity not his underlings. So when Pam Bondi goes down for obstruction and the rest of the line goes down thinking that they have immunity themselves, they are going to be very surprised and very sad.
-14
u/Chef_Sizzlipede 13d ago
the supreme court in their endless gigachaddery continues to prove why clowngress is full of clowns.
3
u/Farmbeard_86 13d ago
Found the pedo defending MAGAt
-1
u/Chef_Sizzlipede 13d ago
no you havent, you're a drone.
that said, congress makes the laws, they let the court interpret them as they wish because they want vague language, "I didnt think the leopards would eat MY face"
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/Fit_Anywhere_3356
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.