Trump claims immunity as President in lawsuit

[spanone]

trump thinks he's above the law.

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is claiming he cannot be sued now that he has won the White House -- a defense in a lawsuit that alleges Trump incited rally-goers to violence when they allegedly assaulted protesters during the 2016 campaign.

In a court filing Friday, Trump's lawyers argue twice that the President has blanket immunity against lawsuits.

"Mr. Trump is immune from suit because he is President of the United States," the attorneys wrote, adding, "Mr. Trump is immune from proceedings pursuant to Clinton v. Jones."

In the case, three protesters, Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau, accuse two men, Alvin Bamberger and Matthew Heimbach, of assaulting them at a Kentucky rally in March 2016.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/17/politics/trump-immunity-lawsuits/index.html

[WinkyDink]

1. "Mr. Trump is immune from proceedings pursuant to Clinton v. Jones." Um....WHAT?!

[WePurrsevere]

5. That was similar to my reaction. Sometimes I swear...

We've entered some weird alternate universe like Superman's Bizzaro.

[WinkyDink]

10. Exactly! Me take emoluments! Me President! Me always legal!

[global1]

2. Even If He Was Not President He And His Family Thumb Their Nose's At The Laws.....

They get away with everything as if laws just don't apply to him/them because their name is Trump. This is what I dispise the most about him/them.

And worse than that - we let them get away with that thinking instead of holding him/them accountable.

[caroldansen]

3. If trumps not sued now you can believe that all those

lawsuits and many others will be waiting for him when he finally does leave office.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. The statute of limitations for most torts is two years

If I recall, the case against Clinton was permitted to go forward because the SCOTUS didn't think it would interfere with the President's work.

Or to be more specific, it was allowed because the defendant's name was Clinton.

[WePurrsevere]

4. WTH? "pursuant to Clinton v. Jones"...

Bolding mine...
"Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

[mythology]

6. Perhaps the argument is that running for president is related to the office?

I don't think that should fly, but maybe that's what they are going for.

[WePurrsevere]

8. Perhaps that's their thoughts but...

I'm pretty sure just running for the office doesn't make a presidential candidate exempt from crimes or we'd never be able to try anyone who has filed to supposedly 'run' for a office potentially allowing a criminal to have a 'keep out of jail' card until a statute of limitations expires.

[burnbaby]

7. That's not true

Clinton tried the same thing in the Paula Jones lawsuit and he was allowed to be sued while being president.