scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Many are hoping you get replaced as well.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Once again the right-wing news media and in this case, the State of Texas is full of s**t.

Fact-Checked

No–you cannot sue a current President of the United States for just anything. For the most part, they are immune from liability in a personal capacity when acting within their executive power or when completing official acts.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

A sitting president can in fact be sued, they just can’t be prosecuted.

jcs Loc: USA

unless the President is a Republican .lol

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Please quote case law that supports your position.

FrumCA

This might help shed some light on the subject...

Where does the idea that the president is immune from criminal prosecution come from?

The Supreme Court has never held that a president is immune from criminal prosecution. It’s the Department of Justice that says that. And because the Department of Justice controls all the federal prosecutors, it means that no federal prosecutor, including the new special counsel [investigating Biden’s offsite storage of classified documents], can prosecute a sitting president. The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice thinks there’s such a rule in the Constitution because it believes a criminal indictment and prosecution — and of course, punishment — would effectively incapacitate the presidency. And they further believe it’s unconstitutional to incapacitate the sitting president, and that the only means by which you can [legally] incapacitate the president are impeachment, which removes the president from office, or the 25th Amendment, which sidelines an incapacitated president. The OLC does not believe that a state prosecutor or even a federal prosecutor should be able to prosecute the president and eventually put him or her in jail, because they don’t think the Constitution would allow a local or federal prosecutor to incapacitate the chief executive.

The OLC’s claim is grounded on structural intuitions of the same sort that led the Supreme Court to conclude that the president couldn’t be sued civilly for his official acts. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court said [that private lawsuits grounded on the president’s official acts] would lead to distraction and distortion — the president would be distracted from his official duties and he might change his official policies in the wake of a civil suit.

The OLC believes that the same sort of thing is going to happen, except more so, in the context of criminal prosecution. The president is going to be distracted, not be able to function, and he might change various policies in order to try to curry favor with the public in some way. So it’s the Department of Justice concluding — based upon some structural intuitions and some extrapolation from Supreme Court precedent — that the president shouldn’t be indicted while in office, much less prosecuted or punished while in office.

So the Justice Department says the president is immune from federal criminal prosecution. What about civil suits?

The Supreme Court has said that the president can be sued for his private acts, and I think most people believe that encompasses his acts prior to president but also his acts while he’s president. So the theory is that the president does have some private acts — not everything the president does while he’s in the office is an official act. At the same time, the court has said the president enjoys immunity from civil damage actions for all his official acts and it extends to the outer rim of his official acts. So there’s a question about whether Trump’s actions on J*** 6 and beyond are official acts that extended the outer rim of the president’s powers and responsibilities such that the Justice Department should defend him in these suits and should claim official immunity on his behalf.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/202301/can-presidents-be-prosecuted-or-sued-professor-explains-differing-visions-immunity

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

It's so nice when you think that you speak for anyone but yourself little man. Pompous little guy aren't you.

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

Right back at you Frank. You reply but show no proof to back up your claim.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

So, you cannot.
Noted
Ty

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

So what do you have to say Frankie?

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Lol, poor, little Scootie! Safe bet says otherwise, skid-mark champ!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Gee, you can team up with your little skid-mark partner!

Don't be fibbing any more today!

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Suckin' again Davie. Where is your little butt-buddy Krackhead?

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Gee, you're kind of a nasty little fibber today!

Better be careful or Admin may have to scold you again!

You're kind of like a little trash can! You perceive that someone may step on your toes and your mouth opens! Maybe Scootie can help you later.