I dug around using grok, and thought the explanation sensible. I did not look at the specific references, but it appears there is legal precedent that immunity from prosecution for a crime means the person cannot incriminate themselves. (Incriminate meaning exposing oneself to a criminal charge.) Meaning that person cannot plead the 5th, because the 5th is an option that can be chosen when one might actually incriminate oneself.
To me the logic seems pretty clear. However, some further investigation may clear up the matter for you. Depending on how much you want to make your opinion or conclusions based in fact. "I don't get it" is completely valid, but its not really evidence that means what you are not getting is wrong (or incorrect).
Fwiw, I don't think that Solomon is just going to be shooting off his mouth without any basis. He's too credible a source.
From what I looked at, I'm satisfied, but we're all different.
I'm not asking whether Obama is in a uniquely bad position if evidence exists.
I'm asking for the legal mechanism that supposedly prevents him from invoking the 5th Amendment.
The claim in the OP isn't "Obama is vulnerable." The claim is "Obama cannot plead the 5th because he has presidential immunity."
Those are two different claims.
Presidential immunity protects certain official acts from prosecution. The 5th protects against compelled self-incrimination.
What's the legal authority that says presidential immunity automatically eliminates 5th Amendment protection?
If that principle exists, it shouldn't be unique to Obama. It would apply to every former president, including Trump.
So far I've seen arguments about Obama's alleged conduct, Solomon's credibility, and why Obama might be in trouble if facts come out. I haven't seen the actual precedent or legal reasoning that gets from "presidential immunity exists" to "Obama cannot plead the 5th."
That's the part I'm still trying to understand.
I'm curious why you didn't bother to look at the legal precedent that you say Grok provided, since I specifically asked about what laws would make this work.
This is the point where your own research becomes important.
I've tried to help your understanding by presenting my own understanding, reasoning or logic, but ultimately, one has to find out for one's self. indeed, unless one researches for oneself, can you every truly be confident in (your) conclusions?
The information that comes across your screen should really be the departure point for investigation, not the conclusion of your investigation. Myself, I frequently check the information in posts here, dig around, until I'm satisfied that I understand the information or that its incorrect, or bogus.
I'll wrap up with a few points:
If that principle exists, it shouldn't be unique to Obama
I agree. But did anyone say its unique to Obama? If so you should address this query to them (ask them why they think so).
What's the legal authority that says presidential immunity automatically eliminates 5th Amendment protection?
I think you are missing a key element here. It has nothing to do with 'presidential' immunity. The legal principle being referenced here is that immunity from prosecution precludes the ability to plead the 5th. Where that immunity is derived is irrelevant. Its the case for anyone, a president, a regular citizen, or anyone under jurisdiction of the US legal system.
that gets from "presidential immunity exists" to "Obama cannot plead the 5th."
OK. So try instead to ask if legal immunity precludes a person's ability to plead the 5th. Forget Obama, forget Presidential.
You know, you can do your own research and investigation. Try asking Grok. Engaging with AI is a very effective way of learning how to refine your questions to get the answers you want.
I'm curious why you didn't bother....
Because the reason I investigate and research is to satisfy my own threshold for conviction. As I already said, to me it makes sense, and when I dug into this, the information I found made sense to me and I felt satisfied I can accept Solomon's statements.
since I specifically asked...
If you are not satisfied with your own understanding or with the information being presented to you, you NEED to do your own investigations.
Generally speaking, on this board, most of us try to share useful information, reasoning, understanding, but ultimately, each person has to choose: do I investigate and/or research (research is really just investigation) to satisfy my own questions, or do I simply want to accept what other people tell me because I'm not really that bothered about whether I have the facts or not.
I'm not making the claim here. Solomon is. How you approach the claim is really your choice, but don't rely on me to solve this for you.
The internet is the greatest material information resource ever available to humanity. Now, with dozens of AI functions out there, its easier more than ever to investigate. Learning how to use that tool, however, is important.
I dug around using grok, and thought the explanation sensible. I did not look at the specific references, but it appears there is legal precedent that immunity from prosecution for a crime means the person cannot incriminate themselves. (Incriminate meaning exposing oneself to a criminal charge.) Meaning that person cannot plead the 5th, because the 5th is an option that can be chosen when one might actually incriminate oneself.
To me the logic seems pretty clear. However, some further investigation may clear up the matter for you. Depending on how much you want to make your opinion or conclusions based in fact. "I don't get it" is completely valid, but its not really evidence that means what you are not getting is wrong (or incorrect).
Fwiw, I don't think that Solomon is just going to be shooting off his mouth without any basis. He's too credible a source.
From what I looked at, I'm satisfied, but we're all different.
I'm not asking whether Obama did anything wrong.
I'm not asking whether Solomon is credible.
I'm not asking whether Obama is in a uniquely bad position if evidence exists.
I'm asking for the legal mechanism that supposedly prevents him from invoking the 5th Amendment.
The claim in the OP isn't "Obama is vulnerable." The claim is "Obama cannot plead the 5th because he has presidential immunity."
Those are two different claims.
Presidential immunity protects certain official acts from prosecution. The 5th protects against compelled self-incrimination.
What's the legal authority that says presidential immunity automatically eliminates 5th Amendment protection?
If that principle exists, it shouldn't be unique to Obama. It would apply to every former president, including Trump.
So far I've seen arguments about Obama's alleged conduct, Solomon's credibility, and why Obama might be in trouble if facts come out. I haven't seen the actual precedent or legal reasoning that gets from "presidential immunity exists" to "Obama cannot plead the 5th."
That's the part I'm still trying to understand.
I'm curious why you didn't bother to look at the legal precedent that you say Grok provided, since I specifically asked about what laws would make this work.
This is the point where your own research becomes important.
I've tried to help your understanding by presenting my own understanding, reasoning or logic, but ultimately, one has to find out for one's self. indeed, unless one researches for oneself, can you every truly be confident in (your) conclusions?
The information that comes across your screen should really be the departure point for investigation, not the conclusion of your investigation. Myself, I frequently check the information in posts here, dig around, until I'm satisfied that I understand the information or that its incorrect, or bogus.
I'll wrap up with a few points:
I agree. But did anyone say its unique to Obama? If so you should address this query to them (ask them why they think so).
I think you are missing a key element here. It has nothing to do with 'presidential' immunity. The legal principle being referenced here is that immunity from prosecution precludes the ability to plead the 5th. Where that immunity is derived is irrelevant. Its the case for anyone, a president, a regular citizen, or anyone under jurisdiction of the US legal system.
OK. So try instead to ask if legal immunity precludes a person's ability to plead the 5th. Forget Obama, forget Presidential.
You know, you can do your own research and investigation. Try asking Grok. Engaging with AI is a very effective way of learning how to refine your questions to get the answers you want.
Because the reason I investigate and research is to satisfy my own threshold for conviction. As I already said, to me it makes sense, and when I dug into this, the information I found made sense to me and I felt satisfied I can accept Solomon's statements.
If you are not satisfied with your own understanding or with the information being presented to you, you NEED to do your own investigations.
Generally speaking, on this board, most of us try to share useful information, reasoning, understanding, but ultimately, each person has to choose: do I investigate and/or research (research is really just investigation) to satisfy my own questions, or do I simply want to accept what other people tell me because I'm not really that bothered about whether I have the facts or not.
I'm not making the claim here. Solomon is. How you approach the claim is really your choice, but don't rely on me to solve this for you.
The internet is the greatest material information resource ever available to humanity. Now, with dozens of AI functions out there, its easier more than ever to investigate. Learning how to use that tool, however, is important.
That's about as far as I'm going to take it.
good luck