Why does Donald Trump need immunity if he's innocent?

[Obama24]

I feel his immunity case undermines all his other cases, and undermines his claims of innocence, of the charges being "false."

If one is innocent of a crime, one wouldn't need a legal shield which claims they cannot be charged with a crime. It would be on the prosecutor to prove their guilt and on their defense lawyer to maintain the image of their innocence of said crime.

But why does an innocent man seem to desperately need immunity from prosecution?

If he's innocent, should not the facts themselves bear that out in a trial?

[Progressive Pessimist]

You can't apply consistency and logic to him. You're wasting your energy.

There is a legitimate answer though: it was their best means of finding a way to delay the trial and the Supreme Court bought it hook, line, and sinker. Even if they don't rule in his favor, the mission was accomplished. And if they do, that's two bird with one stone. It's a win-win for anyone except for people like us who actually care.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well he isn’t immune anyway.

[SWE]

This is a dumb question. It's obviously preferable from the perspective of literally anyone to not be tried at all than be tried and acquitted. The risk-cost analysis doesn't change if you're guilty or innocent. If you're wrongfully charged and have a credible immunity argument, 10 out of 10 people will pick the immunity argument before they're willing to go to trial.

[All Along The Watchtower]

This is a dumb question. It's obviously preferable from the perspective of literally anyone to not be tried at all than be tried and acquitted. The risk-cost analysis doesn't change if you're guilty or innocent. If you're wrongfully charged and have a credible immunity argument, 10 out of 10 people will pick the immunity argument before they're willing to go to trial.

Yeah it’s kinda like asking why diplomats need immunity if they haven’t committed any crimes.

[SnowLabrador]

Because he's not innocent.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The answer is:  To prevent politically-motivated and frivolous prosecutions.

All Presidents need immunity.  Prosecuting Former Presidents could easily become the norm here, as it is in Failed States.  Don't think it couldn't.  How many people here would love to prosecute Bush 43 as a War Criminal?  If that happened, what President would have the stones to, say, arm Ukraine?

America needs its Presidents to have immunity, in order that we don't become more like Panama or Chile.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The answer is:  To prevent politically-motivated and frivolous prosecutions.

All Presidents need immunity.  Prosecuting Former Presidents could easily become the norm here, as it is in Failed States.  Don't think it couldn't.  How many people here would love to prosecute Bush 43 as a War Criminal?  If that happened, what President would have the stones to, say, arm Ukraine?

America needs its Presidents to have immunity, in order that we don't become more like Panama or Chile.

Would Richard Nixon's prosecution have been "politically-motivated" or "frivolous?"

[Fuzzy Bear]

The answer is:  To prevent politically-motivated and frivolous prosecutions.

All Presidents need immunity.  Prosecuting Former Presidents could easily become the norm here, as it is in Failed States.  Don't think it couldn't.  How many people here would love to prosecute Bush 43 as a War Criminal?  If that happened, what President would have the stones to, say, arm Ukraine?

America needs its Presidents to have immunity, in order that we don't become more like Panama or Chile.

Would Richard Nixon's prosecution have been "politically-motivated" or "frivolous?"

Friviolous, yes.  The harm that could have come to the Nation is something that people did not appreciate now.  It is a feature of Banana Republics and Failed States, and it is a feature that those who are concerned about party, but not country, will not be able to leave alone if it becomes a norm.

Would prosecuting Bill Clinton for perjury have been "politically-motivated" or "frivolous"?  He did commit perjury, and he was disbarred for it. But I do not think that it would have benefitted the nation to prosecute either Nixon OR Clinton for what they did.

[Del Tachi]

Because being innocent doesn't preclude you from being the target of overzealous political prosecution. Pardon power exists not to erase consequences for those who have committed serious crimes, but to give the elected government a check on the potentially limitless overreach of the juridical branch.

[President Johnson]

In the MAGA cult's logic, Trump is unlawfully prosecuted by a politicized justice system. Therefore he needs immunity even though he's innocent in their view.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The answer is:  To prevent politically-motivated and frivolous prosecutions.

All Presidents need immunity.  Prosecuting Former Presidents could easily become the norm here, as it is in Failed States.  Don't think it couldn't.  How many people here would love to prosecute Bush 43 as a War Criminal?  If that happened, what President would have the stones to, say, arm Ukraine?

America needs its Presidents to have immunity, in order that we don't become more like Panama or Chile.

Would Richard Nixon's prosecution have been "politically-motivated" or "frivolous?"

Friviolous, yes.  The harm that could have come to the Nation is something that people did not appreciate now.  It is a feature of Banana Republics and Failed States, and it is a feature that those who are concerned about party, but not country, will not be able to leave alone if it becomes a norm.

Would prosecuting Bill Clinton for perjury have been "politically-motivated" or "frivolous"?  He did commit perjury, and he was disbarred for it. But I do not think that it would have benefitted the nation to prosecute either Nixon OR Clinton for what they did.

Nixon broke the law and members of both parties were prepared to impeach and remove him from office. I struggle to imagine any worse harm that can cause a nation than the notion that its leaders are above the law, which is exactly the precedent that was set by Ford's pardon. Watergate and the ensuing pardon shook Americans' faith in government more than anything else in recent history. You should know that better than most people here.

Prosecuting Clinton for perjury may have been politically-motivated but it wouldn't be frivolous. In an ideal world, he would have been prosecuted for rape, which is a worse crime than perjury, but by the time that allegation came out it had been too late. At the very least, he also should have resigned for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In the MAGA cult's logic, Trump is unlawfully prosecuted by a politicized justice system. Therefore he needs immunity even though he's innocent in their view.

ALL of the prosecutions of Trump are founded on novel legal theories.  None of them are slam-dunk cases, and the State cases rely on extremely novel legal theories, to put it mildly. 

As for the Documents cases, why weren't Pence and Biden prosecuted?  Trump is the only one of those individuals who could have possibly justified having those legal documents at his residence.  The "He didn't cooperate with the National Archives!" argument is ridiculous, in that (A) Trump had the power to declassify documents whereas the others didn't, and (B) the fact that someone "cooperates" with "investigators" has nothing to do with whether or not a prosecutor files charges.  (It can be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the elements of a crime have been demonstrated.)

[MasterJedi]

Because he knows he’s guilty and terrified of actual consequences. His cult likes to pretend (do to their propaganda consumption) that his cases are all super far fetched novel cases when that’s not the case. They’re building their own hellfires for their support of evil. But Trump also wants to go on a revenge tour and wants to do whatever he wants to his enemies.

[Schiff for Senate]

This is a dumb question. It's obviously preferable from the perspective of literally anyone to not be tried at all than be tried and acquitted. The risk-cost analysis doesn't change if you're guilty or innocent. If you're wrongfully charged and have a credible immunity argument, 10 out of 10 people will pick the immunity argument before they're willing to go to trial.

These were my thoughts too.

Of course, with Trump there's the added factor that he isn't innocent, and he's doing his best to protect himself from a trial he knows will reveal him to be guilty as charged.

[SWE]

In the MAGA cult's logic, Trump is unlawfully prosecuted by a politicized justice system. Therefore he needs immunity even though he's innocent in their view.

ALL of the prosecutions of Trump are founded on novel legal theories.  None of them are slam-dunk cases, and the State cases rely on extremely novel legal theories, to put it mildly. 

As for the Documents cases, why weren't Pence and Biden prosecuted?  Trump is the only one of those individuals who could have possibly justified having those legal documents at his residence.  The "He didn't cooperate with the National Archives!" argument is ridiculous, in that (A) Trump had the power to declassify documents whereas the others didn't, and (B) the fact that someone "cooperates" with "investigators" has nothing to do with whether or not a prosecutor files charges.  (It can be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the elements of a crime have been demonstrated.)

LMAO