There are some aspects of law that directly or indirectly could give Trump some claims to immunity but this seems overstated.

Cases can be remanded to federal courts in some situation but that doesn't mean the case is tossed out. The federal judge could send the case back to state court or they could hear the case at the federal level as well.

There is certainly no blanket immunity for anything and everything the president does, doing so would go against the whole check on power nature of how the framers formed the government.

They are interesting legal theories though. If congress did offer immunity at the federal level, I don't think that would apply to state level prosecutions which, if true, would mean anything said in a congressional hearing could be used against him in a state court.

Additionally, if Trump were given some immunity in exchange for testifying about something that happened, he could end up admitting to something that would be devastating to his campaign. Then what happens if Trump lies to congress in such a hearing?

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

Seems different than the one they released.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/photo-mugshot-of-donald-trump-released-after-arrest-in-georgia

No, but Sarah Isgur (among others I listen to) does.

Seems different than the one they released.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/photo-mugshot-of-donald-trump-released-after-arrest-in-georgia

Then maybe you should cite your sources.  The way you post your "legal analysis", it's as if these are your opinions and conclusions.

If you're using other people's words, you should be honest and say whose words they are.  Maybe others would tend to agree with the opinion if it's not something we think you're pulling out of your okole.

The one the news agencies are passing around shows no US Flag lapel pin, and the Fulton County Sheriff watermark is much smaller.

If you do just 30 seconds of research (finding your own answers is hard, I know), you'll see articles stating both Trump and Giuliani wore flag lapel pins.  Also, the watermark for the 3 others booked that day, Giuliani included, had the large watermark.  The "news" photo of Trump has a much smaller one.

I think the one on this thread is the actual photo, as it matches the three other people's photos in composition as well as matching the articles saying he wore the pin.

Another example of the fake news faking the news to fit their version of the narrative.

So now you expect me to do research on something I wasn't talking about? All I did was post a story showing a different booking photo and you find that a reason to climb on your high horse. By the way, a 30 second google search would show that all the news agencies, even Fox, are using the one I linked, not the one in this thread.

I think the one on the thread is not the right one. The image looks too high quality, it doesn't look like a standard booking photo. All the other arrest photos are much lower quality than the one in this post. I am sure you noticed that in your 30 second goodle search.

Furthermore, the Trump campaign has apparently marketed items with a "booking photo" of Trump. You could have legal problems using the agency's photo for profit. I think what most likely happened was that the Trump team took a fake booking photo that they could use for merchandise. Maybe another example of Trump lying to his followers and his followers falling for it.

Yup, even tie is different