Toggle sidebar

Trump deeds and misdeeds VI

'The fix is in'. A republican packed 6 & 3 Supreme Court effectively granted trump immunity by agreeing to decide whether trumps election interference was an 'official presidential act'. The delay will push this until after the election and grant trump defacto immunity (if he wins the election) that he wouldn't otherwise have. Three votes to delay this were cast by trumps own appointees. :oops:
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: JDCrimson and NationalTitles18
How is it even a question of imunity? No president has ever been above the law which is why Nixon was pardoned. Nothing in our history even hints at a president having imunity while in office, that's a stupid thing to even suggest. There is nothing "unclear in law" about it, the SCOTUS have overstepped their bounds.

This case more than anything illegitimizes the SCOTUS. They serve no purpose now but to be a bully for the controlling party. There is no legal reason whatsoever to take this case, it's just a delay tactic to help their Lord and Savior, Trump.

Honestly, even though it would go nowhere, Democrats in the Senate should introduce articles of impeachment for all the SCOTUS justices (since no justice has publicly dissented this discission). They can no longer be trusted to uphold the constitution and protect this country so they should be removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chukker Veteran, UAllday, Bamaro and 3 others
CrimsonNagus said:
How is it even a question of imunity? No president has ever been above the law which is why Nixon was pardoned. Nothing in our history even hints at a president having imunity while in office, that's a stupid thing to even suggest. There is nothing "unclear in law" about it, the SCOTUS have overstepped their bounds.

This case more than anything illegitimizes the SCOTUS. They serve no purpose now but to be a bully for the controlling party. There is no legal reason whatsoever to take this case, it's just a delay tactic to help their Lord and Savior, Trump.

Honestly, even though it would go nowhere, Democrats in the Senate should introduce articles of impeachment for all the SCOTUS justices (since no justice has publicly dissented this discission). They can no longer be trusted to uphold the constitution and protect this country so they should be removed.
Click to expand...
Understand that I don’t agree with this, but I watched a video where a guy was explaining the rationale. At least this guys main point was that the impeachment process was where a president would be convicted and removed from office or barred from future office holding. That is the only mechanism for dealing with a president if the crime was committed as part of his official duties. If convicted there they were then open to other prosecution. Otherwise it would be after for all with presidents indicted by stat AG’s and local prosecutors for everything under the sun.

 
AWRTR said:
Understand that I don’t agree with this, but I watched a video where a guy was explaining the rationale. At least this guys main point was that the impeachment process was where a president would be convicted and removed from office or barred from future office holding. That is the only mechanism for dealing with a president if the crime was committed as part of his official duties. If convicted there they were then open to other prosecution. Otherwise it would be after for all with presidents indicted by stat AG’s and local prosecutors for everything under the sun.

Click to expand...

No. Not even close. Whether convicted in the Senate or not they are open to prosecution.

Additionally, attempted coups are not part of a president's official duties. Never have been. Never will be.

And no, holding Trump to account for crimes outside the normal course of buiness for the office of the president does not invite malicious prosecution for official duties. That's just a republican fantasy.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Go Bama and 92tide
NationalTitles18 said:
No. Not even close. Whether convicted in the Senate or not they are open to prosecution.

Additionally, attempted coups are not part of a president's official duties. Never have been. Never will be.

And no, holding Trump to account for crimes outside the normal course of buiness for the office of the president does not invite malicious prosecution for official duties. That's just a republican fantasy.
Click to expand...
those fantasies seem to be a dime a dozen
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go Bama
NationalTitles18 said:
No. Not even close. Whether convicted in the Senate or not they are open to prosecution.

Additionally, attempted coups are not part of a president's official duties. Never have been. Never will be.

And no, holding Trump to account for crimes outside the normal course of buiness for the office of the president does not invite malicious prosecution for official duties. That's just a republican fantasy.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go Bama, Jon, 92tide and 1 other person
Trying to overturn an election is not an official duty. To even entertain that thought is an exercise in stupidity. The gymnastics that the GOP have to go through to support the idea that Trump was within his right to try and overthrow the election is asinine.

This is a bogus case being taken up by a now bogus SCOTUS.

It is all just to delay the trial. That's why oral arguments have been set for the final 3 days of the session, why they took 2 weeks to even decide to take the case, after turning the case down in December. They can and have moved faster in the past. In 2000 when the election was in question, it took all of 5 days for the case to be submitted, they decided to hear it and the decision was released. Earlier this year it only took them days to decide to hear the Trump/CO ballot case and only weeks to hear arguments. Trump wanted that one to move fast, so they did. Trump wants this one to move slow, so they did. The SCOTUS is bending to the will of a criminal.

Also, there is 100% no way they rule in Trumps favor, none whatsoever. Why, because it would basically declare the president a King, who would then sit above the law. It would also mean Biden could try to overturn the election to keep Trump out of office and not be prosecuted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Its On A Slab, Bamaro, Jon and 2 others
CrimsonNagus said:
Trying to overturn an election is not an official duty. To even entertain that thought is an exercise in stupidity. The gymnastics that the GOP have to go through to support the idea that Trump was within his right to try and overthrow the election is asinine.

This is a bogus case being taken up by a now bogus SCOTUS.

It is all just to delay the trial. That's why oral arguments have been set for the final 3 days of the session, why they took 2 weeks to even decide to take the case, after turning the case down in December. They can and have moved faster in the past. In 2000 when the election was in question, it took all of 5 days for the case to be submitted, they decided to hear it and the decision was released. Earlier this year it only took them days to decide to hear the Trump/CO ballot case and only weeks to hear arguments. Trump wanted that one to move fast, so they did. Trump wants this one to move slow, so they did. The SCOTUS is bending to the will of a criminal.

Also, there is 100% no way they rule in Trumps favor, none whatsoever. Why, because it would basically declare the president a King, who would then sit above the law. It would also mean Biden could try to overturn the election to keep Trump out of office and not be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Or, worse yet, just refuse to leave office and, if the court ruled otherwise, just tell them to enforce their decree. They could be on the verge of creating a monster...
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Chukker Veteran, Go Bama, NationalTitles18 and 4 others

Judge J. Michael Luttig joins Ali Velshi to discuss the practical implications of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s far-fetched immunity claim, a move that is likely to further delay the former president’s federal election interference case. Luttig breaks down the most realistic timeline for the ruling and its fallout, predicting early October as the most likely start date for Smith’s trial to begin. Luttig also explains why the case is “far, far more important for the country and Constitution” than the United States v. Nixon case and others before it.
 
abcnews.go.com

Ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg pleads guilty to perjury charges

Ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg will plead guilty Monday to perjury charges related to his testimony during Trump’s civil fraud trial, sources tell ABC News.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

Ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg pleads guilty to perjury charges
The charges resulted from his testimony during Trump's civil fraud trial.
 
Trump’s White House ‘awash with speed’ and Xanax, former official claims

Donald Trump’s White House was “awash with speed” and Xanax, a former official has claimed, with staffers reportedly routinely taking stimulants during late working sessions.

Former senior administration officials told Rolling Stone the prevalence of drugs in the administration was an open secret.

It comes after a Pentagon report found that the White House Medical Unit distributed controlled substances without much oversight or diligent record-keeping.

The report, by the department of defense’s inspector general, also noted that investigators found the White House unit had ordered thousands of doses of modafinil, a stimulant used by military pilots to stay alert during long flight missions.

While the report, released in January, did not explain the high number of stimulants dispensed, four senior administration officials claimed it was to enable staffers to handle the unique stresses of the job, or for energy boosts to cope with the long hours.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio and 92tide
www.nbcnews.com

Judge denies Trump's request for more time to pay damages in Carroll defamation case

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said the former president has had plenty of time to arrange for payment since a jury rendered its $83.3 million verdict in January.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Judge denies Trump's request for more time to pay damages in Carroll defamation case
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said the former president has had plenty of time to arrange for payment since a jury rendered its $83.3 million verdict in January.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bamaro and 92tide
www.nbcnews.com

Judge restricts access to jurors’ identities in Trump hush money trial

Judge Juan Merchan said in a protective order that their names and addresses will be available only to Trump and lawyers involved in the case.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Judge restricts access to jurors’ identities in Trump hush money trial
Judge Juan Merchan said in a protective order that their names and addresses will be available only to Trump and lawyers involved in the case.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 92tide
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back