Supreme Court to decide Trump immunity claim
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
That’s not what absolute immunity means. Don’t sound like that CA judge who posed a similar absurd question. She should have known better.
Trump's own lawyers made the claim, saying that nothing could be done absent an impeachment and Senate conviction.
Which is crazy given republicans refused to impeach and said it should be handled in the courts
Totally deranged. He chooses to look like they. Fillers. Bleph. Those cavernous under eyes would be fixed. That hair. It’s a choice. Propecia/rogaine but he waited too long. Could use a transplant. But not a big deal. Would have hair like Tom Brady.
As it stands. It’s a deranged look
I once thought that the Supreme Court as the last bastion of justice. All of the civil rights cases that have helped black people advancement. Clarence Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall. The Supreme Court has become political,allowing trump more time . I guess they want him to have immunity. They could have voted it down but some justices agree with him. This is very scary for Democracy. trump has put his people in various places of power so that no one can stop him. He even sent fake electors, call people to find votes ,tell people to hang the VP because he has immunity. This is very scary. Will any one stand up to the wanna be king.
No, they’re all going to finally leave the U.S.
How many times have we heard from Babs that she was going to leave the U.S. forever if such and such ever happened, as in Trump being elected? And she wasn’t/isn’t alone.
How many Republicans said they would leave if Obama was elected?
How many Truckers went on strike when Biden was elected?
Something that's clearly not within the scope of your duties. Shooting Mike Pence in the Oval Office because he wouldn't send the votes back to the states would be an example. A sitting President of the United States questioning the election for the President of the United States when he's the chief executive officer would be something clearly within your scope. Obama drone striking an American citizen to death assuming he was going after terrorists and it was a mistake would be within your scope. George W. invading foreign countries and killing over a million people would again be within the scope assuming he genuinely believed he was protecting the country even though it turned out to be a collassal mistake.
You know it when you see it.
Since when is undermining the election in the scope of presidential duties?
The fact that you are comfortable with someone interfering in the very election that they are running in says a lot.
That was campaign Trump. Campaign stuff has nothing to do with presidential duties. Read up on Hatch Act. Trump and his cronies got caught ignoring that numerous times.
Actually, you don't know it when YOU see it. You "know" it when Trump tells you to know it.
Liberals are actively undermining SCOTUS and destroying faith in that institution. Trumpsters (mostly) are undermining the DOJ and the Republican led and Republican heavy FBI and destroying faith in those institutions. None of this is helpful.
Trump's lawyers are asking for immunity from felonies. That seems like a very far-reaching version of "absolute immunity."
Welcome to the law, son. We hope you enjoy your stay.
You can check out any time you like . . .[shit, I hope I didn't just steal these lyrics]
P.S. SCt reframes questions all the time, and sometimes writes opinions on questions not ever presented.
Things related to official acts.
Should Obama be prosecuted for murder of an American citizen for his drone strike, for example? Should Presidents who order a factory to be seized be tried for criminal conversion?
If prosecutions such as the above are allowed, the argument goes, people serving as President will be scared of doing their duty for fear of zealous prosecutors later trying them for crimes.
They're asking for immunity from anything. They couldn't even answer the Appeals Court judge's hypothetical about Seal Team Six without qualification. That's what is so infuriating to me, that the Court is even giving this motion the time of day. It should have been dismissed out of hand. The Appeals Court panel's ruling can't be improved upon. They got it right when they told Trump to get that crazy shit out of here.
Honestly, Obama probably "should" spend some time inside the Hague for that and other instances of drone usage.
It's almost like when they say "absolute immunity" they actually mean absolute immunity.
Nixon: "If the President does it it's not illegal."
You know it's all about where you draw the line. The District Court ruled that the facts of the case fell outside the line and the Appeals Court agreed. The law, precedent, and common sense all say Trump has absolutely no case. All the reporting and commentary I've read agree that there is no way the Supremes will rule in Trump's favor, and yet they have inserted themselves into the process, delaying the outcome and "interfering" in the election campaign.
Yeah, the defenders all seem to misunderstand what Trump's position actually is.
It's not as cut and dry as you think. One of the charges alleges that Trump's discussion with Pence about the duties and powers of the VP in the electoral process is part of the conspiracy. Can a President be criminally charged for a discussion he has with his VP about the constitutional role of the VP? A reasonable jurist could easily say no, never, on that one.
In one of these threads, I copy and pasted the allegations and discussed how two probably should not have been brought because they infringe on presidential duties or are too close and so would giver rise to these defenses.
I'm not saying Trump should win here--I'm just defending the SCt as not being in league with Trump. Reasonable people can disagree about whether they should take this case, but I don't think there is anything nefarious in it.
Accused Felonies
But your racket falls right in line with Putin or Mussolini. He's a threat to what I want, so "I'm ok with it and will use all power, legal or swamp created, to make sure MY opposition is neutralized". We all understand your feelz on "equal" justice and innocent until found guilty, when it comes to trump.
I still have to circle back, you used to date Melania, didn't you.
If so, major props dude. Ya win some ya lose some. There is zero other logical reason for your singularly focused trump hatred that made your life better when he was in the USA CEO position. Zero logic. A whole lot of feelz maybe, but zero logic.
I'm not going that far either, but it's obvious to me that they're doing their level best to prevent Trump from being swiftly brought to justice. I won't speculate on their motives, but cowardice has to be a factor in there somewhere.
Yes, alleged and charged felonies. I did not say he was guilty. Trump is claiming He has immunity even if he’s guilty. You for that?
After all this time you get me totally wrong.
By the way, I’ve been better off economically every year since I graduated college. The Presidents have had pretty much nothing to do with that.
I’m guessing you would say Biden should not be prosecuted for lying about his authority to close the border.
Yet you do not want immunity for Trump lying about the 2020:election.
How would you describe the difference between the two lies that makes sense for immunity considerations.
He’s not charged with lying about the election. He did, but that’s not a charge.
McConnell undermined scotus when that partisan hack stole a seat. Any pretense that scotus judges were nonpartisan went out the window
Last edited:
Your use of "discussion" disguises what really happened. This was not a high school social studies class.
Trump's "discussion" with Pence concerned something far beyond the Constitutional duties of the VP -- Trump demanded that Pence reject legitimate electoral votes submitted by state governments and to instead accept illegal "votes" from fake electors. Trump's demands were based on his own fabricated claims that the election was stolen.
Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the states alone have authority to name the electors. Neither the President nor Vice President have any authority to select the electors, which is exactly what Trump was "discussing" to use your term.
It wasn't just "discussion" either - Trump orchestrated an entire plan for fake electors to meet in certain states at the same time as the real electors selected by the state governments and to illegally masquerade as the real electors.
Read Paragraphs 9 and 10:
1) Trump, was in the one and only possible position in the United State OF America to possibly claim that he had immunity, Only one, he held it, was elected to it, was the chosen ONE!!!! to be able to claim that. The "ability" to claim can not be disputed, yet "you" do.
a) "You for that " - If I could answer that honestly, I'll admit, I have no earthly clue if I have the knowledge to make such a singular decision, that the wrong answer destroys the greatest nation ever envisioned. I'm not the person to nod up or down. I only hope to add influence.
2)"After all this time".... I've been trying to understand you. We've been at fisticuffs, and then ready to fly together. All this time, and I think I've used this phrase multiple times, "I just keep trying to "square" what your actual message is". It seems (another one I've used a few times) like you are running a Psyop because your message is convoluted to us civilians, or at least me anyway. I don't feel that your compass point to an honest north, to use an analogy. I've asked to be proven wrong. You haven't done so. Maybe I'm CIA too? Who woul'd have thunk it? Two CIA on an IU board. twice.
3) Yea OK, presidential cycles and economic cycles are not nearly as intertwined as politics makes us sheep believe, at least in the short term anyway. But regardless of that rabbits nest, I would expect for any proficient, aggressive, self reliant person to prosper from year to year, regardless of political BS in the swamp. If chopping lettuce in the swamp pays best this year, chop lettuce. If chopping ISIS the next year pays best, ISIS salad it is. Man makes his own destiny. .... But long term, presidential cycles do form a direction for the lettuce and ISIS choppers. I just don't want the USA to be the Lettuce. Agree?
I think public fraud is the gravamen of the crime under the KKK statute. (BTW I don’t think that statute has ever been charged before).
Why go to all that trouble and lying if they didn't think it would help sway the court to their side?
Dems complaining out the stolen seat isn't what undermined the court.
What undermined the court is McConnell's actions and Thomas taking bribes.
You are humorous.
I’m a strong defense, rational foreign policy, fiscally conservative, anti-woke, freedom loving, capitalistic, optimistic, patriotic person who believes in American exceptionalism and that America IS great. I’m what Republicans generally have been since Reagan and should be now. I think the party is moving away from almost all of that.
I didn’t agree with how it happened, but pay attention to what I said. It does not mean the appointees are hacks.
And you should pay attention to what I said.
The optics look bad regardless of the outcome. And again they wouldn't have gone to the trouble if it didn't matter.
And obviously it did matter. Look at roe vs wade and some of the other conservative leaning rulings.
Saying it was the dems that undermined the Supreme Court is completely ignoring the actions of Republicans
Right Pelosi is dumb, nice one. One of the strongest and longest serving and efficient Majority Leaders in history. Totally dumb. lol
