Hmm, so as it came out in a case I posted about, it is just a gratuity without a quid pro quo. So we have legalized gratuities.
Immunity decision dropped!
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
It means the Jack Smith case is not decided ie no verdict before the election.
It’ll go back to determine whether the acts Trump is charged with are official or unofficial, since there’s no immunity for unofficial acts (which goes back to Bill Clinton not having immunity for sexually harassing Paula Jones). But that will take us well beyond the election
He would be immune from the law.
But not immune from final an total justice.
Those are different things.
We already have legalized corruption. No argument there. Todays decision does not affect that.
Since bribery is not an official act, no mental processes privilege can attach to it. Maybe you ought to check out Robert Menendez’s trial.
The fake electors scheme seems to be a slam dunk for a Trump conviction. Trump’s best hope is getting elected and having the DOJ drop the case.
Roberts is threading the needle to allow the trial to happen, but only if Trump loses the election, while simultaneously making it harder for Trump to win the trial if he loses the election, and harder for Trump to prosecute Biden if he wins the election.
This is classic John Roberts. A major victory for one side on the face that contains a bunch of land mines beneath the hood.
@BradStevens
Barr’s comment about the silly seal team example:
Barr’s comment about the silly seal team example:
“The worst example I think, the one that makes no sense whatsoever, is the idea he can use SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent. The president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflict and so forth,” Barr said Monday on Fox News.
[...]
“He has the authority to direct the justice system against criminals at home. He doesn’t have authority to go and assassinate people,” he added. “So, whether he uses the SEAL team or a private hit man, it doesn’t matter; it doesn’t make it a carrying out of his authority. So, all these horror stories really are false.”
Bribes are different. Because they didn't cover them yet. If that issue comes up, they'll figure out the reason for the distinction. As of now, with this case, they dont' have to. I think that's essentially Roberts' thinking.
It's why he spends so much time in the beginning talking about how this is an issue of first impression and very important. So he's limiting the decision as much as possible to the facts and not really spending time fleshing out much of a general rule outside the posture of this particular case at this particular time in this particular procedural posture.
I thought there was a latin term for that concept. That's the kind of thing I was talking with you about. Some govt. version of ultra vires.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I think there is still a tension, though, in this thinking. It just turns into a game of framing the question. Trump is the commander in chief of the military. So you can frame the question as: Is Trump immune from a criminal suit dealing with his commanding his troops (which sounds like "yes! of course") or for an illegal act he commanded them to do.
But with talking to his AG or VP, you can do the same thing: Is it an official act to discuss with your AG or the VP their official responsibilities? Of course. Is it an official act to try to talk your AG or VP into violating election law? It's illegal to create a slate of fake electors but not illegal to try to cajole, threaten, or quid pro quo your VP into accepting those electors at the cert process?
I think the Court has more work to do in fleshing out these standards. Like you, I care less about Trump though and more about the Court coming up with a thoughtful and workable solution to apply in the future.
Last edited:
Can’t have a president worried about being indicted by a subsequent administration for acts committed while he was president. It would decapitate the power of the executive branch.
I think this ruling was more about the future of the office itself than specifically about Trump.
Stop this crap or quit posting. It’s outrageous what you’re calling @BradStevens.
It's already happened here. Biden shit on the rule of law - a SC ruling - when he went ahead with student loan 'forgiveness'.
So, I assume you think Biden is a threat to democracy.
He's called anyone who disagrees with him a racist since he started posting here.
Why isn't he blocked from this thread?
Bribes are already legal. You can bribe any politician by giving their campaign money to pass specific legislation.
These morons have finally figured out the more they railroad Trump, the higher Trump ratings go.
Before, it was all-important that Trump be convicted and jailed ASAP. Until the poll numbers came in.
And the libs still believe this wasn't 100% political.
These Twitter idiots are dumber than I expected. Of course the DA agrees to the delay, and asks for time to file a response. What else is he supposed to do?
He's not supposed to STFU. The defense made a motion, and he's supposed to respond to it. If he didn't, the judge would ask him WTF his problem was.
I haven’t been tracking any of these threads. How many do you have in submission holds?
He's embarrassing himself and your leadership by pretending to be a lawyer again. Where are you to keep him in line?
It's the judge's decision. Bragg could just say he'll abide by whatever the judge decides.
Enough to make a mod ban me from a thread.
That's the dumbest thing I've seen here in some time. The judge doesn't want that. When one side fits a motion, he wants the other side to respond. He doesn't ever want either side to say, "Whatever, I don't have an opinion."
Didn't you ban me from a thread last night for talking about you in a post to another?
Hypocrite much?
No, I was just trying to improve that thread. When I have time, I'll improve some others.
Yeah, but based on what I have heard of the USSC opinion, that wouldn't impact that particular trial. Paying off a woman he (allegedly) slept with isn't an official action of the President per the constitution.
This is in no way meant to be a defense of that prosecution, just saying I don't think the immunity the Justices were discussing would apply to that...at least they wouldn't to me as a lay person.
Last edited:
Not dumb at all. Just showing how stupid your contention is that he has to do 'something'.
You don't know what the judge 'wants'. Stop trying to pass yourself off as some kind of expert.
And @Jim Coyle wants to attract more paying customers.....
I am of the belief that there is a tipping point that has to be hit in order for things to occur. I believe that the "norm" has to be believed to have been breached by enough people before you tip and that will occur organically whether you have a rule or not.
Based on what I've heard
What's ironic about the Left bitching about the SC decision is that the issue would not have been before the Court but for Biden weaponizing federal criminal law against his political opposition.
You could cut out all the posts from this forum from the dream team and bind them into a book and you’d have a pretty damn good treatise of policy, administration, and the courts that could be used at just about any university
You’re not right often, but when you are right, you are 100% right. @BradStevens is peak white MAGA. He hates Jesus, wears flat bills, reads books, loves socialism, carries a concealed ballpoint pen, loves frisbee golf, and is a vegetarian. The only sleeveless shirt he owns is a sweater vest. #magasummer
Latest posts
-
-
-
Message to our non-subscribers that frequent the site.
- Latest: benhyoung14
-