I already know what's coming, if it's presented through the lens of CoH: Total exoneration!
Supreme Court to decide Trump immunity claim
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
CoH, always impressed with the way you word things.
For example, you used the phrase "unique and unprecidented".
Couldn't this phrase also apply to actions taken by President Trump which have resulted in the court cases ?
I’ve heard and read that argument often.
I don’t buy it.
Criminal law has to have consistency and predictability. Unprecedented, unusual, and tortured applications of the law in order to target an individual is not consistent with any view of due process. People often mention al Capone in this context. His tax evasion was a pretty standard application of the tax law even though Capone was the first one nailed for not reporting ill-gotten money as income.
There is nothing standard or ordinary about the Trump prosecutions except for the documents case,
So you are saying Trump wasn't doing official duties when he was messing with the election.
Glad we are on the same page.
And no, investigating Trump on his election bs isn't an issue..
If the Supremes decides a President has absolute immunity Biden should trek over and shoot a handful of them to test the ruling.
That will never be the ruling and you know it. You can’t kill someone, shoot someone, rape someone, sell national secrets, commit some major financial crime, etc. But the office of the President is just too big for a President to have to worry about trivial little things where he forgot to dot an I or cross a T somewhere. It simply can't be allowed or the office wouldn't be able to exist. Trump survives because he has billions to buy an army of the best lawyers in America to defend him at every turn. What happens to the next Harry Truman when his bookkeeper lables a reimbursement to his lawyer a legal expense?
The courts are charged with drawing lines. They decide where the line is between the big shit and the trivial in nearly all cases, no matter who is involved. This case won't change that. The Supremes will have to draw a line somewhere between assassinating your opponent or fomenting rebellion or stealing state secrets and jaywalking.
I like you Willdog. Would you be willing to accept the nomination at the convention when we kick Joe to the curb? We’d give you Whitmer as your running mate, or would you insist on Sharpton?
You don't understand true love.
They’re talking about the S. Ct. Fencing was put up after the abortion decision was leaked. I don’t think they had fencing around Jan 6 at the court
Or assassinating an American citizen, invading another country and killing millions, molesting your own daughter, etc. The line has to be drawn.
Looks like it's coming. And even if not he's still winning the election. Your ridiculous lawfare failed bigly.
You would not like me. I like Kamala Harris at least, she gives a damn about black people.
1. I'm going to regret wading into this mess.
2. Criminal law not only does not have to have consistency or predictability, but it isn't possible to have it within our system. Every jury will have random jurors. They will reach different conclusions from similar evidence.
3. Claiming that unprecedented or unusual prosecutions aren't appropriate doesn't further due process. It simply rewards novel criminals.
4. Due process doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a due process violation. Due process includes notice, the right to respond, and several other protections, but it doesn't include the right to predictability or consistency, especially within criminal law.
Technically, that’s wrong. The question involved the President’s ordering a Seal team to take out a political rival.
That would be within the executives’ purview, the use of a military force. So the Court might wade into the very murky waters of what the limits to those powers are. It’s not as easy a question when you’re dealing with separated powers.
They will probably reference some old principles that are known in Latin, not sure which ones. I highly doubt they buy Trump’s whole argument.
Well us laymen see "Unprecedented" or "unusual" or "NEVER DONE IN THE HISTORY" of the country....
It' comes down to, this is a country made by men. Strong risk taking men and women who walked right along side.
Lawyer speak and twisting words, has crescendo to war time bullshit speak from the weak. There are still christian based rights and wrongs,that need to be followed.
We have allowed, hell ELECTED generation of people that get $$$$$ to make dozens of laws that contradict each other simply to build in complexity.
I believe Trump had an agreement/ Directive... For every new law proposed to me, delete 3 outdated laws... or everything is a veto!
I’m just messing with you, Will. I actually like Kamala just fine. I think there’s only about 3 of us on this board that do. 😊
Some considerations from a cross-ideological group:
How to tell whether a government investigation is weaponized
These key questions can help assess whether a government investigation or prosecution is appropriate — or an abuse of power.
protectdemocracy.org
Right. At the Court, but I said in DC. And that started when they had to fence in after J6.
Has Trump actually molested her? Or just talked about it? I mean it wouldn’t surprise me but I’m surprised you admit it.
You used a few polysyllabic words in that post, and I didn't think you were capable of that. However, the content is as stupid as ever.
The word is "labels," not "lables."
Some considerations from a cross-ideological group:
How to tell whether a government investigation is weaponized
These key questions can help assess whether a government investigation or prosecution is appropriate — or an abuse of power.
Brad's link seems to be in conflict frikken's point above.
Frik’s post misses that prosecutors aren’t supposed to bring politics and bias to their job. Brad’s link is spot on
And the lion’s share of crimes are routine, uniform and predictable with respect to dispositions. It ensures efficiency in the judicial system. Very few cases go to trial where the vagaries of juries come into play
It’s shocking nyc tied up resources on what trump was accused of doing.
