|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 26, 2024 3:14:01 GMT -5
We knew the trumpists were political hacks. We didn't know they were lawless political hacks. Despite Jackson's and Sotomeyer's attempt to reel them back in todays hearing was intellectual badminton on the Right. With a patrician's sublime apathy towards the issue before them they certainly didn't live up to their reputation for micro-surgery on the issues set before them. The normalization of political violence rolled off the boys like a bad after shave. This peek under the hood was terrifying. Many people believe the end of trump is the end to the national nightmare of crooks in high office. But that seems to be giving way to the age of crooked politics perpetrated by men with actual political skills and who really should know better. That's a problem far worse than trump. Judge Luttig explains the issues and how none were addressed by the trumpistas. That one question, Luttig said, is "whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People. Thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People -- and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history." The president, Luttig noted, has no role at all in the certification of his own election. "In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions" — so they made sure the president did not. www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-luttig-one-question/
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 26, 2024 5:09:26 GMT -5
We knew the trumpists were political hacks. We didn't know they were lawless political hacks. Despite Jackson's and Sotomeyer's attempt to reel them back in todays hearing was intellectual badminton on the Right. With a patrician's sublime apathy towards the issue before them they certainly didn't live up to their reputation for micro-surgery on the issues set before them. The normalization of political violence rolled off the boys like a bad after shave. This peek under the hood was terrifying. Many people believe the end of trump is the end to the national nightmare of crooks in high office. But that seems to be giving way to the age of crooked politics perpetrated by men with actual political skills and who really should know better. That's a problem far worse than trump. Judge Luttig explains the issues and how none were addressed by the trumpistas. That one question, Luttig said, is "whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People. Thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People -- and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history." The president, Luttig noted, has no role at all in the certification of his own election. "In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions" — so they made sure the president did not. www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-luttig-one-question/Sure, that one question. Particularly if you are an idiot with no clue as to the importance of this hearing. The question before the Court is "What are the limits of Presidential immunity?" No one can argue, at least argue legitimately, that there isn't a case to be made for a President to be immune from prosecution for what might otherwise be described as crimes. Obama's policy resulted in the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen, with a directed drone strike aimed specifically at him. This act occurred without the benefit of due process. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the unannounced suspension of due process, without regard to the victim's actions. Yet this 16-year-old is unquestionably dead. Should Obama be prosecuted? FWIW, even I don't think so and I had, and continue to have, little use for Barack Obama. Presidents MUST be able to act in what they see as the better interest of the country and be free to do so, without fear of future prosecution. And that " better interest of the country", however it gets eventually phrased, is the heart of this argument. I agree with many of the liberals here that there was little apparent reason to believe that the 2020 election was hijacked by Biden et al. If nothing else, the scope of a conspiracy to do so is, IMO, beyond the capability of American citizens to hide. The appeal of bragging on the internet about what happened is too much; at least a few of any pack of such conspirators would be bragging about their role. If such a conspiracy existed, it was, IMO, in "the better interest of the country" for Trump to have ensured that the transfer of power to Biden occurred as seamlessly as each such transfer before it and to have submitted his proof of such conspiracy after the fact of the transfer. He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity. The USSC has a very difficult job in front of it. The normal process on something like this would be to return the case to a lower Court for the purpose of developing a set of limitations on presidential immunity and then reviewing those limitations in some future USSC hearing. I hope that is not the course of action they follow. This may well be the most important case in US history and the USSC must get this right and must do so themselves. Now.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 26, 2024 6:05:33 GMT -5
We knew the trumpists were political hacks. We didn't know they were lawless political hacks. Despite Jackson's and Sotomeyer's attempt to reel them back in todays hearing was intellectual badminton on the Right. With a patrician's sublime apathy towards the issue before them they certainly didn't live up to their reputation for micro-surgery on the issues set before them. The normalization of political violence rolled off the boys like a bad after shave. This peek under the hood was terrifying. Many people believe the end of trump is the end to the national nightmare of crooks in high office. But that seems to be giving way to the age of crooked politics perpetrated by men with actual political skills and who really should know better. That's a problem far worse than trump. Judge Luttig explains the issues and how none were addressed by the trumpistas. That one question, Luttig said, is "whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People. Thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People -- and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history." The president, Luttig noted, has no role at all in the certification of his own election. "In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions" — so they made sure the president did not. www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-luttig-one-question/Sure, that one question. Particularly if you are an idiot with no clue as to the importance of this hearing. The question before the Court is "What are the limits of Presidential immunity?" No one can argue, at least argue legitimately, that there isn't a case to be made for a President to be immune from prosecution for what might otherwise be described as crimes. Obama's policy resulted in the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen, with a directed drone strike aimed specifically at him. This act occurred without the benefit of due process. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the unannounced suspension of due process, without regard to the victim's actions. Yet this 16-year-old is unquestionably dead. Should Obama be prosecuted? FWIW, even I don't think so and I had, and continue to have, little use for Barack Obama. Presidents MUST be able to act in what they see as the better interest of the country and be free to do so, without fear of future prosecution. And that " better interest of the country", however it gets eventually phrased, is the heart of this argument. I agree with many of the liberals here that there was little apparent reason to believe that the 2020 election was hijacked by Biden et al. If nothing else, the scope of a conspiracy to do so is, IMO, beyond the capability of American citizens to hide. The appeal of bragging on the internet about what happened is too much; at least a few of any pack of such conspirators would be bragging about their role. If such a conspiracy existed, it was, IMO, in "the better interest of the country" for Trump to have ensured that the transfer of power to Biden occurred as seamlessly as each such transfer before it and to have submitted his proof of such conspiracy after the fact of the transfer. He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity. The USSC has a very difficult job in front of it. The normal process on something like this would be to return the case to a lower Court for the purpose of developing a set of limitations on presidential immunity and then reviewing those limitations in some future USSC hearing. I hope that is not the course of action they follow. This may well be the most important case in US history and the USSC must get this right and must do so themselves. Now. This makes me laugh. Remember when Nixon famously said "if the President does it, it's legal"? Remember the reaction to that? Good times. The SC's job is to address if the lower court acted according to the Constitution. And this is NOT about if the P acted in "the better interest of the country"!! What a notion! DI'd Bush act in the better interest of the country by invading Iraq? Did JFK with the Bay of Pigs? Bad decisions are not crimes. Bad decisions are what voters are supposed to address. It's about prosecuting the ex P for crimes committed while in office. And have the prosecutor and the lower court followed the law? At one point in the arguments yesterday the government's attorney was making a point about Trump's case and Alito interrupted him, saying "I don't want to talk about that". Yeah, I bet. Trump is claiming absolute immunity. His team doubled down on their lunatic argument that a POTUS could order a SEAL team to assassinate a political opponent and not be prosecuted. Ditto accepting a bribe. Insanity.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 26, 2024 6:27:21 GMT -5
We knew the trumpists were political hacks. We didn't know they were lawless political hacks. Despite Jackson's and Sotomeyer's attempt to reel them back in todays hearing was intellectual badminton on the Right. With a patrician's sublime apathy towards the issue before them they certainly didn't live up to their reputation for micro-surgery on the issues set before them. The normalization of political violence rolled off the boys like a bad after shave. This peek under the hood was terrifying. Many people believe the end of trump is the end to the national nightmare of crooks in high office. But that seems to be giving way to the age of crooked politics perpetrated by men with actual political skills and who really should know better. That's a problem far worse than trump. Judge Luttig explains the issues and how none were addressed by the trumpistas. That one question, Luttig said, is "whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People. Thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People -- and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history." The president, Luttig noted, has no role at all in the certification of his own election. "In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions" — so they made sure the president did not. www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-luttig-one-question/Sure, that one question. Particularly if you are an idiot with no clue as to the importance of this hearing. The question before the Court is "What are the limits of Presidential immunity?" No one can argue, at least argue legitimately, that there isn't a case to be made for a President to be immune from prosecution for what might otherwise be described as crimes. Obama's policy resulted in the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen, with a directed drone strike aimed specifically at him. This act occurred without the benefit of due process. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the unannounced suspension of due process, without regard to the victim's actions. Yet this 16-year-old is unquestionably dead. Should Obama be prosecuted? FWIW, even I don't think so and I had, and continue to have, little use for Barack Obama. Presidents MUST be able to act in what they see as the better interest of the country and be free to do so, without fear of future prosecution. And that " better interest of the country", however it gets eventually phrased, is the heart of this argument. I agree with many of the liberals here that there was little apparent reason to believe that the 2020 election was hijacked by Biden et al. If nothing else, the scope of a conspiracy to do so is, IMO, beyond the capability of American citizens to hide. The appeal of bragging on the internet about what happened is too much; at least a few of any pack of such conspirators would be bragging about their role. If such a conspiracy existed, it was, IMO, in "the better interest of the country" for Trump to have ensured that the transfer of power to Biden occurred as seamlessly as each such transfer before it and to have submitted his proof of such conspiracy after the fact of the transfer. He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity. The USSC has a very difficult job in front of it. The normal process on something like this would be to return the case to a lower Court for the purpose of developing a set of limitations on presidential immunity and then reviewing those limitations in some future USSC hearing. I hope that is not the course of action they follow. This may well be the most important case in US history and the USSC must get this right and must do so themselves. Now. There is no doubt the President enjoys SOME level of Presidential immunity. The question is: where's the boundary? Civil immunity for official acts has already been settled in the president's favor. I suspect that will be extended to criminal immunity for all but the most egregious offenses. There was an interesting back and forth I think it was with Gorsuch or Alito. Where DOJ claimed there was a robust internal process in place to review criminal proceedings against the President. Coupled with an admission that no such process exists at the state or local level. I suspect this might result in a decision where all proposed criminal actions against a former President will need to be tried by DOJ in federal court, which will blow up the cases in Manhattan and Fulton County. I also suspect that anything that could be construed as an official act will be put out of reach, leaving only possible liability for acts outside the scope of duty for the President.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 26, 2024 6:44:49 GMT -5
Sure, that one question. Particularly if you are an idiot with no clue as to the importance of this hearing. The question before the Court is "What are the limits of Presidential immunity?" No one can argue, at least argue legitimately, that there isn't a case to be made for a President to be immune from prosecution for what might otherwise be described as crimes. Obama's policy resulted in the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen, with a directed drone strike aimed specifically at him. This act occurred without the benefit of due process. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the unannounced suspension of due process, without regard to the victim's actions. Yet this 16-year-old is unquestionably dead. Should Obama be prosecuted? FWIW, even I don't think so and I had, and continue to have, little use for Barack Obama. Presidents MUST be able to act in what they see as the better interest of the country and be free to do so, without fear of future prosecution. And that " better interest of the country", however it gets eventually phrased, is the heart of this argument. I agree with many of the liberals here that there was little apparent reason to believe that the 2020 election was hijacked by Biden et al. If nothing else, the scope of a conspiracy to do so is, IMO, beyond the capability of American citizens to hide. The appeal of bragging on the internet about what happened is too much; at least a few of any pack of such conspirators would be bragging about their role. If such a conspiracy existed, it was, IMO, in "the better interest of the country" for Trump to have ensured that the transfer of power to Biden occurred as seamlessly as each such transfer before it and to have submitted his proof of such conspiracy after the fact of the transfer. He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity. The USSC has a very difficult job in front of it. The normal process on something like this would be to return the case to a lower Court for the purpose of developing a set of limitations on presidential immunity and then reviewing those limitations in some future USSC hearing. I hope that is not the course of action they follow. This may well be the most important case in US history and the USSC must get this right and must do so themselves. Now. There is no doubt the President enjoys SOME level of Presidential immunity. The question is: where's the boundary? Civil immunity for official acts has already been settled in the president's favor. I suspect that will be extended to criminal immunity for all but the most egregious offenses. There was an interesting back and forth I think it was with Gorsuch or Alito. Where DOJ claimed there was a robust internal process in place to review criminal proceedings against the President. Coupled with an admission that no such process exists at the state or local level. I suspect this might result in a decision where all proposed criminal actions against a former President will need to be tried by DOJ in federal court, which will blow up the cases in Manhattan and Fulton County. I also suspect that anything that could be construed as an official act will be put out of reach, leaving only possible liability for acts outside the scope of duty for the President. The P has no role in official submission of electoral college votes. None. Nor in the voting process in individual states. Love how all the so-called conservatives are willing to abandon the rights of individual states when it serves Trump's interests.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 26, 2024 6:59:48 GMT -5
There is no doubt the President enjoys SOME level of Presidential immunity. The question is: where's the boundary? Civil immunity for official acts has already been settled in the president's favor. I suspect that will be extended to criminal immunity for all but the most egregious offenses. There was an interesting back and forth I think it was with Gorsuch or Alito. Where DOJ claimed there was a robust internal process in place to review criminal proceedings against the President. Coupled with an admission that no such process exists at the state or local level. I suspect this might result in a decision where all proposed criminal actions against a former President will need to be tried by DOJ in federal court, which will blow up the cases in Manhattan and Fulton County. I also suspect that anything that could be construed as an official act will be put out of reach, leaving only possible liability for acts outside the scope of duty for the President. The P has no role in official submission of electoral college votes. None. Nor in the voting process in individual states. Love how all the so-called conservatives are willing to abandon the rights of individual states when it serves Trump's interests. The President is the chief law enforcement officer for the country. Investigating reports of election fraud in Georgia is well within the scope of law enforcement. The "phony electors" claims are also garbage. They werent phony. They were alternate electors assembled to preserve Trump's rights had he won legal claims in the states where he was fighting in court. There is precedent for this in Hawaii during the 1960 election.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 26, 2024 7:10:31 GMT -5
The P has no role in official submission of electoral college votes. None. Nor in the voting process in individual states. Love how all the so-called conservatives are willing to abandon the rights of individual states when it serves Trump's interests. The President is the chief law enforcement officer for the country. Investigating reports of election fraud in Georgia is well within the scope of law enforcement. The "phony electors" claims are also garbage. They werent phony. They were alternate electors assembled to preserve Trump's rights had he won legal claims in the states where he was fighting in court. There is precedent for this in Hawaii during the 1960 election. So asking the GA folks to "find me 11k votes" is investigating election fraud? You are a funny guy. Phony electors? Ask those Arizona folks if the claims are garbage. You know where Arizona is, right? It's where Maricopa County is. Take a look at the facts re yr Hawaii comparison. Stop embarrassing yourself. www.fox5atlanta.com/news/big-differences-between-1960-hawaii-electors-2020-ga-trump-electors
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 26, 2024 7:21:08 GMT -5
The President is the chief law enforcement officer for the country. Investigating reports of election fraud in Georgia is well within the scope of law enforcement. The "phony electors" claims are also garbage. They werent phony. They were alternate electors assembled to preserve Trump's rights had he won legal claims in the states where he was fighting in court. There is precedent for this in Hawaii during the 1960 election. So asking the GA folks to "find me 11k votes" is investigating election fraud? You are a funny guy. Phony electors? Ask those Arizona folks if the claims are garbage. You know where Arizona is, right? It's where Maricopa County is. Take a look at the facts re yr Hawaii comparison. Stop embarrassing yourself. www.fox5atlanta.com/news/big-differences-between-1960-hawaii-electors-2020-ga-trump-electors If there's reason to believe ballot boxes were stuffed, YES. That's election fraud that should be investigated. The vote margin doesn't matter. Trump had lawsuits over the election going in Arizona. It was ENTIRELY reasonable to have a plan in place had he won the lawsuit and needed electors. That was the crux of the issue in Hawaii in 1960, and that's the only thing that really matters.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 26, 2024 7:47:01 GMT -5
If there's reason to believe ballot boxes were stuffed, YES. That's election fraud that should be investigated. The vote margin doesn't matter. Trump had lawsuits over the election going in Arizona. It was ENTIRELY reasonable to have a plan in place had he won the lawsuit and needed electors. That was the crux of the issue in Hawaii in 1960, and that's the only thing that really matters. The Hawaiian electors were chosen prior to final tally. And there were no lawsuits. Not so in Arizona nor Georgia. So Trump thought ballot boxes were stuffed ( w no proof). So he logically asked the GA folks to find him 11k votes? Not only did he know the ballot boxes were stuffed, but the exact number of suspect ballots? Gosh he's GOOD!!
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 26, 2024 7:53:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Apr 26, 2024 8:16:19 GMT -5
The P has no role in official submission of electoral college votes. None. Nor in the voting process in individual states. Love how all the so-called conservatives are willing to abandon the rights of individual states when it serves Trump's interests. The President is the chief law enforcement officer for the country. Investigating reports of election fraud in Georgia is well within the scope of law enforcement. The "phony electors" claims are also garbage. They werent phony. They were alternate electors assembled to preserve Trump's rights had he won legal claims in the states where he was fighting in court. There is precedent for this in Hawaii during the 1960 election. The chief law enforcement officer for the country is the Attorney General.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 26, 2024 8:39:30 GMT -5
The President is the chief law enforcement officer for the country. Investigating reports of election fraud in Georgia is well within the scope of law enforcement. The "phony electors" claims are also garbage. They werent phony. They were alternate electors assembled to preserve Trump's rights had he won legal claims in the states where he was fighting in court. There is precedent for this in Hawaii during the 1960 election. The chief law enforcement officer for the country is the Attorney General. Nope. It's the President. That's who the AG reports to.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Apr 26, 2024 8:46:28 GMT -5
The chief law enforcement officer for the country is the Attorney General. Nope. It's the President. That's who the AG reports to. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. www.justice.gov/ag
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 26, 2024 9:16:06 GMT -5
Nope. It's the President. That's who the AG reports to. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. www.justice.gov/ag From Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: Law enforcement is a constitutional obligation of the President. The AG is appointed by the President and reports to the President. The authority of the DOJ comes from the President. Therefore the President is the chief law enforcement officer for the United States. You'd have an argument if the AG was a separate elected official as the office is in some states. But not the FedGov.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Apr 26, 2024 9:32:06 GMT -5
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. www.justice.gov/ag From Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: Law enforcement is a constitutional obligation of the President. The AG is appointed by the President and reports to the President. The authority of the DOJ comes from the President. Therefore the President is the chief law enforcement officer for the United States. You'd have an argument if the AG was a separate elected official as the office is in some states. But not the FedGov. Amazing, RJ. Amazing how you can constantly be wrong. From the White House web site: "The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government [emphasis added]. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters, advises the President and the heads of the executive departments of the government, and occasionally appears in person before the Supreme Court." www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-executive-branch/#:~:text=The%20Attorney%20General%20is%20the,person%20before%20the%20Supreme%20Court.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Apr 26, 2024 9:52:21 GMT -5
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. www.justice.gov/ag From Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: Law enforcement is a constitutional obligation of the President. The AG is appointed by the President and reports to the President. The authority of the DOJ comes from the President. Therefore the President is the chief law enforcement officer for the United States. You'd have an argument if the AG was a separate elected official as the office is in some states. But not the FedGov. The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws. He shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed . . . by others.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 26, 2024 10:06:12 GMT -5
Maybe the conservatives are internally conflicted. They know what the law says, but against that they know they need to dance with who brung 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 26, 2024 10:37:34 GMT -5
From Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: Law enforcement is a constitutional obligation of the President. The AG is appointed by the President and reports to the President. The authority of the DOJ comes from the President. Therefore the President is the chief law enforcement officer for the United States. You'd have an argument if the AG was a separate elected official as the office is in some states. But not the FedGov. The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws. He shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed . . . by others. LMAO. 1) You can't just add "by others" on your own. 2) the Constitution also makes him Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He appoints others to run the military too. The obvious point of both situations is that commanding the armed forces and faithfully executing the law are presidential obligations. In both cases he appoints SUBORDINATE officers to perform those tasks, but ultimate authority for both is derived from the office of the President.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 26, 2024 11:25:40 GMT -5
I'm less concerned about who owns TikTok than I am about who owns the court.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 26, 2024 12:02:27 GMT -5
I'm less concerned about who owns TikTok than I am about who owns the court. Given that when they're owned by Democrats, they turn into tools of a tin-pot dictatorship and are used to criminally prosecute political adversaries just like Putin would do, this is a valid concern.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 26, 2024 12:05:21 GMT -5
I'm less concerned about who owns TikTok than I am about who owns the court. Given that when they're owned by Democrats, they turn into tools of a tin-pot dictatorship and are used to criminally prosecute political adversaries just like Putin would do, this is a valid concern. Meanwhile, Trump pardoned 143 people, including 116 when his ass was on then way out of the White House in January 2021. Maybe if Trump weren't such a corrupt scumbag who lied through his teeth about election fraud he wouldn't be facing so many charges. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 26, 2024 12:12:36 GMT -5
Given that when they're owned by Democrats, they turn into tools of a tin-pot dictatorship and are used to criminally prosecute political adversaries just like Putin would do, this is a valid concern. Meanwhile, Trump pardoned 143 people, including 116 when his ass was on then way out of the White House in January 2021. Maybe if Trump weren't such a corrupt scumbag who lied through his teeth about election fraud he wouldn't be facing so many charges. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Gorsuch's cute quote yesterday was he didn't know what constitutes corruption.That's understandable given the right side of SCOTUS has been bought.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 26, 2024 12:27:48 GMT -5
Sure, that one question. Particularly if you are an idiot with no clue as to the importance of this hearing. The question before the Court is "What are the limits of Presidential immunity?" No one can argue, at least argue legitimately, that there isn't a case to be made for a President to be immune from prosecution for what might otherwise be described as crimes. Obama's policy resulted in the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen, with a directed drone strike aimed specifically at him. This act occurred without the benefit of due process. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the unannounced suspension of due process, without regard to the victim's actions. Yet this 16-year-old is unquestionably dead. Should Obama be prosecuted? FWIW, even I don't think so and I had, and continue to have, little use for Barack Obama. Presidents MUST be able to act in what they see as the better interest of the country and be free to do so, without fear of future prosecution. And that " better interest of the country", however it gets eventually phrased, is the heart of this argument. I agree with many of the liberals here that there was little apparent reason to believe that the 2020 election was hijacked by Biden et al. If nothing else, the scope of a conspiracy to do so is, IMO, beyond the capability of American citizens to hide. The appeal of bragging on the internet about what happened is too much; at least a few of any pack of such conspirators would be bragging about their role. If such a conspiracy existed, it was, IMO, in "the better interest of the country" for Trump to have ensured that the transfer of power to Biden occurred as seamlessly as each such transfer before it and to have submitted his proof of such conspiracy after the fact of the transfer. He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity. The USSC has a very difficult job in front of it. The normal process on something like this would be to return the case to a lower Court for the purpose of developing a set of limitations on presidential immunity and then reviewing those limitations in some future USSC hearing. I hope that is not the course of action they follow. This may well be the most important case in US history and the USSC must get this right and must do so themselves. Now. This makes me laugh. Remember when Nixon famously said "if the President does it, it's legal"? Remember the reaction to that? Good times. The SC's job is to address if the lower court acted according to the Constitution. And this is NOT about if the P acted in "the better interest of the country"!! What a notion! DI'd Bush act in the better interest of the country by invading Iraq? Did JFK with the Bay of Pigs? Bad decisions are not crimes. Bad decisions are what voters are supposed to address. It's about prosecuting the ex P for crimes committed while in office. And have the prosecutor and the lower court followed the law? At one point in the arguments yesterday the government's attorney was making a point about Trump's case and Alito interrupted him, saying "I don't want to talk about that". Yeah, I bet. Trump is claiming absolute immunity. His team doubled down on their lunatic argument that a POTUS could order a SEAL team to assassinate a political opponent and not be prosecuted. Ditto accepting a bribe. Insanity. I understand Trump is claiming absolute immunity. You probably should have picked up on that when I wrote "He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity." Is that somehow unclear? You asked about past cases. Obama killed an American citizen without due process. And yet, everyone seems to agree that this incident was within Presidential immunity, so clearly, we agree that the concept exists and that killing an American citizen falls within its limits. So the extension of immunity falls somewhere between killing a citizen without due process and failing to act to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Hopefully, the Court can figure out where that line lies.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 26, 2024 12:29:13 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Trump pardoned 143 people, including 116 when his ass was on then way out of the White House in January 2021. Maybe if Trump weren't such a corrupt scumbag who lied through his teeth about election fraud he wouldn't be facing so many charges. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Gorsuch's cute quote yesterday was he didn't know what constitutes corruption. That's understandable given the right side of SCOTUS has been bought. And, apparently, the left side failed high school biology since KBJ can't tell you what a woman is.
|
|
|
Post by mrsmlh on Apr 26, 2024 12:32:59 GMT -5
Question - if SCOTUS declares that Trump has full immunity for any/all actions he did while President, would that same immunity apply to Biden?
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 26, 2024 12:33:01 GMT -5
This makes me laugh. Remember when Nixon famously said "if the President does it, it's legal"? Remember the reaction to that? Good times. The SC's job is to address if the lower court acted according to the Constitution. And this is NOT about if the P acted in "the better interest of the country"!! What a notion! DI'd Bush act in the better interest of the country by invading Iraq? Did JFK with the Bay of Pigs? Bad decisions are not crimes. Bad decisions are what voters are supposed to address. It's about prosecuting the ex P for crimes committed while in office. And have the prosecutor and the lower court followed the law? At one point in the arguments yesterday the government's attorney was making a point about Trump's case and Alito interrupted him, saying "I don't want to talk about that". Yeah, I bet. Trump is claiming absolute immunity. His team doubled down on their lunatic argument that a POTUS could order a SEAL team to assassinate a political opponent and not be prosecuted. Ditto accepting a bribe. Insanity. I understand Trump is claiming absolute immunity. You probably should have picked up on that when I wrote "He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity." Is that somehow unclear? You asked about past cases. Obama killed an American citizen without due process. And yet, everyone seems to agree that this incident was within Presidential immunity, so clearly, we agree that the concept exists and that killing an American citizen falls within its limits. So the extension of immunity falls somewhere between killing a citizen without due process and failing to act to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Hopefully, the Court can figure out where that line lies. Your Obama example overlooks this was an act of war not a political act.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 26, 2024 12:39:10 GMT -5
Question - if SCOTUS declares that Trump has full immunity for any/all actions he did while President, would that same immunity apply to Biden? It would apply to all presidents and given them freedom to do whatever they wanted, especially with at least a majority in one of the houses.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 26, 2024 12:39:49 GMT -5
Gorsuch's cute quote yesterday was he didn't know what constitutes corruption. That's understandable given the right side of SCOTUS has been bought. And, apparently, the left side failed high school biology since KBJ can't tell you what a woman is. Red troll forum!!!
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 26, 2024 13:02:58 GMT -5
I understand Trump is claiming absolute immunity. You probably should have picked up on that when I wrote "He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity." Is that somehow unclear? You asked about past cases. Obama killed an American citizen without due process. And yet, everyone seems to agree that this incident was within Presidential immunity, so clearly, we agree that the concept exists and that killing an American citizen falls within its limits. So the extension of immunity falls somewhere between killing a citizen without due process and failing to act to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Hopefully, the Court can figure out where that line lies. Your Obama example overlooks this was an act of war not a political act. When did Obama declare war on American citizens? I must have missed it.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 26, 2024 13:03:53 GMT -5
Question - if SCOTUS declares that Trump has full immunity for any/all actions he did while President, would that same immunity apply to Biden? It would apply to all presidents and given them freedom to do whatever they wanted, especially with at least a majority in one of the houses. Of course. Full immunity is a concept far too frightening to behold too long.
|
|