Elections Trump Indicted On 91 Counts

[Strychnine]

Trump will have died of old age before the courts rule on what constitutes official duties.

That was the gameplan from the jump.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

that's my point though.... there are no new powers. The only thing new here is trying to criminally prosecute a president for acts that fall within their constitutional powers.

Wrong. That a coup attempt is a Constitutional power is a joke. Taking classified documents after your term being a Constitutional power is a joke. That decades of business fraud is a Constitutional power is a joke.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Wrong. That a coup attempt is a Constitutional power is a joke. Taking classified documents after your term being a Constitutional power is a joke. That decades of business fraud is a Constitutional power is a joke.

calm down and read this.

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump has immunity for official acts. Here's what happens next.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents are entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official acts. Here's what that means for former President Donald Trump.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[sickc0d3r]

Not unless congress finds documentation of Biden admitting to prosecuting Trump for those purposes. It could be in Hur's interview, which is why Garland is acting in contempt of congress by withholding Hur's recordings. However, Jack Smith is illegally appointed, that has nothing to do with motivation, and a Supreme Court judge is on record recognizing this and inviting the illegality of this appointment to be heard by his court.

Reads to me like anything Biden might have admitted about his motivations can’t even be considered if he is executing his official duty in determining who and when the doj should prosecute.

I agree it doesn’t/shouldn’t extend to a doj head appointing a special counsel, but the argument can now be made that anything the doj head does is legal if he/she was directed to do so by the president.

 

[BFoe]

Trump did nothing unconstitutional. Biden, however, has been illegally prosecuting a political opponent with an illegally appointed prosecutor because he knows he can't beat Trump at the voting booth. And Justice Thomas just sent the message to defense attorneys to get that case to the Supreme Court as well. What's funny about Smith being illegally appointed is that Judge Cannon asked him to provide examples of other prosecutors who were appointed like him, and he provided 3 names who were ALL approved by the senate.

Regardless, all these Supreme court decisions are the final decision and the law of the land. If you think they are wrong, it doesn't matter.

“Biden” isn’t prosecuting anyone. I do find it amusing how you can simultaneously think that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden geriatric drooling in his own applesauce, as well as a criminal mastermind who pulls the strings on judges and DAs across the entire country
Btw, all of these investigations—DC, FL, NY, and GA—were started before Trump ever announced he was running again. It had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Biden can beat Trump at the voting booth. Which Biden can do, btw, because he did.

And yes, I’m aware we all have to live with SCOTUS decisions. My problem with this decision is a problem I often have with the Roberts Court: it’s not that they drew a line in the sand and I think they’re in the wrong side of it, it’s that I don’t know wtf they drew. We all knew that presidents have immunity for official acts, that’s common sense. I said the same thing earlier, I think in this same thread. SCOTUS has offered no real guidance on how a prosecutor or judge might make a case as to whether something is an official act or private act in order to overcome this presumed immunity. It leaves judges of lower courts flying blind, that’s the problem with it.

I think you are missing a YUGE point about the Special Counsel thing. Thomas isn’t saying that the issue is being confirmed by the Senate, his opinion is that there is no law that explicitly creates the Office of the Special Counsel. This would ostensibly affect every Special Counsel that was appointed since 1999 when the former statutes on the Independent Counsel expired (Independent Counsel is what they were previously called, e.g. Kenneth Starr).

Thomas writes:
“To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be ‘established by Law.’ …If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord.” (Emphasis mine)

All of these appointments would be invalid: David Weiss, Robert Hurr, Robert Mueller, Jack Smith… side note: those Senate confirmations you’re talking about weren’t for office of Special Counsel anyhow. People like Weiss and Hurr were norminated by Pres and confirmed by Senate to be US Attorneys, but that is wholly different. They weren’t confirmed by the Senate to be Special Counsel.

 

[BFoe]

this is one of CNN's most watched anchors. Completely unhinged and misrepresenting their ruling. Propaganda to scare people lol

Look closer

Katlin Collins is actually quoting Sotomayor’s dissent. Collins isn’t misrepresenting the SCOTUS ruling, she’s quoting from one of the dissents.

 

[Seano]

It seems to me you fall into this same category. I don't think everyone here is a partisan hack but I do agree there are some on both sides here that would never speak against their party.

Of course I do. As do you and every other asshole who posts here.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

The justices found that a president has immunity for "official acts", but is not immune for "unofficial acts", and referred the matter back to a trial judge.


so basically this is pretty much a non-ruling a nd they are saying what we already knew and all of this was just a waste of time and now the 2 federal cases aren't likely to go to trial until after trump loses the election. not that it was ever going to trial before the election because scrotus just sat on their hands for months.

all of this was just to delay the trials. imagine calling yourself the party of law and order and then championing for the delay of a trial of a convicted felon, fraudster, and rapist for the terrible crimes against his country he committed. especially after all those years of chanting "lock her up", telling us that "nobody is above the law", and reminding us just how terrible of a crime it is to mishandle classified information. i guess that was all just a facade of theirs. these chucklefucks do not actually stand for any morals of principles. whatever virtues they pretend to be about they will drop on a dime if they think it furthers their own best interests.

 

[syct23]

that's my point though.... there are no new powers. The only thing new here is trying to criminally prosecute a president for acts that fall within their constitutional powers.

SCOTUS has given all presidents, not just trump but “all” presidents including Biden the powers of perceived immunity.

If the president sees fit to protect the country from a threat, from inside or out, including insurrection, the president may act.

SCOTUS has created and given Dark Brandon legality, and trump was the one to ask if it was possible.

 

[Fergelmince]

“Biden” isn’t prosecuting anyone. I do find it amusing how you can simultaneously think that Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden geriatric drooling in his own applesauce, as well as a criminal mastermind who pulls the strings on judges and DAs across the entire country
Btw, all of these investigations—DC, FL, NY, and GA—were started before Trump ever announced he was running again. It had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Biden can beat Trump at the voting booth. Which Biden can do, btw, because he did.

And yes, I’m aware we all have to live with SCOTUS decisions. My problem with this decision is a problem I often have with the Roberts Court: it’s not that they drew a line in the sand and I think they’re in the wrong side of it, it’s that I don’t know wtf they drew. We all knew that presidents have immunity for official acts, that’s common sense. I said the same thing earlier, I think in this same thread. SCOTUS has offered no real guidance on how a prosecutor or judge might make a case as to whether something is an official act or private act in order to overcome this presumed immunity. It leaves judges of lower courts flying blind, that’s the problem with it.

I think you are missing a YUGE point about the Special Counsel thing. Thomas isn’t saying that the issue is being confirmed by the Senate, his opinion is that there is no law that explicitly creates the Office of the Special Counsel. This would ostensibly affect every Special Counsel that was appointed since 1999 when the former statutes on the Independent Counsel expired (Independent Counsel is what they were previously called, e.g. Kenneth Starr).

Thomas writes:
“To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be ‘established by Law.’ …If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord.” (Emphasis mine)

All of these appointments would be invalid: David Weiss, Robert Hurr, Robert Mueller, Jack Smith… side note: those Senate confirmations you’re talking about weren’t for office of Special Counsel anyhow. People like Weiss and Hurr were norminated by Pres and confirmed by Senate to be US Attorneys, but that is wholly different. They weren’t confirmed by the Senate to be Special Counsel.

Of course Biden is directing the prosecution of a political opponent. Biden appointed Merrick Garland. All of these prosecutions against Trump either start with Garland with the federal charges, or his office is aiding the state AG's like Leticia James and the county DA's like Fani Willis. Both James and Willis have visited the white house several times, obviously to discuss these cases. Additionally, the acting deputy director of the DOJ, Colangelo magically ends up in the NY DA's office to oversee and direct Bragg's prosecution of Trump. That was all Biden and Garland.

With regard to official vs unofficial immunity, Jack Smith and his team were claiming POTUS should confirm with the DOJ as to the legality of his actions. In essence, they were arguing POTUS should be accountable to the DOJ. POTUS immunity isn't up to the DOJ. SCOTUS just cleared it up so the DOJ doesn't continue to abuse their power.

As far as Thomas and his view of the illegality of Smith's appointment, Thomas thinks a private citizen appointed to prosecute POTUS is unconstitutional. Hur and Mueller were appointed as special counsel to investigate.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

SCOTUS has given all presidents, not just trump but “all” presidents including Biden the powers of perceived immunity.

If the president sees fit to protect the country from a threat, from inside or out, including insurrection, the president may act.

SCOTUS has created and given Dark Brandon legality, and trump was the one to ask if it was possible.

I get your point.

 

[sickc0d3r]

so basically this is pretty much a non-ruling a nd they are saying what we already knew

Is it, though? Like, what's an example of an official act of the president related to directing the DOJ that is illegal and thus requires the immunity they've just explicitly granted? And did we already assume that anything the president does or discusses in that official capacity is inadmissible in a related private crime?

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Looks like a lot of TV legal experts, on both sides, are saying this guts the cases against Trump.

 

[Andy Capp]

Of course I do. As do you and every other asshole who posts here.

Speak for yourself, asshole.

 

[Strychnine]

Looks like a lot of TV legal experts, on both sides, are saying this guts the cases against Trump.

Yeah, because taking information that can ONLY be viewed in a SCIF and keeping in a bathroom with a high-speed printer nearby is just standard procedure.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Yeah, because taking information that can ONLY be viewed in a SCIF and keeping in a bathroom with a high-speed printer nearby is just standard procedure.

are you talking about Joe Biden?

 

[Strychnine]

are you talking about Joe Biden?

Oh, you mean the person that actually RETURNED THEM ALL when they found them AND invited the F.B.I. to come and search their entire home to see if anything was left over instead of lying about it?

Or do you mean Mike Pence?

DOJ closes Pence classified documents investigation with no charges

The Justice Department's national security division, which looked into the discovery of classified documents at the former vice president's Indiana home, informed his attorney that no charges will be filed.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[AWilder]

that's my point though.... there are no new powers. The only thing new here is trying to criminally prosecute a president for acts that fall within their constitutional powers.

Yeah stealing classified documents is part of his presidential powers.

 

[Seano]

Speak for yourself, asshole.

Right, right. I'm sure everyone reading this believes you don't have political beliefs and affiliation.

Right on, brother.

Sure.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Of course I do. As do you and every other asshole who posts here.

I don't think so. I've always backed policies from both sides. There are others that I see who aren't pure hacks as well. I just defended @koquerelle a few days ago because I have noticed sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. He's not some hack that toes the party line no matter what.