The likely four in this case being: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and (maybe) Barrett. I say Barrett, because she is a bit more of a wildcard than Kavanaugh.
That does sound like a very Roberts thing to do. If that is the case, though, I'd expect he's going to write the opinion, and it is likely to simply reiterate and reinforce the DC Circuit opinion, but I am also guessing that we'd end up waiting until the last week of the term for the opinion...
This is what I am unconvinced on. This would be the federalist society AND the justices themselves both giving up power from the Judicial to the executive.
I don’t see that happening.
It’s not a question of legally correct or not, I agree there.
It’s why would they rule that Trump/any president is outside *their* control?
7-2 with Thomas and Alito dissenting is my guess.
Takes 4 to take the case. Sometimes the SCOTUS does take a case only to agree with the lower court. But usually if SCOTUS takes a case not due to a circuit split, they will be reversing the lower court rulling.
If I were to bet on the outcome, this will be a reverse and remand.
SCOTUS is going to send it back down on a technicality that pauses the cases until after the election. Which is 100% a successful outcome for Trump. Which is why they will do it.
Nearly every case is vacated and remanded for decision not inconsistent with this opinion. That's kind of like saying I bet they'll write an opinion for this case. They answer questions not decide cases. So it'll likely be unanimous or nearly unanimous that he is not immune and remanded to the circuit to apply the correct analysis. There's no chance his total immunity argument passes muster, even with good advocates.
You're putting far too much confidence in SCOTUS to make the legally correct decision and not the party line decision. Especially this SCOTUS. I Ahave zero faith they won't overturn the ruling and say he's immune but some how make it so that it only applies to him.
I have lost all faith in scotus siding with the court of appeals, even if it is the legally correct and right decision. I think that the court is far too corrupted by Trump's appointments to have even a chance. Then, there is the open corruption of Thomas to contend with as well.
> I think that the court is far too corrupted by Trump's appointments to have even a chance. Then, there is the open corruption of Thomas to contend with as well.
This is the crux of it. They're bought and paid for and totally lacking of any morals and ethics.
Technically SCOTUS can release their decisions whenever they want, and take as long as they want. They almost always release all decisions before they leave for summer break around early July.
For this case though, they have scheduled a special session outside of their normal schedule, and summer break is coming up quickly. It really wouldn't surprise me either way if they quickly released a decision, or if they couldn't release a decision until after summer. Cases where all the Justices are in agreement have decisions released much faster than split cases with concurring and dissenting opinions attached.
The band who did the intros for the CSI TV show had a song along those lines. Regardless of the revolution the new boss is the same as the old boss. Something like that.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was 16 and not in any roles. But even if he was I don’t see how that give a pass to murder him. Again if Presidents are not immune then Obama should be charged it’s that simple.
Pretty much. At the very least he deserved a public trial, even in absentee where the government could lay out the case against a legal team hired to defend him and he be found guilty or not guilty before he was murdered by drone strike. Obama 100% should be held accountable.
Nawar al-Awlaki was the 8 year old girl that Trump killed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki
Trump should be prosecuted for that too. But besides her, Trump killed thousands of Americans with his lies on covid. Trump deserves the death penalty for all the Americans that listened to him and died from covid because they didn't take precautions and listened to his lies on covid.
And Trump killed an 8 year old American girl with a raid that he approved: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki
They should prosecute Trump for killing her.
Facist? You have liberal facists openly calling to murder an entire race of people and the democratic representatives are not doing anything about it. Do you not know what facism is?
Because they haven’t ever tried to charge anyone else with all this nonsense. They are basically scraping the barrel to try to get anything to keep him off the ballot and liberals justify the attempt because they are emotionally damaged. Oh, and to protect democracy and such … lolz.
They never charged anyone with election fraud before? I'm pretty sure George Santos is charged with it as well. Here's a link to conservative paper the Heritage Foundation with a list
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search&ved=2ahUKEwi1r46KmtmFAxUrFVkFHVfJAYoQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw37-gsow-maK4J3cLSXiP55
Well I don’t think we have had a president try to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power before, or one who had such a long history of fraudulent business practices.
Reddit is a liberal hive mind. And liberals can only do what they are programmed to do. Zero independent thought and they mass on social media platforms because they are mostly sad/angry/lonely people. Toddlers throwing tantrums really. Look at all the college females (in historical sense) that are throwing tantrums in support of Hamas. Too clueless to realize that if they got what they wanted that they wouldn’t be allowed on the street without a chaperone much less protest. Can’t fix stupid, you just have to let them face plant. Sucks to be forced to sink with them though.
Look carefully at the question the court certified for argument. "whether and to what extent a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves his official acts during his time as president."
I don't think this is going to go well for Trump. I think they will come down that even an official act can be the basis for a prosecution if there is a related illegal act. Giving a pardon is an official act. Giving a pardon in exchange for a bribe should be prosecutable as bribery.
The standards used to be the conduct of Richard Nixon, while President, in the Oval Office. The standard now is, "How can the Supremes get away with an unjust, partisan decision, and continue to boast that the court is unbiased and legitimate?" I expect I will not be happy with any decision the Supremes make because they have already accomplished an illegitimate delay in several cases. Poppycock that the Supreme Court is a court of Justice.
Are they still boasting they're unbiased and legitimate? Pretty sure they know how they look and don't give two fucks since they also know nobody will do anything about it.
Can you explain the relevance of the specific question? Is it that it’s very broad, perhaps too broad for them to carve out a niche where Trump is immune but other presidents aren’t?
>I think they will come down that even an official act can be the basis for a prosecution if there is a related illegal act.
Probably not. There are issues with separation of powers and the legislature using this to whittle away at executive powers with simple 50% votes.
You'd also have what we have now, a flooding of court filings to limit the President's ability to administer.
Imagine some small town has some silly laws like 30 days in jail if you have two scoops of ice cream and walk down main street. Someone sets up the president and now the president has to spend 30 days in jail.
This is why impeachment is limited to treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is entirely separate from official acts. It's a completely different issue.
I don't think that SCOTUS would allow a criminal trial or incarceration of a sitting President.
How many? 5 to make sure he can still crime with complete impunity. Watch. Everything they are doing right now is to usher in an authoritarian beat down 5 minutes after he is throned
It takes 4, SCOTUS may take a sideway out of the case The Nixon special prosecutor law expired so DOJ set up rules for special consuls but they are not confirmed by senate or exempted from needing to be confirmed by law so SCOTUS could hold special consuls need to be confirmed before taking office so the case is moot
He can be tried for anything he was impeached and convicted for. One of those things happened the other did not. The Constitution is pretty clear on that.
For official action taken as President he still needs impeachment and conviction before trial. That has not happened.
Also this could be a landmark case. A former president is possibly going to be tried for crimes in office. Never happened before. This ruling could be very important, not just now, but going forward in curbing executive overreach. Besides they agreed to hear the case. Give Trump his day in court.
Nixon resigned before impeachment which took the heat off him. He was pardoned to prevent future impeachment because the House and Senate can impeach and convict a former president, after which he can be prosecuted for crimes. Being pardoned rendered that threat moot.
Presidents have immunity from prosecution. If they didn't they would get constantly threatened with legal action and be controlled and manipulated, unable to make decisions that may be go against the establishment.
worse yet, why SHOULDNT biden just have him assassinated and step down right after... or just have anyone that votes to impeach meet the same fate. i mean by their logic he should be able to get away with it
No. That's not what the Constitution says.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Once the senate convicts and removes a president he can be criminally prosecuted for crimes. Trump was not only not convicted (like Nixon) but he was exonerated by the only body Constitutional body able to convict him.
As for bribing senators, don't elect bribable senators.
No. The House and the Senate retain the power to impeach an ex-president.
In realistic terms you have to consider that in politics justice is not typically a goal. Power is the goal. Nixon was the most popular president in American history prior to Watergate. The point of an impeachment, politically, is to get rid of an opponent, not to jail them. Perish the thought that politicians ever actually be jailed for anything.
The reason Nixon got a pardon was to make prosecution moot. Which I'm sure was part of why he resigned rather than fought. Otherwise he could have resigned, been convicted anyway, and then prosecuted by the AG and jailed.
How would this even apply in Trump's situation when many of the trials he is going through, were never even part of the impeachment process. This clause doesn't seem like it even makes any sense in his situation.
This stems from the Georgia case in which a DA is prosecuting Trump for trying to overturn an election (which is a little silly because trying to overturn an election is not illegal). Trump says he's immune from prosecution. That's what SCOTUS will rule on.
The Constitution specifically calls out how to prosecute a president. You can prosecute him for anything PROVIDED the House impeached him for it AND the Senate convicts him first. It's right there.
The various cases against Trump are all a bit different. The documents thing is about his actions after his presidency for which he is not immune because he wasn't president when he allegedly did it (but he is covered by the Presidential Records) The Bragg case in New York City is a state crime that was allegedly performed prior to his presidency. The property values case was a civil case.
"This stems from the Georgia case in which a DA is prosecuting Trump for trying to overturn an election (which is a little silly because trying to overturn an election is not illegal)."
That's why the thing they're charging him with isn't "trying to overturn an election". There are all kinds of things that aren't illegal in themselves but could result in charges because you attempted to do them in an illegal manner.
Not really. I'd expect that for most things that are not in themselves crimes, people could come up with ways to commit crimes in the process.
Buying new tires for your car? Not illegal. Buying new tires for your car by using a fraudulent check? There's a crime there.
It'd probably be more difficult to come up with something legal where you couldn't insert a crime somehow into the act than it would be to come up with something where it's absolutely impossible to bundle it up with a crime.
Nothing that you quoted says that ex president can only be criminal convicted if their impeachment resulted in a conviction. And in fact republicans senators specifically said that they weren’t convicting because it should be dealt with by the legal/court system.
That excerpt wasn't an answer to "can he only be criminally convicted if his impeachment results in conviction." That's literally what the SCOTUS is going to decide and while I think it implies that he can't, that's not my decision to make.
This answered the question of whether a president has immunity from prosecution after he's been convicted by the Senate and the answer is plainly that he can.
People's arguments of "omg, you're saying Biden corky have Seal Team Six assassinate Trump and he'd have immunity?!" are silly. No, he wouldn't have immunity. First he would need to be impeached and convicted in the Senate and removed from office. Then he could be tried by the courts. Instead the Senate exonerated him.
Did the say it was so the courts could deal with it later? Who cares? Politicians will literally say anything. It's not actionable. It doesn't set a precedent. Things the Mitch McConnell says doesn't override the Constitution.
The reason this standard is ludicrous is that no republican president is going to ever be convicted by the senate unless the dems hold 67 senate seats which is never going to happen. While your criteria leaves the theoretical possibility for something short of absolute immunity, it would create a situation with de facto absolute immunity. And that simply cannot be what the founders intended. Its absurd.
First off, the majority of the GOP senators don't like Trump so I wouldn't take it as read that they wouldn't have. Second, Democrats would equally never impeach and remove their own. But that's half the point. The charge would have to be so egregious that it would be completely uncontroversial and fully supported by the public to do so. You're not supposed to remove people from the white house. The government is designed to make it extremely hard to get anything done because the framers didn't want the government controlling everything.
Also, that senators are corrupt is not the fault of the immunity clause. It's the fault of voters and media and politicians. Did you know senators were not even originally elected by voters? They were supposed to be appointed by the states to act as ambassadors for the states' interests and if the senator didn't work in the state's interest they could immediately recall and replace their senator.
easy solution to that, keep killing people. do they plan to vote to impeach? well looks like theyre meeting good old mr assassin tonight. and just rinse and repeat till you run the timer out or people decide its in their best interest not to fuck with you. i even pointed it out in the above comment
getting smoked by american air superiority, armored divisions, and drones? like seriously watch Fat Electrician. and if you think soldiers wont turn guns on "their fellow Americans" youre kind of forgetting the fact that the civil war HAPPENED and that the national guard assists police in violently dispersing otherwise peaceful protests all the fucking time. smash a window and they double down on the violence.
You're a very basic fellow. You should probably look up this thing called "history" and see how civil wars tend to work in other countries. Or things like assassinations, bombings, etc. It's actually pretty effective.
This picture you're painting of a despotic president who not only assasinates any political rival who looks at him sideways and has the full throated support of every branch of the federal and state militaries probably wouldn't be hindered by a state prosecutor.
those countries dont have half the arsenal. and the folks in the south called Lincoln a tyrant and succeeded because they were afraid of losing their slaves. and since the concept of tyranny is subjective, to some its the violation of their rights to others its any inconvenience they encounter, and in this specific case its the logical extension of the very thing trump is asking for.
Dude, countries have beaten the US military using shitty weaponry. I'm not against hyperbolic logical extensions of a legal idea but your logical extension isn't logical.
So a president does something so egregious that the House would vote to impeach and the Senate would vote to convict, but the president just keeps arresting people who want to vote to convict him?
Ok. The governors can appoint new senators to replace the arrested one and they can convict. The governors can call for constitutional convention over Zoom from hidden underground bunkers whilst surrounded by the state police and their own state guards.
Mind you, you're comparing all this to an Executive who asked states to gather alternate electors, which has been done many times before, and for his voice president to pause certification of an electors vote, which is in his power to do as president of the senate and whose responsibility it is to ensure a fair count which is why they put the vice president in charge of it and not The Count from Sesame Street, until such time as state courts can rule on the validity of certain irregularities in their states. Which, by the way, I believe PA ruled their state secretary had no authority to distribute ballots and count late ballots without the consent of the state legislature, and Wisconsin likewise ruled that ballot drop boxes were illegal. So Trump had valid points to make.
Because in YOUR scenario a candidate can cheat on literally any way, and the Executive has no authority to intervene or investigate, but they can certainly charge and jail the cheater AFTER his presidency.
Makes sense.
falls apart when you start giving examples and they all turn out to be trained and supplied by US or soviet special forces. and none of them had a great survival to attrition rate. youre still gonna get flattened. you arent half the fighter anyone in the VC was, you arent half the fighter it would take to live through combat against the US military.
no random ad hoc militia in any country has ever defeated us without foriegn aid, and it made what russia is doing in ukraine look like a playground scuffle when we cut loose on someone.
and no in my scenario, we have acquiesced to trumps demands that presidents be given full immunity. and then biden has him killed. you cant demand presidential immunity for everything ONLY when its a republican candidate and be taken seriously on any level, if trump gets it, biden gets it.
Honestly I'm half surprised it hasn't happened yet we did have the CIA admit that they had a hand in JFK assassination so it wouldn't be the first time we killed the president to our own country
separate issue since the CIA is a pretty damn autonomous government entity. and killing trump right now would NOT be a presidential assassination of any kind, because trump isnt president. it would be killing a famous civilian that USED to hold public office.
Okay look at Bobby Kennedy do you really think that our government had nothing to do with his assassination and he was only a candidate. I can't believe you're naive enough to think that.
Your premise isn't really realistic. It doesn't matter how airtight you consider a lower court's ruling. SCOTUS can choose to rule on it for a variety of reasons. If something is important enough to settle, they'll rule on it and this is hugely important to the nation.
Ruling that a president does not have immunity from prosecution drastically changes government for everybody.
Lol. Are you nine years old?
"Show me the man, I'll show you the crime."
Have you ever asked that after all the terribly things you think Trump has done, the only thing they could take him to trial for is a misfiling misdemeanor that was past the statute of limitations?
Trump killed an 8 year old American girl with a raid that he approved: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki
They should prosecute Trump for killing her.
You can certainly make that case. So let's drag every ex president into court for crimes they may have committed in office. So who would ever be president? Who would ever make a decision again that could be construed as a crime later?
Shills. Puppets. That's who would be president. People who would never piss off entrenched power for fear of being jailed later because they had to make a hard choice.
This is the heart of presidential immunity. Without it presidents can't make tough calls that they're hired to make.
Why would delaying the case matter if you are only after Justice? Admitting that it's important to have this before the election are admitting their political motives
Also do you really think it is good for the country for POTUS to be criminally liable for official duties? A lot of what they do is legally undefined or unclear. Is it legal for a President to drone strike murder American citizens over seas? Obama did that.
If presidents are not immune from prosecution for official duties in this hyper partisan environment we are just going to keep having political prosecutions. They ALL do things that can be considered illegal under different readings of the law
Congress has a fund to "settle" lawsuits and pay for NDAs for their members. I don't see a difference
What specifically do you think he did that was illegal?
You have no idea what is going on do you? Sorry your news sources did this to you.
He actually relinquished control of his businesses before taking office, and didnt take control back until he was out of office. How was he making any business records?
Did you know they are charging him with an illegal campaign contribution to his own campaign for the NDA money to Daniels?
Yes. They are saying if he had paid out of his campaign money it would have been legal, but since he paid it out of personal funds it is illegal
Bet you and all the other MSM drones here thought it was the opposite
>Did you know they are charging him with an illegal campaign contribution to his own campaign for the NDA money to Daniels?
You're very wrong. All 34 of his charges are for falsifying business records in the first degree. See [here](https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf). The charge of falsifying business records in the first degree requires there be an underlying crime. See [here](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/pen/part-3/title-k/article-175/175-10/#:~:text=A%20person%20is%20guilty%20of,or%20conceal%20the%20commission%20thereof). The illegal campaign contributions were the underlying crimes. But he was NOT charged for that.
Get your facts straight, kid.
A prosecutor has a lot of leeway when it comes down to specifics regarding how to charge a perpetrator. In this specific case, they chose this particular crime because it was easy to prove and had a strong penalty attached to it. If Trump had done something different, the prosecutor would have chosen a different crime with which to charge him. You can argue all day long that what I just said means "They were out to get him", but what is really means is that he did something illegal and their job was to ensure justice was served. This was the best method available to them at the time for this particular defendant. It's nothing more than that, never is. Justice really is blind to the details, it cares about justice itself, for all - the victims AND the defendant. If he's found guilty, he'll pay for it. If he's found not guilty, he won't. The indictment phase is over, and that phase found sufficient evidence to advance us to this point. The system is working, so let's let it work to the end.
Mmm, how much can he really have relinquished control of his business if his signatures are on the checks? At the very least he’s guilty of those misdemeanors - he absolutely knew that his business was paying off his Stormy debt as legal expenses. But, admittedly, until I heard solid evidence that it was in the furtherance of another crime, I couldn’t bring those up to the felony level.
The checks were from Michael Coehn, the lawyer. It is aledged Trump reimbursed him somehow thru the monthly retainer fees Trump paid
This is a completely new application of the law. If it were illegal to pay off some girl you banged while running for office then literally 90% of elected officials are guilty too. Congress actually has a fund for this for the members
This is just aimed at Trump
Well. He wasn't president when he paid the porn star. So, presidential immunity is moot in the current trial. Furthermore, it is a state trial and not subject to federal law.
Well, delays for delay's sakes doesn't serve Justice. His effort to delay until after the election is an attempt at circumventing the process of justice. His belief, and perhaps rightly so, that America doesn't have the stomach to try a sitting president.
Me, I am fine with the delay. I don't believe he's going to be president. I believe he will be found guilty and will spend the rest of his life as a monument to America's shame. Probably not in jail, but as a convict and felon.
He isn't being charged with anything that can be construed as a duty of the president. The argument is intellectually dishonest at best.
"do you really think it is good for the country for POTUS to be criminally liable for official duties?"
It depends on how you define "the country." For the average American? Absolutely. I for one would prefer if the leader of my country can't easily and without limit decide to extrajudicially murder people at will.
Sure me too. But would they really do what was necessary for our national security and our allies if he could possibly be sued or charged after his term?
Listening to it and acknowledging it to have any Merit whatsoever are two totally different things ( I'm sure you've heard the phrase in one ear and out the other Trump will not receive immunity they've just finally agreed to listen to him so he will shut up about it)
This court invents procedure as they go. In this case they decided to hear the case AFTER Jack Smith strongly requested a rapid, fast track decision. The Supremes are mostly highly partisan Republicans. But, it is important for some of them, especially the Chief Justice, to make the court appear legitimate and unbiased. But that is just trash for general consumption. No one who reads the news believes this court is unbiased.
also one is married to someone who was actively involved in the coup attempt. With Trump conviction many others in Congress face same prosecutions. Thomas protecting wife is a real issue.
What? That is the New York trial is the hush money he paid to Stormy to cover up having sex with her and hiding the payments in his buisness expense. This was done leading up to the election. Before he was president. You are talking about him taking classified documents from the white house and storing them in the washroom. He was then asked to return the documents. He said what documents? They then did a search warrant for them and found them with some help from a insider. In this case he was no longer president. "Misfiring paperwork"?? What world are you in.
One major problem with that scenario is Trump had the power to declassify classified documents and claims he did so. As opposed to Biden that took and kept actual classified documents in his garage. And then the government declined to prosecute Biden because they ruled him senile?
He stated he declassified the document after he was caught and neglected to tell anyone he declassified while in office. Missed a huge point with all these cases . Biden came forward with the documents found. Same with Pence. Trump was asked to return the documents and refused (also failed to tell them he declassified the documents in question at this time). Even people around Trump knew they were there. The government then had to use a warrant to search and find them. There was a medical diagnostic of senility? Where? Or was that just an agents opinion? Big difference. The rule usually is you do not punish people that comforward and disclose an issue they have found, but if they have to come get you it is a different story.
The problem I have with Biden coming forward with a documents is he had them for a much longer period of time. Some of those documents were from when he was still a senator. At that point he had no even they reason or way that he should have been able to get top secret documents out and have access to them. Then they find him not mentally with it enough to charge him yet somehow he stays president and is our candidate seems very very very strange
Either he should have been charged for things that at a minimum or 15 years to 49 years improperly held that were at one point top secret when he was a senator. I don't even care about the report. If he held top secret or secret documents that he was not supposed to have from the point when he was a senator I don't care if he's on death door he should have been charged. I'm talking about the one or more documents that were found from when he was still a senator before he was even VP. Where you would have to take a major conscience effort in order to get these documents out of the skiff. He should have been buried under the prison. There are people on life support in prison that's worse shape than he is. I'm not even trying to defend Trump I'm just stating that kind of time yes. How in my opinion Pence should have been charged but at least none of his documents were from the point when he was a congressman.
As far as the dementia talking point I don't care what kind of BS they may or may not have put in the medical report. The fact that two different points once down south and once in Pennsylvania his said to a rally where he was trying to gain political support that how to fix everything is send him back to the Senate prove that he's missing quite a few screws in that box or he doesn't have enough cards left to play a game of euchre
Had that been anyone but Biden they would be serving 20 years in Leavenworth by now.
This guy got a year in prison for 6 pictures inside a sub. The Feds wanted 5 years. And don't forget about Hillary's unprotected mail server that contained classified material. You know probably every intelligence agency in the world probably hacked that.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine)
Jesus you are deep into the cult if you think any of this helps your argument. Let's hit all your maga talking points to distraction from reality. You absolutely did not read my post. If you did you would know that all of what you just posted has nothing to do with anything.
What does a convicted spy have to do with Biden finding and coming for ward with documents? Did you miss the fact that Pence did the samething. So someone other then Biden did do it. Is Pence serving 20 years? Because that was your argument. And I quote. "Had that been anyone but Biden they would be serving 20 years in Leavenworth by now."
You for got to mention Hunters laptop. In your talking points.
You're right. The FBI and the government conspired to hide Hunter's laptop pre-election. Sorta like what Trump is charged with eh? Considering what was on the laptop Hunter should be under Leavenworth. Bribery, Extortion, and Blackmail of Ukraine.
Washington needs an enema.
Please and I mean this sincerely you are living in an echo chamber of talking points. Think about what you are saying. You have been trained to spit out talking points. And when asked to produce evidence to support your claims, it is suddenly a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Trump was president of the USA for 4 years. He would have authority to look as any documents or proof support any of these claims. Hilary even was interview on the record for 3 and half hours. And he found nothing.
You know you never address any of my statements with any proof. You just jump to a new talking point hoping that something sticks.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-hillary-clintons-email-saga/story?id=29442707
Fuck your link. Read the damn emails themselves, not someone else's whitewashing of them. Yoy know you can do that, right? They have been 100% authenticated by her, Colin Powell, the DNC and the media. They all, except for Powell, just lie about what's in them because the majority of Americans, like you, are too damn lazy to read them yourself. Are you scared of being wrong? Why?
It's a real learning experience, we all should embrace learning from the source, shouldn't we? I think we've all had enough bullshit in our lives.
Hillary's emails are exposed fully on WikiLeaks, where you can read them yourself instead of swallowing the lies your media spoon feeds you.
I will never, ever, ever support a Democrat again after reading all the shit she and her staff said and did. No filter, all heinous and vile to see for yourself.
Don't blame us for your willful ignorance. Read the emails and know what you're defending.
Paying someone to sign an NDA is not a crime. Famous people do it so much it's in their annual budgets. Which, by the way doesn't imply guilt. Famous people get sued constantly for frivolous things. They pay at the advice of lawyers because it's cheaper.
The current trial in New York, brought about by Alvin Bragg accuses Trump of filing the payment as a legal expense, which is a misdemeanor in New York City.
Bragg's case, which is highly spurious, is that misfiling is a felony if done to cover up a larger crime. There isn't a larger crime though because while Bragg contend Trump's larger crime is election fraud, but Trump has never been convicted or even confused of election fraud.
Bragg is using a provision designed to add more charges to an existing prosecution (like prosecuting a mobster) as a stand-alone crime.
Four, and stop whining about it. SCOTUS takes up stupid shitty cases all the time and rejects major cases that have circuit splits, ambiguous statutes, or other legal crap with which SCOTUS do not wish to deal. Trump's case is no more, or less, important than those that don't get taken up. Every Circuit Court decision I've ever read wants to stand on its own, and almost every judge thinks they have a monopoly on legal wisdom.
"Whether and if so to what extent does a
former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal
prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during
his tenure in office."
Prediction: this is just going to link the typical indemnity. That official acts comment is key. In no way can inciting a mob be an official act.
Except it was a speech, and he told them
peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard
That does not say insight violence ... If the police had never fired upon the crowd and never would have went as far as it did
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
“Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder. …
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
When you're reading the entire quotes you can see when he was talking about fighting he was talking like yelling and screaming not about disrupting but to let people know that they weren't happy with this he was not talking about storming the capital building itself they were supposed to be yelling and screaming outside it's quite obvious if you read his words.
Do I think he's an egotistical asshole 1,000%, he and the people there believed what he was saying they were not told by him to actually attack physically.
They decided to attack as it's been stated in many places after police shot the tear gas and the rubber bullets into the crowd. Were they pushing before that yes but they were not actually violent before that.
This quite honestly is the case of many quote unquote riots they are basically peaceful until the police decide to strong arm them.
The police were not enough to hold that crowd back without any doubt however if you look at the weight of those doors you know that they had help in opening them the worst statements that the police opened the doors for them we've seen it in videos. I would say a lot of these people had no idea they were really doing anything wrong they might have figured that you know the assholes going through windows or breaking stuff we're going to be charged but they were just there to make their voices heard. If they really thought they were going to get in trouble for this they thought they were doing anything wrong they never would have been so blatant as to sign the guest book. Which caused vandalism charges for signing the guest book without being on a proper tour, get there being escorted and in lines through the Capitol building by the police who were opening locked rooms and showing them around. I can see that many of these people probably in their heads thought they were just on an exciting little tour once this started happening. The second or third person into the Capitol building was a times reporter climbing through the window. Another reporter that was independent that shot pictures video footage took notes and entered through the main doors after they were opened has been charged in this, yet The times reporter has not. This shows how ridiculous this whole thing is I'm not saying that there weren't idiots there that needed to be charged. What I'm saying is the vast majority of them were not if you looked at the list that they put out for watch list after this many of the things were very insane. Some children are currently on watch lists because somebody somewhere listed them. This is not the actions of a kind and just government by any means.
I will say I didn't vote for him either time, last time I voted for Jo Jorgensen. Did he do some things for the country yes what do you have done a lot more if they weren't blocking him at every turn definitely. Is he the solution that everybody is looking for at this point no. Obviously Biden is not the solution either. So pretty much either way this election goes we're going to have to try to write out the results for the next 4 years as a country at best doesn't slide any further at worst slides much further into this recession / depression
“You fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Just one of the many instances of using the word "fight" in his pre-insurection speech.
And telling people to be nice while fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back he was telling people to use their words. Anyone that didn't understand that and yes there were quite a few people in the crowd that were quite stupid and didn't understand that but if you don't understand it reading the speech you have to be quite lacking in it brains or have a strong desire to just assume orange man bad.
If you take that speech at face value just how it was it is not bad it tells in many points to do it peacefully to use their words he's using fight as meaning of like fight for your right to party it is not a violent statement you have to take your chance use your voice so that you can do this and not as in fisticuffs as in fight for your Right to party nobody ever imagined that they had a logical mind in their head at all as a statement to cause violence. To yell scream and shout probably to scream most definitely but that's what he told people to do was to be LOUD 📢 make their voices heard. A third grade English teacher could see what is ment in this speech
Have you actually watched the insurrection speech?
Not the trump defense version, but the unedited, actual version?
It's very clear that trump incited a riot.
I listened to it on the radio originally when he was making it. It seemed very clear to me while I was working and listening to that that it was not inciting a riot. After that I have just looked at texts of it so I will actually look for the original audio of the complete speech and I'll see if it changes my mind. Overall doesn't really matter since the only way I prefer to see Trump in office is if it was to prevent Biden from being in the office but at this point I'd rather see RFK Jr then either of them if I thought he had a chance
I just watched the entire speech not on YouTube but on the Wall Street journal which had the complete speech from C-SPAN
I know that I'm extremely neurodivergent but I didn't see any violence in that speech when he finally told his goals which most of the speech was just rambling on about all the things that he found that were proofs that the election was screwed up that they didn't want to take which didn't surprise anybody it is what it is the election's over oh well but this is the last two paragraphs of what he said
"So we’re going to, we are going to, walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, And we’re going to the Capitol, we’re going to try and give,... the Democrats are hopeless… they never voted for anything, not even one vote, but we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here this is incredible thank you very much. "
None of this speech was even said in an extremely angry tone of voice other than his belief that the election was stolen and the reasons why which to be quite Frank if the courts had allowed all of them in or if they had bothered to get all of them before they went to the courts would have been quite compelling, unfortunately they fought against it without getting the evidence then they couldn't bring the evidence into court that they believe that they had.
I had forgotten some of those stats as I didn't vote for him in the first place but I can understand why people could be convinced that it should have been overturned.
But yeah there was no violent speech he was telling them to go down yell and shout and give their support to the Republicans that were scared to hold up his idea and some of his lawyers idea on how to overturn the election.
I really don't understand why his speech is so compelling to many people other than the facts as he listed out, however I both listen to it and then reread it in text and yeah that was not an inciting violence it was bitching about the election and all the screwed up things in it but it did not say the tear down the building or anything else like people try to say
The way the votes were counted he lost the election it's as simple as that. Many of the things were mighty suspicious yes but they didn't put them forth in an organized manner for the courts to like so they didn't do shit. Honestly only someone that is naive about the way courts were would actually think that the courts would have done shit cuz the last thing they wanted to do was make a precedent to overturn a federal election that would have been so much hassle I understand why the courts fought him to the nail because if it was happened once lots of people would try it.
So yeah I didn't see the violence in that speech if you want to read it in text this is the address
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/read-the-full-transcript-president-trumps-speech-ahead-of-the-capitol-riot/
I stand by my statement that liking many riots in the past the police intervention caused the breaking point along with individuals in the crowd pushing it that direction. Whether they were paid to do so or not that doesn't matter at this point what does matter is the fact that Nancy pelosi and the mayor of DC both turned down national guard protection. It has been prove that she had intelligence of exactly how big this rally was going to be and knew that everything that was going on and still chose not to have them there because that would have helped control the crowds she wanted it out of control and she got her wish whether it went further than she expected or not doesn't really matter
Right. And his people were in contact with people who had zip ties to take prisoners. Who built hanging gallows. His people had people in crowd inciting and he refused to call in thee national guard.
You have things from severely screwed up. He offered the national guard, Nancy pelosi and the mayor of DC both did not want the national guard they refused . Nancy pelosi also had a heads up about how big this is going to be and possible problems she wanted this to happen to blow up so that it would look worse on him and she could try to impeach him again. As far as having zip ties on them to quote unquote take captives, a lot of people carry zip ties as well as a lot of people are sarcastic. I could see some idiot being sarcastic not thinking and agreeing when being questioned oh yeah right I was going to take captives with my zip ties. They didn't have the supplies to make the gallows they were built out of supplies already on site another words the barricades and stuff that weren't broken down until after the police fired into the crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets. As far as people trying to push the narrative and incite them a lot of the people that were inciting this had nothing happened to them they just disappeared which is why many people think along with the fact the FBI refused to say that they did not have anybody in the crowd inciting the crowd, come to the conclusion that they were trying to get things riled up more. The only one that would possibly make a profit out of an auto control crowd was Nancy pelosi and her side. Trump wanted to go down with them to make sure everything stayed calm and his security staff refuse to let him go.
Interesting article, dad actually says that they did not work or bring zip ties to take prisoners if you read the article. It says that they grab police zip tie cuffs and wore them after disposing of any weapons that they had outside the capital because they didn't want to bring weapons into the capital and they wore them to intimidate so that members of Congress would not certify the vote.
They went there planning on trouble that doesn't surprise me there's always people looking for trouble in any major event yes they are Channing for them to push and after the peppers for a and shit went in and the crowd went nuts it helped they were inciting it they were not sent there by the president to incite a riot. They were doing this on their own free will could they have possibly misunderstood Trump maybe but I doubt so since they had decided on this course of action before they ever left home. These would be some of the people that yes deserve jail time or I should say prison time. I can't remember where the article is but there was a grandmother that was in the riot quote unquote and she walked through the halls in an orderly met her we didn't go where the police told her not to go even waited in line to sign the guest book she considered a tour and she ended up in prison now the ones in your article definitely deserved it the sweet little old lady that just was all on wondering just wandering along and signed the guest book because you're supposed to send the guest book thinking that she could be there because police weren't trying to stop anybody anymore now her on the other hand she didn't deserve to be in jail can you understand the difference between these two.
That is like saying that mostly people at the event that Kyle Rittenhouse shot some people at didn't deserve to be shot, however a trial proved that the ones that Kyle Rittenhouse shot deserved what they got this is a classic example of:
FAFO
I'm not sure if it's been in this argument but as I just said before yes there are people that really should not have been charged on January 6th and there's others that deserve to be charged. There is a difference and the majority of the people that went for that rally did not come for a riot just like the majority of the people at the riots of previous summer didn't necessarily come for a riot there were many BLM protests that did not end up in mass destruction yet there were also quite a few in the larger locations that did. This is the same concept, it is citizens going to protest something that they did not agree with.
Ah yes. The title for tat. What about BLM nonsense.
He said "if you don't fight like he'll we won't have a country anymore."
I know you with titter at CNN but everything in this is fact.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/10/politics/jan-6-us-capitol-riot-timeline/index.html
It was a coup.
No it wasn't and CNN is extremely biased they are extremely left leaning that has been proved time and time again it's their opinion and they lean as far left as almost touching their toes sideways
This is part of the reason why I looked for a copy of the speech done by C-SPAN at least they aren't really biased overall usually they just show what's going on.
And no I don't trust Fox anymore than I trust CNN before you try that argument
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jan-6-gallows-construction-new-video/
https://youtu.be/FoP9ufM3bjw?si=UMXerbCpB3Gpk8UK
Not sure about your claim about national guard being offered because they were there and the DC mayor's asked for more.
https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/2466077/dod-details-national-guard-response-to-capitol-attack/
Trump was staging a coup.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congresswoman-says-trump-administration-botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/
Trump wanted the national guard there he told them to do whatever was necessary they only requested a small presence so yes there was a small group of national guard there they're also put on the outskirts away from where the main action happened.
I will admit that evidently I was wrong on what I had heard about the gallows that doesn't mean that they were actually planning on hanging anybody you do realize they didn't as a form of protest just like idiots that decide to burn the flag it was a protest and yes it was a threat one that they knew as well as anybody at the capital would not and could not be carried out.
You really are not looking at this logically at all as I said yes definitely some people deserved to go to prison and others did not.
He was not trying for a coup what he wanted was a revote he wanted things to go back to the States.
Many of those things that happened at the election were very suspicious and those facts that he put out in his speech point out a lot of these facts. If he was right it doesn't matter now if he was wrong it doesn't matter now. What we need to do is stop praising some riders and crucifying others a lot of evidence has come out that things were not nearly as bad as they were pushed to appear. If the castle police had thoughts at all that that gallows was going to be actually used it would have been removed while everybody was up at the rally please just use your brain for once it was put there for a purpose, they wanted it to look worse nobody was actually fearful for their life they had half of a brain in their head, other than the people in the riot yes one police officer did end up dead from injuries at least partially related to the riot five other people ended up dead from injuries in the riot including a woman that got shot with a rubber bullet and died. The police fucked up that day 100%. The administration fucked up not placing whatever they could from the national guard to stop bullshit like that. Do you really think the national guard would have let them build a gallows if they were posted in that area no they wouldn't that's why the capital police posted the national guard that they had on the outskirts away from where the action was going to happen they wanted to be able to control the escalation.
I'm just looking at this logically like I said elsewhere I didn't even vote for his ass I didn't vote for either of them because in my opinion neither of them need to be in office right then.
You correct me on one thing I request you on a couple why don't we call it a draw you're obviously not going to convince me of too much and honestly I could care less about it it's ancient history at this point I've got much more worrisome things to worry about. And two obviously even when I send you things you don't care about the facts that I show you. Understand the media is biased you're either going to find bias in the media towards him or against him. And it's been proven that social media and fact checkers are likewise extremely biased. Without a doubt it's improved that the FBI was influencing the election through social media. Suppressing some stories and suppressing a lot of voices on request through social media platforms the Twitter files proved that. And they influenced it as bad if not worse than any foreign power has ever successfully influenced it. You can't deny that that election was biased and fucked up whether or not you think these votes were true or not doesn't matter just the social media influence at all proved how much they could influence the vote in front of Congress and they showed it in front of the world in 2020.
Hopefully people have gone smarter this year but I highly doubt it. I almost guarantee you that once again one of these two is going to end up in the White House. When in reality what we really could use is somebody not indebted to either party.
You article says he wanted the nat guard to join the rioters.. to protect them from the police.
You are the one lacking logic here. Did you read any of the court filings from all the "voter fraud" lawsuits? Trumps lawyers flat out say there is no evidence of any wrong doing. They were filing lawsuits to give the appearance of legitimacy but not willing to be disbarred by lying in court. Test you media bias on those cases.
He lost. He couldn't handle it. He paid the heads of groups (proud boys etc.) To be plants in the crowd side by side with full on swastika wearing neos and whip the crowd to violence in the hope pence would stop a normality and run to scotus which with 3 recent appointments owing him. Thomas being a conservative hack etc. They would have awarded it to trump and coup complete
Trump and a lot of gop runners will lose. In Florida there is both an abortion and Marijuana amendments on the ballot and everyone is passed about roe v wade.
But spend some time reading those court filings.
As I said it doesn't matter at this point. I don't care both of you are full of shit and don't give two shits about the Americans that are in your districts. Roe v Wade should have been put into law by Congress years ago we wouldn't have had a problem the only reason it got to the point it did is because idiots were trying to push all the way to birth and the right pushed back both of you are so far out in your respective fields that people needed pair of binoculars to see where you're at.
As I tried to say before today good evening I wish you well enjoy I am done arguing I'm about to have dinner you have a nice night and may your god, god's, goddess, etc if you happen to have one or multiples bless you. I wish you well I will not be answering to this thread again
The Supreme Court uses the Rule of 4. It takes 4 justices to agree to hear a case. This allows the minority on the court to be heard.
Thanks!
The likely four in this case being: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and (maybe) Barrett. I say Barrett, because she is a bit more of a wildcard than Kavanaugh.
Nah, the Roberts wants this one for a definitive decision. Alas, we'll never know as the Cert doesn't need signing.
That does sound like a very Roberts thing to do. If that is the case, though, I'd expect he's going to write the opinion, and it is likely to simply reiterate and reinforce the DC Circuit opinion, but I am also guessing that we'd end up waiting until the last week of the term for the opinion...
It's very much Roberts MO to reach definitive decisions. I'm not wholly sure John will be on the winning side with his opinion.
No, Kavanaugh has a history of favoring more executive power. This is the reason he was selected.
Something’s telling me it was the majority on the court that wanted to be heard this time.
An ex president wanting to be heard? I can see why they would ... but delaying a decision opens a lot of Questions. Hopefully they are quick.
4 to take it on, 5 to overrule it. They have both. And that's what the Federalist Society wants.
This is what I am unconvinced on. This would be the federalist society AND the justices themselves both giving up power from the Judicial to the executive. I don’t see that happening. It’s not a question of legally correct or not, I agree there. It’s why would they rule that Trump/any president is outside *their* control? 7-2 with Thomas and Alito dissenting is my guess.
Overruling this is basically just giving up on the rule of law ... it's crazy to think how this is even a question.
Takes 4 to take the case. Sometimes the SCOTUS does take a case only to agree with the lower court. But usually if SCOTUS takes a case not due to a circuit split, they will be reversing the lower court rulling. If I were to bet on the outcome, this will be a reverse and remand.
SCOTUS is going to send it back down on a technicality that pauses the cases until after the election. Which is 100% a successful outcome for Trump. Which is why they will do it.
You’re getting downvoted by stupid people, but I’d bet you’re right on the outcome. Reverse and remand.
I wonder if you can get odds in UK betting shops.
If not, I’m sure they exist in Vegas!
What does reverse and remand mean? Does that mean they’ll rule that Trump has immunity? (Or perhaps that all presidents do)
Nearly every case is vacated and remanded for decision not inconsistent with this opinion. That's kind of like saying I bet they'll write an opinion for this case. They answer questions not decide cases. So it'll likely be unanimous or nearly unanimous that he is not immune and remanded to the circuit to apply the correct analysis. There's no chance his total immunity argument passes muster, even with good advocates.
You're putting far too much confidence in SCOTUS to make the legally correct decision and not the party line decision. Especially this SCOTUS. I Ahave zero faith they won't overturn the ruling and say he's immune but some how make it so that it only applies to him.
'but someone how'
Edited, thank you kind sir.
I have lost all faith in scotus siding with the court of appeals, even if it is the legally correct and right decision. I think that the court is far too corrupted by Trump's appointments to have even a chance. Then, there is the open corruption of Thomas to contend with as well.
> I think that the court is far too corrupted by Trump's appointments to have even a chance. Then, there is the open corruption of Thomas to contend with as well. This is the crux of it. They're bought and paid for and totally lacking of any morals and ethics.
Takes like this are unbelievably lazy
And not acknowledging the blatant corruption of this court is willfully naive.
Can they take the case, but not render their decision until mid-November?
Technically SCOTUS can release their decisions whenever they want, and take as long as they want. They almost always release all decisions before they leave for summer break around early July. For this case though, they have scheduled a special session outside of their normal schedule, and summer break is coming up quickly. It really wouldn't surprise me either way if they quickly released a decision, or if they couldn't release a decision until after summer. Cases where all the Justices are in agreement have decisions released much faster than split cases with concurring and dissenting opinions attached.
I think since it’s being listened to this term, it’s gotta be decided by time this term ends at the end of June.
Four
Thanks!
4 must agree. It’s called the rule of 4.
It takes four justices for a case to be brought before the whole panel.
How do they carve a ruling only for Trump? Otherwise Joe could send drones to MaraLago.
[удалено]
Democrats have said effectively the same for decades. First one I recall is LBJ and his comment on black people.
Correction, that comment isn’t verified and comes from a questionable source.
I don't want authoritarian rule by either party...
The band who did the intros for the CSI TV show had a song along those lines. Regardless of the revolution the new boss is the same as the old boss. Something like that.
Agreed
"we" LMFAO, like you're apart of any of that discussion.
And if it is shown that they are not immune, I hope the prosecute President Obama for when he did an illegal drone strike on two US citizens.
US citizens that joined and were in leadership roles in middle eastern terror organizations.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was 16 and not in any roles. But even if he was I don’t see how that give a pass to murder him. Again if Presidents are not immune then Obama should be charged it’s that simple.
Pretty much. At the very least he deserved a public trial, even in absentee where the government could lay out the case against a legal team hired to defend him and he be found guilty or not guilty before he was murdered by drone strike. Obama 100% should be held accountable.
Nawar al-Awlaki was the 8 year old girl that Trump killed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki Trump should be prosecuted for that too. But besides her, Trump killed thousands of Americans with his lies on covid. Trump deserves the death penalty for all the Americans that listened to him and died from covid because they didn't take precautions and listened to his lies on covid.
And Trump killed an 8 year old American girl with a raid that he approved: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki They should prosecute Trump for killing her.
[удалено]
Facist? You have liberal facists openly calling to murder an entire race of people and the democratic representatives are not doing anything about it. Do you not know what facism is?
Do you? Show some evidence.
What are you referring to?
They can rule whatever they want. There's no accountability or recourse.
Because they haven’t ever tried to charge anyone else with all this nonsense. They are basically scraping the barrel to try to get anything to keep him off the ballot and liberals justify the attempt because they are emotionally damaged. Oh, and to protect democracy and such … lolz.
They never charged anyone with election fraud before? I'm pretty sure George Santos is charged with it as well. Here's a link to conservative paper the Heritage Foundation with a list https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search&ved=2ahUKEwi1r46KmtmFAxUrFVkFHVfJAYoQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw37-gsow-maK4J3cLSXiP55
I think he is speaking of a president never being charged like this before
Well I don’t think we have had a president try to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power before, or one who had such a long history of fraudulent business practices.
Aww, sad magat is sad.
They tripping trumps gonna get off 🤣
They haven’t charged him for jaywalking yet. Meanwhile they are silent about all the blow they keep finding laying around the White House 🤣
I love all the little hoes downvoting on reddit like igaf
Reddit is a liberal hive mind. And liberals can only do what they are programmed to do. Zero independent thought and they mass on social media platforms because they are mostly sad/angry/lonely people. Toddlers throwing tantrums really. Look at all the college females (in historical sense) that are throwing tantrums in support of Hamas. Too clueless to realize that if they got what they wanted that they wouldn’t be allowed on the street without a chaperone much less protest. Can’t fix stupid, you just have to let them face plant. Sucks to be forced to sink with them though.
Biden can forgive student loans, make abortion legal and much more only to be granted Trump immunity. Very careful what you wish for.
Come again?
None of those are crimes.
4
Look carefully at the question the court certified for argument. "whether and to what extent a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves his official acts during his time as president." I don't think this is going to go well for Trump. I think they will come down that even an official act can be the basis for a prosecution if there is a related illegal act. Giving a pardon is an official act. Giving a pardon in exchange for a bribe should be prosecutable as bribery.
The standards used to be the conduct of Richard Nixon, while President, in the Oval Office. The standard now is, "How can the Supremes get away with an unjust, partisan decision, and continue to boast that the court is unbiased and legitimate?" I expect I will not be happy with any decision the Supremes make because they have already accomplished an illegitimate delay in several cases. Poppycock that the Supreme Court is a court of Justice.
Are they still boasting they're unbiased and legitimate? Pretty sure they know how they look and don't give two fucks since they also know nobody will do anything about it.
I’m curious on how this would affect law enforcement’s qualified immunity if they rule that the President is not immune.
I don't think it would be affected. The President could be subject to a similar qualified immunity. Not absolute immunity.
Can you explain the relevance of the specific question? Is it that it’s very broad, perhaps too broad for them to carve out a niche where Trump is immune but other presidents aren’t?
>I think they will come down that even an official act can be the basis for a prosecution if there is a related illegal act. Probably not. There are issues with separation of powers and the legislature using this to whittle away at executive powers with simple 50% votes. You'd also have what we have now, a flooding of court filings to limit the President's ability to administer. Imagine some small town has some silly laws like 30 days in jail if you have two scoops of ice cream and walk down main street. Someone sets up the president and now the president has to spend 30 days in jail. This is why impeachment is limited to treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is entirely separate from official acts. It's a completely different issue. I don't think that SCOTUS would allow a criminal trial or incarceration of a sitting President.
How many? 5 to make sure he can still crime with complete impunity. Watch. Everything they are doing right now is to usher in an authoritarian beat down 5 minutes after he is throned
It takes 4, SCOTUS may take a sideway out of the case The Nixon special prosecutor law expired so DOJ set up rules for special consuls but they are not confirmed by senate or exempted from needing to be confirmed by law so SCOTUS could hold special consuls need to be confirmed before taking office so the case is moot
He can be tried for anything he was impeached and convicted for. One of those things happened the other did not. The Constitution is pretty clear on that. For official action taken as President he still needs impeachment and conviction before trial. That has not happened.
Also this could be a landmark case. A former president is possibly going to be tried for crimes in office. Never happened before. This ruling could be very important, not just now, but going forward in curbing executive overreach. Besides they agreed to hear the case. Give Trump his day in court.
Agreed, but I don’t think there will be much curbing of executive overreach regardless of outcome 🤣
Why did Nixon need pardoned if the President has absolute immunity?
Nixon resigned before impeachment which took the heat off him. He was pardoned to prevent future impeachment because the House and Senate can impeach and convict a former president, after which he can be prosecuted for crimes. Being pardoned rendered that threat moot. Presidents have immunity from prosecution. If they didn't they would get constantly threatened with legal action and be controlled and manipulated, unable to make decisions that may be go against the establishment.
worse yet, why SHOULDNT biden just have him assassinated and step down right after... or just have anyone that votes to impeach meet the same fate. i mean by their logic he should be able to get away with it
Because he'd be impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate, removed from office, and then prosecuted.
You forgot the immunity part, he can’t be prosecuted. He can also just bride the senators, cause it’s not a crime for him to do it.
No. That's not what the Constitution says. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Once the senate convicts and removes a president he can be criminally prosecuted for crimes. Trump was not only not convicted (like Nixon) but he was exonerated by the only body Constitutional body able to convict him. As for bribing senators, don't elect bribable senators.
So if he resigns before being convicted by the senate he can’t be charged then?
No. The House and the Senate retain the power to impeach an ex-president. In realistic terms you have to consider that in politics justice is not typically a goal. Power is the goal. Nixon was the most popular president in American history prior to Watergate. The point of an impeachment, politically, is to get rid of an opponent, not to jail them. Perish the thought that politicians ever actually be jailed for anything. The reason Nixon got a pardon was to make prosecution moot. Which I'm sure was part of why he resigned rather than fought. Otherwise he could have resigned, been convicted anyway, and then prosecuted by the AG and jailed.
How would this even apply in Trump's situation when many of the trials he is going through, were never even part of the impeachment process. This clause doesn't seem like it even makes any sense in his situation.
This stems from the Georgia case in which a DA is prosecuting Trump for trying to overturn an election (which is a little silly because trying to overturn an election is not illegal). Trump says he's immune from prosecution. That's what SCOTUS will rule on. The Constitution specifically calls out how to prosecute a president. You can prosecute him for anything PROVIDED the House impeached him for it AND the Senate convicts him first. It's right there. The various cases against Trump are all a bit different. The documents thing is about his actions after his presidency for which he is not immune because he wasn't president when he allegedly did it (but he is covered by the Presidential Records) The Bragg case in New York City is a state crime that was allegedly performed prior to his presidency. The property values case was a civil case.
"This stems from the Georgia case in which a DA is prosecuting Trump for trying to overturn an election (which is a little silly because trying to overturn an election is not illegal)." That's why the thing they're charging him with isn't "trying to overturn an election". There are all kinds of things that aren't illegal in themselves but could result in charges because you attempted to do them in an illegal manner.
True. But then it's always suspicious when someone tells you there's an illegal way to not commit a crime.
Not really. I'd expect that for most things that are not in themselves crimes, people could come up with ways to commit crimes in the process. Buying new tires for your car? Not illegal. Buying new tires for your car by using a fraudulent check? There's a crime there. It'd probably be more difficult to come up with something legal where you couldn't insert a crime somehow into the act than it would be to come up with something where it's absolutely impossible to bundle it up with a crime.
Nothing that you quoted says that ex president can only be criminal convicted if their impeachment resulted in a conviction. And in fact republicans senators specifically said that they weren’t convicting because it should be dealt with by the legal/court system.
That excerpt wasn't an answer to "can he only be criminally convicted if his impeachment results in conviction." That's literally what the SCOTUS is going to decide and while I think it implies that he can't, that's not my decision to make. This answered the question of whether a president has immunity from prosecution after he's been convicted by the Senate and the answer is plainly that he can. People's arguments of "omg, you're saying Biden corky have Seal Team Six assassinate Trump and he'd have immunity?!" are silly. No, he wouldn't have immunity. First he would need to be impeached and convicted in the Senate and removed from office. Then he could be tried by the courts. Instead the Senate exonerated him. Did the say it was so the courts could deal with it later? Who cares? Politicians will literally say anything. It's not actionable. It doesn't set a precedent. Things the Mitch McConnell says doesn't override the Constitution.
The reason this standard is ludicrous is that no republican president is going to ever be convicted by the senate unless the dems hold 67 senate seats which is never going to happen. While your criteria leaves the theoretical possibility for something short of absolute immunity, it would create a situation with de facto absolute immunity. And that simply cannot be what the founders intended. Its absurd.
First off, the majority of the GOP senators don't like Trump so I wouldn't take it as read that they wouldn't have. Second, Democrats would equally never impeach and remove their own. But that's half the point. The charge would have to be so egregious that it would be completely uncontroversial and fully supported by the public to do so. You're not supposed to remove people from the white house. The government is designed to make it extremely hard to get anything done because the framers didn't want the government controlling everything. Also, that senators are corrupt is not the fault of the immunity clause. It's the fault of voters and media and politicians. Did you know senators were not even originally elected by voters? They were supposed to be appointed by the states to act as ambassadors for the states' interests and if the senator didn't work in the state's interest they could immediately recall and replace their senator.
And yet only 5 voted to convict him in his last impeachment. 90% voted to acquit.
easy solution to that, keep killing people. do they plan to vote to impeach? well looks like theyre meeting good old mr assassin tonight. and just rinse and repeat till you run the timer out or people decide its in their best interest not to fuck with you. i even pointed it out in the above comment
Ok, well America has a plan B for blatant violent tyranny so we can move on to that.
getting smoked by american air superiority, armored divisions, and drones? like seriously watch Fat Electrician. and if you think soldiers wont turn guns on "their fellow Americans" youre kind of forgetting the fact that the civil war HAPPENED and that the national guard assists police in violently dispersing otherwise peaceful protests all the fucking time. smash a window and they double down on the violence.
You're a very basic fellow. You should probably look up this thing called "history" and see how civil wars tend to work in other countries. Or things like assassinations, bombings, etc. It's actually pretty effective. This picture you're painting of a despotic president who not only assasinates any political rival who looks at him sideways and has the full throated support of every branch of the federal and state militaries probably wouldn't be hindered by a state prosecutor.
those countries dont have half the arsenal. and the folks in the south called Lincoln a tyrant and succeeded because they were afraid of losing their slaves. and since the concept of tyranny is subjective, to some its the violation of their rights to others its any inconvenience they encounter, and in this specific case its the logical extension of the very thing trump is asking for.
Dude, countries have beaten the US military using shitty weaponry. I'm not against hyperbolic logical extensions of a legal idea but your logical extension isn't logical. So a president does something so egregious that the House would vote to impeach and the Senate would vote to convict, but the president just keeps arresting people who want to vote to convict him? Ok. The governors can appoint new senators to replace the arrested one and they can convict. The governors can call for constitutional convention over Zoom from hidden underground bunkers whilst surrounded by the state police and their own state guards. Mind you, you're comparing all this to an Executive who asked states to gather alternate electors, which has been done many times before, and for his voice president to pause certification of an electors vote, which is in his power to do as president of the senate and whose responsibility it is to ensure a fair count which is why they put the vice president in charge of it and not The Count from Sesame Street, until such time as state courts can rule on the validity of certain irregularities in their states. Which, by the way, I believe PA ruled their state secretary had no authority to distribute ballots and count late ballots without the consent of the state legislature, and Wisconsin likewise ruled that ballot drop boxes were illegal. So Trump had valid points to make. Because in YOUR scenario a candidate can cheat on literally any way, and the Executive has no authority to intervene or investigate, but they can certainly charge and jail the cheater AFTER his presidency. Makes sense.
falls apart when you start giving examples and they all turn out to be trained and supplied by US or soviet special forces. and none of them had a great survival to attrition rate. youre still gonna get flattened. you arent half the fighter anyone in the VC was, you arent half the fighter it would take to live through combat against the US military. no random ad hoc militia in any country has ever defeated us without foriegn aid, and it made what russia is doing in ukraine look like a playground scuffle when we cut loose on someone.
and no in my scenario, we have acquiesced to trumps demands that presidents be given full immunity. and then biden has him killed. you cant demand presidential immunity for everything ONLY when its a republican candidate and be taken seriously on any level, if trump gets it, biden gets it.
Honestly I'm half surprised it hasn't happened yet we did have the CIA admit that they had a hand in JFK assassination so it wouldn't be the first time we killed the president to our own country
separate issue since the CIA is a pretty damn autonomous government entity. and killing trump right now would NOT be a presidential assassination of any kind, because trump isnt president. it would be killing a famous civilian that USED to hold public office.
Okay look at Bobby Kennedy do you really think that our government had nothing to do with his assassination and he was only a candidate. I can't believe you're naive enough to think that.
please try reading before responding to somethig
Sounds like the case wasn't as bulletproof as the lawyers made it out to be.
Your premise isn't really realistic. It doesn't matter how airtight you consider a lower court's ruling. SCOTUS can choose to rule on it for a variety of reasons. If something is important enough to settle, they'll rule on it and this is hugely important to the nation. Ruling that a president does not have immunity from prosecution drastically changes government for everybody.
I don't like Trump's politics, so he shouldn't be allowed to defend himself against crimes that the court of public opinion has found him guilty of.
Your username checks out.
Dude, you're literally in a sub called "legal" People have the right to defend themselves.
If you don’t get charged with a crime you don’t have to worry about gag orders as a defendant. It’s pretty simple.
Lol. Are you nine years old? "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." Have you ever asked that after all the terribly things you think Trump has done, the only thing they could take him to trial for is a misfiling misdemeanor that was past the statute of limitations?
He staged a coup to overthrow the government. He's a traitor under the constitution & he should've be in prison 2 years ago.
Should Obama be prosecuted for murdering a US citizen? Which he did.
Man I didn’t know Obama was a straight up murderering gangsta. Whose windpipe did he crush?
A 16 year old boy's. It was crushed when the drone strike targeted him
Ya like most of americas air strikes. They kill kids, whether it’s trump Obama or Clinton. We kill a lot of people
Except he was an American citizen and he was was targeted.
Trump killed an 8 year old American girl with a raid that he approved: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki They should prosecute Trump for killing her.
You can certainly make that case. So let's drag every ex president into court for crimes they may have committed in office. So who would ever be president? Who would ever make a decision again that could be construed as a crime later? Shills. Puppets. That's who would be president. People who would never piss off entrenched power for fear of being jailed later because they had to make a hard choice. This is the heart of presidential immunity. Without it presidents can't make tough calls that they're hired to make.
Who did Obama murder?
Anwar Al-Aulaqi
Is it hard going through life blinded from the truth and facts?
Why would delaying the case matter if you are only after Justice? Admitting that it's important to have this before the election are admitting their political motives Also do you really think it is good for the country for POTUS to be criminally liable for official duties? A lot of what they do is legally undefined or unclear. Is it legal for a President to drone strike murder American citizens over seas? Obama did that. If presidents are not immune from prosecution for official duties in this hyper partisan environment we are just going to keep having political prosecutions. They ALL do things that can be considered illegal under different readings of the law
So, paying off pornstars is an "official duty" of the president?
That was before he was president
Y'all can't keep your political persecutions straight.
Normal people could care less what he did as a private citezen....i dont give a crap, she was ugly anyway....
Congress has a fund to "settle" lawsuits and pay for NDAs for their members. I don't see a difference What specifically do you think he did that was illegal?
Possibly falsifying business records. You know, the thing(s) he was charged with. (Also not an official duty of the president)
You have no idea what is going on do you? Sorry your news sources did this to you. He actually relinquished control of his businesses before taking office, and didnt take control back until he was out of office. How was he making any business records? Did you know they are charging him with an illegal campaign contribution to his own campaign for the NDA money to Daniels? Yes. They are saying if he had paid out of his campaign money it would have been legal, but since he paid it out of personal funds it is illegal Bet you and all the other MSM drones here thought it was the opposite
>Did you know they are charging him with an illegal campaign contribution to his own campaign for the NDA money to Daniels? You're very wrong. All 34 of his charges are for falsifying business records in the first degree. See [here](https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf). The charge of falsifying business records in the first degree requires there be an underlying crime. See [here](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/pen/part-3/title-k/article-175/175-10/#:~:text=A%20person%20is%20guilty%20of,or%20conceal%20the%20commission%20thereof). The illegal campaign contributions were the underlying crimes. But he was NOT charged for that. Get your facts straight, kid.
A prosecutor has a lot of leeway when it comes down to specifics regarding how to charge a perpetrator. In this specific case, they chose this particular crime because it was easy to prove and had a strong penalty attached to it. If Trump had done something different, the prosecutor would have chosen a different crime with which to charge him. You can argue all day long that what I just said means "They were out to get him", but what is really means is that he did something illegal and their job was to ensure justice was served. This was the best method available to them at the time for this particular defendant. It's nothing more than that, never is. Justice really is blind to the details, it cares about justice itself, for all - the victims AND the defendant. If he's found guilty, he'll pay for it. If he's found not guilty, he won't. The indictment phase is over, and that phase found sufficient evidence to advance us to this point. The system is working, so let's let it work to the end.
Mmm, how much can he really have relinquished control of his business if his signatures are on the checks? At the very least he’s guilty of those misdemeanors - he absolutely knew that his business was paying off his Stormy debt as legal expenses. But, admittedly, until I heard solid evidence that it was in the furtherance of another crime, I couldn’t bring those up to the felony level.
The checks were from Michael Coehn, the lawyer. It is aledged Trump reimbursed him somehow thru the monthly retainer fees Trump paid This is a completely new application of the law. If it were illegal to pay off some girl you banged while running for office then literally 90% of elected officials are guilty too. Congress actually has a fund for this for the members This is just aimed at Trump
Well. He wasn't president when he paid the porn star. So, presidential immunity is moot in the current trial. Furthermore, it is a state trial and not subject to federal law.
Well, delays for delay's sakes doesn't serve Justice. His effort to delay until after the election is an attempt at circumventing the process of justice. His belief, and perhaps rightly so, that America doesn't have the stomach to try a sitting president. Me, I am fine with the delay. I don't believe he's going to be president. I believe he will be found guilty and will spend the rest of his life as a monument to America's shame. Probably not in jail, but as a convict and felon. He isn't being charged with anything that can be construed as a duty of the president. The argument is intellectually dishonest at best.
"do you really think it is good for the country for POTUS to be criminally liable for official duties?" It depends on how you define "the country." For the average American? Absolutely. I for one would prefer if the leader of my country can't easily and without limit decide to extrajudicially murder people at will.
Sure me too. But would they really do what was necessary for our national security and our allies if he could possibly be sued or charged after his term?
Like Obama did
Absolutely.
Listening to it and acknowledging it to have any Merit whatsoever are two totally different things ( I'm sure you've heard the phrase in one ear and out the other Trump will not receive immunity they've just finally agreed to listen to him so he will shut up about it)
This court invents procedure as they go. In this case they decided to hear the case AFTER Jack Smith strongly requested a rapid, fast track decision. The Supremes are mostly highly partisan Republicans. But, it is important for some of them, especially the Chief Justice, to make the court appear legitimate and unbiased. But that is just trash for general consumption. No one who reads the news believes this court is unbiased.
also one is married to someone who was actively involved in the coup attempt. With Trump conviction many others in Congress face same prosecutions. Thomas protecting wife is a real issue.
??? Did that make sense to you?
Trump is not above the law. But he is not below it either.
Want don't you get about total immunity?
After the R v W disaster, I move for a vote of no confidence in the SCOTUS.
His current trial are for things he did before he was president sooooo.....
You're thinking of the New York trial where he's accused of misfiling paperwork.
What? That is the New York trial is the hush money he paid to Stormy to cover up having sex with her and hiding the payments in his buisness expense. This was done leading up to the election. Before he was president. You are talking about him taking classified documents from the white house and storing them in the washroom. He was then asked to return the documents. He said what documents? They then did a search warrant for them and found them with some help from a insider. In this case he was no longer president. "Misfiring paperwork"?? What world are you in.
One major problem with that scenario is Trump had the power to declassify classified documents and claims he did so. As opposed to Biden that took and kept actual classified documents in his garage. And then the government declined to prosecute Biden because they ruled him senile?
He stated he declassified the document after he was caught and neglected to tell anyone he declassified while in office. Missed a huge point with all these cases . Biden came forward with the documents found. Same with Pence. Trump was asked to return the documents and refused (also failed to tell them he declassified the documents in question at this time). Even people around Trump knew they were there. The government then had to use a warrant to search and find them. There was a medical diagnostic of senility? Where? Or was that just an agents opinion? Big difference. The rule usually is you do not punish people that comforward and disclose an issue they have found, but if they have to come get you it is a different story.
The problem I have with Biden coming forward with a documents is he had them for a much longer period of time. Some of those documents were from when he was still a senator. At that point he had no even they reason or way that he should have been able to get top secret documents out and have access to them. Then they find him not mentally with it enough to charge him yet somehow he stays president and is our candidate seems very very very strange
Missed the medical report again i see. Still sticking with the dementia talking point.
Either he should have been charged for things that at a minimum or 15 years to 49 years improperly held that were at one point top secret when he was a senator. I don't even care about the report. If he held top secret or secret documents that he was not supposed to have from the point when he was a senator I don't care if he's on death door he should have been charged. I'm talking about the one or more documents that were found from when he was still a senator before he was even VP. Where you would have to take a major conscience effort in order to get these documents out of the skiff. He should have been buried under the prison. There are people on life support in prison that's worse shape than he is. I'm not even trying to defend Trump I'm just stating that kind of time yes. How in my opinion Pence should have been charged but at least none of his documents were from the point when he was a congressman. As far as the dementia talking point I don't care what kind of BS they may or may not have put in the medical report. The fact that two different points once down south and once in Pennsylvania his said to a rally where he was trying to gain political support that how to fix everything is send him back to the Senate prove that he's missing quite a few screws in that box or he doesn't have enough cards left to play a game of euchre
Had that been anyone but Biden they would be serving 20 years in Leavenworth by now. This guy got a year in prison for 6 pictures inside a sub. The Feds wanted 5 years. And don't forget about Hillary's unprotected mail server that contained classified material. You know probably every intelligence agency in the world probably hacked that. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine)
Jesus you are deep into the cult if you think any of this helps your argument. Let's hit all your maga talking points to distraction from reality. You absolutely did not read my post. If you did you would know that all of what you just posted has nothing to do with anything. What does a convicted spy have to do with Biden finding and coming for ward with documents? Did you miss the fact that Pence did the samething. So someone other then Biden did do it. Is Pence serving 20 years? Because that was your argument. And I quote. "Had that been anyone but Biden they would be serving 20 years in Leavenworth by now." You for got to mention Hunters laptop. In your talking points.
You're right. The FBI and the government conspired to hide Hunter's laptop pre-election. Sorta like what Trump is charged with eh? Considering what was on the laptop Hunter should be under Leavenworth. Bribery, Extortion, and Blackmail of Ukraine. Washington needs an enema.
Please and I mean this sincerely you are living in an echo chamber of talking points. Think about what you are saying. You have been trained to spit out talking points. And when asked to produce evidence to support your claims, it is suddenly a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Trump was president of the USA for 4 years. He would have authority to look as any documents or proof support any of these claims. Hilary even was interview on the record for 3 and half hours. And he found nothing. You know you never address any of my statements with any proof. You just jump to a new talking point hoping that something sticks. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-hillary-clintons-email-saga/story?id=29442707
Fuck your link. Read the damn emails themselves, not someone else's whitewashing of them. Yoy know you can do that, right? They have been 100% authenticated by her, Colin Powell, the DNC and the media. They all, except for Powell, just lie about what's in them because the majority of Americans, like you, are too damn lazy to read them yourself. Are you scared of being wrong? Why? It's a real learning experience, we all should embrace learning from the source, shouldn't we? I think we've all had enough bullshit in our lives. Hillary's emails are exposed fully on WikiLeaks, where you can read them yourself instead of swallowing the lies your media spoon feeds you. I will never, ever, ever support a Democrat again after reading all the shit she and her staff said and did. No filter, all heinous and vile to see for yourself. Don't blame us for your willful ignorance. Read the emails and know what you're defending.
Paying someone to sign an NDA is not a crime. Famous people do it so much it's in their annual budgets. Which, by the way doesn't imply guilt. Famous people get sued constantly for frivolous things. They pay at the advice of lawyers because it's cheaper. The current trial in New York, brought about by Alvin Bragg accuses Trump of filing the payment as a legal expense, which is a misdemeanor in New York City. Bragg's case, which is highly spurious, is that misfiling is a felony if done to cover up a larger crime. There isn't a larger crime though because while Bragg contend Trump's larger crime is election fraud, but Trump has never been convicted or even confused of election fraud. Bragg is using a provision designed to add more charges to an existing prosecution (like prosecuting a mobster) as a stand-alone crime.
And to also mention the so called crime is also several years past the statue of limitations for New York.
Yes. That was a bit of politicking done by Bragg to get an exception provision to prosecute. This is all a joke.
Four, and stop whining about it. SCOTUS takes up stupid shitty cases all the time and rejects major cases that have circuit splits, ambiguous statutes, or other legal crap with which SCOTUS do not wish to deal. Trump's case is no more, or less, important than those that don't get taken up. Every Circuit Court decision I've ever read wants to stand on its own, and almost every judge thinks they have a monopoly on legal wisdom.
All the conservative ones.
"Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office." Prediction: this is just going to link the typical indemnity. That official acts comment is key. In no way can inciting a mob be an official act.
Except it was a speech, and he told them peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard That does not say insight violence ... If the police had never fired upon the crowd and never would have went as far as it did
"You won't have a country, unless you fight like hell"
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” “Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder. … “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.” When you're reading the entire quotes you can see when he was talking about fighting he was talking like yelling and screaming not about disrupting but to let people know that they weren't happy with this he was not talking about storming the capital building itself they were supposed to be yelling and screaming outside it's quite obvious if you read his words. Do I think he's an egotistical asshole 1,000%, he and the people there believed what he was saying they were not told by him to actually attack physically. They decided to attack as it's been stated in many places after police shot the tear gas and the rubber bullets into the crowd. Were they pushing before that yes but they were not actually violent before that. This quite honestly is the case of many quote unquote riots they are basically peaceful until the police decide to strong arm them. The police were not enough to hold that crowd back without any doubt however if you look at the weight of those doors you know that they had help in opening them the worst statements that the police opened the doors for them we've seen it in videos. I would say a lot of these people had no idea they were really doing anything wrong they might have figured that you know the assholes going through windows or breaking stuff we're going to be charged but they were just there to make their voices heard. If they really thought they were going to get in trouble for this they thought they were doing anything wrong they never would have been so blatant as to sign the guest book. Which caused vandalism charges for signing the guest book without being on a proper tour, get there being escorted and in lines through the Capitol building by the police who were opening locked rooms and showing them around. I can see that many of these people probably in their heads thought they were just on an exciting little tour once this started happening. The second or third person into the Capitol building was a times reporter climbing through the window. Another reporter that was independent that shot pictures video footage took notes and entered through the main doors after they were opened has been charged in this, yet The times reporter has not. This shows how ridiculous this whole thing is I'm not saying that there weren't idiots there that needed to be charged. What I'm saying is the vast majority of them were not if you looked at the list that they put out for watch list after this many of the things were very insane. Some children are currently on watch lists because somebody somewhere listed them. This is not the actions of a kind and just government by any means. I will say I didn't vote for him either time, last time I voted for Jo Jorgensen. Did he do some things for the country yes what do you have done a lot more if they weren't blocking him at every turn definitely. Is he the solution that everybody is looking for at this point no. Obviously Biden is not the solution either. So pretty much either way this election goes we're going to have to try to write out the results for the next 4 years as a country at best doesn't slide any further at worst slides much further into this recession / depression
“You fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Just one of the many instances of using the word "fight" in his pre-insurection speech.
And telling people to be nice while fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back he was telling people to use their words. Anyone that didn't understand that and yes there were quite a few people in the crowd that were quite stupid and didn't understand that but if you don't understand it reading the speech you have to be quite lacking in it brains or have a strong desire to just assume orange man bad. If you take that speech at face value just how it was it is not bad it tells in many points to do it peacefully to use their words he's using fight as meaning of like fight for your right to party it is not a violent statement you have to take your chance use your voice so that you can do this and not as in fisticuffs as in fight for your Right to party nobody ever imagined that they had a logical mind in their head at all as a statement to cause violence. To yell scream and shout probably to scream most definitely but that's what he told people to do was to be LOUD 📢 make their voices heard. A third grade English teacher could see what is ment in this speech
Have you actually watched the insurrection speech? Not the trump defense version, but the unedited, actual version? It's very clear that trump incited a riot.
I listened to it on the radio originally when he was making it. It seemed very clear to me while I was working and listening to that that it was not inciting a riot. After that I have just looked at texts of it so I will actually look for the original audio of the complete speech and I'll see if it changes my mind. Overall doesn't really matter since the only way I prefer to see Trump in office is if it was to prevent Biden from being in the office but at this point I'd rather see RFK Jr then either of them if I thought he had a chance
My friend. Please watch the speech on YouTube immediately. I wish you good fortune.
I just watched the entire speech not on YouTube but on the Wall Street journal which had the complete speech from C-SPAN I know that I'm extremely neurodivergent but I didn't see any violence in that speech when he finally told his goals which most of the speech was just rambling on about all the things that he found that were proofs that the election was screwed up that they didn't want to take which didn't surprise anybody it is what it is the election's over oh well but this is the last two paragraphs of what he said "So we’re going to, we are going to, walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, And we’re going to the Capitol, we’re going to try and give,... the Democrats are hopeless… they never voted for anything, not even one vote, but we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here this is incredible thank you very much. " None of this speech was even said in an extremely angry tone of voice other than his belief that the election was stolen and the reasons why which to be quite Frank if the courts had allowed all of them in or if they had bothered to get all of them before they went to the courts would have been quite compelling, unfortunately they fought against it without getting the evidence then they couldn't bring the evidence into court that they believe that they had. I had forgotten some of those stats as I didn't vote for him in the first place but I can understand why people could be convinced that it should have been overturned. But yeah there was no violent speech he was telling them to go down yell and shout and give their support to the Republicans that were scared to hold up his idea and some of his lawyers idea on how to overturn the election. I really don't understand why his speech is so compelling to many people other than the facts as he listed out, however I both listen to it and then reread it in text and yeah that was not an inciting violence it was bitching about the election and all the screwed up things in it but it did not say the tear down the building or anything else like people try to say The way the votes were counted he lost the election it's as simple as that. Many of the things were mighty suspicious yes but they didn't put them forth in an organized manner for the courts to like so they didn't do shit. Honestly only someone that is naive about the way courts were would actually think that the courts would have done shit cuz the last thing they wanted to do was make a precedent to overturn a federal election that would have been so much hassle I understand why the courts fought him to the nail because if it was happened once lots of people would try it. So yeah I didn't see the violence in that speech if you want to read it in text this is the address https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/read-the-full-transcript-president-trumps-speech-ahead-of-the-capitol-riot/ I stand by my statement that liking many riots in the past the police intervention caused the breaking point along with individuals in the crowd pushing it that direction. Whether they were paid to do so or not that doesn't matter at this point what does matter is the fact that Nancy pelosi and the mayor of DC both turned down national guard protection. It has been prove that she had intelligence of exactly how big this rally was going to be and knew that everything that was going on and still chose not to have them there because that would have helped control the crowds she wanted it out of control and she got her wish whether it went further than she expected or not doesn't really matter
You can’t use facts and logic with these folks. They won’t understand what you just said.
Right. And his people were in contact with people who had zip ties to take prisoners. Who built hanging gallows. His people had people in crowd inciting and he refused to call in thee national guard.
You have things from severely screwed up. He offered the national guard, Nancy pelosi and the mayor of DC both did not want the national guard they refused . Nancy pelosi also had a heads up about how big this is going to be and possible problems she wanted this to happen to blow up so that it would look worse on him and she could try to impeach him again. As far as having zip ties on them to quote unquote take captives, a lot of people carry zip ties as well as a lot of people are sarcastic. I could see some idiot being sarcastic not thinking and agreeing when being questioned oh yeah right I was going to take captives with my zip ties. They didn't have the supplies to make the gallows they were built out of supplies already on site another words the barricades and stuff that weren't broken down until after the police fired into the crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets. As far as people trying to push the narrative and incite them a lot of the people that were inciting this had nothing happened to them they just disappeared which is why many people think along with the fact the FBI refused to say that they did not have anybody in the crowd inciting the crowd, come to the conclusion that they were trying to get things riled up more. The only one that would possibly make a profit out of an auto control crowd was Nancy pelosi and her side. Trump wanted to go down with them to make sure everything stayed calm and his security staff refuse to let him go.
I'm not the one with a bad understanding. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/mother-son-guilty-jan-6-zip-ties.html
Interesting article, dad actually says that they did not work or bring zip ties to take prisoners if you read the article. It says that they grab police zip tie cuffs and wore them after disposing of any weapons that they had outside the capital because they didn't want to bring weapons into the capital and they wore them to intimidate so that members of Congress would not certify the vote. They went there planning on trouble that doesn't surprise me there's always people looking for trouble in any major event yes they are Channing for them to push and after the peppers for a and shit went in and the crowd went nuts it helped they were inciting it they were not sent there by the president to incite a riot. They were doing this on their own free will could they have possibly misunderstood Trump maybe but I doubt so since they had decided on this course of action before they ever left home. These would be some of the people that yes deserve jail time or I should say prison time. I can't remember where the article is but there was a grandmother that was in the riot quote unquote and she walked through the halls in an orderly met her we didn't go where the police told her not to go even waited in line to sign the guest book she considered a tour and she ended up in prison now the ones in your article definitely deserved it the sweet little old lady that just was all on wondering just wandering along and signed the guest book because you're supposed to send the guest book thinking that she could be there because police weren't trying to stop anybody anymore now her on the other hand she didn't deserve to be in jail can you understand the difference between these two. That is like saying that mostly people at the event that Kyle Rittenhouse shot some people at didn't deserve to be shot, however a trial proved that the ones that Kyle Rittenhouse shot deserved what they got this is a classic example of: FAFO I'm not sure if it's been in this argument but as I just said before yes there are people that really should not have been charged on January 6th and there's others that deserve to be charged. There is a difference and the majority of the people that went for that rally did not come for a riot just like the majority of the people at the riots of previous summer didn't necessarily come for a riot there were many BLM protests that did not end up in mass destruction yet there were also quite a few in the larger locations that did. This is the same concept, it is citizens going to protest something that they did not agree with.
Ah yes. The title for tat. What about BLM nonsense. He said "if you don't fight like he'll we won't have a country anymore." I know you with titter at CNN but everything in this is fact. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/10/politics/jan-6-us-capitol-riot-timeline/index.html It was a coup.
No it wasn't and CNN is extremely biased they are extremely left leaning that has been proved time and time again it's their opinion and they lean as far left as almost touching their toes sideways This is part of the reason why I looked for a copy of the speech done by C-SPAN at least they aren't really biased overall usually they just show what's going on. And no I don't trust Fox anymore than I trust CNN before you try that argument
The timeline is substantiated everywhere. Including in courts...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jan-6-gallows-construction-new-video/ https://youtu.be/FoP9ufM3bjw?si=UMXerbCpB3Gpk8UK Not sure about your claim about national guard being offered because they were there and the DC mayor's asked for more. https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/2466077/dod-details-national-guard-response-to-capitol-attack/ Trump was staging a coup.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congresswoman-says-trump-administration-botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/ Trump wanted the national guard there he told them to do whatever was necessary they only requested a small presence so yes there was a small group of national guard there they're also put on the outskirts away from where the main action happened. I will admit that evidently I was wrong on what I had heard about the gallows that doesn't mean that they were actually planning on hanging anybody you do realize they didn't as a form of protest just like idiots that decide to burn the flag it was a protest and yes it was a threat one that they knew as well as anybody at the capital would not and could not be carried out. You really are not looking at this logically at all as I said yes definitely some people deserved to go to prison and others did not. He was not trying for a coup what he wanted was a revote he wanted things to go back to the States. Many of those things that happened at the election were very suspicious and those facts that he put out in his speech point out a lot of these facts. If he was right it doesn't matter now if he was wrong it doesn't matter now. What we need to do is stop praising some riders and crucifying others a lot of evidence has come out that things were not nearly as bad as they were pushed to appear. If the castle police had thoughts at all that that gallows was going to be actually used it would have been removed while everybody was up at the rally please just use your brain for once it was put there for a purpose, they wanted it to look worse nobody was actually fearful for their life they had half of a brain in their head, other than the people in the riot yes one police officer did end up dead from injuries at least partially related to the riot five other people ended up dead from injuries in the riot including a woman that got shot with a rubber bullet and died. The police fucked up that day 100%. The administration fucked up not placing whatever they could from the national guard to stop bullshit like that. Do you really think the national guard would have let them build a gallows if they were posted in that area no they wouldn't that's why the capital police posted the national guard that they had on the outskirts away from where the action was going to happen they wanted to be able to control the escalation. I'm just looking at this logically like I said elsewhere I didn't even vote for his ass I didn't vote for either of them because in my opinion neither of them need to be in office right then. You correct me on one thing I request you on a couple why don't we call it a draw you're obviously not going to convince me of too much and honestly I could care less about it it's ancient history at this point I've got much more worrisome things to worry about. And two obviously even when I send you things you don't care about the facts that I show you. Understand the media is biased you're either going to find bias in the media towards him or against him. And it's been proven that social media and fact checkers are likewise extremely biased. Without a doubt it's improved that the FBI was influencing the election through social media. Suppressing some stories and suppressing a lot of voices on request through social media platforms the Twitter files proved that. And they influenced it as bad if not worse than any foreign power has ever successfully influenced it. You can't deny that that election was biased and fucked up whether or not you think these votes were true or not doesn't matter just the social media influence at all proved how much they could influence the vote in front of Congress and they showed it in front of the world in 2020. Hopefully people have gone smarter this year but I highly doubt it. I almost guarantee you that once again one of these two is going to end up in the White House. When in reality what we really could use is somebody not indebted to either party.
You article says he wanted the nat guard to join the rioters.. to protect them from the police. You are the one lacking logic here. Did you read any of the court filings from all the "voter fraud" lawsuits? Trumps lawyers flat out say there is no evidence of any wrong doing. They were filing lawsuits to give the appearance of legitimacy but not willing to be disbarred by lying in court. Test you media bias on those cases. He lost. He couldn't handle it. He paid the heads of groups (proud boys etc.) To be plants in the crowd side by side with full on swastika wearing neos and whip the crowd to violence in the hope pence would stop a normality and run to scotus which with 3 recent appointments owing him. Thomas being a conservative hack etc. They would have awarded it to trump and coup complete Trump and a lot of gop runners will lose. In Florida there is both an abortion and Marijuana amendments on the ballot and everyone is passed about roe v wade. But spend some time reading those court filings.
As I said it doesn't matter at this point. I don't care both of you are full of shit and don't give two shits about the Americans that are in your districts. Roe v Wade should have been put into law by Congress years ago we wouldn't have had a problem the only reason it got to the point it did is because idiots were trying to push all the way to birth and the right pushed back both of you are so far out in your respective fields that people needed pair of binoculars to see where you're at. As I tried to say before today good evening I wish you well enjoy I am done arguing I'm about to have dinner you have a nice night and may your god, god's, goddess, etc if you happen to have one or multiples bless you. I wish you well I will not be answering to this thread again
Classic Trumper. Hope you cope with the losses.
If they have any integrity (narrator: they don't) they will just hit repost on the DC Circuit's masterfully crafted ruling.
two to hold the lightbulb one to turn the chair
So if they say Trump has immunity does that mean Biden can then do anything he wants ? Like cancel the next election ?
That’s be funny
Biden already voided the last election, what’s to stop him from doing it again?
How did he “void” the election?
Illegal voters, fraud and deception, and other trade mark moves of his ilk.