Jack Smith & Scotus ruling

[riclag]

JACK smith & JILL biden went up a hill to fetch Joe biden. Joe fell down

and broke his crown and Trump survived them!

 

Jack be nimble Jack was too quick after all. 
Presidents have immunity & when the lights went out in GA debate scandal

all points to 

 

Trump increased his chances of securing  47!

 

methinks

 

 

“In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, former President Trump said, "I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years, and now the courts have spoken." 

"This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-immunity-case-supreme-court-rules-ex-presidents-substantial-protection-prosecution

 

 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

JACK smith & JILL biden went up a hill to fetch Joe biden. Joe fell down

and broke his crown and Trump survived them!

 

Jack be nimble Jack wasn't quick after all. 
Presidents have immunity & when the lights went out in GA debate scandal

all points to 

 

Trump increased his chances of securing  47!

 

methinks

 

 

 

“In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, former President Trump said, "I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years, and now the courts have spoken." 

"This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-immunity-case-supreme-court-rules-ex-presidents-substantial-protection-prosecution

 

 

 

Presidents have immunity for official acts only.

I doubt that calling to ask to find him 11,700 votes  or plotting fake electors' list can be considered as official acts. 😀

[shdmn]

Biden should just declare convicted felons ineligible to run for president.  He may as well just declare himself president for life while he is at it.  It would be an official act after all and that is total cool now.   If he doesn't do that the convicted felon will if he manages to win, so may as well just preempt that now that the supremes have given the thumbs up.

[Danderman123]

Meh.

 

Despite all the yelling and screaming, this is basically status quo.

 

Presidents have always had implied immunity for official acts, and the DOJ has a policy of not prosecuting the President.

 

The only thing this gives Trump is the opportunity to argue that his crimes were official acts. He will argue that all the way to the Supreme Court, delaying his cases. But since Trump is going to lose, it doesn't matter if he is tried in 2025 or 2026.

[CharlieKo]

22 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

He will argue that all the way to the Supreme Court,

He just did and won. Get over it. He will be elected President in November.

[stoner]

1 hour ago, shdmn said:

Biden should just declare convicted felons ineligible to run for president.  He may as well just declare himself president for life while he is at it.  It would be an official act after all and that is total cool now.   If he doesn't do that the convicted felon will if he manages to win, so may as well just preempt that now that the supremes have given the thumbs up.

 

Well that sounds about right. Be the thing you are projecting against. I love it. At least you are honest.

 

The other guy is a fascist so we have to be fascist to protect freedom. 

[bendejo]

All hail John Roberts, the best SCOTUS chief justice money can buy.

But what if the current admin exercises this new interpretation to take action to save the WH from a notorious scofflaw before Election Day?

Ooohh, I don't think the ones cheering today will be happy with that!

 

[shdmn]

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

All hail John Roberts, the best SCOTUS chief justice money can buy.

But what if the current admin exercises this new interpretation to take action to save the WH from a notorious scofflaw before Election Day?

Ooohh, I don't think the ones cheering today will be happy with that!

 

This ruling should do wonders for Democrat voter turnout.   The convicted felon is not even the problem. That compulsive lying loser is just a symptom. He is pre-dementia and will probably be dead soon anyways, like his father.

[impulse]

4 hours ago, candide said:

Presidents have immunity for official acts only.

I doubt that calling to ask to find him 11,700 votes  or plotting fake electors' list can be considered as official acts. 😀

Read the Texas vs Pennsylvania et al lawsuit from December 2020. Then read the amicus briefs by 18 states and 126 congressman agreeing that there was cause to question the results. Trump would have been irresponsible if he hadn't questioned the results. It was an official act, backed by hundreds of elected officials. The idea that he went rogue is ludicrous.

[jerrymahoney]

July 15, 1973 per NY Times:

 

“I think a President is entitled to have kept secret confidential communications had between him and an aide or had among his aides, which were had for the purpose of assisting the President to perform in lawful manner one of his constitutional or legal duties,” Senator Ervin told former Attorney General John N. Mitchell at the committee hearing Thursday.

 

“And I think also that is the full scope and effect of executive privilege. Since. there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the President to run for re‐election, I don't think that executive privilege covers any political activities whatsoever. They are not official and have no relation to his office.

 

 

[candide]

48 minutes ago, impulse said:

Read the Texas vs Pennsylvania et al lawsuit from December 2020. Then read the amicus briefs by 18 states and 126 congressman agreeing that there was cause to question the results. Trump would have been irresponsible if he hadn't questioned the results. It was an official act, backed by hundreds of elected officials. The idea that he went rogue is ludicrous.

His own DOJ said it was B.S. and when fake electors lists were sent, all the lawsuits and recounts had failed.

Trump is a liar.

[Skipalongcassidy]

5 hours ago, shdmn said:

Biden should just declare convicted felons ineligible to run for president.  He may as well just declare himself president for life while he is at it.  It would be an official act after all and that is total cool now.   If he doesn't do that the convicted felon will if he manages to win, so may as well just preempt that now that the supremes have given the thumbs up.

He is still holding out for hunter to be elected president... so felons need to be eligible

[Skipalongcassidy]

27 minutes ago, candide said:

His own DOJ said it was B.S. and when fake electors lists were sent, all the lawsuits and recounts had failed.

Trump is a liar.

First class denier ya bet... drink the koolaid... no wonder the usa is going down the toilet.

[jas007]

The court pretty much had to rule the way it did.  This should be no surprise to anyone who knows anything about the Constitution and about how the court works. They couldn’t leave a president with no immunity, and it’s probably fair to say that the president would not be immune from prosecution for all acts, especially those done outside the scope of his authority as president. It becomes a question of fact.

 

In any event, the case has been remanded and that process takes time.  There will be no trial before the election. A big win for Trump in that regard.

 

It’s all crazy, no matter how you look at it.  Now, the question of whether the president was acting in his official capacity when allegedly committing a crime will always be a necessary finding.  Just this morning on Al Jazeera, they interviewed a law professor about the case.  She said the decision would go down as one of the worst decisions ever by the Supreme Court.  It’s funny how even well educated people can be oblivious to reality. Blame Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[impulse]

4 hours ago, candide said:

His own DOJ said it was B.S. and when fake electors lists were sent, all the lawsuits and recounts had failed.

Trump is a liar.

How, exactly, did Trump's DOJ decide anything when the issues presented in the Texas lawsuit are still winding their way through the courts, almost 4 years later?

 

With a goodly percentage of the rulings going against the illegal changes made by some activist election officials, without the required legislative approvals.

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, impulse said:

Read the Texas vs Pennsylvania et al lawsuit from December 2020. Then read the amicus briefs by 18 states and 126 congressman agreeing that there was cause to question the results. Trump would have been irresponsible if he hadn't questioned the results. It was an official act, backed by hundreds of elected officials. The idea that he went rogue is ludicrous.

Briefs devoid of evidence.

[candide]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

How, exactly, did Trump's DOJ decide anything when the issues presented in the Texas lawsuit are still winding their way through the courts, almost 4 years later?

 

With a goodly percentage of the rulings going against the illegal changes made by some activist election officials, without the required legislative approvals.

A rejected and politically motivated lawsuit is not a proof of anything. There is evidence that Trump knew it was B.S.

As to the rulings against some of the changes, it is also not a proof of fraud in the 2020 elections.

I see you are still.l drinking the 2020 rigged election fairy tale. 😃

 the conservative judges at the S.C. declined to cover Trump up on this particular matter.

[candide]

9 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

First class denier ya bet... drink the koolaid... no wonder the usa is going down the toilet.

Someone who believes that Trump won the 2020 election talking about Kool Aid! That's rich! 😃

[novacova]

11 hours ago, shdmn said:

This ruling should do wonders for Democrat voter turnout.

Really? Hmm…believe it or not, most of my friends the US are left, not a one of them plan on voting for Biden, at least they’re not admitting to it.

[Stocky]

So in the same week that the United States commemorates its independence from the British monarch, its Supreme Court in effect crowns its President - a decision it will regret one day.

[jas007]

10 minutes ago, Stocky said:

So in the same week that the United States commemorates its independence from the British monarch, its Supreme Court in effect crowns its President - a decision it will regret one day.

Don’t believe all that. The court can’t rewrite the constitution and the case law that has evolved over the years. The court conceded that the president has unqualified immunity for actions taken when performing his core presidential duties, but also concluded that the president’s immunity is not absolute.  And the president surely isn’t immune from actions taken in a purely private matter.  All that makes perfect sense. It’s nothing new, really.
 

The problem is that there’s a large grey area. The President may be performing in an official capacity and yet he might, at the same time, arguably be dealing in a mostly private matter.  Just because some nutty DA somewhere dreams up a crime that the president supposedly committed, doesn’t make it so.  Think about it.  The president can always be charged with something or other.  But being charged with a crime does not automatically remove the president’s immunity.  It’s a finding the court has to make.  
 

So this case doesn’t really fix anything.  It benefits Trump, in that the case was remanded and is now delayed, but that’s about it.  The people screaming about the outcome are politically motivated. They hate Trump so much they’ll spout any kind of nonsense.

[riclag]

30 minutes ago, Stocky said:

So in the same week that the United States commemorates its independence from the British monarch, its Supreme Court in effect crowns its President - a decision it will regret one day.

Its our Constitutional Republic at work!

Dems be like, its  Democracy when the Scotus decisions favors them!

And if not, they take a similar approach as you!

 

 AOC a radical socialist congresswoman,Impeach the SC justices.

https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-impeachment-articles-supreme-court-trump-immunity-ruling-2024-7
 

Dem Senate majority leader Schumer:

 ‘Disgraceful’ Trump immunity decision will ‘weaken’ democracy

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/4749850-supreme-court-schumer-trump/

 

 

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Don’t believe all that. The court can’t rewrite the constitution and the case law that has evolved over the years. The court conceded that the president has unqualified immunity for actions taken when performing his core presidential duties, but also concluded that the president’s immunity is not absolute.  And the president surely isn’t immune from actions taken in a purely private matter.  All that makes perfect sense. It’s nothing new, really.
 

The problem is that there’s a large grey area. The President may be performing in an official capacity and yet he might, at the same time, arguably be dealing in a mostly private matter.  Just because some nutty DA somewhere dreams up a crime that the president supposedly committed, doesn’t make it so.  Think about it.  The president can always be charged with something or other.  But being charged with a crime does not automatically remove the president’s immunity.  It’s a finding the court has to make.  
 

So this case doesn’t really fix anything.  It benefits Trump, in that the case was remanded and is now delayed, but that’s about it.  The people screaming about the outcome are politically motivated. They hate Trump so much they’ll spout any kind of nonsense.

Thank you for  your comment  of what some experts might consider  as  Ham Sandwich Law.

Methinks

 “Just because some nutty DA somewhere dreams up a crime that the president supposedly committed, doesn’t make it so”.

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Don’t believe all that. The court can’t rewrite the constitution and the case law that has evolved over the years. The court conceded that the president has unqualified immunity for actions taken when performing his core presidential duties, but also concluded that the president’s immunity is not absolute.  And the president surely isn’t immune from actions taken in a purely private matter.  All that makes perfect sense. It’s nothing new, really.
 

The problem is that there’s a large grey area. The President may be performing in an official capacity and yet he might, at the same time, arguably be dealing in a mostly private matter.  Just because some nutty DA somewhere dreams up a crime that the president supposedly committed, doesn’t make it so.  Think about it.  The president can always be charged with something or other.  But being charged with a crime does not automatically remove the president’s immunity.  It’s a finding the court has to make.  
 

So this case doesn’t really fix anything.  It benefits Trump, in that the case was remanded and is now delayed, but that’s about it.  The people screaming about the outcome are politically motivated. They hate Trump so much they’ll spout any kind of nonsense.

“ So this case doesn’t really fix anything.  It benefits Trump, in that the case was remanded and is now delayed, but that’s about it.  The people screaming about the outcome are politically motivated. They hate Trump so much they’ll spout any kind of nonsense“

 

Also worth mentioning chief justice roberts was disturbed by the prosecutors & lower courts efforts at speeding up their proceedings, when it appeared they should of taken these exact steps to help smooth the course!

[theblether]

40 minutes ago, Stocky said:

So in the same week that the United States commemorates its independence from the British monarch, its Supreme Court in effect crowns its President - a decision it will regret one day.

 

Drivel. 

 

Anyway, the DoJ apparently doesn't have the power to appoint a Special Counsel. Congress allowed the Ethics in Government Act to lapse in 1999. I wonder why? Was the 1999 Congress a bit p*ssed about the Kenneth Starr imbroglio? Starr's investigation of Clinton descended into a persecution. No sane Democrat can argue that. 

 

Mueller's investigation of Trump was rendered farcical. Hurs investigation of Biden has been a cluster***k and Smith's persecution of Trump beyond a joke. 

 

There needs to be a bipartisan law passed by Congress as Republican and Democrat Presidents are being harassed by activist prosecutors. At the very least, if the DoJ nominates a Special Prosecutor, he or she should be subjected to Congressional approval. 

 

This constant undermining of Presidents has to end, and I personally feel the persecution of Clinton was an utter disgrace with dire, dire consequences. 

[9KPhalak]

Biden should be happy with the ruling because he could be charged with treason due to his cooperation with the CCP. 

[Skipalongcassidy]

14 hours ago, candide said:

Someone who believes that Trump won the 2020 election talking about Kool Aid! That's rich! 😃

I have never said that... just another typical response from the left... keep drinking

[candide]

8 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

I have never said that... just another typical response from the left... keep drinking

So you think Trump is lying about it? Nice to know that!

[Yagoda]

On 7/1/2024 at 12:59 PM, candide said:

Presidents have immunity for official acts only.

I doubt that calling to ask to find him 11,700 votes  or plotting fake electors' list can be considered as official acts. 😀

You have no idea as to the facts other than what you read in your media bubble, nor do you have the legal knowledge to comment on electors, so why would you make such a silly comment?

[mogandave]

On 7/2/2024 at 12:05 AM, shdmn said:

Biden should just declare convicted felons ineligible to run for president.  He may as well just declare himself president for life while he is at it.  It would be an official act after all and that is total cool now.   If he doesn't do that the convicted felon will if he manages to win, so may as well just preempt that now that the supremes have given the thumbs up.

Trump is not actually a convicted felon until he’s sentenced.