10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sigh. If a lower court rules it was not an "official act" it's a crime and they can be prosecuted.

Unfortunately it would probably give presidents like Bush the younger immunity for taking America to war against Iraq on a lie, though they seem to have been acting as though that were always the situation.

Happy for Biden to try shooting someone 

2 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

 

Being POTUS ,  Biden could officially order some of his service men to assassinate Trump ?

Just jokin' ...

Or … as has been the example in the military services, someone might chose to “fall on the grenade” in order to save their comrades …

More <removed> nonsense.  🙄

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

The ruling that it was not an official act will be challenged, and overturned.

Sadly, do you recall that Trump has already been making the defense that he “declassified” documents taken to his private residence? His defense in the Georgia indictments that he had every right to talk to the voting certifying official vote count to find him 11,000 more votes. Now going to file legal motions in the New York case already decided by a citizen jury, stating that he is now immune from prosecution. Sorry, but I can only see years of coming legal  arguments, tying up the courts and the citizenry of the nation. Trump is not defeated and “Katie, bar the door” the USA will be thrown into turmoil … the greatest danger with that … a move by an autocratic ruler to involve the USA directly in being attacked to unify the splintered nation.

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't aware that Trump has been found guilty of trying to overthrow the government. Any facts from a reputable source to back that up? They've had 3 years to convict him on that, but they haven't, have they?

You are correct. The incompetent and/or cowardly Garland DOJ (Garland, handpicked by Biden), has wasted a year and a half before getting into action and starting actual investigations and prosecutions. Apparently these professionals weren't aware of all the delay tactics commonly used by Trump et al.

This is the picture: a corrupt fascist and coup plotter (supported by millions of Americans), against a weak, frail and mentally impaired Biden (supported by the party establishment, not by the American people), with the likelihood of the corrupt fascist winning the election in November.

A great democracy going down the drain fast, and we're all here to watch the disaster in real time. Great stuff!

Edited July 3, 20242 yr by Presto

2 hours ago, parallelman said:

Not quite how I read this SC decision. Wouldn't 'official acts' have to be duly noted, discussed with relevant personnel, recorded in the official / executive records etc.? That is to say in an extreme case scenario, that any president wanting to assassinate anyone the action would have to be discussed and recorded as an official pert of the president's daily/weekly routine. If the official procedure is not followed then the act would then be 'unofficial' and thereby open to prosecution. For example, I am sure the 'assassination' of terrorists leaders would be discussed by the president with the appropriate military dept. and recorded. In the case of eliminating one's political opponents I don't think a leader in any country would want it officially known.

There are no laws requiring these discussions. Under the current SCOTUS, it will be the President who determines an official act. Yes, a court action could be brought … chances to be brought before this court? The outcome? Right … chaos.

The privilege of a dictator is this.

So if the leader of the USA is "entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for "official acts" will the USA extend that courtesy to foreign leaders' for "official acts" perpetrated against them?

 

Governments and judiciaries should advocate for less power to elected leaders, not more. Isn't the U.S. Constitution primarily about limiting power?

11 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

You might want to start reading news and stop reading The Nation. 

 

Spot on

For the love of god & my country !

The   people & organizations that make bias accusations are bias with

INTENT.

 
Mediabiascheck says

 

The Nation masthead states that it is edited and published by Katrina vanden Heuvel. Richard Kim is the Executive Editor, and the President is Erin O’Mara. According to theirabout page, the magazine describes itself as “Principled. Progressive”.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/

4 hours ago, YouAgain said:

 

The supreme court has ultimate control in the U.S.  Guess you didn't realize that. 

WHO BROUGHT this argument up ,  a wokie progressive justice, Sottmayor.

Her hypothetical argument was lampooned by the progressives  and biden after the 6-3 decision that effect's all POTUS who enter before & alter.

 

In the history of my country the only thing that resembles a government killing a President 

is the  controversial JfK assassination!

The rub: 60 years have gone by and still under lock & key ,are secrets.

 

To think that a president who as I have 

stated before with sources  can go after another former Potus  ,using the constitution as a bases ,is sickening! It was because of this & his  doj  efforts as to why 

the SC has tried to address the immunity argument.

 

And now here we are the leftest, hell bent on changing the narrative because the SC ruled in a opinion that 

doesn’t fit their weaponized lawfare.

 

 

https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/115294/text

 

 

Edited July 3, 20242 yr by riclag

2 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

More <removed> nonsense.  🙄

 

A certain syndrome that some consider to be related to an ex-president is a swearword now?

10 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

A certain syndrome that some consider to be related to an ex-president is a swearword now?

History repeating itself.

 

Its an Election year and the left are scrambling & desperate

 

imop 

 

 

Edited July 3, 20242 yr by riclag

15 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

They are all opinionated, leaning either right or left, some more extreme than others.

 

True, but a few use facts to bolster their position.

 

Others have 'alternative facts' and mendacious diatribes.

 

The difference is quite apparent on AN as well.

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sigh. If a lower court rules it was not an "official act" it's a crime and they can be prosecuted.

Unfortunately it would probably give presidents like Bush the younger immunity for taking America to war against Iraq on a lie, though they seem to have been acting as though that were always the situation.

Thank you, you at least have an understand of this unlike the useful idiots that only get their new from the Democrat controlled media.

Good bye and thanks for all the fish.

15 hours ago, Emdog said:

get an assault rifle with a bump stock. Accuracy problem solved

A bump stock (or finger, or shoelace, or thumb, or stick, or belt loop and thumb) does not achieve accuracy in shooting. It only achieves expenditure of ammunition.   
Accuracy is achieved by proper aiming and control of a firearm allowing accurate hits on a target.  
 

6 hours ago, BusyB said:

 

True, but a few use facts to bolster their position.

 

Others have 'alternative facts' and mendacious diatribes.

 

The difference is quite apparent on AN as well.

True, but they can also omit some facts to bolster their position. As columnist Paul Harvey used to say, "Now for the rest of the story."

I hope this post does not violate any forum rules - if so, Moderator, please remove (apologies for my ignorance; so many fora so many rules, hard to remember them all).

 

"As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her blistering dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court majority just made the president "a king above the law." She wrote, "[W]hen [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."" ("TRUMP v. UNITED STATES," U.S. Supreme Court, July 1, 2024
https://act.moveon.org/go/194359?t=18&akid=396381%2E4700055%2E8YM7PE"

16 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Why can't we get all those fact checkers together to give us honest information? Maybe we could call it "The News?"

Interestingly, Murdoch's initial foray into the newspaper industry was with 'The News' in Adelaide, my hometown. This publication likely marked the inception of the propaganda empire, which now plays a significant role in driving the current state of idiocracy in the US.

42 minutes ago, JimHuaHin said:

I hope this post does not violate any forum rules - if so, Moderator, please remove (apologies for my ignorance; so many fora so many rules, hard to remember them all).

 

"As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her blistering dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court majority just made the president "a king above the law." She wrote, "[W]hen [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."" ("TRUMP v. UNITED STATES," U.S. Supreme Court, July 1, 2024
https://act.moveon.org/go/194359?t=18&akid=396381%2E4700055%2E8YM7PE"

Look at the Confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh where, under oath, he stated repeatedly that no one is above the law.

56 minutes ago, JimHuaHin said:

I hope this post does not violate any forum rules - if so, Moderator, please remove (apologies for my ignorance; so many fora so many rules, hard to remember them all).

 

"As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her blistering dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court majority just made the president "a king above the law." She wrote, "[W]hen [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."" ("TRUMP v. UNITED STATES," U.S. Supreme Court, July 1, 2024
https://act.moveon.org/go/194359?t=18&akid=396381%2E4700055%2E8YM7PE"

I think people are being too dramatic over the issue. Surely if any US president did try to assassinate his opponents his own party might have a lot to say about it. And the same with the voters. I cannot imagine all voters are agreeable to assassination because they know it is not answer. Any president who has the backing of his voters, government representatives and the military to assassinate at will, know that the democracy has failed. The party that does proceed with assassination would then be known as the 'assassination party' or something similar, and I don't think the ordinary voter in the street would want that label. In my opinion, if Fmr. Pres. Trump was reelected and tried it, he would lose a lot of voters and no doubt the Republican party want to distant themselves by impeaching him. Also, imho, the moderate left would feel the same if Pres. Biden agreed to such as action. If am wrong and all democratic voters want Fmr. Pres. Trump dead (and vice versa) then the USA is a nation sinking fast into barbarism. Assassination is just another word for murder.

6 hours ago, radiochaser said:

A bump stock (or finger, or shoelace, or thumb, or stick, or belt loop and thumb) does not achieve accuracy in shooting. It only achieves expenditure of ammunition.   
Accuracy is achieved by proper aiming and control of a firearm allowing accurate hits on a target.  
 

spray a couple hundred bullets at a small area for a minute ought to hit something critical. Kinda like monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare

9 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

Look at the Confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh where, under oath, he stated repeatedly that no one is above the law.

He also stated that he didn't sexually assault anyone.

Kavanaugh and Trump, talk about birds of a feather......he only hires the best people.....
 

On 7/3/2024 at 1:44 PM, PREM-R said:

As DJ (Delay Justice) Trump awaits his anointing as King Donald, he will presumably adopt the title 'Prince of Wails', (It's a witch hunt, its so unfair, the FBI are out to get me, the left are out to get me. Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me! 

Will you still be so sarcastic when the Donald becomes POTUS? That just got a whole lot more likely thanks to Biden being let out of the kiddie harness by his minders for the debate of infamy.

1 hour ago, Emdog said:

spray a couple hundred bullets at a small area for a minute ought to hit something critical. Kinda like monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare

and while this hypothetical event is taking place, what are Trump's secret service protection detail doing?

2 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

I hope this post does not violate any forum rules - if so, Moderator, please remove (apologies for my ignorance; so many fora so many rules, hard to remember them all).

 

"As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her blistering dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court majority just made the president "a king above the law." She wrote, "[W]hen [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."" ("TRUMP v. UNITED STATES," U.S. Supreme Court, July 1, 2024
https://act.moveon.org/go/194359?t=18&akid=396381%2E4700055%2E8YM7PE"

Which is why it is up to a lower court to decide if the action was "Official" or not.

 

This whole malarkey of a POTUS assassinating a political rival is nonsense, as there is no way that would be "official business".

9 hours ago, thaipo7 said:

Thank you, you at least have an understand of this unlike the useful idiots that only get their new from the Democrat controlled media.

Thank you for that, but it's pretty obvious that it's just the usual mob of Trump haters posting nonsense.

The ideas that anyone could assassinate a POTUS candidate and be immune is IMO rubbish as

a/ the voters would never accept it

b/ the protection detail would probably prevent it

c/ if one did it and got away with it the next POTUS would also do it, which is not a good idea, as it would become elections by assassination.

d/ there is likely something in the constitution to prevent it

e/ lower courts would be unlikely to find the assassin innocent.

 

IMO much ado about nothing.

17 hours ago, Baht Simpson said:

So if the leader of the USA is "entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for "official acts" will the USA extend that courtesy to foreign leaders' for "official acts" perpetrated against them?

 

Governments and judiciaries should advocate for less power to elected leaders, not more. Isn't the U.S. Constitution primarily about limiting power?

IMO one of the predominant fears of the founding fathers that they sought to prevent was a POTUS having the powers of a king, or a government becoming too powerful.

17 hours ago, Presto said:

You are correct. The incompetent and/or cowardly Garland DOJ (Garland, handpicked by Biden), has wasted a year and a half before getting into action and starting actual investigations and prosecutions. Apparently these professionals weren't aware of all the delay tactics commonly used by Trump et al.

This is the picture: a corrupt fascist and coup plotter (supported by millions of Americans), against a weak, frail and mentally impaired Biden (supported by the party establishment, not by the American people), with the likelihood of the corrupt fascist winning the election in November.

A great democracy going down the drain fast, and we're all here to watch the disaster in real time. Great stuff!

Had you not used nonsense about Trump being a fascist ( you can't point to anything to prove that or it would have been all over this thread ) I might have taken you for a serious poster with something to contribute.

17 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Sorry, but I can only see years of coming legal  arguments, tying up the courts and the citizenry of the nation. Trump is not defeated and “Katie, bar the door” the USA will be thrown into turmoil … the greatest danger with that … a move by an autocratic ruler to involve the USA directly in being attacked to unify the splintered nation.

Had the IMO biased legal officials not tried to bring charges that were dubious, to be polite, there would be no tying up the courts and the citizenry of the nation. If wanting to inject politics into the justice system best to have convincing crimes to prosecute.

 

As for ( IMO ) nonsense about a move by an autocratic ruler to involve the USA directly in being attacked to unify the splintered nation, the only POTUS candidate that fits is Biden. Trump's actual record as POTUS involved no military adventures. In case you hadn't noticed, Biden is enabling the war in Ukraine, and unconditionally supporting a nation looking to change a local conflict into a regional war. Conversely, Trump moved to stop the war in Afghanistan.