And now on to the more serious question of immunity. . .

[d0gbreath]

Since the President is a man of the people, if he gets it, we all should.

 

[Rambunctious]

Read the indictments yet?

No?

Don't bother me in this topic until you do.

Indictments are not crimes... you can indict a ham sandwich...

 

[Marener]

The doctrine of absolute presidential immunity already exists. He's not arguing for that. He's asking if the existing doctrine "includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts, i.e., those performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.'" It was right in the portion you quoted.

This is not a question of "qualified immunity", it's a question of extending "absolute immunity". These are different doctrines. I think we need to be VERY careful about who gets immunity for what. When you provide immunity to someone was powerful as the president, you are opening ourselves up to so many problems.

I asked the question becasue you were doing your bullshit insulting condescending routine. Which is truly getting old

I was insulted by your accusation that I have no problem with political persecutions. I tried to move on. You can't seem to let it go.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Indictments are not crimes... you can indict a ham sandwich...

You and your cult sure are having a hard time finding ham sandwiches!

 

[Rambunctious]

Don't bother me in this topic until you do

... take a break kid...

 

[Rambunctious]

You and your cult sure are having a hard time finding ham sandwiches!

I just finished one.... my "cult" is going to take back the country...

 

[WEATHER53]

The USSC already fully knows and agrees that POTUS is not like everyone else for a variety of valid and meritorious reasons

 

[Rawley]

This is not a question of "qualified immunity", it's a question of extending "absolute immunity". These are different doctrines. I think we need to be VERY careful about who gets immunity for what. When you provide immunity to someone was powerful as the president, you are opening ourselves up to so many problems.

Well, a very large percentage of the country believes your cult's abuse of the judicial system for political purposes is a huge problem.

I was insulted by your accusation that I have no problem with political persecutions. I tried to move on. You can't seem to let it go.

You don't have a problem with them. You said the victim "will be fine" Again, you would feel differently if your son was falsely accused of rape.

 

[MagicMike]

Who would want to run for office if you could be prosecuted for doing your job after you leave office... WTF people... do you want a president or a captive?....

Illegally trying to overturn election results is not just "doing your job" you ignorant dirtball.
Quit trying to normalize abberant criminal behavior with simple language.

 

[Marener]

Well, a very large percentage of the country believes your cult's abuse of the judicial system for political process is a huge problem.

There’s a reason we don’t subject criminality to popular votes. We aren’t supposed to let popularity determine guilt or innocence.

Again, you would feel differently if your son was falsely accused of rape.

Of course I’d have a problem with it but I wouldn’t try to create a doctrine to immunity for accused rapists.

 

[Rawley]

There’s a reason we don’t subject criminality to popular votes. We aren’t supposed to let popularity determine guilt or innocence.

Of course I’d have a problem with it but I wouldn’t try to create a doctrine to immunity for accused rapists.

But he "will be fine" so why would you have a problem with it?

 

[Marener]

But he "will be fine" so why would you have a problem with it?

He won’t be convicted and maybe could even file a civil suit for the persecution if they violated his rights.

Which is why I wouldn’t support a doctrine of immunity for accused rapists. Doing so would be such an absurd overreaction and dangerous to the safety of the general public.

 

[Rambunctious]

Illegally trying to overturn election results is not just "doing your job" you ignorant dirtball.
Quit trying to normalize abberant criminal behavior with simple language.

It is if you truly believe the election results are fraudulent... don't forget Mike we never held an election like the covid rules election... the Supreme court will show it was in his job duties as president... you don't want hamstrung presidents in America because congress and the courts will take over... not a good thing for any of us...

 

[MagicMike]

Tell what they are... none of you can...

34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512
|
1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371
|
1 felony count of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241

1 count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
|
3 counts of solicitation of violation of oath by public officer
|
1 count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer
|
2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree
|
2 counts of false statements and writings
|
2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings
|
1 count of filing false documents
|
1 count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents

32 felony counts of willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act
|
6 felony counts of obstruction-related crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and 18 U.S.C. § 1519
|
2 felony counts of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001

 

[Rambunctious]

34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512
|
1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371
|
1 felony count of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241

1 count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
|
3 counts of solicitation of violation of oath by public officer
|
1 count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer
|
2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree
|
2 counts of false statements and writings
|
2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings
|
1 count of filing false documents
|
1 count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents

32 felony counts of willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act
|
6 felony counts of obstruction-related crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and 18 U.S.C. § 1519
|
2 felony counts of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001

Charges not convictions... should you be fired from your job and jailed because you enemy made accusations about you?...
you have to think this stuff through...

 

[WEATHER53]

34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512
|
1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371
|
1 felony count of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241

1 count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
|
3 counts of solicitation of violation of oath by public officer
|
1 count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer
|
2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree
|
2 counts of false statements and writings
|
2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings
|
1 count of filing false documents
|
1 count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents

32 felony counts of willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act
|
6 felony counts of obstruction-related crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and 18 U.S.C. § 1519
|
2 felony counts of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001

One count of too much makeup

 

[Marener]

It is if you truly believe the election results are fraudulent... don't forget Mike we never held an election like the covid rules election... the Supreme court will show it was in his job duties as president... you don't want hamstrung presidents in America because congress and the courts will take over... not a good thing for any of us...

Concentrate massive amounts of power and little accountability into one person.

What could go wrong!

 

[Rambunctious]

Concentrate massive amounts of power and little accountability into one person.

What could go wrong!

Read our constitution....

 

[BlindBoo]

None of that has been proven... we are innocent until PROVEN guilty

No question about it. He deserves a trial because he is not immune from criminal prosecution.

 

[MagicMike]

OK. I'll bite. There isn't a single respected legal scholar that says the Bragg charge are solid.

Maybe, instead of just quoting directly from one of Trump's assinine Truth Social posts you could actually link to some "respected legal scholar's" opinion explaining why Bragg's charges aren't solid.