BREAKING: It's Official ----Judge Chutkan Pauses Trump DC Case Amid Dispute Over Immunity Argument

[bigrebnc1775]

• A federal appeals court rejected a claim by Donald Trump that he was protected by presidential immunity from a rape defamation lawsuit by the writer E. Jean Carroll.

So it will be interesting to see what the supreme court says

Appeals court rejects Trump presidential immunity challenge to E. Jean Carroll case

The case centers on Donald Trump’s claim in 2019 that the writer E. Jean Carroll made up an allegation that he raped her.

www.nbcwashington.com

1. She wasn't raped
2. The alleged assault happen before he was president.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neither of those instances has anything to do with this one.

No? But it does have something to do with your accusation

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Neither of those instances has anything to do with this one.

What kind of primate species is that in your avatar?

 

[Curried Goats]

No? But it does have something to do with your accusation

It doesn't. If you want to address the accusations in the indictment then actually address the particular of the indictment rather than irrelevant shit.

 

[Curried Goats]

What kind of primate species is that in your avatar?

What kind of insecure fucktard disparages a child?

 

[IM2]

Above what law? That people should protest an election that they thought was stolen? That he deliberately said to do it peacefully?

Presidents all the time stand at the bully pulpit and spew rhetoric that can be considered inflammatory. It isn't a crime, or hasn't been a crime in the past, but suddenly, for this one President, it is?

I'll wait for the SCOTUS to rule. I'm thinking this time next year maybe. Or they may expedite it.

The election wasn't stolen. Trump was told that. He used ever legal means of protest, they told him there was no evidence of a stolen election, yet he took it outside of the law. This should be an easy call for SCOTUS and if they don't rule properly, America as we know it will become a very different place.

 

[IM2]

It is not about POTUS - or anyone else - being "above the law."

If it were a legitimate criminal case, it would be about whether a former president can now be prosecuted for actions he took while president.

For example, when Bush the Younger attacked Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, there was talk from Democrats that he was really taking vengeance on people who had attempted to assasinate his father. He was compared to Michael Corleone. If they really believed that, they might have come into power and prosecuted Bush for the murders of all the people ho bombed. The question would have been whether a former president can be held criminally responsible for official acts as president.

If the ruling be that he cannot, that would not be him being "above the law." It's a pretty immature way to look at it. It would be about whether a specific official is immune from certain acts, something that applies to many professions. A boxer is not prosecuted for assault if he pummels his opponent to unconsciousness. A surgeon is not charged with murder if he undertakes a risky procedure and the patient dies. There would be no dramatic speech to the jury about a knife-weilding assailant.

But, this is not such a weighty-issued case. This is a bunch of Democrats trying to prosecute a former president for free speech while in office. It has zero validity. It could only fly with a heavily partisan judge, and an incredibly gullible jury. The first normal judge that takes the appeal will toss it out, likely summarily.

On that day, I look forward to the liberal tears cocktails I'll be celebrating with.

No, this is about a former president who broke the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It doesn't. If you want to address the accusations in the indictment then actually address the particular of the indictment rather than irrelevant shit.

It wasn't illegal in 1876 nor was it illegal in 1960
Was in response to this comment you made

Conspiring to use fraudulent electors to delay and manipulate the certification of electoral college votes is not a legal action.

 

[Curried Goats]

It wasn't illegal in 1876 nor was it illegal in 1960
Was in response to this comment you made

And my counter point that they don't have anything to do with this case until you prove it, stands.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And my counter point that they don't have anything to do with this case until you prove it, stands.

You have no counter
Because it wasn't illegal in 1876 and 1960 nor has any remedy been created to prevent it.
Shit for brains why did you bring up the subject?

 

[Kilroy2]

1. She wasn't raped
2. The alleged assault happen before he was president.

Well it was a defamation case because the statue of limitation had ran out on going for a rape conviction.

It was a rape defamation case where Trump said things about her character when she came forward with her story

If he had said nothing then it would have died

Being Trump , he always has a comment . His comments cost him 5 million that he owes her.

Yes she now has to collect it. She is a debtee.

So its about the money now

 

[Curried Goats]

You have no counter
Because it wasn't illegal in 1876 and 1960 nor has any remedy been created to prevent it.
Shit for brains why did you bring up the subject?

You haven't shown that these were at all all similar or comparable incidents. The electors in those elections were certified, the electors in this incident were not. They forged the documents of their certification, hence the fraud.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well it was a defamation case because the statue of limitation had ran out on going for a rape conviction.

It was a rape defamation case where Trump said things about her character when she came forward with her story

If he had said nothing then it would have died

Being Trump , he always has a comment . His comments cost him 5 million that he owes her.

Yes she now has to collect it. She is a debtee.

So its about the money now

So she wasn't raped
And it happened before he was president. So no he has no presidential immunity

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You haven't shown that these were at all all similar or comparable incidents. The electors in those elections were certified, the electors in this incident were not. They forged the documents of their certification, hence the fraud.

They both dealt with alternate electors which is what happened

 

[Curried Goats]

They both dealt with alternate electors which is what happened

And the alternative electors in those cases were actually certified. These guys fraudulently misrepresented their official certification.

 

[Toro]

Yeah, the moronic Orange Cult Trumpists are going to be deeply unhappy with this

LOL

 

[Toro]

They both dealt with alternate electors which is what happened

it did not, bigretard1775

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it did not, bigretard1775

1876 and 1960 most assuredly did simptard

 

[Vastator]

The Stalinist Struggle is hitting THE WALL!!!!!
Stupid Marxist idiots forgot they need MASS MURDER to get their way.
Better luck next time.

It ain't over yet. Strap up; and stand by...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Supremes should rule that Jack Smith has no standing. Wouldn't that shake American jurisprudence to its core?

Jack Smith isn't a litigant. He doesn't need standing.