BREAKING: The Supreme Court is Likely to Uphold Presidential Immunity for Donald Trump..

[eagle1462010]

Yes, the conservatives on the USSC will delay the case so that voters will not know if they are voting for a criminal in November. Isn't that nice?

Only criminals are you clowns

 

[AHZ]

Got his number,Cupcak

555 WITHGOD

 

[forkup]

Not without due process.

.

What "due process?"

Trump's claim. A claim that, funnily enough nobody serious I've seen seems to be willing to defend on merit, just on process. This includes the members of SCOTUS who avoid the specifics of this case like it has koodies. Is that a president can do whatever he wants as long as the act itself fits in the widest possible interpretation of official duties.

This speaks in my view to his believe in his own innocence. And to the absolute cult like grip he has on the GOP electorate, who have no problem with a president who flat out says he's de facto above the law

 

[SeaMajor7]

What "due process?"

Trump's claim. A claim that, funnily enough nobody serious I've seen seems to be willing to defend on merit, just on process. This includes the members of SCOTUS who avoid the specifics of this case like it has koodies. Is that a president can do whatever he wants as long as the act itself fits in the widest possible interpretation of official duties.

This speaks in my view to his believe in his own innocence. And to the absolute cult like grip he has on the GOP electorate, who have no problem with a president who flat out says he's de facto above the law

You are FLAILING!!!
Innocent until proven guilty is the AMERICAN WAY.
You subverted demoralized zombies have convinced yourselves that no, HE'S GUILTY and he must prove his innocence.
GTFOH with that Soviet BULLSHIT!!!!!
What due process INDEED!

 

[forkup]

Listen to this! See what you think. This is what he thinks likely will happen..

BREAKING: The Supreme Court is Likely to Uphold Presidential Immunity for Donald Trump​

I think he has little to no chance to get the absolute immunity he's requesting.

I also don't think you can read to much in the line of questions posed. What I believe happened is that the justices wanted to use this case to answer the broader question of what if any immunity from criminal prosecution a president has. It's also why I believe they took the case up. Because the appeals court shut the notion down completely. Something that in the answers of the government does not seem the government position. And SCOTUS didn't like that precedent.

As an aside, I had serious apprehensions with at least one of the arguments. One that seems to have fallen between the cracks, because of the general punditry. It's the position of the DOJ that apparently states that there's presidential immunity for any act the President commits that is signed off by the AG. Something, that in my view would immunize any President from prosecution providing he gets Congress to nominate a person willing to put fealty over the law.

I don't like the delay. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of bad faith on the defense counsel of Trump. And maybe some on the side of SCOTUS. But if that delay gives actual guidance as to how immunity for a president works and more importantly doesn't I'm fine with it.

 

[AHZ]

What "due process?"

Trump's claim. A claim that, funnily enough nobody serious I've seen seems to be willing to defend on merit, just on process. This includes the members of SCOTUS who avoid the specifics of this case like it has koodies. Is that a president can do whatever he wants as long as the act itself fits in the widest possible interpretation of official duties.

This speaks in my view to his believe in his own innocence. And to the absolute cult like grip he has on the GOP electorate, who have no problem with a president who flat out says he's de facto above the law

ok, weaponization of government advocate.

you represent patriotism poorly.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I think he has little to no chance to get the absolute immunity he's requesting.

I also don't think you can read to much in the line of questions posed. What I believe happened is that the justices wanted to use this case to answer the broader question of what if any immunity from criminal prosecution a president has. It's also why I believe they took the case up. Because the appeals court shut the notion down completely. Something that in the answers of the government does not seem the government position. And SCOTUS didn't like that precedent.

As an aside, I had serious apprehensions with at least one of the arguments. One that seems to have fallen between the cracks, because of the general punditry. It's the position of the DOJ that apparently states that there's presidential immunity for any act the President commits that is signed off by the AG. Something, that in my view would immunize any President from prosecution providing he gets Congress to nominate a person willing to put fealty over the law.

I don't like the delay. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of bad faith on the defense counsel of Trump. And maybe some on the side of SCOTUS. But if that delay gives actual guidance as to how immunity for a president works and more importantly doesn't I'm fine with it.

Nobody but you demented avengers mentioned anything about ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

 

[forkup]

You are FLAILING!!!
Innocent until proven guilty is the AMERICAN WAY.
You subverted demoralized zombies have convinced yourselves that no, HE'S GUILTY and he must prove his innocence.
GTFOH with that Soviet BULLSHIT!!!!!
What due process INDEED!

Lol. It's always funny to see a partisan hack lecture me about the law, when it's pretty clear they don't give a flying fuck about it. The only thing you care about is that your orange God gets power. If that means he has to commit crimes to do so your fine with it.

Of it means he has to make ludicrous arguments in court you're fine with it.


Point in case. I bet you a million gazillion dollars that if Trump wins the presidential election, and he decides to simply order his AG to prosecute whoever on no evidence. You will GLADLY go on this board and argue he's entitled because he's the president. I've seen it happen before.

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept I completely agree with. A concept that includes me, you, and Trump. That's not what Trump is saying though.

He's saying that even if he's guilty and can be proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he still should be immune. And you support that notion. Making YOU culpable.

 

[forkup]

ok, weaponization of government advocate.

you represent patriotism poorly.

Reading comprehension problems I see.

As an aside, I had serious apprehensions with at least one of the arguments. One that seems to have fallen between the cracks, because of the general punditry. It's the position of the DOJ that apparently states that there's presidential immunity for any act the President commits that is signed off by the AG. Something, that in my view would immunize any President from prosecution providing he gets Congress to nominate a person willing to put fealty over the law.

Please tell me how I'm advocating the weaponization of the government?

If you don't understand an argument. Either by me being unclear, or by you not understanding, ask me for clarification, or reread the post instead of trying to accuse me of something.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Lol. It's always funny to see a partisan hack lecture me about the law, when it's pretty clear they don't give a flying fuck about it. The only thing you care about is that your orange God gets power. If that means he has to commit crimes to do so your fine with it.

Of it means he has to make ludicrous arguments in court you're fine with it.


Point in case. I bet you a million gazillion dollars that if Trump wins the presidential election, and he decides to simply order his AG to prosecute whoever on no evidence. You will GLADLY go on this board and argue he's entitled because he's the president. I've seen it happen before.

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept I completely agree with. A concept that includes me, you, and Trump. That's not what Trump is saying though.

He's saying that even if he's guilty and can be proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he still should be immune. And you support that notion. Making YOU culpable.

No, fuck up, you continue to flail with nothing but PROJECTION and gaslighting.
It is NOW your "side" that is 100% vested in despicable LAWFARE against your political opponents.
Don't YOU "lecture" ME denying all that which Stevie Wonder could SEE!!!!

 

[Curried Goats]

I think he has little to no chance to get the absolute immunity he's requesting.

I also don't think you can read to much in the line of questions posed. What I believe happened is that the justices wanted to use this case to answer the broader question of what if any immunity from criminal prosecution a president has. It's also why I believe they took the case up. Because the appeals court shut the notion down completely. Something that in the answers of the government does not seem the government position. And SCOTUS didn't like that precedent.

As an aside, I had serious apprehensions with at least one of the arguments. One that seems to have fallen between the cracks, because of the general punditry. It's the position of the DOJ that apparently states that there's presidential immunity for any act the President commits that is signed off by the AG. Something, that in my view would immunize any President from prosecution providing he gets Congress to nominate a person willing to put fealty over the law.

I don't like the delay. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of bad faith on the defense counsel of Trump. And maybe some on the side of SCOTUS. But if that delay gives actual guidance as to how immunity for a president works and more importantly doesn't I'm fine with it.

Yeah, I also didn't care much for that argument about having a corrupt attorney General as some sort of legal buffer to your own criminiality and the answer that congress acts as a check on the nomination is ass. We've seen what kind of checks a republican congress is willing to put on a republican president which is to say absolutely none.

 

[forkup]

No, fuck up, you continue to flail with nothing but PROJECTION and gaslighting.
It is NOW your "side" that is 100% vested in despicable LAWFARE against your political opponents.
Don't YOU "lecture" ME denying all that which Stevie Wonder could SEE!!!!

He quite literally had his campaign FORGE the documents for electors in several states, had them send to NARA, and tried to get in the VP's hands and pressure him to accept them as real.

But hey that's not a crime right? In any case. I reached the limit on the time I'm willing to spend on you.

 

[Mac1958]

He's saying that even if he's guilty and can be proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he still should be immune. And you support that notion. Making YOU culpable.

They want a dictator, their own Pinochet, and they want it to be Trump.

They're weak and need to be lead by a strongman.

This might do it.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, I also didn't care much for that argument about having a corrupt attorney General as some sort of legal buffer to your own criminiality and the answer that congress acts as a check on the nomination is ass. We've seen what kind of checks a republican congress is willing to put on a republican president which is to say absolutely none.

It's kind of interesting that that seemed to have gone unnoticed. Granted it's much less a sound bite then "oh this lawyer said ordering a coup is immunized but much more far-reaching since this version of immunity would only require one corrupt actor instead of the entire military.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's kind of interesting that that seemed to have gone unnoticed. Granted it's much less a sound bite then "oh this lawyer said ordering a coup is immunized but much more far-reaching since this version of immunity would only require one corrupt actor instead of the entire military.

It is kind of weird now that you mention it. I suppose most people are more worried about whether this court is going to grant any sort of immunity but I agree that's just as dangerous a precedent to set.

 

[SeaMajor7]

He quite literally had his campaign FORGE the documents for electors in several states, had them send to NARA, and tried to get in the VP's hands and pressure him to accept them as real.

But hey that's not a crime right? In any case. I reached the limit on the time I'm willing to spend on you.

Sure he did.
You have no problem with Hillary's Bleach Bit-Hammer Time destruction of subpoenaed EVEDENCE OF WRONGDOING because Comey said no reasonable prosecutor something something, and your demented president is too brain addled to face charges for STEALING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS (but hey, he can be president).
This ridiculous double standard TWO-TIERED "justice" system is the ANTITHESIS OF AMERICAN JUSTICE!!!!!
You can POUND SAND you fucking feckless HYPOCRITE!!!!!!

 

[beagle9]

Messing with elections is one of the key tenants of fascism

The deep state here has done a grand job of it

But they've blown it in the respect that the very entity they've tried so hard to take down simply becomes more popular despite their efforts

~S~

Popularity isn't what is needed in these situations, because if our system has been weaponized, then we need for the checks and balances system to work exactly as it was supposed too. Right now the left or Democrat far left have torn the constitution apart with it's tyrannical acts after becoming empowered to fuel their agendas. The court is doing it's job on the checks and balances side, and good for them for doing so.

 

[beagle9]

It is kind of weird now that you mention it. I suppose most people are more worried about whether this court is going to grant any sort of immunity but I agree that's just as dangerous a precedent to set.

Both of you are wrong, because you assume that Trump was involved in a coup when it was absolutely found that he wasn't. Repeating a lie to suggest otherwise won't get you or your buddy there. Oh and if you are using the rigged J6 committee to empower your thinking, then go get a life outside of politics because you two suck at it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Both of you are wrong, because you assume that Trump was involved in a coup when it was absolutely found that he wasn't. Repeating a lie to suggest otherwise won't get you or your buddy there. Oh and if you are using the rigged J6 committee to empower your thinking, then go get a life outside of politics because you two suck at it.

Adults are talking child. Simmer down.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Adults are talking child. Simmer down.

Bingo boi bows defeated.