DC appeals court says Trump is not immune (as a former president) from prosecution

[BluesLegend]

I'm watching and laughing.

Trump's problem is that he hires lawyers for their tit size instead of their legal acumen.

The 7-3 SCOTUS...

 

[Chillicothe]

Go ahead SCOTUS (where it's headed)....Open that box and see what happens. I triple dog dare you.

------------------------------------------

I think that is a dare (actually 3) that should be seriously understood and then declined.

I mean by that...why should SCOTUS challenge good poster 1srelluc's dare(s)?
Instead, let sleeping dogs lie.
And when a petition for certiorari by the losing side is submitted.
They should deny it.

No reason to piss off a social media influencer like poster 1srelluc.
Don't try to fix what ain't broke.

IMHO

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Why Donald?

Because he is a narcissistic buffoonish criminal.

 

[BlindBoo]

Trump not immune from prosecution in 2020 election case, federal appeals court rules

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that former President Trump is not immune from prosecution in the 2020 federal election case.

www.foxnews.com

Well, this was interesting, esp the part here

site

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the case will have far-reaching consequences, both for Trump and all future presidents.

"If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," he said. "Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!"

Comment

I wonder if a former president can be held accountable for what he /she did when VICE president?

Answer?

Only if he or she is a Republican?

Like the power to unilaterally throw out certified votes from the state doesn't exist as part of the executive branch, complete immunity from criminal prosecution doesn't exist either. We wouldn't be a Constitutional Republic if the executive was somehow above the Constitution.

His only hope of not going to trial on the federal charges is for him to win in Nov and and interfere with the DOJ. That is if he is allowed on the ballots after his rebellion against the Constitution that is.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The constitution says no such thing. In fact, presidents have always been liable to criminal prosecution after leaving office.

It's why Ford had to pardon Nixon.

Nixon resigned just ahead of a vote to impeach that would likely have led to removal.

If not for the pardon, Dems would have impeached after he left office, and then prosecuted. I doubt you remember, but there were meme-like cartoons of Nixon being a prison bitch, and demands that he go to jail.

Dems missed their chance when their impeachments failed miserably. The USSC will rule that way, but I hope they weight until closer to the election.

It's why Clinton reached a settlement with Charles Ray on all matters related to Paula Jones perjury.

He took the easy way out instead of standing up for Article II. He was a bully who took advantage of powerless women. In the end, he showed what most of us already knew: a bully is a coward by nature.

 

[1miseryindex]

Go ahead SCOTUS (where it's headed)....Open that box and see what happens. I triple dog dare you.

In fact why limit it to POTUS.....Hell the SCOTUS has caused plenty of harm over the years and could easily be indicted by folks with standing.

easily?

explain...

???

 

[1miseryindex]

Like the power to unilaterally throw out certified votes from the state doesn't exist as part of the executive branch, complete immunity from criminal prosecution doesn't exist

I was about to scroll merrily along away from this post bc I am not fond of liberals and have heard everything they have to say or think they have to say already

But then I decided to read it anyhow.. not sure why

And wouldn't u know it!

I can't even understand the 1st sentence. . much less the point you may be trying to make...



That's dims for ya! They themselves don't even know what they're "thinking" apparently

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump is a bully and coward, as we will be reminded over and over this fall.

With three libs, two crazy MAGA, four conservatives, I am pretty sure that Trump screwed himself.

 

[Aldo Raine]

The 7-3 SCOTUS...

There are only 9 justices! Are you using MAGAGATARD math?
MAGA

 

[JoeB131]

The 7-3 SCOTUS...

6-3, and I doubt Kavanaugh, Roberts, or Gorsuch would endorse a president who could have immunity from crimes like, oh, sending Seal Team Six to assassinate SCOTUS justices.

 

[john doe 101]

The 7-3 SCOTUS...

You havent addressed the fact of the likelihood of the SCOTUS refusing to hear the case.

 

[1miseryindex]

That last post (I mean #30) was super-DUMB

even for a lib...

 

[sartre play]

So you think a President is above the law. Why?

GOOD QUESTION.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS may very well let it stand, so the trials can get under way.

 

[konradv]

The 7-3 SCOTUS...

Bad math aside, they have positions for life, so there’s no political reason for them to tarnish their legal reputations.

 

[JoeB131]

Nixon resigned just ahead of a vote to impeach that would likely have led to removal.

If not for the pardon, Dems would have impeached after he left office, and then prosecuted. I doubt you remember, but there were meme-like cartoons of Nixon being a prison bitch, and demands that he go to jail.

I remember it well.

And everyone knew that Nixon COULD be prosecuted for his crimes, that's why Ford had to pardon him.

Dems missed their chance when their impeachments failed miserably. The USSC will rule that way, but I hope they weight until closer to the election.

Nope, SCOTUS knows that making the President utterly immune to law would be a terrible precedent, which is why they won't go that far. If they were mere partisan hacks, you might have a point.

He took the easy way out instead of standing up for Article II. He was a bully who took advantage of powerless women. In the end, he showed what most of us already knew: a bully is a coward by nature.

Or he just didn't want to spend another 10 million dollars proving Paula Jones was full of shit.

 

[Lastamender]

I doubt that SCOTUS would ignore centuries of precedent to help Trump against decades of precedent.

Look, man, just let Trump argue that it was perfectly okay for him to unleash a mob on Congress in front off a jury.

The SCOTUS is compromised like every other government institution. How compromised is the question.

 

[JoeB131]

Bad math aside, they have positions for life, so there’s no political reason for them to tarnish their legal reputations.

Other than Thomas, who is dumb as a stump, I can't see ANY of them supporting a lawless president.

 

[JoeB131]

The SCOTUS is compromised like every other government institution. How compromised is the question.

It's not a matter of compromising. Trump's position is absurd on its face.

 

[konradv]

Other than Thomas, who is dumb as a stump, I can't see ANY of them supporting a lawless president.

There’s always a bad apple.