If You Agree That Trump Has Presidential Immunity, Then Biden has the Right to Lock Trump Up

[IM2]

Still cute, Buttercup.

And you're still wrong.

As usual.

 

[BackAgain]

What specific circumstances?

Again, all you need to do is read the case law.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

Nixon v. Fitzgerald: The President has absolute immunity from liability for civil damages arising from any official action taken while in office.

supreme.justia.com

 

[BackAgain]

You’re such a dope.

PRIMARY HOLDING
The President has absolute immunity from liability for civil damages arising from any official action taken while in office.

Civil damages, dope. Meaning he can’t be found liable under civil law. IOW being sued.

As I have said almost every time, you imbecile, the President seeks to extend (so you comprehend the word “extend,” you moron?) the immunity to criminal prosecutions.

Damn. You can’t follow along at all.

 

[BackAgain]

SCOTUS will no doubt rule accordingly and uphold.

That is the question. You said Trump never argued for absolute immunity. I showed he did and lost. Justifiably so.

No. He didn’t. You lied and therefore lost.

If you seek absolute immunity under specific circumstances, those specific circumstances control, you absolute retard.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As I have said almost every time, you imbecile, the President seeks to extend (so you comprehend the word “extend,” you moron?) the immunity to criminal prosecutions.

Damn. You can’t follow along at all.

Which isn’t real in any way, dope.

 

[BackAgain]

Which isn’t real in any way, dope.

Hey retard. What’s not real? The application to extend the immunity to criminal prosecutions?

Damn, you get dumber with every one of your posts

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No. He didn’t. You lied and therefore lost.

If you seek absolute immunity under specific circumstances, those specific circumstances control, you absolute retard.

Read this multiple times and see if it still makes sense.

absolute immunity under specific circumstances.

There are no specific circumstances and no absolute immunity, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hey retard. What’s not real? The application to extend the immunity to criminal prosecutions?

Damn, you get dumber with every one of your posts

Read what I posted.
Your dopey questions are all answered.

 

[BackAgain]

Read this multiple times and see if it still makes sense.

absolute immunity under specific circumstances.

View attachment 930588

There are no specific circumstances and no absolute immunity, dope.

You’re a retard. If the circumstances are met, then the President is absolutely immune from civil liabilities.
I know a moron like you cannot possibly comprehend that straightforward sentence and concept.

But the fact that you’re an imbecile doesn’t undercut it in any way.

Similarly, the President’s legal request is that the logic supporting it in civil cases also applies to criminal prosecutions (as the Biden corrupted DOJ has now shown quite starkly).

Fakey, you’re too dumb to breathe.

 

[BackAgain]

Read what I posted.
Your dopey questions are all answered.

Comprehend what I told you.

Even a retard like you could (theoretically) learn the numerous errors of your retarded thought process.

I didn’t ask a question. I corrected your many errors.

 

[Nostra]

And you're still wrong.

As usual.

Desperate thread by a desperate troll.

 

[BackAgain]

Desperate thread by a desperate troll.

And amazingly ignorant, too.

 

[Nostra]

And amazingly ignorant, too.

Nothing amazing about that, given who started it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You’re a retard. If the circumstances are met, then the President is absolutely immune from civil liabilities.
I know a moron like you cannot possibly comprehend that straightforward sentence and concept.

But the fact that you’re an imbecile doesn’t undercut it in any way.

Similarly, the President’s legal request is that the logic supporting it in civil cases also applies to criminal prosecutions (as the Biden corrupted DOJ has now shown quite starkly).

Fakey, you’re too dumb to breathe.

Trump is making up law that doesn’t exist.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Comprehend what I told you.

Even a retard like you could (theoretically) learn the numerous errors of your retarded thought process.

I didn’t ask a question. I corrected your many errors.

I comprehend it just fine but I openly reject it as did the appellate court. SCOTUS will of course reject it as well.
Because it’s dumb.

 

[dudmuck]

And amazingly ignorant, too.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump is making up law that doesn’t exist.

No. He’s not. He is simply seeking an expansion of a rule which does exist.

I’m sorry you find reality so difficult to grasp.

 

[BackAgain]

I comprehend it just fine but I openly reject it as did the appellate court. SCOTUS will of course reject it as well.
Because it’s dumb.

SCOTUS may or may not accept it.

You don’t know.

And it’s not dumb at all. What you’re stupidly grunting out is that you dislike the notion. So what? That isn’t the definition of what is or isn’t dumb.

 

[BackAgain]

Zz

 

[Stann]

Do it and see what happens.

For the most part , Democrats aren't as stupid as trump is. They do have a few loose cannons but none are total whack jobs like trump.