Why Trump Won’t Win

[Rawley]

Investigating claims of voter fraud is not within the framework of presidential responsibilities. The courts are given that responsibilty.

Courts investigate crimes? Really?

 

[Winco]

You’re gonna get bitch slapped by reality.

You and the rest of the CULT got bitch slapped in 2020, and instead of accepting the truth and conceding, YOU clowns have been on a 4 year rampage of LIES and Insurrections.

Talk about not accepting REALITY ^^^^^^, why should we expect anything different from the CULT in 2024 when trump gets his ass handed to him again.

 

[BackAgain]

You and the rest of the CULT got bitch slapped in 2020, and instead of accepting the truth and conceding, YOU clowns have been on a 4 year rampage of LIES and Insurrections.

No. I didn’t.

I wasn’t even IN the race. So I couldn’t have conceded.

Talk about not accepting REALITY ^^^^^^, why should we expect anything different from the CULT in 2024 when trump gets his ass handed to him again.

You used that “cult” word in two consecutive paragraphs. Ask your boss for the bonus.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You’re confused.
But efforts to remediate your confusion and boundless ignorance always prove ineffectual. Your skull is impenetrable.

Ok.

Have a great day.

 

[BackAgain]

Ok.

Have a great day.

Yep.

You, too.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You do realize that is a lie, right?

No. I don't realize it.

Judge Florence Pan, D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals:

Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?

John Sauer, Attorney For Donald Trump:

If he were impeached and convicted first.

Judge Florence Pan:

So your answer is no?

John Sauer:

My answer is qualified yes. There's a political process that would have to occur under our — the structure of our Constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate.

The arguments Trump's attorneys are making to claim he's immune from Jan. 6 prosecution

Donald Trump was in court in Washington while his attorneys argued the former president is immune from federal prosecution connected to the Jan. 6 attack. The three judge appeals panel seemed skeptical of the argument that Trump was acting in his official capacity as president to "ensure...

www.google.com

Oddly, after the seditious conspiracy on Jan 6th, McConnell said they wouldn't push for impeachment and it was up to the courts to deal with Trump. Which is really odd because being impeached doesn't mean you had to have broken the law.

Now Trump's lawyers are saying it out in the open that they think Trump is above the law because he was never impeached...or any president could do it and simply resign and be above the law.

What's your opinion on the matter?

 

[BackAgain]

No. I don't realize it.

Judge Florence Pan, D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals:

Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?

John Sauer, Attorney For Donald Trump:

If he were impeached and convicted first.

Judge Florence Pan:

So your answer is no?

John Sauer:

My answer is qualified yes. There's a political process that would have to occur under our — the structure of our Constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate.

The arguments Trump's attorneys are making to claim he's immune from Jan. 6 prosecution

Donald Trump was in court in Washington while his attorneys argued the former president is immune from federal prosecution connected to the Jan. 6 attack. The three judge appeals panel seemed skeptical of the argument that Trump was acting in his official capacity as president to "ensure...

www.google.com

Oddly, after the seditious conspiracy on Jan 6th, McConnell said they wouldn't push for impeachment and it was up to the courts to deal with Trump. Which is really odd because being impeached doesn't mean you had to have broken the law.

Now Trump's lawyers are saying it out in the open that they think Trump is above the law because he was never impeached...or any president could do it and simply resign and be above the law.

What's your opinion on the matter?

See? You are confused.

The language in the Consitution does seem to imply that a President can be criminally charged if he has been impeached and convicted of the crimes alleged.

Do you have reason to assume that the Constitution needs to be read in a way at odds with its own text?

Article I​

• Section 3 Senate​

  • Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
  • Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

[Catsnmeters]

See? You are confused.

The language in the Consitution does seem to imply that a President can be criminally charged if he has been impeached and convicted of the crimes alleged.

Do you have reason to assume that the Constitution needs to be read in a way at odds with its own text?

Article I​

• Section 3 Senate​

  • Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
  • Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

This isn't about if he can be charged with crimes after impeachment which is the assertion in bold; it is about if a president can be be held criminally liable if he is NOT impeached and Trump and his lawyers say, no.

 

[BackAgain]

This isn't about if he can be charged with crimes after impeachment which is the assertion in bold; it is about if a president can be be held criminally liable if he is NOT impeached and Trump and his lawyers say, no.

That’s closer to a coherent thought.
But you’re wrong.

What President Trump and his lawyers are maintaining (relying to a significant extent on the Fitzgerald case precedent) is that just as a former President is civilly immune from suit for his official actions made within the bounds of his official duties as President, so too a former President should be criminally immune from prosecution for his official acts as President within the bounds of his duties as President.

The Fitzgerald decision easily dispatched the silly claim that immunity in any way made the President “above” the law.

That’s in addition to their reliance on the impeachment clause.

 

[Catsnmeters]

That’s closer to a coherent thought.
But you’re wrong.

What President Trump and his lawyers are maintaining (relying to a significant extent on the Fitzgerald case precedent) is that just as a former President is civilly immune from suit for his official actions made within the bounds of his official duties as President, so too a former President should be criminally immune from prosecution for his official acts as President within the bounds of his duties as President.

The Fitzgerald decision easily dispatched the silly claim that immunity in any way made the President “above” the law.

That’s in addition to their reliance on the impeachment clause.

I didn't see anything in that transcript that stated if it was in the performance of his duties.

They appear to be arguing that any act done while president is not prosecutable unless an impeachment has occurred and the Senate approves.

But even your arguement seems flawed to me.

Who decides what are official duties of the president? Theoretically any action a president takes is in the performance of his duties.

With the powers of executive privilege silencing any witnesses, it would be nearly impossible to determine if something was an official duty, why it was done etc.

Talk about a Pandora's box.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn't see anything in that transcript that stated if it was in the performance of his duties.

That’s because the transcript was just a form of oral argument. But you need to review the cited case law and what the Preisent’s lawyer argues in the first place.

They appear to be arguing that any act done while president is not prosecutable unless an impeachment has occurred and the Senate approves.

No. That is only “apparent” to you because you didn’t read the original motion papers.

But even your arguement seems flawed to me.

It’s “argument.” And it’s not my argument. It’s what the case law says and what the Trump lawyers argued.

Who decides what are official duties of the president? Theoretically any action a president takes is in the performance of his duties.

Fair enough question. Normally, the claim would be raised before the court. The court could decide based on the pleadings and supporting papers and arguments. That decision would be subject to review.

With the powers of executive privilege silencing any witnesses, it would be nearly impossible to determine if something was an official duty, why it was done etc.

Not at all. It wouldn’t be that a former President could both invoke the immunity but at the same time seek to prevent the evidence from being examined.

Talk about a Pandora's box.

Nothing to worry about there.

 

[Rawley]

No. I don't realize it.

Judge Florence Pan, D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals:

Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?

John Sauer, Attorney For Donald Trump:

If he were impeached and convicted first.

Judge Florence Pan:

So your answer is no?

John Sauer:

My answer is qualified yes. There's a political process that would have to occur under our — the structure of our Constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate.

The arguments Trump's attorneys are making to claim he's immune from Jan. 6 prosecution

Donald Trump was in court in Washington while his attorneys argued the former president is immune from federal prosecution connected to the Jan. 6 attack. The three judge appeals panel seemed skeptical of the argument that Trump was acting in his official capacity as president to "ensure...

www.google.com

Oddly, after the seditious conspiracy on Jan 6th, McConnell said they wouldn't push for impeachment and it was up to the courts to deal with Trump. Which is really odd because being impeached doesn't mean you had to have broken the law.

Now Trump's lawyers are saying it out in the open that they think Trump is above the law because he was never impeached...or any president could do it and simply resign and be above the law.

What's your opinion on the matter?

Same as the attorney's, yes s/he could be indicted. Not like your opinion that the president is above the law.

 

[Catsnmeters]

That’s because the transcript was just a form of oral argument. But you need to review the cited case law and what the Preisent’s lawyer argues in the first place.

No. That is only “apparent” to you because you didn’t read the original motion papers.

It’s “argument.” And it’s not my argument. It’s what the case law says and what the Trump lawyers argued.

I would certainly be interested what is in the original motion papers that could change the seemingly cut and dry context of the transcript I posted.

Fair enough question. Normally, the claim would be raised before the court. The court could decide based on the pleadings and supporting papers and arguments. That decision would be subject to review.

Again, those items and arguments would be subject to executive privilege.

The president is the ultimate authority on classifying documents as well. He could simply classify documents.

Also I stand by my point that any duty a president performs is in the performance of his presidential duties so the entire idea of culpability based on that reasoning is moot.

Not at all. It wouldn’t be that a former President could both invoke the immunity but at the same time seek to prevent the evidence from being examined.

How do you know? They would over rule EO and classification of documents?...and even if they did it would take years of appeals and court tricks to delay any decisions...as we are currently seeing.

Nothing to worry about there.

I worry.

 

[BackAgain]

I would certainly be interested what is in the original motion papers that could change the seemingly cut and dry context of the transcript I posted.

look at the brief. I’ve posted it many times.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Again, those items and arguments would be subject to executive privilege.

Yiu continue to ignore what I’ve said. That’s ok. But it makes talking with you pretty pointless.

The president is the ultimate authority on classifying documents as well. He could simply classify documents.

Irrelevant to this discussion. If he’s in court, he isn’t President.

Also I stand by my point that any duty a president performs is in the performance of his presidential duties so the entire idea of culpability based on that reasoning is moot.

The SCOTUS doesn’t agree with you. Common sense alone says you’re wrong. He could jay walk and that wouldn’t necessarily be a presidential action. He could write a love letter. They wouldn’t necessarily be a presidential action. He could campaign for his own re election and that certainly wouldn’t be a presidential action. He could screw another man’s wife. That too wouldn’t be related to his presidential duties. The list goes on and on.

How do you know? They would over rule EO and classification of documents?...and even if they did it would take years of appeals and court tricks to delay any decisions...as we are currently seeing.

What?

I worry.

Go right ahead.

 

[kyzr]

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

"evidence of a deep state"?
I demur.

Rather, it is evidence of a bit of naivete' on a non-politician new President. He hadn't yet learned that states have a say.....a big say....in some things.

Meaning, NO states wanted those HVD's (High Value Detainees) shipped to their state....either into a State run facility, or a federal one. And their elected representatives made that emphatically clear to the Obama Administration.

Which left that Administration the avenue of shipping them to some foreign country, but...............but like American states NO country wanted those prisoners on their soil.

In the end no 'deep state' was needed to keep the detainees in Cuba. It just took an absence of love for them by anybody in any government, any place.

So, in other words those Guantanamo terrorists became the proverbial Tar Baby. Meaning, once America slapped it.....America was stuck with it. And the more we struggled to free ourselves the more stuck you get.

Poor Barack learned that the hard way.

You typed a nice post. My post said that the deep state kept Guantanamo open.
You said that the states didn't want those terrorists in their prisons, without ANY proof.
In Guantanamo they were pampered. They were supposed to be waterboarded to out their plans and accomplices.
Point being that Obama promised GITMO would be closed. It wasn't.

 

[kyzr]

I don't buy into that example.
Guantanamo Bay prison is where they sent those associated with 9/11, Bush sent them there. So it was the government that sent them there.
yes Obama tried to close it down Yet most members in Congress blocked him
So deep state is what ? Deep state is just a term being used to describe difference in certain matters between republican and democrats. Between congress and the president , etc Can big money persuade them? Probably. Much like the NRA who spend money to keep support for there agenda
Is the NRA deep state because they finance certain politicians and support their election to office. As well as any other special interest group.
In fact Trump signed an order to keep them there permanently
Disagreement in the government and the special interest groups that spend money to get their candidate elected is the issue.
That why they have campaign laws. Deep state in my opinion is nothing more than special interest groups that spend money and time to protect their agenda.

The NRA isn't a part of the Federal government, its an organization to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

Deep state in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to an American political conspiracy theory, the deep state is a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA), working in conjunction with high-level financial and industrial entities and leaders, to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government.[1]

 

[Chillicothe]

"In Guantanamo they were pampered. They were supposed to be waterboarded to out their plans and accomplices."

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

Your refusal to do your due diligence, perfunctory homework......is disappointing to this forum.

"Pampered", you say?

Read this:

"GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba —
The architect of the Central Intelligence Agency’s post-9/11 interrogation program said Wednesday that the waterboarding technique he employed was so gruesome that people — including CIA officials — cried when they witnessed it.

James Mitchell testified at a pretrial hearing here in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The first person to be subjected to the method was Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda functionary and the first so-called high-value detainee captured after 9/11. He was waterboarded 83 times over a handful of sessions in August 2002,

After Abu Zubaydah started cooperating with interrogators .......in 2002, Mitchell and Jessen sought to stop using the waterboard. Officers at CIA headquarters in Virginia accused the two of having lost their nerve.

“They said that we were pussies, that we had lost our spine,” Mitchell testified

Mitchell told the officers he would continue only if they came and witnessed application of the waterboard, to “bring their rubber boots and come on down.” Which they did.

They assembled in Abu Zubaydah’s cell, which Mitchell described as small with an unpleasant, musky odor. The psychologists performed what Mitchell said was a dialed-back version of the technique.

It didn’t seem perfunctory to the visitors, many of whom began to cry. “Their decision after witnessing this is that we don’t need to do this,” he said.
He went on to waterboard two more men, including Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times.

 

[Kilroy2]

The NRA isn't a part of the Federal government, its an organization to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

Deep state in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to an American political conspiracy theory, the deep state is a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA), working in conjunction with high-level financial and industrial entities and leaders, to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government.[1]

Its an organization that buys influence (government officials) under the pretext of the 2nd Amendment

 

[JimH52]

Courts investigate crimes? Really?

If there is any evidence, trump and his associate criminals had the opportunity to present it in court. All they presented was a bunch of BS that trump and Rudy came up with. And they lost over and over and over and over.....

 

[JimH52]

That’s closer to a coherent thought.
But you’re wrong.

What President Trump and his lawyers are maintaining (relying to a significant extent on the Fitzgerald case precedent) is that just as a former President is civilly immune from suit for his official actions made within the bounds of his official duties as President, so too a former President should be criminally immune from prosecution for his official acts as President within the bounds of his duties as President.

The Fitzgerald decision easily dispatched the silly claim that immunity in any way made the President “above” the law.

That’s in addition to their reliance on the impeachment clause.

So, trump can kill someone while president and, unless he is impeached by the repub cowards in the House and removed by the repub cowards in the Senate, he can walk around a free man? Are you really that STUPID?