235 Years

[AntonToo]

No, immunity for performing their presidential duties.

Cool euphenisms, but there is no "presidential duty" to take personal gifts and payments for official pardons, yet this rulling makes it impossible to criminally prosecute such corrupt acts.

Take your distortions and put them you know where.

 

[martybegan]

Thats right, you've got nothing. Run along.

Your whole position is nothing, it's hyperbole and baseless assumptions designed to rile up your base so someone, anyone takes a shot at Trump.

"We have to do it so Biden doesn't get blamed for it"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no "presidential duty" to take personal gifts and payments for official pardons, yet this rulling makes it impossible to criminally prosecute such corrupt acts.

Take your distortions and put them you know where.

Oh, it may go even further than that.

Courts might now even be allowed to enter ANYTHING from a president's official record as evidence in ANY criminal or civil trial.

 

[berg80]

91 indictments?

Correct, the indictments, not innocence.

 

[martybegan]

There is no "presidential duty" to take personal gifts and payments for official pardons, yet this rulling makes it impossible to criminally prosecute such corrupt acts.

Take your distortions and put them you know where.

No, it doesn't, you dense fucktard.

 

[berg80]

Cool euphenisms, but there is no "presidential duty" to take personal gifts and payments for official pardons, yet this rulling makes it impossible to criminally prosecute such corrupt acts.

Take your distortions and put them you know where.

I think he may find that particular orifice is already full of lies...........and shit.

 

[AntonToo]

No, it doesn't, you dense fucktard.

Again, you are just showing how empty your head is with these argument-free posts.

 

[jc456]

Correct, the indictments, not innocence.

while president, I was answering the question.

 

[jc456]

Oh, it may go even further than that.

Courts might now even be allowed to enter ANYTHING from a president's official record as evidence in ANY criminal or civil trial.

nope, wow, you still don't understand the ruling. simply amazing.

 

[Billiejeens]

I've just explained to you EXACTLY what to read in your own citation and what it's practical criminal prosecution implications are.

In response you are teling me..to read. That's it, thats the entirety of your response.

Fucked in the head much?

It doesn't say what you want it to say.

 

[Rawley]

Trump is a criminal. And that's why he doesn't want to be held accountable for his actions.

They can play the denial game all they want.

criminal​

[ krim-uh-nl ]
Phonetic (Standard)IPA

adjective​

1. of the nature of or involving crime.
   Synonyms: unlawful, felonious
   Antonyms: lawful
2. guilty of crime.
   Antonyms: innocent

And your cult leader is a demented criminal. Yer point?

 

[Billiejeens]

I've just explained to you EXACTLY what to read in your own citation and what it's practical criminal prosecution implications are.

In response you are teling me..to read. That's it, thats the entirety of your response.

Fucked in the head much?

The high court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that certain official acts by presidents are not prosecutable at all,


while other official acts require the government to meet high criteria before it can criminally charge a president for them.


The ruling was a massive blow to Jack Smith’s case, which could look like a shell of its former self once the lower courts have sifted through it to align it with the Supreme Court’s guidance.

The high court’s majority divided presidential acts into three categories: official acts that are absolutely immune from prosecution, official acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution until the government can prove the prosecution would not threaten the authority of the executive branch,

and unofficial acts, which can always be prosecuted.

 

[martybegan]

Again, you are just showing how empty your head is with these argument-free posts.

You don't have an argument to begin with.

It's like saying Dobbs banned abortions, it's inherently flawed.

 

[AntonToo]

while other official acts require the government to meet high criteria before it can criminally charge a president for them.


The ruling was a massive blow to Jack Smith’s case, which could look like a shell of its former self once the lower courts have sifted through it to align it with the Supreme Court’s guidance.

The high court’s majority divided presidential acts into three categories: official acts that are absolutely immune from prosecution, official acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution until the government can prove the prosecution would not threaten the authority of the executive branch,

and unofficial acts, which can always be prosecuted.

I love it when we read togather:

Do you understand what OTHER means in what you quoted?

It means Category 2 - Presidential official acts that ARE NOT core presidential powers.

Power to pardon falls into Category 1 - Presidential official acts that ARE core presidential powers.

And what does this ruling say about Category 1 acts? Reapeat after me: absolutely immune from prosecution

 

[berg80]

it describes what exactly? you can't post it.

The ruling is readily available on the internet. Having trouble finding it?

 

[Billiejeens]

I love it when we read togather:

Do you understand what OTHER means in what you quoted?

It means Category 2 - Presidential official acts that ARE NOT core presidential powers.

Power to pardon falls into Category 1 - Presidential official acts that ARE core presidential powers.

And what does this ruling say about Category 1 acts? Reapeat after me: absolutely immune from prosecution

Still no

 

[berg80]

Again, you are just showing how empty your head is with these argument-free posts.

He's met the maximum of his capabilities just posting horseshit.

 

[AntonToo]

Still no

Oh I know you'll keep asserting same buillshit no matter how throughly it's refuted. Such is nutter life.

As you were.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

it just had to be quantified due to unprecedented lawfare

It had to be quantified due to unprecedented corruption from magaturds.

 

[martybegan]

It had to be quantified due to unprecedented corruption from magaturds.

No, because of cat lady crazy lawfare forcing the issue.

You just couldn't "win" the election, you had to punish your political opponents.