Appeals Court : Trump has NO IMMUNITY

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lol.....Trump is just more vocal than his predecessors or his successor....not more evil.

This is not relevant. Please put away the useless strawman.

Trump went on crime sprees in his spare time.

 

[Marener]

Try Jack Smith.....

Great. Did you have a point?

 

[justoffal]

This is not relevant. Please put away the useless strawman.

Trump went on crime sprees in his spare time.

Very relevant ...people are aware. See what you're just not willing to admit is that all of them are scum. Trump just happens to be the most obnoxious one of the bunch but his crimes are no more serious or socially inept than any of the others who have held that office. I might give Jimmy Carter a pass.

 

[protectionist]

Another win for the good guys.

Temporarily. It'll be overruled by the
SCOTUS. Ho hum.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Temporarily. It'll be overruled by the
SCOTUS. Ho hum.

On what basis? It was basically laughed at, stomped on, and set on fire in the lower court.

 

[Delldude]

On what basis? It was basically laughed at, stomped on, and set on fire in the lower court.

So no president has some type of limited immunity for their actions as president?
You do know there hasn't been a ruling on this subject yet, don't you?
Oh boy...............this is going to be a good one.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So no president has some type of limited immunity for their actions as president?

Non sequitur. Team Trump argued absolute immunity, in response to the claim that his acts were not official acts of office. That is what was laughed out of court.

And SCOTUS (predictably), turned it into their responsibility to decide that EXACT degree presidents enjoy presidential immunity, which is not what they have been asked. The standard we already have is just fine: Official acts. Instead they should be ruling on whether or not the acts in question in this case enjoy the immunity of official acts. 30 days until they hear arguments on it, btw.

 

[protectionist]

On what basis? It was basically laughed at, stomped on, and set on fire in the lower court.

Being stomped on by a particular court in today's political environment can mean something, or it can mean NOTHING. With Democrat controlled courts, justice is irrelevant, and all that matters to them is WINNING political victory.

Lower courts often make idiotic decisions, only to be overruled by higher courts. Ex. >>> US Judge Rules In Favor of Muslim Shariah Law – In America | Bloviating Zeppelin

The Supreme Court is going to agree with Trump's lawyers and hold that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Why the Supreme Court Will Likely Rule That Trump Has Immunity

The Supreme Court is going to agree with Trump's lawyers and hold that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Delldude]

The Supreme Court is going to agree with Trump's lawyers and hold that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

From what I read, there has never been a ruling on this. It will be interesting, for sure.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Being stomped on by a particular court in today's political environment can mean something, or it can mean NOTHING. With Democrat controlled courts, justice is irrelevant, and all that matters to them is WINNING political victory.

Lower courts often make idiotic decisions, only to be overruled by higher courts. Ex. >>> US Judge Rules In Favor of Muslim Shariah Law – In America | Bloviating Zeppelin

The Supreme Court is going to agree with Trump's lawyers and hold that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Why the Supreme Court Will Likely Rule That Trump Has Immunity

The Supreme Court is going to agree with Trump's lawyers and hold that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

www.newsweek.com

Oops, you forgot to answer the question.

And you forgot to post how the vast majority -- about 100% -- of lower court rulings stand.

I would say that post was a colossal fail, overall.

 

[protectionist]

Oops, you forgot to answer the question.

And you forgot to post how the vast majority -- about 100% -- of lower court rulings stand.

I would say that post was a colossal fail, overall.

Lower courts often make idiotic decisions, only to be overruled by higher courts. Ex. >>> US Judge Rules In Favor of Muslim Shariah Law – In America | Bloviating Zeppelin

The Supreme Court is going to agree with Trump's lawyers and hold that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Why the Supreme Court Will Likely Rule That Trump Has Immunity

The Supreme Court is going to agree with Trump's lawyers and hold that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

www.newsweek.com

Some people have to be told twice.

 

[Delldude]

Lower courts often make idiotic decisions, only to be overruled by higher courts.

This fly's in the face of rape laws if the woman doesn't want to participate whether or not it's her husband.

Where are all the women's groups?

No misogyny here ladies?

Oh shit, I forgot, he's Muslim.

“Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”

 

[sealybobo]

Another win for the good guys.

Don't you folks see what's going on? Trump is making the argument he should be above the law? You sure you want to give Democratic presidents this kind of power?

This reminds me of Sarbanes Oxley. Basically a CEO or Board of Directors can be held personally responsible for crimes their company commits.

The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 mandates certain practices in financial record keeping and reporting for corporations. The act contains eleven sections that place requirements on all U.S. public company boards of directors and management and public accounting firms. A number of provisions of the Act also apply to privately held companies, such as the willful destruction of evidence to impede a federal investigation.

The law adds criminal penalties for certain misconduct, and require the Securities and Exchange Commission to create regulations to define how public corporations are to comply with the law.

So before this law, the CEO couldn't be held personally responsible for anything the company did. Today he can.

Trump needs to be made an example of because he purposely crossed the line daring us to.

 

[candycorn]

Don't you folks see what's going on? Trump is making the argument he should be above the law? You sure you want to give Democratic presidents this kind of power?

Rather bizarre assessment.

This reminds me of Sarbanes Oxley. Basically a CEO or Board of Directors can be held personally responsible for crimes their company commits.

The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 mandates certain practices in financial record keeping and reporting for corporations. The act contains eleven sections that place requirements on all U.S. public company boards of directors and management and public accounting firms. A number of provisions of the Act also apply to privately held companies, such as the willful destruction of evidence to impede a federal investigation.

The law adds criminal penalties for certain misconduct, and require the Securities and Exchange Commission to create regulations to define how public corporations are to comply with the law.

So before this law, the CEO couldn't be held personally responsible for anything the company did. Today he can.

Trump needs to be made an example of because he purposely crossed the line daring us to.

I could not agree more that he should be prosecuted. I don’t think folks should be “made an example of”. If you break the law; you should be prosecuted...doesn’t matter who they are.

 

[Delldude]

Trump is making the argument he should be above the law?

No He is not. The argument is no president should be put in a position of being criminally liable for acts done while performing the duties of their office.

I know this is going out on a limb with you, but think about that.....real hard.

 

[bendog]

No He is not. The argument is no president should be put in a position of being criminally liable for acts done while performing the duties of their office.

I know this is going out on a limb with you, but think about that.....real hard.

when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition.

google is not your friend

 

[Delldude]

when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition.

google is not your friend

I'll leave it up to SCOTUS to decide.

 

[bendog]

I'll leave it up to SCOTUS to decide.

u have no idea how ironic and stupid your post is. Google is not your friend. lol

 

[Delldude]

u have no idea how ironic and stupid your post is. Google is not your friend. lol

This issue has never been decided. Nixon was a horse of a different color.

 

[Marener]

The argument is no president should be put in a position of being criminally liable for acts done while performing the duties of their office.

The constitution specifically says that presidents are criminally liable after impeachment and conviction by the senate.