Barrett, of all people, spills the beans in the immunity case.

[Lesh]

Please show us where 1 year after Obama started his term, a member of congress stood in front of a crowd and chanted "Impeach 44".

I'll be waiting.

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dadoalex]

YOU KNOW MY HISTORY ?

STFU

I was very vocal about the Clinton impeachment effort. I told people it was the first time I had been embarrassed to be a Republican.

ESADMF

But defending Trump's crimes makes you proud?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As a starting point it should be noted attorneys from both sides of the immunity case, and all the justices, agree what has been referred to as private acts, not official ones, have no claim to immunity.

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument​

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

www.nbcnews.com

There's one more thing worth mentioning as a precursor. The Court should never have heard this case. Because the claim that Don has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy that no man is above the law. Which is how the lower courts have ruled.

With that in mind, Amy Coney Barrett's questioning of Trump's attorney, John Sauer, was game over for Don. Or at least it should have been. Here's why.

She read the individual charges from the Jan. 6 case Jack Smith has brought, asking Sauer each time whether they constituted a private act or an official one. In every instance he acknowledged they were private acts, not part of Trump's official, Article II duties as prez. That, as they say, is the ballgame. Because as Justice Jackson pointed out that is the question before the Court.

The question is decidedly not what most of the conservatives wanted to make it. An exploration of what constitutes a private and an official act. That is an intellectual exercise having nothing to do with the merits of this case since there is general agreement, even by Sauer, that the acts in question are not official in nature. Which makes the Court's willingness to hear the case yet another travesty ushered in by Trumpery.

Exactly right. The court never should have delayed this case by taking up the question of absolute community for official acts. And they are going to render a decision on that anyway. This is the roberts punting court.

 

[Lesh]

Exactly right. The court never should have delayed this case by taking up the question of absolute community for official acts. And they are going to render a decision on that anyway. This is the roberts punting court.

They are trying to delay as much as possible

 

[Clipper]

I don't know what they're claiming their motivation is here, but it's difficult not to assign an agenda to it. Alito acted stunned that a President is not "special", his word.

We were in trouble before. If the SC is going to both purposely delay trials and give any degree of carte blanche to Trump, this country's troubles have multiplied.

The MAGA crowd have been telling us this that is for all the marbles, that they're at war with anyone who doesn't think like them. Are we taking them seriously yet?

The SC has already delayed the J6 trial by at least 6 months & possibly until next year & forever if traitor Trump wins. The fix is in as the arguements had already taken place in the Appelate Court. The court decided Bush v. Gore within 24 hours so there's no excuse for what they're doing. They just adopted Trump's delay tactics as a FAVOR to him.

And all of Alito, Gorsuch & Kavanaugh's legal blather will excuse how history is going to judge those s.o.b's.

Thomas kept his mouth shut but who can blame him? His wife was in on the J6 plot. You can't make this shit up.

 

[dudmuck]

"Absolute Immunity" would mean any president can murder anyone and get away with it.
That IS NOT what presidential Immunity is about AT ALL!!!!!
It's about protecting the executive office from legal ATTACKS for just doing Its JOB!
The fucking pretzel twisting the demented LEFT are doing is completely OUT OF CONTROL.

tell us if anything Trump is charged with involves official acts as president.

 

[Leo123]

As a starting point it should be noted attorneys from both sides of the immunity case, and all the justices, agree what has been referred to as private acts, not official ones, have no claim to immunity.

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument​

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

www.nbcnews.com

There's one more thing worth mentioning as a precursor. The Court should never have heard this case. Because the claim that Don has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy that no man is above the law. Which is how the lower courts have ruled.

With that in mind, Amy Coney Barrett's questioning of Trump's attorney, John Sauer, was game over for Don. Or at least it should have been. Here's why.

She read the individual charges from the Jan. 6 case Jack Smith has brought, asking Sauer each time whether they constituted a private act or an official one. In every instance he acknowledged they were private acts, not part of Trump's official, Article II duties as prez. That, as they say, is the ballgame. Because as Justice Jackson pointed out that is the question before the Court.

The question is decidedly not what most of the conservatives wanted to make it. An exploration of what constitutes a private and an official act. That is an intellectual exercise having nothing to do with the merits of this case since there is general agreement, even by Sauer, that the acts in question are not official in nature. Which makes the Court's willingness to hear the case yet another travesty ushered in by Trumpery.

The charges were fake in the first place. This is nothing but a dog and pony show to obstruct an election.

 

[Mac1958]

The SC has already delayed the J6 trial by at least 6 months & possibly until next year & forever if traitor Trump wins. The fix is in as the arguements had already taken place in the Appelate Court. The court decided Bush v. Gore within 24 hours so there's no excuse for what they're doing. They just adopted Trump's delay tactics as a FAVOR to him.

And all of Alito, Gorsuch & Kavanaugh's legal blather will excuse how history is going to judge those s.o.b's.

Thomas kept his mouth shut but who can blame him? His wife was in on the J6 plot. You can't make this shit up.

It's beginning to just come out into the open now. It always had to, at some point. Thomas may be the worst example.

These folks have been convinced by voices they trust that they have been terribly cheated, so anything they do in response is justified. That includes ignoring every rule, breaking every trust, and manipulating every law. "Retribution" for their perceived victimhood, spread out over time. They're operating, on a day to day basis, on pure, paranoid, primitive rage.

History will also judge these craven congressional Republicans who have chosen to keep their mouths shut to save their jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

The charges were fake in the first place. This is nothing but a dog and pony show to obstruct an election.

If they were, Trump should insist on an expedited court case and argue his case in court.

He won't, because he knows he's guilty.

 

[Clipper]

If they were, Trump should insist on an expedited court case and argue his case in court.

He won't, because he knows he's guilty.

Trump knows his ass is guilty & he's going to prison if he ever goes to trial. That's why he's demanding immunity & that's why his stooges on the SC are stalling that trial.

Can you imagine? Our Democracy may be in the hands of people like Barrett, Kavanaugh & Gorsuch who lied thru their teeth at their Senate confirmation hearings. And then we have Thomas who refused to recuse himself despite the fact his very own wife was in on Trump's coup attempt, which is the reason that this case is in front of that court in the first place.

You can't, I repeat, cannot make this shit up.

 

[cnm]

It's about protecting the executive office from legal ATTACKS for just doing Its JOB!

Is it the executive office's job to commit crimes?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Is it the executive office's job to commit crimes?

What CRIMES?
GTFOH!!!!