BREAKING: Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez found guilty in federal corruption trial

[martybegan]

I pointed out how incorrect you were, at which point you changed subject, running away from your little analogy like a terrified little bitch.

Your claim that everyone thought the president had immunity is unsupported bullshit. It wasn't taken seriously because we all sort of agreed that the president needs to be accountable. Remember how we are supposed to be a country of laws, not a country of men. Not any more thanks to you pathetic losers who have inflicted this disgusting human being on the country.

You don't remember the "lock her up" chants?

You didn't point out shit, you just regurgitated your same bullshit points.

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americ...es-c163ae81?mod=opinion_feat2_commentary_pos1

The Trump opinion acknowledged these truths and built on Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), which recognized presidential immunity from civil lawsuits predicated on official acts. In that case, Justice Lewis Powell wrote that such immunity is mandated by the president’s “unique position” and “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers.” Lawsuits “could distract a President from his public duties, to the detriment of not only the President and his office but also the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve.”

 

[Marener]

You didn't point out shit, you just regurgitated your same bullshit points.

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americ...es-c163ae81?mod=opinion_feat2_commentary_pos1

Again, you're confusing civil and criminal liability and pretending like they're the same.

This is idiotic.

 

[martybegan]

Again, you're confusing civil and criminal liability and pretending like they're the same.

This is idiotic.

And again, liability is liability. The 82 case talked about civil cases, all the current SC did was extend it to criminal cases IF it involves the official duties of the Presidency.

 

[Marener]

And again, liability is liability. The 82 case talked about civil cases, all the current SC did was extend it to criminal cases IF it involves the official duties of the Presidency.

Again, they’re not the same. They aren’t even close to being the same.

It was controversial when presidents got civil liability too, but at least there was another method for individuals to get their remedy, because they could sue the government.

There is no such alternative remedy for criminal liability. The president just walks away.

It’s the dumbest fucking idea and the only reason you support it is because you hate everyone not in your tribe.

 

[martybegan]

Again, they’re not the same. They aren’t even close to being the same.

It was controversial when presidents got civil liability too, but at least there was another method for individuals to get their remedy, because they could sue the government.

There is no such alternative remedy for criminal liability. The president just walks away.

It’s the dumbest fucking idea and the only reason you support it is because you hate everyone not in your tribe.

Qualified immunity works on both criminal liability and civil liability, if some cop gets something like that, and other elected officials, why doesn't the President get the same?

You impeach, then you prosecute.

The only reason you think there is no immunity at all is your TDS.

 

[Marener]

Qualified immunity works on both criminal liability and civil liability, if some cop gets something like that, and other elected officials, why doesn't the President get the same?

You impeach, then you prosecute.

The only reason you think there is no immunity at all is your TDS.

That’s for civil lawsuits, dipshit. You really need to understand the difference.

There’s no immunity because it’s a terrible fucking idea. Still trying to find the person that thought they were immune before Trump decided to break laws.

 

[martybegan]

That’s for civil lawsuits, dipshit. You really need to understand the difference.

There’s no immunity because it’s a terrible fucking idea. Still trying to find the person that thought they were immune before Trump decided to break laws.

There is immunity for official acts, and no immunity for non-official acts. all the SC did was set the line.

You can still sue Trump until you are blue in the face, you just have to show what he did wasn't part of his duties as President.

Again, the issue had never come up before. Civil liability came up in 1982.

 

[Marener]

There is immunity for official acts, and no immunity for non-official acts. all the SC did was set the line.

You can still sue Trump until you are blue in the face, you just have to show what he did wasn't part of his duties as President.

Again, the issue had never come up before. Civil liability came up in 1982.

It came up when Nixon left office and got a pardon from Ford who clearly thought he had criminal liability.

Am I supposed to feel better that a president can ignore the law when executing their office?

 

[martybegan]

It came up when Nixon left office and got a pardon from Ford who clearly thought he had criminal liability.

Am I supposed to feel better that a president can ignore the law when executing their office?

And it said he had immunity from civil suits for official acts.

All the current SC case did was say the same for criminal prosecution.

He can't walk up and murder someone, that isn't an official act. he can order the military perform violent acts.

 

[Marener]

He can't walk up and murder someone, that isn't an official act. he can order the military perform violent acts.

Obama ordered a drone strike on an American citizen overseas. Do you really think it was worse for the country that Obama had to first contemplate the legality of his actions?

 

[martybegan]

Obama ordered a drone strike on an American citizen overseas. Do you really think it was worse for the country that Obama had to first contemplate the legality of his actions?

Do you think it would OK that he gets prosecuted for Murder for that?

And the American Citizen in question was a traitorous militant dipshit.

You think I am going to go against Obama here?

Take up arms against your own country = Hellfire Missile up your ass.

 

[Marener]

Do you think it would OK that he gets prosecuted for Murder for that?

And the American Citizen in question was a traitorous militant dipshit.

You think I am going to go against Obama here?

Take up arms against your own country = Hellfire Missile up your ass.

If I thought it was actually illegal, yes I would be fine with him being prosecuted here.

But aren’t you glad that Obama had to worry about whether it was legal or not?

 

[martybegan]

If I thought it was actually illegal, yes I would be fine with him being prosecuted here.

But aren’t you glad that Obama had to worry about whether it was legal or not?

But he did it as an official act.

Actually he didn't, because no one tried to prosecute him over it. It took TDS to bring the question about.

And what you think is moot, it's what a court thinks, guided by the Supreme Court, and said court has given it's guidance.

Blow up a traitorous dipshit with a missile strike? Official act as Commander in Chief.

Shoot someone randomly on the street, or order your political opponent shot? Not an official act.

 

[Marener]

But he did it as an official act.

Actually he didn't, because no one tried to prosecute him over it. It took TDS to bring the question about.

And what you think is moot, it's what a court thinks, guided by the Supreme Court, and said court has given it's guidance.

Blow up a traitorous dipshit with a missile strike? Official act as Commander in Chief.

Shoot someone randomly on the street, or order your political opponent shot? Not an official act.

How are you going to prove that killing an American wasn’t an official act? Just label someone a traitorous dipshit. Done. Order the military strike. Obviously a military order is an official act.

Or how about not killing someone’s but ordering the DoJ to investigate and prosecute, make everything public about them. Publish their emails. Publish their taxes. Publish their bank records.

The point that you’re desperately avoiding, because you’re a huge coward, is that the president should have to consider the legality of their actions.

 

[22lcidw]

That’s for civil lawsuits, dipshit. You really need to understand the difference.

There’s no immunity because it’s a terrible fucking idea. Still trying to find the person that thought they were immune before Trump decided to break laws.

That is if you believe the people prosecuting. The Supreme Court became involved because the Progressives are on a mission to destroy Trump. If Progs keep this up, I also believe that if there is no choice, in parts of this nation there will be real hardliners running and getting elected to counter the Progressives. And the chances for actual violence between politicians in D.C. will improve dramatically.

 

[martybegan]

How are you going to prove that killing an American wasn’t an official act? Just label someone a traitorous dipshit. Done.

Or how about not killing someone’s but ordering the DoJ to investigate and prosecute, make everything public about them. Publish their emails. Publish their taxes. Publish their bank records.

The point that you’re desperately avoiding, because you’re a huge coward, is that the president should have to consider the legality of their actions.

That's what courts do. prove facts of things. The SC case doesn't prevent people from trying to prosecute or sue the President, it just sets a standard for success in said instances.

The guy Obama wasted was on foreign soil attacking Americans. He needed to die.

And the article I linked said that if the President had to worry about some County prosecutor filing a case against him for official acts, said president would be rendered impotent.

That's the crux of the opinion by the 6 justices.

 

[Marener]

That's what courts do. prove facts of things. The SC case doesn't prevent people from trying to prosecute or sue the President, it just sets a standard for success in said instances.

The guy Obama wasted was on foreign soil attacking Americans. He needed to die.

And the article I linked said that if the President had to worry about some County prosecutor filing a case against him for official acts, said president would be rendered impotent.

That's the crux of the opinion by the 6 justices.

Why would the president worry about some county prosecutor filing a case against them? Is that truly the worst case scenario here? Give me a break. Why is that so bad?

The standard it sets makes prosecution almost impossible in almost every circumstance especially how it makes requirements for how prosecutors can prove what is and isn’t an official act.

Say your political opponent goes overseas, and the military wastes them. Commanding the military is an official act exclusive to the president. No chance at prosecution. Zero. Total immunity.

 

[Marener]

That is if you believe the people prosecuting. The Supreme Court became involved because the Progressives are on a mission to destroy Trump. If Progs keep this up, I also believe that if there is no choice, in parts of this nation there will be real hardliners running and getting elected to counter the Progressives. And the chances for actual violence between politicians in D.C. will improve dramatically.

We are trying to save the country from the destructive force that is Trump.

 

[martybegan]

Why would the president worry about some county prosecutor filing a case against them? Is that truly the worst case scenario here? Give me a break. Why is that so bad?

The standard it sets makes prosecution almost impossible in almost every circumstance especially how it makes requirements for how prosecutors can prove what is and isn’t an official act.

Say your political opponent goes overseas, and the military wastes them. Commanding the military is an official act exclusive to the president. No chance at prosecution. Zero. Total immunity.

Look at what State level prosecutors and judges are doing to Trump. Now imagine Texas and Alabama doing that to a President you support.

It doesn't make it impossible, it makes the burden on the prosecutor to show it's not an official act. That burden was already in place with civil trials under the 1982 Nixon case. Trump's "rape" trial was for acts before President, hence it proceeded.

If said political opponent takes up arms against the United States, should that make said person immune to consequences?

If Trump was overseas and Biden hit him with a Hellfire, that's not an official act. It's pretty easy to figure this stuff out if you aren't a complete idiot.

 

[Marener]

Look at what State level prosecutors and judges are doing to Trump. Now imagine Texas and Alabama doing that to a President you support.

It doesn't make it impossible, it makes the burden on the prosecutor to show it's not an official act. That burden was already in place with civil trials under the 1982 Nixon case. Trump's "rape" trial was for acts before President, hence it proceeded.

If said political opponent takes up arms against the United States, should that make said person immune to consequences?

If Trump was overseas and Biden hit him with a Hellfire, that's not an official act. It's pretty easy to figure this stuff out if you aren't a complete idiot.

In Georgia, he’s in trouble because he did absolutely crazy shit that no president in their right mind would ever do.

Tell me why I shouldnt have a problem with a president using their official authority to fuck with the outcome of their own election? The president should feel impotent to use their office to reverse the outcome of their own election. Jesus, imagine that. It’s like I don’t want the president to engage in complete fucking corruption. Fuck me.

Commanding the military is an official act. Says so right in the constitution.