Breaking News. SCOTUS rejects the premature Special Counsel bid to rule on his cases

[Slade3200]

False. I saw the video and it showed such thing. Your misinterpretation is a different issue.

Our legal justice system agrees with me not you. And you only excuse is claiming they are corrupt political actors. Pathetic

 

[BackAgain]

I do recall… why?

Good gawd. You're deliberately obtuse.

 

[BackAgain]

Our legal justice system agrees with me not you.

No; it sure doesn’t.

And you only excuse is claiming they are corrupt political actors. Pathetic

No. I didn’t offer any excuse. Nothing to excuse.

 

[Marener]

Impeachment and conviction.

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.

Don’t be so obviously dishonest and deceptive, you dipshit. President Trump was not convicted. Try again; but be honest next time.

It doesn’t. And it wasn’t “made up.”

You don’t know a damn thing about the entire topic.

Presidential immunity does not appear in the constitution. It’s made up.


Your stated rationale for presidential immunity is invalid, because the framers of the constitution clearly wanted the president to worry about criminal culpability for official acts. There is no legitimate rationale for presidential immunity. Whether it requires impeachment and conviction isnt the point. The point is that presidential immunity doesn’t exist and there is no rationale for it.

 

[BackAgain]

Presidential immunity does not appear in the constitution. It’s made up.


Your stated rationale for presidential immunity is invalid, because the framers of the constitution clearly wanted the president to worry about criminal culpability for official acts. There is no legitimate rationale for presidential immunity. Whether it requires impeachment and conviction isnt the point. The point is that presidential immunity doesn’t exist and there is no rationale for it.

You’re ignorant.
A Constitutional law concept doesn’t have to be found literally in the text of the Constitution.

I know a sub moron like you doesn’t comprehend that our courts have inferred the existence of a variety of Constitutional
law concepts based on necessary implication.

I’d waste time trying to educate you, but frankly you’re so opposed to opening your diminutive little mind, it’s clearly wasted on you.

The concept of Presidential immunity wasn’t based on my rationale. It was based on common law and a variety of precedents.

I believe that it will now be extended to cover criminal prosecutions. (I don’t doubt that it will still be limited as far as its scope.)

And the fact that this seems most likely just frustrates your petty biased mind. I’m fine with that.

 

[Marener]

You’re ignorant.
A Constitutional law concept doesn’t have to be found literally in the text of the Constitution.

I know a sub moron like you doesn’t comprehend that our courts have inferred the existence of a variety of Constitutional
law concepts based on necessary implication.

I’d waste time trying to educate you, but frankly you’re so opposed to opening your diminutive little mind, it’s clearly wasted on you.

The concept of Presidential immunity wasn’t based on my rationale. It was based on common law and a variety of precedents.

I believe that it will now be extended to cover criminal prosecutions. (I don’t doubt that it will still be limited as far as its scope.)

And the fact that this seems most likely just frustrates your petty biased mind. I’m fine with that.

There is no necessary implication of presidential immunity from the constition. If the constitution implies anything it implies that presidents are subject to indictment after impeachment.

The common law idea of immunity has metastasized to cover more and more people and more and more actions, but has never covered criminal liability.

There is no rationale for the president to only be subject to indictment after impeachment. There is no precedent.

And the effects of such immunity is truly frightening and a license for a president to engage in lawless behavior.

I predict that SCOTUS will either pass on the case or rule that Trump’s actions were no part of his presidential duties. I doubt they will touch the idea of presidential immunity. This court is not functional enough to make such an impactful and broad ruling.

 

[Clipper]

George Conway?

He looks 10 years younger since his divorce from Ms. "Alernative Facts".

 

[Clipper]

You’re ignorant.
A Constitutional law concept doesn’t have to be found literally in the text of the Constitution.

I know a sub moron like you doesn’t comprehend that our courts have inferred the existence of a variety of Constitutional
law concepts based on necessary implication.

I’d waste time trying to educate you, but frankly you’re so opposed to opening your diminutive little mind, it’s clearly wasted on you.

The concept of Presidential immunity wasn’t based on my rationale. It was based on common law and a variety of precedents.

I believe that it will now be extended to cover criminal prosecutions. (I don’t doubt that it will still be limited as far as its scope.)

And the fact that this seems most likely just frustrates your petty biased mind. I’m fine with that.

Keep bleeeevin' that Trump can do whatever he wants including breaking the law.

Keep kissing Trump's ass & maybe he won't target you MAGA bleeeevers.

 

[BackAgain]

There is no necessary implication of presidential immunity from the constition. If the constitution implies anything it implies that presidents are subject to indictment after impeachment.

The common law idea of immunity has metastasized to cover more and more people and more and more actions, but has never covered criminal liability.

There is no rationale for the president to only be subject to indictment after impeachment. There is no precedent.

And the effects of such immunity is truly frightening and a license for a president to engage in lawless behavior.

I predict that SCOTUS will either pass on the case or rule that Trump’s actions were no part of his presidential duties. I doubt they will touch the idea of presidential immunity. This court is not functional enough to make such an impactful and broad ruling.

You’re just arguing to spout your desired view what you consider a necessary implication is different from what the law says.

 

[lantern2814]

The entire world saw him involve on video. This is like you saying there’s no proof the civil war happened. Ummm yes there is and yes Trump was engaged with stop the steal and what happened on Jan 6

Show Trump telling people to storm the Capitol you lying hack. Trump stated to peacefully protest. Your feelings don’t count.

 

[lantern2814]

Keep bleeeevin' that Trump can do whatever he wants including breaking the law.

Keep kissing Trump's ass & maybe he won't target you MAGA bleeeevers.

And the resident ass obsessed incel has to spew more shit. Show where any convictions for insurrection are moron. SCOTUS is going to make you cry so hard again.

 

[Clipper]

And the resident ass obsessed incel has to spew more shit. Show where any convictions for insurrection are moron. SCOTUS is going to make you cry so hard again.

The Constitution doesn't mention a conviction, only that an officer, which Trump was participated in an insurrection, you asswipe. Which he did, twerp.

You're confused by the stink of Trump's ass gone to your brain.

 

[Nostra]

CO Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The president is an elected official and included in the 14 amendment parameters. If this is your strongest argument then that’s pretty

The 14th doesn’t negate the 5th Amendment, Vermin.

 

[lantern2814]

The Constitution doesn't mention a conviction, only that an officer, which Trump was participated in an insurrection, you asswipe. Which he did, twerp.

You're confused by the stink of Trump's ass gone to your brain.

Poor little incel. To trigger the appropriate clause for removal, you need a conviction. Insurrection is a criminal charge incel. Where is there a civil charge for that? Asshole.

 

[Nostra]

Impeachment and conviction.

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.

Don’t be so obviously dishonest and deceptive, you dipshit. President Trump was not convicted. Try again; but be honest next time.

It doesn’t. And it wasn’t “made up.”

You don’t know a damn thing about the entire topic.

Moroner gets owned.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Trump will need 3% minimum just to overcome Dem cheating.

Jos loosing support faster than flies in a can of pesticide

 

[Nostra]

The Constitution doesn't mention a conviction, only that an officer, which Trump was participated in an insurrection, you asswipe. Which he did, twerp.

You're confused by the stink of Trump's ass gone to your brain.

The 5th Amendment does. The 14th doesn’t negate the 5th Amendment.

Also, seek help Soon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Impeachment and conviction.

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.

Don’t be so obviously dishonest and deceptive, you dipshit. President Trump was not convicted. Try again; but be honest next time.

It doesn’t. And it wasn’t “made up.”

You don’t know a damn thing about the entire topic.

He's just using failed talking points he heard on CNN

 

[Clipper]

Poor little incel. To trigger the appropriate clause for removal, you need a conviction. Insurrection is a criminal charge incel. Where is there a civil charge for that? Asshole.

Cite the clause in The Constitution where your claim is outlined, assbreath.

You can't. FAIL.

Now repeat after me: "I WILL take my head out of Trump's ass in the hope that my brain can experience a recovery".

Keep repeating that until the thought takes hold.

 

[lantern2814]

Cite the clause in The Constitution where your claim is outlined, assbreath.

You can't. FAIL.

Now repeat after me: "I WILL take my head out of Trump's ass in the hope that my brain can experience a recovery".

Keep repeating that until the thought takes hold.

Yawn. Try reading the entire 14th Amendment dumbfuck. The third section needs a conviction. Yes you are a failure. Now repeat this “Clipper is a dumbfuck incel who wants Donald Trump’s ass in the worst way.”. Continue your lifelong tantrum.