BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Trump is entitled to some immunity in Jan. 6 case

[struth]

That's who we're talking about, Nixon. The Watergate Tapes as Presidential Communications would not be allowed to be used to prosecute Nixon (if Ford hadn't pardoned him).

WW

As I said it could of a judge found his immunity didn’t apply. There would have to be an evidentiary hearing and the Govt would have to show it wasn’t.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As I said it could of a judge found his immunity didn’t apply. There would have to be an evidentiary hearing and the Govt would have to show it wasn’t.

Good luck with what the SCOTUS said about limiting Presidential communications and conversations with administration officials that were off the table in a criminal prosecution.

How are prosecutors supposed to get evidence for an evidentiary hearing since the SCOTUS said they couldn't have access to Presidential communications for use in a criminal prosecution?

WW

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Just another day, just another reckless previous supreme court decision by this ACTIVIST right wing Supreme Court/Supreme Commander's REVERSAL of supreme court precedence,

making our courts untrustworthy and destabilized in the eyes of the citizens, and country on the whole. They just made us weaker, on the World stage....imo.

next will be birth contol and same sex marriage.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Good luck with what the SCOTUS said about limiting Presidential communications and conversations with administration officials that were off the table in a criminal prosecution.

How are prosecutors supposed to get evidence for an evidentiary hearing since the SCOTUS said they couldn't have access to Presidential communications for use in a criminal prosecution?

WW

Add to this that the same SCOTUS said that tweets were official communications, making them off limits as well

 

[struth]

Good luck with what the SCOTUS said about limiting Presidential communications and conversations with administration officials that were off the table in a criminal prosecution.

How are prosecutors supposed to get evidence for an evidentiary hearing since the SCOTUS said they couldn't have access to Presidential communications for use in a criminal prosecution?

WW

They didn’t say that. It can’t be used or the immunity applies. They have to get over the immunity issue first.

Certainly I would hope they’d have the evidence before they indicted the person! Geez

 

[Care4all]

next will be birth contol and same sex marriage.

Yep, and no fault marriage, and who knows what else?

Who knew the unelected, activist supreme court is really who rules our nation....not those who we elected!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yep, and no fault marriage, and who knows what else?

Who knew the unelected supreme court is really who rules our nation....not those who we elected!

They have given themselves and the Judicial branch a great deal of extra power over the last week.

 

[struth]

They have given themselves and the Judicial branch a great deal of extra power over the last week.

To be fair, the people are about to give the gop a great deal of power.

The judicial branch hasn’t been given any more power then they had already, it’s just the demafacist agenda runs counter to that.

 

[struth]

Yep, and no fault marriage, and who knows what else?

Who knew the unelected, activist supreme court is really who rules our nation....not those who we elected!

Hahah yeah no fault marriage! Hhaha y’all are desperate, fear mongering is all you have left

 

[Rawley]

Collective amnesia seems to have struck the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, especially around the question: Is the president above the law?

Five of the six conservative justices who ruled to give the president absolute immunity for “core” presidential duties seem to have made contradictory statements during their Senate confirmation hearings.

“No man is above the law,” Neil Gorsuch told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) during his confirmation hearing in 2017.

Oops.

Five SCOTUS Justices’ Comments on Prez Immunity Come Back to Haunt Them

Lying about this opinion won't bring Biden back

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Hahah yeah no fault marriage! Hhaha y’all are desperate, fear mongering is all you have left

Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce

Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or restricting such cases

www.theguardian.com

Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or restricting such cases

 

[Rawley]

the SCOTUS expanded that immunity to other acts of a president not specifically in the constitution as his duties, giving what they call presumptive immunity, and then tied the hands of criminal prosecutors by saying the white house witnesses or accomplices even, can not be called or forced to be witnesses or admit testimony to the crime ...due to a sort of executive privilege for executive duties.... because the President was involved and his conversations with his admin were private or part of his presumptive duties...just utter bull crap! Even if admin and he were discussing a criminal private act and not an official act....you can't call the president's executives to the stand or subpoena them....

You tie the hands of the DOJ and law enforcement investigating crimes making it impossible to charge or try them, even after leaving office.

That is the part of their decision that is GOD Awful,

And makes any and all presidents immune for their crimes. (And possibly co-conspirators too)

Make the presidential position, ABOVE THE LAW.

so basically, he's above the law

So you agree with Biden that he can rape women on the Resolute desk during a televised address, that he can send death squads after Sean Hannity, that he can execute Donald Trump ....

 

[Rawley]

Just another day, just another reckless previous supreme court decision by this ACTIVIST right wing Supreme Court/Supreme Commander's REVERSAL of supreme court precedence,

making our courts untrustworthy and destabilized in the eyes of the citizens, and country on the whole. They just made us weaker, on the World stage....imo.

Jeeeze Care, shut off your loon media and take a breath.

 

[struth]

Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce

Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or restricting such cases

www.theguardian.com

Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or restricting such cases

Haha wow a discussion of restricting in a few states equates to there is gonna be a national ban

Desepate fearmongering

 

[Rawley]

Under this ruling the tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office could not be used as they were Presidential communications.

WW

The opinion was not precedent saying the tapes could be used to prosecute the President.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you agree with Biden that he can rape women on the Resolute desk during a televised address, that he can send death squads after Sean Hannity, that he can execute Donald Trump ....

Not the rape thing.

But it is pretty much seen that this ruling make Obama immune for his decision to kill a US Citizen via a drone.

If a POTUS can legally kill a US Citizen on foreign land, why not closer home?

 

[Rawley]

Not the rape thing.

Why not? You loons are claiming he's KING, above the law

But it is pretty much seen that this ruling make Obama immune for his decision to kill a US Citizen via a drone.

If a POTUS can legally kill a US Citizen on foreign land, why not closer home?

Lots of us questioned the legality of his droning of US citizens. Your cult called us loons.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why not? You loons are claiming he's KING, above the law

it cannot be twisted into an "official action"

Lots of us questioned the legality of his droning of US citizens. Your cult called us loons.

Not my cult as I have as well. But now that is out the window.

So, again...what is the keep a POTUS from doing so closer to home?

 

[pknopp]

Lying about this opinion won't bring Biden back

Nor do I care about Biden but why would a candidate for the Supreme Court feel it appropriate to lie about their opinion?

 

[Rawley]

Good luck with what the SCOTUS said about limiting Presidential communications and conversations with administration officials that were off the table in a criminal prosecution.

How are prosecutors supposed to get evidence for an evidentiary hearing since the SCOTUS said they couldn't have access to Presidential communications for use in a criminal prosecution?

WW

The Court did not hold "they couldn't have access to Presidential communications for use in a criminal prosecution"