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

[struth]

Which law, specifically? I didn't ask for a congressional bill that organized some laws.

He didn’t state a bill that organized some laws. He stated a law

Do you know the difference between a bill and a law?

 

[struth]

read the ******* link moron.

I did, from early 2019, and it reminded me how we had a president that handled the border issue, and soon after had a partnership with Mexico, which included the stay in Mexico policy.

Xiden then got elected, undid that policy, and proclaimed he wanted a surge on the border

Thanks for the reminder of this failed xiden admin and the reminder of how dumb you dembots are

 

[forkup]

Immunity deals with being prosecuted, not gathering evidence. Immunity wouldn’t come into play until being indicted.

To get communications they simply have to overcome executive privilege

It seems you have no clue what you are talking about

It seems you have no clue about what's in the opinion. It spells out that this absolute immunity they concocted for "core presidential duties", directly contradicting the constitution, also provides an immunity from those actions being questioned or used as evidence to prove other things a president does.

 

[struth]

It seems you have no clue about what's in the opinion. It spells out that this absolute immunity they concocted for "core presidential duties", directly contradicting the constitution, also provides an immunity from those actions being questioned or used as evidence to prove other things a president does.

How does that directly contridict the constitution?

Well yeah the evidence can’t be used against someone that’s immune. That doesn’t mean it can’t be collected

I mean why is someone’s immunity even an issue if you don’t have any evidence?

I am familiar with the opinion, it’s just you aren’t, nor do you know what it actually means

 

[forkup]

How does that directly contridict the constitution?

Well yeah the evidence can’t be used against someone that’s immune. That doesn’t mean it can’t be collected

I mean why is someone’s immunity even an issue if you don’t have any evidence?

I am familiar with the opinion, it’s just you aren’t, nor do you know what it actually means

immunity the court has recognized in DIRECT contradiction of the constitution. Carving out an exception that is nowhere to be found.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C7-1/ALDE_00000037/
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.



Nowhere does it say. "Unless the office is the presidency and the impeachable offense is a "core duty" of the president "

 

[struth]

Nowhere did the court say that congress counldnt impeach a president in their ruling. The immunity isn’t from impeachment

 

[struth]

Nowhere did the court say that congress counldnt impeach a president in their ruling. The immunity isn’t from impeachment

 

[forkup]

Nowhere did the court say that congress counldnt impeach a president in their ruling. The immunity isn’t from impeachment

It establishishes that a president CAN be prosecuted even FOR "core presidential duties" it just does it in the context of AFTER an impeachment. The ruling simply IGNORES that clearly stated text, and instead conveys absolute immunity without exception.

Thereby DIRECTLY contradicting the Constitution which recognizes no such exception.

 

[Care4all]

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 ....

Those are extreme exaggeration scenarios, but....from what i understand, he could commit criminal acts with his admin and cabinet or witnessed by them, and it would take a near miracle to charge or convict him of those crimes ...without law enforcement being able to force via subpoena his cabinet or administration to testify about the crimes they were witness or a party, to.

 

[forkup]

Nowhere did the court say that congress counldnt impeach a president in their ruling. The immunity isn’t from impeachment

Let me put in in the context of Dobbs. The same people who claim that you can't use the Constitution to find limitations on the ability for States to regulate and even ban abortions as they see fit, unless it's specifically mentioned in there.

Also claim you can concoct a rational for granting immunity for the president in certain cases from criminal prosecution and punishment, while it's clearly stated that there are no exceptions on criminal liability for people subject to the provisions in the impeachment clause.

 

[Care4all]

What the hell are you talking about?

What the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling may have meant for Nixon

For the first time, the Supreme Court this week gave presidents a substantial amount of immunity from prosecution. Experts think it could have shielded Richard Nixon.

www.wunc.org

 

[pknopp]

Which can be and is a policy decision, for the top law enforcement official in the country.

These guys want so badly to put Biden on the same shelf as the orange finger rapist, that they are saying very dumb things.

Both are complete failures in that area.

 

[pknopp]

So, you’re condoning the current situation ?

Why not? You are doing the same for past performance.

 

[struth]

Let me put in in the context of Dobbs. The same people who claim that you can't use the Constitution to find limitations on the ability for States to regulate and even ban abortions as they see fit, unless it's specifically mentioned in there.

Also claim you can concoct a rational for granting immunity for the president in certain cases from criminal prosecution and punishment, while it's clearly stated that there are no exceptions on criminal liability for people subject to the provisions in the impeachment clause.

Again this case isn’t about impeachment. It didn’t at all limit the ability of congress to impeach

So, I have no clue what you are talking about

 

[struth]

It establishishes that a president CAN be prosecuted even FOR "core presidential duties" it just does it in the context of AFTER an impeachment. The ruling simply IGNORES that clearly stated text, and instead conveys absolute immunity without exception.

Thereby DIRECTLY contradicting the Constitution which recognizes no such exception.

It says nothing at all about impeachment. So try again

Impeachment and criminal prosecution are two different things done by two seperate branches of govt

Frankly if a president is impeached, and removed from office, that would seem like great evidence in a criminal prosecution, that whatever was alleged was not an official act, and thus the immunity not apply

Your inability to think is shining through

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No it doesn't and read my link.

I did.

Al-Awlaki wasn't murdered.
Nor had any US constitutional rights.

The Yemeni government tried al-Awlaki in absentia in November 2010 for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".

U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.
He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.

 

[pknopp]

I did.

Al-Awlaki wasn't murdered.
Nor had any US constitutional rights.

Dismissed. As a U.S. Citizen he still possessed all Constitutional Rights. The only way you can lose them is through due process or you rescind your citizenship. Neither happened.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Dismissed. As a U.S. Citizen he still possessed all Constitutional Rights.

NOT in a war zone in a foreign country.

Or Russia.

US citizens jailed by Putin left hostage to a deal​

BBC
https://www.bbc.com › news › world-europe-67763799
Dec 19, 2023 — US citizen Paul Whelan has been held for five years by Russia, and feels abandoned by his country.

Or N.Korea.

North Korea: What happened to detained US citizens ...​

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › world › asia-pacific › look-a...
Jul 19, 2023 — A U.S. soldier facing disciplinary action crossed into North Korea on Tuesday and was believed to be in North Korean custody, U.S. officials ...

Interpretation: The Eighth Amendment | Constitution Center​

The National Constitution Center
https://constitutioncenter.org › amendment-viii › clauses
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual ...


So.........................What happened?

The only way you can lose them is through due process or you rescind your citizenship. Neither happened.

 

[forkup]

It says nothing at all about impeachment. So try again

Impeachment and criminal prosecution are two different things done by two seperate branches of govt

Frankly if a president is impeached, and removed from office, that would seem like great evidence in a criminal prosecution, that whatever was alleged was not an official act, and thus the immunity not apply

Your inability to think is shining through

The impeachment clause SPECIFICALLY mentions that criminal prosecution of a president is POSSIBLE no exceptions are mentioned.

In fact, this same clause was used during oral arguments by the Trump defense. Claiming that it stated that prosecution was only possible IF impeachment occurred.

What the majority did here was PRETEND the clause didn't exist. Opting instead to use a mish-mash of lines from previous trials, in order to come to the OPPOSITE conclusion of the Constitution.

My ability to think is not the problem. Your unwillingness to understand the plain language of the Constitution is.

If the Constitution says that impeachment of public officials doesn't exclude prosecution, claiming that prosecution isn't possible in some circumstances is simply BS.

 

[struth]

The impeachment clause SPECIFICALLY mentions that criminal prosecution of a president is POSSIBLE no exceptions are mentioned.

In fact, this same clause was used during oral arguments by the Trump defense. Claiming that it stated that prosecution was only possible IF impeachment occurred.

What the majority did here was PRETEND the clause didn't exist. Opting instead to use a mish-mash of lines from previous trials, in order to come to the OPPOSITE conclusion of the Constitution.

My ability to think is not the problem. Your unwillingness to understand the plain language of the Constitution is.

If the Constitution says that impeachment of public officials doesn't exclude prosecution, claiming that prosecution isn't possible in some circumstances is simply BS.

The impeachment clause is not all impacted by sovereignty immunity or the courts ruling. It only applies to officials acts. Official acts aren’t high crimes or misdemeanors

Like this isn’t hard to grasp, unless you want to ignore reality and push a false narrative to promote your agenda to undermine our constitution and the judicial branch