Logical next step?

[BULLDOG]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

 

[Dekster]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

It would take a lot of people to work in concert with Biden for that to happen and law enforcement jobs are beneath the leftist elite, so probably not a realistic concern.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

SCOTUS has not given Biden nor any future president any "new found authority." They are merely confirming qualified immunity for the Executive, just like other legal entities have, law enforcement, etc. This is not a "get out of jail free" card to commit whatever illegal and criminal acts they want. Those acts are still illegal and criminal and not within the authority of the Executive.

The pearl clutching from you partisan clowns was more than predictable. In fact, if the ruling had gone the other way it would be MAGA wetting themselves claiming it's a conspiracy against Trump, somebody got to the judges, etc.

You all need to grow up.

 

[blackhawk]

 

[BULLDOG]

SCOTUS has not given Biden nor any future president any "new found authority." They are merely confirming qualified immunity for the Executive, just like other legal entities have, law enforcement, etc. This is not a "get out of jail free" card to commit whatever illegal and criminal acts they want. Those acts are still illegal and criminal and not within the authority of the Executive.

The pearl clutching from you partisan clowns was more than predictable. In fact, if the ruling had gone the other way it would be MAGA wetting themselves claiming it's a conspiracy against Trump, somebody got to the judges, etc.

You all need to grow up.

The ability to tell the Attorney General to drop all federal charges against him sure seems like a "get out of jail free" card.

 

[Crepitus]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

Immediately.

 

[Donald H]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

Now your pres has more authority than George III.

And England's current king's authority extends as far as choosing the roses in his palace's gardens.

Smart move by the Scotus! Now the kangaroo courts can decide each case as it comes up, in Trump's favour!

That's what happens when the president is within a couple of months of being braindead.

Now it's just a question of whether the CIA will allow Trump to get dangerously close to the WH?

 

[Crepitus]

SCOTUS has not given Biden nor any future president any "new found authority." They are merely confirming qualified immunity for the Executive, just like other legal entities have, law enforcement, etc. This is not a "get out of jail free" card to commit whatever illegal and criminal acts they want. Those acts are still illegal and criminal and not within the authority of the Executive.

The pearl clutching from you partisan clowns was more than predictable. In fact, if the ruling had gone the other way it would be MAGA wetting themselves claiming it's a conspiracy against Trump, somebody got to the judges, etc.

You all need to grow up.

Arresting a imprisoning an insurrectionist is definitely part of the president's job discretion

 

[sparky]

One mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist

evident every day @ USMB

~S~

 

[Oddball]

 

[Hellokitty]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

We have real examples of people having been slaughtered and raped as a direct result of Biden's open borders...so not sure why libs are making-up scenarios about TRUMP.

 

[john doe 101]

We have real examples of people having been slaughtered and raped as a direct result of Biden's open borders...so not sure why libs are making-up scenarios about TRUMP.

Why do you never complain about the violent white citizen committing murders?

 

[Hellokitty]

Why do you never complain about the violent white citizen committing murders?

I do.

 

[john doe 101]

I do.

Link it.

 

[forkup]

SCOTUS has not given Biden nor any future president any "new found authority." They are merely confirming qualified immunity for the Executive, just like other legal entities have, law enforcement, etc. This is not a "get out of jail free" card to commit whatever illegal and criminal acts they want. Those acts are still illegal and criminal and not within the authority of the Executive.

The pearl clutching from you partisan clowns was more than predictable. In fact, if the ruling had gone the other way it would be MAGA wetting themselves claiming it's a conspiracy against Trump, somebody got to the judges, etc.

You all need to grow up.

Those acts are still illegal and criminal and not within the authority of the Executive.

What acts are you referring to? Quite honestly, I don't think you understand the implications of what SCOTUS decided here.

Maybe if I lay out the "Qualifications" in your qualified immunity here it will become clearer.

First everything "official" is deemed immune. This includes CRIMES. The only "qualification" being that IF that official act can be shown to be a crime and the prosecution of which can be shown as NOT impugning on that particular presidential power in a non-corrupt manor. To put it in a less theoretical way. The Seal team six example. A president has the power to define national security threats. And he can order the military to eliminate that threat. This is perfectly within the bounds of presidential power and prosecuting a president for it will have a chilling effect on future president's ability to defend the nation. So, ordering the military to take out an opponent is immune.

The fact that it's clearly self-serving simply doesn't matter because SCOTUS was also kind enough to establish that a President's motive has to be presumed to be in good faith and CAN NOT be questioned.

Second how do you define "official acts?" Well as broadly as possible, and a prosecution can't use motive to establish it was unofficial. I'm at a loss how you can even begin doing that in a court of law with those restrictions. Maybe that's why SCOTUS was capable of giving examples of what of the alleged conduct was immune but couldn't give a clear example of what wouldn't be immune in this particular case.

To put it bluntly. SCOTUS decided here that a president has almost unlimited unchallenged leeway in how he executes his office. The only guardrail being the impeachment process. A process that even IF it actually happens does not allow for a prosecution of crimes, as long as those crimes can remotely be described as official.

 

[Billiejeens]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

THERE IS NO NEW FOUND AUTHORITY.

 

[Billiejeens]

What acts are you referring to? Quite honestly, I don't think you understand the implications of what SCOTUS decided here.

Maybe if I lay out the "Qualifications" in your qualified immunity here it will become clearer.

First everything "official" is deemed immune. This includes CRIMES. The only "qualification" being that IF that official act can be shown to be a crime and the prosecution of which can be shown as NOT impugning on that particular presidential power in a non-corrupt manor. To put it in a less theoretical way. The Seal team six example. A president has the power to define national security threats. And he can order the military to eliminate that threat. This is perfectly within the bounds of presidential power and prosecuting a president for it will have a chilling effect on future president's ability to defend the nation. So, ordering the military to take out an opponent is immune.

The fact that it's clearly self-serving simply doesn't matter because SCOTUS was also kind enough to establish that a President's motive has to be presumed to be in good faith and CAN NOT be questioned.

Second how do you define "official acts?" Well as broadly as possible, and a prosecution can't use motive to establish it was unofficial. I'm at a loss how you can even begin doing that in a court of law with those restrictions. Maybe that's why SCOTUS was capable of giving examples of what of the alleged conduct was immune but couldn't give a clear example of what wouldn't be immune in this particular case.

To put it bluntly. SCOTUS decided here that a president has almost unlimited unchallenged leeway in how he executes his office. The only guardrail being the impeachment process. A process that even IF it actually happens does not allow for a prosecution of crimes, as long as those crimes can remotely be described as official.

To be it bluntly.

You are ill informed.

 

[forkup]

To be it bluntly.

You are ill informed.

I read the opinion. Have you?

 

[Billiejeens]

I read the opinion. Have you?

I also understood it.

You read it as you want it to be.

 

[forkup]

I also understood it.

You read it as you want it to be.

So correct me. What is wrong about what I said?