The Trump legal arguments involving Presidential immunity

[BackAgain]

Ok. I read the appeal, and discounted the arguments. Now you want me to read even more nonsense that doesn’t support your assertion either.

No. I don’t “want” or expect you to read anything. I offered it. And what I have shared does support my position. Your failure to grasp it is a different matter. That’s entirely a you problem.

I am well aware that the Supremes can decide however they like,

Good for you.

based upon any reasons they can come up with.

Untrue. But you’re allowed to believe whatever you wish.

I can quite a few examples. But until they do, and explain their reasons, we should remain in the reasonable and logical world.

I’m here. You’re not. Another “you” problem.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Have a caution little the dainty reawakened. You’re once again trodding over the line. Keep the “no family rule” in mind, you scumbag.

I don’t give a shit what a scumbag like you (or that fat dishonest sow, boredtoseeya) thinks of me. You and that nasty old pig are valueless vermin.

But the no family rule exists for a reason and you lack the authority to simply violate it.

Nope. You introduced "I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet ...Thus, I am obliged to leave USMB. I have been' assured' by lots of my lib "buddies" that I will come back under some other username. Nope. Gone means gone."

You said the way you were raised -- and you were lying about it all. Facts Matter

So "As he says -- Probably the way he (Liability), was raised." Interesting isn't it. Pure cognitive dissonance. Ahh, its all good. The dreaded 'lib buddies' were right all along.

 

[BackAgain]

Nope. You introduced "I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet ...Thus, I am obliged to leave USMB. I have been' assured' by lots of my lib "buddies" that I will come back under some other username. Nope. Gone means gone."

Liar. You brought up that shit from another time and it has nothing to do with this thread. Look. You’re an obviously stupid hypocritical asshole troll but that has nothing to do with my noting (correctly) that you also have violated a well known board rule.

Go suck boredtoseeya’s dick. But don’t go to anymore rules violations.

You said the way you were raised -- and you were lying about it all. Facts Matter

That was in another thread. You are off topic and you willfully ignore how I subsequently addressed the matter anyway.

Do try to stay on topic, the dainty. It’s another one of this place’s rules. Shitsuckers like you aren’t immune.

So "As he says -- Probably the way he (Liability), was raised." Interesting isn't it. Pure cognitive dissonance. Ahh, its all good. The dreaded 'lib buddies' were right all along.

No more warning, the dainty. Knock it off.

Oh and the topic (since you seem to “forget” it) is not about your fantasy about all things me. It is about the Trump legal brief and the notion of extending Presidential immunity to encompass criminal cases.

 

[Kilroy2]

Lots of people get ducted. Some (like Trump) are completely innocent and it’s the accuser who has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The persecutor, here, will lose.

If not directly at trial, then on the appeals.

Sweet dreams are made of lies so dream on you crazy diamond

 

[BackAgain]

Sweet dreams are made of lies so dream on you crazy diamond

You’re still nothing but a douche.

But you’re the one lying.

Now, STFU and gfy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liar. You brought up that shit from another time and it has nothing to do with this thread. Look. You’re an obviously stupid hypocritical asshole troll but that has nothing to do with my noting (correctly) that you also have violated a well known board rule.

Go suck boredtoseeya’s dick. But don’t go to anymore rules violations.

That was in another thread. You are off topic and you willfully ignore how I subsequently addressed the matter anyway.

Do try to stay on topic, the dainty. It’s another one of this place’s rules. Shitsuckers like you aren’t immune.

No more warning, the dainty. Knock it off.

Oh and the topic (since you seem to “forget” it) is not about your fantasy about all things me. It is about the Trump legal brief and the notion of extending Presidential immunity to encompass criminal cases.

Good gawd, why don't you petition the Admin to become the Super Maude!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sweet dreams are made of lies so dream on you crazy diamond

good one

and The Liar-bility calling somebody else a liar? precious

 

[BackAgain]

Good gawd, why don't you petition the Admin to become the Super Maude!

Stop being a prissy sissy, the dainty.

Just comport your usual misbehavior to the rules.

And that includes making an effort to post on topic. Even a turd in the bowl like you can do it if you simply bother to try.

Here:

Just for you, the dainty, I’ll even lend a hand.

In a clear and compelling (hopefully concise) fashion, maybe you could explain exactly why Presidential Immunity ought to not be extended to encompass criminal liability, too.

Can you handle that, the dainty?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

With one more full day before Dante leaves, he'll quote you (multiple hits on these two phrases using the Search feature):

"Hey, fuckstick: I don’t care."

"Irrelevant."

 

[Kilroy2]

Stop being a prissy sissy, the dainty.

Just comport your usual misbehavior to the rules.

And that includes making an effort to post on topic. Even a turd in the bowl like you can do it if you simply bother to try.

Here:

Just for you, the dainty, I’ll even lend a hand.

In a clear and compelling (hopefully concise) fashion, maybe you could explain exactly why Presidential Immunity ought to not be extended to encompass criminal liability, too.

Can you handle that, the dainty?

Do you dream of being dainty? You do seem to have a fixation on it.

 

[BackAgain]

Do you dream of being dainty? You do seem to have a fixation on it.

You (as always) see things inversely. The dainties transfixed by me.

He just doesn’t like the fact that I always call bullshit on him when he tries to “lash out” at me.

But it’s nice to see you stepping up to play the role of his knight in shining armor.

 

[Kilroy2]

You (as always) see things inversely. The dainties transfixed by me.

He just doesn’t like the fact that I always call bullshit on him when he tries to “lash out” at me.

But it’s nice to see you stepping up to play the role of his knight in shining armor.

You (as always) see things inversely. The dainties transfixed by me.

He just doesn’t like the fact that I always call bullshit on him when he tries to “lash out” at me.

But it’s nice to see you stepping up to play the role of his knight in shining armor.

The problem is you use dainties first because you cannot argue your point and you just get flustered and start making remarks that may you feel important. So I just talk down to you level to make you fell better about yourself.

I am glad its working

 

[BackAgain]

The problem is you use dainties first because you cannot argue your point and you just get flustered and start making remarks that may you feel important. So I just talk down to you level to make you fell better about yourself.

I am glad its working

Nah. No problem. The dainty refers to itself using the third person. It’s a narcissistic little critter.

Nobody cares who a moron like you talks down to. You’re an imbecile of absolutely no value.

Now, hurry back to your damsel in distress. The dainty needs as much support as it can acquire.

 

[Kilroy2]

Nah. No problem. The dainty refers to itself using the third person. It’s a narcissistic little critter.

Nobody cares who a moron like you talks down to. You’re an imbecile of absolutely no value.

Now, hurry back to your damsel in distress. The dainty needs as much support as it can acquire.

I would say that I feel sorry for you but it would be a lie. Still I will continue to correct you irrelevant chatter.

Trump was impeached twice , so get over it. Its a fact. He just was not removed from office which require a 2/3 vote from the senate. Most republicans will not remove him for political reasons.

The verdict on his J6 activities , on a vote of 57 votes of guilty with 7 republicans voting guilty. and 43 votes of not guilty (all republicans). To remove Trump would require 75 votes of guilty.

So moron he just got lucky but his luck will run out in a real court.

Still the majority did believe he was guilty.

 

[BackAgain]

I would say that I feel sorry for you but it would be a lie.

You seem to labor under the delusion that I value anything you say.

Still I will continue to correct you irrelevant chatter.

You can’t “continue” what you’ve never started.

Trump was impeached twice , so get over it. Its a fact.

No shit. It s an irrelevant factoid. But im glad you derive happy feelings from such trivia.

He just was not removed from office which require a 2/3 vote from the senate.

Yes. We all know. Thanks for catching up.

Most republicans will not remove him for political reasons.

Actually, no reasonable Senator would vote to convict based on the shit excuse for the “evidence.”

The verdict on his J6 activities , on a vote of 57 votes of guilty with 7 republicans voting guilty. and 43 votes of not guilty (all republicans). To remove Trump would require 75 votes of guilty.

Zzz. Yes. We all know. I’m f you think you’re making a point, you aren’t.

So moron he just got lucky but his luck will run out in a real court.

Wrong again, penis breath. We were all lucky our Framers foresaw the dangers of partisan politics undermining the republic.

Still the majority did believe he was guilty.

Did they? Or did they simply vote that way?

Bottom line: nothing you posted in your inane bullshit post even addresses anything I have discussed.

You remain an imbecile.

 

[Synthaholic]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

Trump has no immunity, Shitty Lawyer.

 

[Synthaholic]

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

If presidents are immune then why was Nixon pardoned?

You remain a Shitty Lawyer.

 

[Arlette]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.

Trump's immunity argument is garbage. He's not arguing that he's innocent, he's arguing that he has the right to be a criminal.

 

[San Souci]

First reply to this thread is the typically inane use of a laughter emoji.

I realized this would sail over the head of most of our liberals. Augy is one of the usual suspects.

What else can you expect of a Libby?

 

[dudmuck]

We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”

It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.

They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.

I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.

For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.

Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.