Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

The judges appeared skeptical of this line of reasoning.

ā€œYouā€™re saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rivalā€ with impunity, said Judge Florence Pan, who was appointed by President Joe Biden.

ā€œI think itā€™s paradoxical to say that [Trumpā€™s] constitutional duty to ā€˜take care that the laws be faithfully executedā€™ allows him to violate criminal law,ā€ said Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, quoting from the Constitution. LeCraft Henderson was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

The outcome of the arguments will have major implications, not only for Trumpā€™s legal battles ā€” and his 2024 presidential bid ā€” but the power of the presidency itself.

 
There is something wrong with you. This constant avoiding of issues by manufacturing girly stories.
Trump didn't order a SEAL team.Grow the hell up.
Mate, I feel guilty for showing up people of limited understanding like you. Makes me feel like a bully because you are defenceless.

Try to imagine that these powers you want for trump are given to his opponents. Is that ok with you ?
 

The people that are arguing that President Biden is abusing his office because a Special Counsel has indicted his political rival, is now arguing a President can KILL his political opponent and get away with it, providing he isn't impeached for the deed or resigns if impeachment looms. Feel free to justify it.

Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, noted that a president could resign rather than face impeachment, something that under the framework of Trumpā€™s attorneys would allow them to dodge future prosecution.
 
Impeachment is a political process
A criminal prosecution is a judicial process
Thatā€™s exactly why I donā€™t understand what argument theyā€™re making by suggesting impeachment and conviction is required for prosecution.

As weā€™ve seen. Partisans can avoid an impeachment conviction by simply voting no. Even when impeachment is so obviously warranted.

Itā€™s a stupid argument.
 
Last edited:
Love watching Republicans move the Goal Posts when it comes to holding Trump accountable for Jan 6

1. While Mitch McConnell was Leader of the Senate, he was urged to impeach Trump before he left office. McConnell stated it was too late and that Democrats should do it after Trump was out of office.

2. When Democrats Impeached Trump after he was out of office, McConnell and fellow Republicans voted against it because he was no longer President. McConnell made it clear, Trump is still criminally liable for his actions.

3. Now that Trump is being criminally prosecuted, Republicans are claiming he canā€™t be prosecuted because he was not Impeached first.
Made the same dirty play with SCOTUS nominees.
 
that woiuld require you to stop crying like a little bitch all day long,,

can you do that??
eyeroll3.gif
 
With Trump, that appears not to be so

Congress members specifically voted against impeachment because Trump was no longer in office
They considered it moot

At the time, Impeachment had two results. Remove Trump from office and prevent him from holding future office.

Making him eligible for criminal prosecution was never raised and Mitch McConnell specifically stated Trump could still be held responsible for his actions
In fact several GOP Senators voted to acquit BECAUSE they said he should be held criminally liable instead
 
~~~~~~
It takes a two thirds vote for the Senate to concur on Impeachment of a president.
Do you believe if Biden is impeached for corruption by Congress that two-thirds of the Senate will concur?
Will the vote go strictly along political lines?
Derpā€¦
Thatā€™s exactly why this argument fails.
 

Forum List

Back
Top