Was Sotomayor's seal team six comment a dog whistle to the left?

[Hellokitty]

They might be doing it for him nominating Harris right off the bat. You know they didn't really want her to be their nominee. I heard Obama was pissed. I guess that's why they won't let her talk off teleprompter or answer questions.

Yeah I think Harris was the Obama plan, they just wanted to make it look like like she got the nomination through an open process.

 

[berg80]

Maybe you didn't notice. With Biden no longer running, all the "Biden family" crap, and impeach Biden actions have stopped.

Yeah, what a coincidence the fixation on Hunter, the unproven allegations about Joe, and all the talk about an impeachment inquiry have strangely ended. What ever could the reason be? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[jknowgood]

Ponder this. We knew the Chinese were spying on us.
What "false" information do you think we fed them during that week?

Do you remember when we sent a coded message saying the water treatment plant on Midway was broken.

Bullshit at first Biden said he knew nothing about it till the truth came out he knew when they launched it.

 

[postman]

She was pure DEI and never the sharpest of justices.

She pointed out, their opinion never addressed how using seal team six in that way, was outside of presidential authority.
And the president using his power as commander in chief has absolute immunity.

 

[jknowgood]

Yeah, what a coincidence the fixation on Hunter, the unproven allegations about Joe, and all the talk about an impeachment inquiry have strangely ended. What ever could the reason be? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The fbi released last week that Hunter received millions in bribes. Why is that if it all ended?

 

[postman]

But having reread the Court’s opinion with this hypothetical in mind, I don’t find anything in it to warrant this accusation. I was most concerned that there might be some statement in Roberts’s opinion of the necessity to give the president absolute immunity for any action taken as commander in chief of the military, but I found no such statement.

He doesn't read very well.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

That means any enumerated powers, like granting pardons, or as commander in chief, he receives absolute immunity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And no doubt this is being done to keep the Biden's in line. They can't have Jill or Hunter leaking anything to damage Kamala from being installed.

Makes you wonder if that was really Hunter’s coke in the WH

 

[postman]

Bullshit at first Biden said he knew nothing about it till the truth came out he knew when they launched it.

Think of spy vs spy. Why would Biden announce publicly to the Chinese, that we already know about their balloon?

It's like when the NSA detected Russian GRU hacking American social media. Obama was told right away, but he didn't announce it, as not to interfere with the election cycle.

 

[postman]

The fbi released last week that Hunter received millions in bribes. Why is that if it all ended?

Hunter hasn't been in a position to receive millions is bribes for long enough, the statute of limitations long since ran out.
The information has no legal consequence, only political consequence.

 

[berg80]

She was pure DEI and never the sharpest of justices.

I'll be sure to give your opinion all the consideration it deserves. None.

 

[konradv]

The order wouldn't be unconstitutional, as long as the president made a presidential determination like President Bush signed Executive Order 13224 on September 23, 2001, that declared the person to be an enemy of the United States.

The military would be duty bound to carry out his orders.

The question becomes, will criticizing Trump or MAGA make you an enemy of the country by presidential-constitutional decree?

#DONTTAKETHATCHANCE

 

[berg80]

The fbi released last week that Hunter received millions in bribes. Why is that if it all ended?

Remind me, which elected office is Hunter running for?

 

[postman]

The question becomes, will criticizing Trump or MAGA make you an enemy of the country by presidential-constitutional decree?

#DONTTAKETHATCHANCE

Remember, anything the president does within his official duties, he has absolute immunity from prosecution.

So if the president lies on an executive order, he's immune from any criminal consequences. Ever.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Make no doubt abou it: the Dems are coming for Trump, one way or another.

 

[berg80]

Do the crime do the time. That traitor has been selling out America since he was in office.

That's why he's been indicted so many times.

 

[postman]

That's why he's been indicted so many times.

And convicted of so many felonies.

 

[berg80]

He doesn't read very well.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

That means any enumerated powers, like granting pardons, or as commander in chief, he receives absolute immunity.

The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, Trump v. United States, is not nearly as dire as many commentators have exclaimed. I wouldn’t have written the opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts did. But it does not make the president a king, and it does not give the president a license to act lawlessly.

On the contrary, a careful reading (and rereading) of the chief justice’s opinion reveals that it does little more than, as it says, “conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.” Insofar as the opinion also sets forth some “principles” to provide “guidance” to further adjudication of the case on remand, those principles are not as problematic as some perceive them to be. They don’t let Donald Trump off the hook for his attempt to overturn his defeat in 2020. Nor do they give any future president, including Trump if he wins this year, a carte blanche to assassinate his political rivals or otherwise commit egregious crimes in the course of exercising presidential power.

 

[jknowgood]

Think of spy vs spy. Why would Biden announce publicly to the Chinese, that we already know about their balloon?

It's like when the NSA detected Russian GRU hacking American social media. Obama was told right away, but he didn't announce it, as not to interfere with the election cycle.

When asked to begin with, he knew nothing about it. Anyway you don't let your enemy fly a spy balloon over your country. My gosh the excuses you loons make.

 

[jknowgood]

Hunter hasn't been in a position to receive millions is bribes for long enough, the statute of limitations long since ran out.
The information has no legal consequence, only political consequence.

No treason doesn't have limitations. He was selling secrets to our enemies. He lived in the house where they found classified documents Biden stole.

 

[postman]

The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, Trump v. United States, is not nearly as dire as many commentators have exclaimed. I wouldn’t have written the opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts did. But it does not make the president a king, and it does not give the president a license to act lawlessly.

On the contrary, a careful reading (and rereading) of the chief justice’s opinion reveals that it does little more than, as it says, “conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.” Insofar as the opinion also sets forth some “principles” to provide “guidance” to further adjudication of the case on remand, those principles are not as problematic as some perceive them to be. They don’t let Donald Trump off the hook for his attempt to overturn his defeat in 2020. Nor do they give any future president, including Trump if he wins this year, a carte blanche to assassinate his political rivals or otherwise commit egregious crimes in the course of exercising presidential power.

Read the part where it was held that the president has absolute immunity for official presidential acts, which means acts spelled out in the constitution. Like commander in chief.

The court then concluded this also included presidential discussions.