BeaverFever

Yes in theory he could although typically only republicans would sink to such a new low.

Anything he does in his capacity as POTUS such as an executive order or executive action is an official act. So hiring a hitman is not an executive act but issuing a directive to the military or to any government department for that matter is an official act.

The decision creates for the first time the concept that anything done as an official act is presumed to have immunity. A president signing an executive order declaring a political opponent to be an enemy of the state to be assassinated would be an official act, which is exactly what Trumps own lawyers argued to the court Justice Sonya Sotomayor: “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” Trump attorney Joh Sauer: “It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that would well be an official act,” Sauer replied.

That’s not true at all. For proof, let’s look back at another crooked Republican president, Richard Nixon. When he left office his VP Gerald Ford became President and had to pardon him. Why? Because the interpretation of presidential immunity that the USSC just invented didn’t exist back then.

Its not fact and your silly non sequitur response proves it.

No your statement above is nonsense

It said there is ground ls immunity as long as it is an “official act”. So as long as it wasn’t a hit man he secretly hired off on the street but something he did as an official order of the POTUS…he is immune from prosecution. Note that immune from prosecution doesn’t mean it’s legal, it means you can’t prosecute them. If he does, he’s now immune from prosecution. The soldier who carries it out not so much but the POTUS can’t be prosecuted for it.

Trump is publicly celebrating the ruling as it limits his exposure in some of the criminal cases against him. It’s also on the Republican wish list as they have an extensive agenda to execute if Trump is elected, much of which might otherwise be criminal I hop republicans realize this ruling means Biden can now simply order the military to assassinate Trump and would have full immunity since that would be an official act and therefore immune from prosecution? The USSC under republican domination has simply become a partisan machine-gun of MAGA “project 2025” wish list items

@CdnFox @Nationalist These comments have already be clarified and can be verified by the simple facts that infanticide laws exist and have been prosecuted while no so-called abortion like the one described has ever been performed anywhere. Lets’s first recap the original claim that abortion means perfectly healthy full-term babies are killed after they are delivered which is not what is described in the link The quote in the link refer to an extremely rare late term abortion where the fetus is no -viable (ie not healthy enough to survive) and/or the mothers life is at risk. AND the totally hypothetical circumstance where the woman goes into labour while the abortion is already underway. And Tran soon corrected herself about her quote where she answered yes instead of no to a completely hypothetical and unrealistic scenario posed by a Republican. its more Republican “gotcha” tactics. You can articulate something perfectly a thousand times but if a Republican can get a soundbite of you screwing up your answer just once or if they can lift it out of context they will try to make that the reality.

Oklahoma schools head Ryan Walters: Teachers who won't teach Bible could lose license Oklahoma educators who refuse to teach students about the Bible could lose their teaching license, Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters said in an interview with NBC News on Friday. Walters issued a memo Thursday instructing all Oklahoma schools to teach students in grades five through 12 about the Bible’s influence on the nation’s founding and historical American figures. Schools will also be required to stock a Bible in every classroom. In an interview with NBC News, Walters said if a teacher refuses to follow the Bible instruction mandate, they’d face the same consequences as one who refuses to teach about the Civil War. The punishment could include revocation of their teaching license, he said, a process that requires a vote by the Oklahoma State Board of Education, which Walters chairs. “Any teacher that would knowingly, willfully disobey the law and disobey our standards — there are repercussions for that,” Walters said. “So we deal with that on a case-by-case basis, but yes, teachers have to teach Oklahoma Academic Standards and this is absolutely going to be part of them.” Walters’ new rule on incorporating Bible instruction was immediately criticized by civil liberties and religious groups. The Jewish Federation of Tulsa and the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations both said in statements that Walters is inappropriately promoting Christianity in schools. … A spokesperson from the Oklahoma attorney general’s office said in an email that existing law already allowed teachers to use Bibles in the classroom during instruction and that, “There is no legal authority for a memo from the Superintendent to require content.” Walters said he feels confident that his order will survive legal challenges because of the justices then-President Donald Trump appointed to the Supreme Court. “He’s helped provide a path for us to be able to do this as states,” Walters said of Trump. He added that if Trump wins a second term in November, “it will help us move the ball forward, even more so than this.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna159548 The f-cking Christian Taliban dictatorship is on the march. Handmaid’s Tale is real. Remember these are the same red states who in recent decades tried to stop or discredit the teaching of evolution

What a bunch of nonsense. Trump didn’t simply “make comments”. He tried to overturn the election in a number of ways: - 60+ bogus lawsuits filled with lies and unconfirmed rumours that were all THROWN OUT OF COURT as completely meritless and unworthy of the court’s time - The fake electors scam wee false elector certificates were forged sent to congress with the hope of sowing confusion during congressional ratification of results on Jan 6 - Trump’s calls to election officials pressuring them to change their results in his favour -Trump’s role in encouraging the Jan 6 attack in which many of his supporters beforehand their belief that if they could prevent the election from being certified exactly on Jan 6 as required by the constitution then the election would be nullified Gore didn’t force the recount nor was he out of line to challenge the recount method chosen by the state considering no method was prescribed and the Republican officials under the command of Bush’s brother sought a method that was most favourable to Republicans. When Gore lost he didn’t allege conspiracies or claim the legal system was rigged, he respected the court’s decision while making it clear he continued to disagree with it, which is in keeping with core principles of democracy. Democracy doesn’t require you agree with the court’s decisions, simply that you abide by it and respect the institution and its authority. Conversely Trumps attempts to undermine and delegitimize the 2020 election with baseless claims of conspiracy and the “deep state” were an attack on democracy itself. That’s AFTER JANUARY 6 when all of the attempts mentioned above failed. Not a coincidence. Neither Clinton not Gore nor any other US Presidential candidate waited so long to concede. Has that ever happened in US history? Gore called Bush to congratulate and concede the day after the court decision was received. Hilary, and Obama both congratulated Trump on his win in person and in public on November 9 2016. Obama then hosted Trump at the White House per tradition. Trump never did either for Biden after 2020 and despite your clip to this day he continues to claim he won the election and there was a conspiracy to rig the election. Despite his admission in your clip in the immediate aftermath of Jan 6 that it was a “heinous attack” since then he and republicans including those on this forum have reverted back to their original false claim that Jan 6 was a peaceful family friendly event and the convicted insurrectionists are innocent and prisoners Trump is a habitual liar He says whatever is most convenient to his impulses in the moment and in the moment of the video clip you provided, when the nation and Republicans were still in shock from Jan 6 , he briefly changed his story to a moderate one nd his cult followers dutifully lobotomized themselves in order to install the new story and soon afterwards lobotomized themselves again to revert back to the original story.

Fine I will go back and continue to repeat facts while you continue to pretend Bush V Gore is the exact sam as trumps ongoing attempt to steal the election. I have to tell you I have limited appetite to spend my preconceived free time on endless internet arguments with strangers that just go around and around The problem isn’t you quoting the RULING the problem is your claim that the existing law says things that it doesn’t say. To be clear Kavanaugh didn’t simply look up ehat the existing law clearly says. He applies his own novel interpretation of it. This is the interpretation that Kavanaugh has created. It’s not written in any existing law as your previous post seem to suggest. Since you want quotes here is the dissenting opinion: We took this case to resolve “[w]hether section 666 criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.” Pet. for Cert. I. The majority today answers no, when the answer to that question should be an unequivocal yes. To reach the right conclusion we need not march through various auxiliary analyses: We can begin—and end—with only the text. See National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U. S. 109, 127 (2018). We “understan[d] that Congress says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). By its plain terms, §666 imposes criminal penalties on state, local, and tribal officials who “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded.” §666(a)(1)(B). Use of the term “influenced” captures quid pro quo bargains struck before an official act is taken—and therefore bribes—as everyone agrees. Brief for Petitioner 17; Brief for United States 21; cf. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 404–405. The term “rewarded” easily covers the concept of gratuities paid to corrupt officials after the fact—no upfront agreement necessary. Dictionary definitions confirm what common sense tells us about what it means to be rewarded. A “reward” is “[t]hat which is given in return for good or evil done or received,” including “that which is offered or given for some service or attainment.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2136 (2d ed. 1957). The verb form of the word is no different. To “reward” means “to . . . recompense.” Ibid. (defining “to reward” as “[t]o make a return, or give a reward, to (a person) or for (a service, etc.); to requite; recompense; repay”). Both definitions thus encompass payment in recognition of an action that an official has already taken or committed to taking. And neither requires there to be some beforehand agreement about that exchange, i.e., a quid pro quo…..See Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U. S. 142, 150 (2023) (“ ‘[W]e cannot replace the actual text with speculation as to Congress’ intent’ ”). … Crucially, no one disputes that when it was initially enacted, §666 prohibited both bribes and gratuities. Ante, at 4. Similarly significant (though unmentioned by the majority), Congress imposed the same 10-year maximum term of imprisonment for a violation then as it does now. See §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II); cf. ante, at 14 (describing it as “unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials” without federal guidance).  Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress made major changes to §666 that might account for the sans-gratuity interpretation the majority adopts today. But several features of the statutory and legislative history convince me of the opposite.  For one, Congress said that it was not making major changes to the statute. The 1986 revisions to §666 were part of a package of changes that Congress specifically deemed “technical and minor.” Crucially, no one disputes that when it was initially enacted, §666 prohibited both bribes and gratuities. Ante, at 4. Similarly significant (though unmentioned by the majority), Congress imposed the same 10-year maximum term of imprisonment for a violation then as it does now. See §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II); cf. ante, at 14 (describing it as “unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials” without federal guidance).  Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress made major changes to §666 that might account for the sans-gratuity interpretation the majority adopts today. But several features of the statutory and legislative history convince me of the opposite.  For one, Congress said that it was not making major changes to the statute. The 1986 revisions to §666 were part of a package of changes that Congress specifically deemed “technical and minor.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 16 (1986); see also Criminal Law and Procedure Technical Amendments Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3592. And the revisions themselves are largely in keeping with this characterization. Relevant here, Congress teased out a “corruptly” mens rea requirement and swapped the previous “for or because of ” language for the current “intending to be influenced or rewarded” phrasing. Id., at 3613. None of this, on its face, evinces clear congressional intent to extract an entire category of previously covered illicit payments from §666. … I could go on, but let’s recap: 1) Your insinuation that the Kavanaugh was simply looking up and then relaying existing written law without providing any opinion or interpretation as if he was a co-op student is incorrect amd not what Supreme Court cases are about . His ruling was his interpretation of the existing law not his recitation of that. 2) The reasoning he provided for his interpretation of the law is easily dismantled by the dissenting opinion. The idea that congress intentionally decided not to limit the amount of rewards that federally-funded officials could receive from people and interests they have authority over even if in the millions is absurd 3) Everyone know that quid pro quo arrangements are are easily circumvented with a wink amd a nod and indirect communications and to suggest lawmakers didn’t limit that is also absurd 4) Does anyone believe that America is better off with these cash rewards now legally payable to public officials? Who other than republicans like Thomas who are constantly on the take suports that? I bet that makes you giggle. Being a brownshirt thug is your fantasy

The NCR whining from the right just won’t die. NCR has the law of the land for decades and yet the incidenceof someone being found NCR who then committing a subsequent serious offence is virtually zero. People found to be NCR also don’t “get away” with their crime, if it’s something serious like murder they are hospitalized until they are deemed to no longer pose a threat to themselves or others, which can mean the rest of their life if their condition doesn’t improve. Even when they do get released from hospital they are closely monitored again potentially for the rest of their lives, to ensure they are taking any required medications and treatments and complying with any other conditions.

And yet ironically in Texas “affluenza” is a legitimate defence: kill 4 people and then complain you grew up so rich and spoiled you didn’t learn right from wrong and you get off easy without jail time. These are the same people who scream that ther should be an end to “the abuse excuse” for horribly abused/neglected low income (read: black) children who grow up to become criminals. And of course they’re equally unsympathetic to the mentally ill and mental handicapped

Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan chosen as first woman to head Canadian Armed Forces Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has selected Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as the next Chief of the Defence Staff, the first woman to head the Canadian Armed Forces, according to a senior government official. She replaces General Wayne Eyre, who is retiring after 40 years of service; he has held the top military job since 2021. The announcement is expected Tuesday and Lt.-Gen. Carignan will officially take up her duties during a change-of-command ceremony on July 18 at the Canadian War Museum. … Lt.-Gen. Carignan is a three-star general with a reputation for excellent service. She has commanded troops in a NATO mission in Iraq, served as chief of staff of army operations and held senior roles at National Defence headquarters. The Prime Minister has spoken often about the need to promote women to important positions in government. Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s graduate school of public and international affairs, said Lt.-Gen. Carignan “has significant and very diverse experience, which is very good.” She is “known as a doer,” he said. “She is very direct, very blunt and generally viewed as effective.” … https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jennie-carignan-first-woman-canadian-armed-forces/#:~:text=Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has,to a senior government official.

I call Bullshit. Cite please.

It’s a fact that Trump told huge lies, such as his claim that legal abortion includes giving birth to a live baby at 9 months and then murdering it in the delivery room

Construction finally begins on the new Canadian Surface Combatants today, when it was announced the new class of ships will be called “River Class Guided Missile Destroyers” (with designation DDGH). The name is in honour of the WW2 River Class Destroyers, which were each named after Canadian rivers. The first 3 CSC vessels will be named after WW2 warships HMCS Fraser, Mackenzie and St. Laurent. What surprised me is that this is the first time I’ve heard of the CSC being referred to as a Destroyer rather than a Frigate especially since it’s based on the British Type 26 Frigate design. While larger than most frigates the CSC is smaller than most destroyers. Apparently they are going with destroyer because of the range of weapons and sensors being packed in, including area air defence, ASW, ASuW and land attack but I wonder if some will find this designation controversial. So far the design (still not finalized) has a relatively tiny number of missile launch cells compared to most destroyers (24 instead of 96). RIVER-CLASS DESTROYER ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer.html

I caught most of the debate and agree with the overwhelming consensus that the debate wasn’t as much a Trump win as it was a massive Biden loss. Trump was the same old trump we always see, full of egregious lies the blow up the BS meter. The Q&A and timed answer even enhanced his image because it prevents him from rambling off on nonsense like getting eaten by sharks etc like he does at his rallies. Biden OTOH catastrophically failed in a manner that shocked even his closest supporters and did so in a way that also seemed to confirm voters’ preexisting fears and Republican accusations. There was also the incredibly dumb decision by his people for Biden to unsteadily walk down the steps at the front of the stage after the debate with the help of his wife, just to shake the moderators’ hands. Rather than simply strolling offstage to the side as Trump did, people instead received another visual reminder of Biden’s frailty as his wife helped him slowly down the steps. Some think with the election still 4 months away it’s still possible for Biden to come back and they claim last night’s performance was an anomaly. But even if true it seems that would require Biden to execute an absolutely error-free delivery from now on which was never his strong suit to begin with. I am guessing that would require him to somehow redeem himself with another debate or a hard-ball interview to show that he’s capable of high performance under pressure, which is very risky. If his prospects are not mortally wounded already, another Mr Magoo performance like last night will kill them for sure. Trump for his part might refuse another debate just to deny Biden any chance at redemption.

Once again disproving the mainstream media:CNN conspiracy bullshit

Exactly what the Nazi supporters said. Note I’m not even calling you a nazi, you’re more like the dumbass street thugs who cheered the Nazis on and went around starting fights and throwing bricks at anyone who wasn’t on board

No, the Republicans invented a definition of gratuity and bribery which didn’t previously exist in order to justify bribes paid after the fact. The statute in question didn’t make a distinction between the two, the law the mayor was accused of violating doesn’t use the words “bribe” or “gratuity. SCOTUS looked to other US legislation and past legal decisions to create a definition distinguishing the two. The Republicans then said the difference should be whether it is paid before or after the act. The idea that someone can legally shower public officials with cash and riches when they do their bidding as long as they don’t negotiate the exact amount in advance is ridiculous. All you would have to do is tell the official “I always give generous gratuities” and maybe drop a few hints. At any rate after the first time you pay you “gratuity” everyone will know what to expect from you next time you need a favour. It’s a clear conflict of interest, most people would be fired on the spot if they took a kickback like that at work

I don’t know what your Bush v Gore reference is about but your inaccurate claims on this thread lead me to believe you probably misrepresent what that ruling was as well.

Nowhere in your regurgitation did it define the difference between a bribe and a gratuity, The Republican SCOTUS argument simply says they are different. Once again you avoid answering question. So I will ask a third time: what is your understanding of the difference between a bribe and a gratuity? Don’t just say the law says what the difference is, tell me exactly what the law says. You can’t of course because the law doesn’t say it at all. The SCOTUS ruling is just an attempt to justify paying bribes after the fact. You don’t need to negotiate details of bribes in advance. It’s enough to know that person X always pays handsomely with generous “gratuities” when selected for government contracts, especially if Person X is someone you know personally. And note in this specific case the crooked mayor had a private relationship with this contractor so likely was well positioned to expect that a “gratuity” would be coming his way once his business associate was awarded the contract. Even if we make the dubious assumption that the crooked mayor had no idea this cash kickback was coming and was totally surprised by it, now having received this generous “gratuity” he and everyone else now knows that they can expect generous “gratuities” from this individual going forward whenever future contracts or decisions are favourable to him. The exact amount of the bribe doesn’t need to be negotiated in advance in order to influence their decisions and actions. They know they will receive “something of value” to “influence or reward” their “official act”, which is illegal.

Mindless repetition of slogans and cliches is also a characteristic of fascist followers See Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. In her interview with imprisoned Nazi leader and Holocaust architect Adolf Eichmann, she observes Eichmann is shallow, simplistic and unintelligent with an inability to think for himself, exemplified by his consistent use of "stock phrases and self-invented clichés". You fit the nazi follower profile to a tee.