WestCanMan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Rebound said: What Trump’s lawyer said was neither sensible nor was it true. What he said was the only excuse he could think of to justify the absurd. What was false is the title of the thread: Quote US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump’s lawyer argues That's 100% untrue, but Trump's lawyer never said that at all. Go soak your head, fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 37 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: One again our resident Konstitooshunal skolar and high school dropout has no idea what he’s talking about. But what would you expect from the guy who also thought that the konstitooshun would allow the Vice President on Jan 6 to simply ignore the election results and unilaterally decree himself to be the winner. You're the one who got conned into writing that stupid title, child. Quote US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump’s lawyer argues ^That^ is a completely false statement. Trump's lawyer did not say that at all. Is this your first language, dropout? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 51 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: One again our resident Konstitooshunal skolar and high school dropout has no idea what he’s talking about. But what would you expect from the guy who also thought that the konstitooshun would allow the Vice President on Jan 6 to simply ignore the election results and unilaterally decree himself to be the winner. I liked your post even though I abhor your mimicking WCM's kindergarten level mish mash of spelling and grammatical errors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: What was false is the title of the thread: That's 100% untrue, but Trump's lawyer never said that at all. Go soak your head, fool. In reality, Sauer said something very similar and WRONG. He said that a POTUS could never be prosecuted for any "official act" that broke laws UNLESS the POTUS was impeached and convicted first. The hypothetical official act that was discussed was ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival cause that order made it an "official act." And he cited the Constitution which HE CLAIMED said that, but that was a LIE. And since Trump was not convicted at his second impeachment, that was the given excuse for his immunity. You will see that the whole charade is laughable when it is soundly rejected by the appeals court's justices. Edited January 11 by robosmith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: In reality, Saure said something very similar and WRONG. In reality, the thread title is 100% false. Do you speak English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted January 11 Author Report Share Posted January 11 55 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: You're the one who got conned into writing that stupid title, child. ^That^ is a completely false statement. Trump's lawyer did not say that at all. Is this your first language, dropout? Its exactly what he falsely claimed. He said it is possible for a US president to have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, He said that as part of his argument that Trump can’t be prosecuted. The only dropout here is you, as you have already admitted. Unsurprisingly your reading competition is so poor people wonder if English is YOUR first language. Trump the man who tried to steal the 2020 election, who pledged he would temporarily be a dictator if he returned to the presidency who admires Putin who bragged he could murder someone in broad daylight and his supporters would still follow him, who refuses to even publicly debate his own fellow Republicans because he doesn’t allow anyone to criticize or disagree with him to his face who promises to purge the civil service of insufficiently loyal acolytes and to jail his political rivals ….is falsely claiming that he is immune from prosecution of any and all crimes he committed in office since he wasn’t first impeached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 5 hours ago, robosmith said: Trump may have been good looking many years ago. No more I don't think any of the candidates will be selected for their looks, regarding this batch. Certainly not Joe Biden. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 15 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Its exactly what he falsely claimed. He said it is possible for a US president to have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, You're twisting the truth around quite a bit here. What he said was that it was possible - and that is 100 percent true. For example he could step down and have his vice pardon all crimes. He would not be prosecuted then. So the statement is true. But what you guys are playing at is pretending what he said was that he CANNOT be prosecuted if he does it. And that's not what he said nor is it accurate. As with all prosecutions there is a process. It's a little more extensive when it's the president but he absolutely could be criminally prosecuted. It's just possible for him not to be under the right conditions. This kind of 'gotcha' politics isn't healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: In reality, the thread title is 100% false. Do you speak English? Parse the title and tell us EXACTLY what's false about it. Cause in reality, Trump's lawyer said Trump could have had his rival assassinated and be immune from prosecution for that crime IF he was NOT impeached and convicted for that crime. Go ahead, and I'll post the quote which says exactly that LIE. 21 minutes ago, Perspektiv said: I don't think any of the candidates will be selected for their looks, regarding this batch. Certainly not Joe Biden. You already said Trump was just like your ex in that regard, among others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caswell Thomas Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 22 hours ago, eyeball said: Not unless he orders Trump's assassination first. I suspect that if Trump doesn't win this either the other Don's he knows and borrowed millions from and/or his pal Putin...both of the MAFIA, will take him out themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 23 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Its exactly what he falsely claimed. He said it is possible for a US president to have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, He said that as part of his argument that Trump can’t be prosecuted. He never said, or "argued that": Quote US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted as you stated in your title. Not at all. Not even 1%. His answer was: Quote Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first... there is a political process that would have to occur.” His answer was absolutely nothing like a "no". If a president had someone assassinated just for being "a political rival" they would absolutely be processed as a criminal, and Sauer's answer goes directly to what that process would look like. An impeachment process would determine whether or not what the POTUS did was allowable under the constitution in that particular set of circumstances, and whether or not it was warranted. Elected Senators would have to go through their own process first and look at all of the evidence in a setting that wasn't visible to random civilians without any security clearances whatsoever, because something of that magnitude would definitely involve highly sensitive information. it's above a single DC circuit court judge's pay grade to unilaterally rule on matters of state: they aren't a co-equal branch. Don't you think that something of that magnitude would need to go through the maternity ward known as the Senate first? It would be one of the biggest decisions since dropping the bombs in Japan. Would you trust Chutkan 🤣 or an equally biased Republican judge with that one, if such a thing exists? FYI, if any American kills any other American there is a process in getting them from the street to a prison sentence. Beave: "Hey WCM, if a poster murdered a fellow poster, would they be put in jail?” WCM: "There'd be an investigation, and then if there was enough evidence gathered then that poster would be arrested, indicted, arraigned and they'd get to choose a trial by judge or jury... there is a process that would have to occur before they went to jail.” Beave: "Hey everybody, WCM said that a poster could murder another poster and not be put in jail." WCM: "Sure, that's a close enough answer by leftard standards." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 55 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said: I suspect that if Trump doesn't win this either the other Don's he knows and borrowed millions from and/or his pal Putin...both of the MAFIA, will take him out themselves. I don't know, I've been saying Trump's assassination will be an inside job for years now. Oh well, if I'm right it'll only be cuz my clock broke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: He never said, or "argued that": as you stated in your title. Not at all. Not even 1%. His answer was: His answer was absolutely nothing like a "no". If a president had someone assassinated just for being "a political rival" they would absolutely be processed as a criminal, and Sauer's answer goes directly to what that process would look like. An impeachment process would determine whether or not what the POTUS did was allowable under the constitution in that particular set of circumstances, and whether or not it was warranted. Elected Senators would have to go through their own process first and look at all of the evidence in a setting that wasn't visible to random civilians without any security clearances whatsoever, because something of that magnitude would definitely involve highly sensitive information. it's above a single DC circuit court judge's pay grade to unilaterally rule on matters of state: they aren't a co-equal branch. In REALITY, the Judicial branch IS a co-equal branch of the US government. Who told you they're NOT? Separation of Powers in Action - U.S. v. Alvarez - U.S. Courts Quote The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law). 12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: Don't you think that something of that magnitude would need to go through the maternity ward known as the Senate first? It would be one of the biggest decisions since dropping the bombs in Japan. Would you trust Chutkan 🤣 or an equally biased Republican judge with that one, if such a thing exists? FYI, if any American kills any other American there is a process in getting them from the street to a prison sentence. Beave: "Hey WCM, if a poster murdered a fellow poster, would they be put in jail?” WCM: "There'd be an investigation, and then if there was enough evidence gathered then that poster would be arrested, indicted, arraigned and they'd get to choose a trial by judge or jury... there is a process that would have to occur before they went to jail.” Beave: "Hey everybody, WCM said that a poster could murder another poster and not be put in jail." WCM: "Sure, that's a close enough answer by leftard standards." In REALITY, Sauer said WITHOUT impeachment and conviction, POTUS cannot be prosecuted for official acts which are crimes. Basically putting a POLITICAL block by Congress on the DoJ and the Judicial checks and balances. According to that THEORY (ridiculous according to clause cited), 35 votes in the Senate, or resignation before trial, gives the POTUS IMMUNITY from any crimes that are remotely related to OFFICIAL duties. But in FACT, the Federal Executive branch has NO ROLE in the states' elections for POTUS and POTUS cannot break the law in the process of "ensuring the laws are faithfully executed" according to HIS OATH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 7 hours ago, robosmith said: You already said Trump was just like your ex in that regard, among others. Minus the looks. If he comes out as trans, I may reconsider my words. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Perspektiv said: Minus the looks. If he comes out as trans, I may reconsider my words. Thanks for the giggle this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted January 11 Author Report Share Posted January 11 11 hours ago, WestCanMan said: He never said, or "argued that": as you stated in your title. Not at all. Not even 1%. His answer was: His answer was absolutely nothing like a "no". If a president had someone assassinated just for being "a political rival" they would absolutely be processed as a criminal, and Sauer's answer goes directly to what that process would look like. An impeachment process would determine whether or not what the POTUS did was allowable under the constitution in that particular set of circumstances, and whether or not it was warranted. Elected Senators would have to go through their own process first and look at all of the evidence in a setting that wasn't visible to random civilians without any security clearances whatsoever, because something of that magnitude would definitely involve highly sensitive information. it's above a single DC circuit court judge's pay grade to unilaterally rule on matters of state: they aren't a co-equal branch. Don't you think that something of that magnitude would need to go through the maternity ward known as the Senate first? It would be one of the biggest decisions since dropping the bombs in Japan. Would you trust Chutkan 🤣 or an equally biased Republican judge with that one, if such a thing exists? FYI, if any American kills any other American there is a process in getting them from the street to a prison sentence. Beave: "Hey WCM, if a poster murdered a fellow poster, would they be put in jail?” WCM: "There'd be an investigation, and then if there was enough evidence gathered then that poster would be arrested, indicted, arraigned and they'd get to choose a trial by judge or jury... there is a process that would have to occur before they went to jail.” Beave: "Hey everybody, WCM said that a poster could murder another poster and not be put in jail." WCM: "Sure, that's a close enough answer by leftard standards." Wow you’re dumb. So genius according to your failed understanding if a POTUS murdered someone and then resigned to avoid impeachment as Nixon did, it wouldn’t be possible to prosecute him. correct? What Trumps lawyer is saying is Trump wasn’t impeached while in office therefore he is now permanently immune from being “arrested, indicted, arraigned” as you stated for any crimes he committed while in office and there is NOT “a process that would have to occur before they went to jail.” How do you not understand this 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 3 hours ago, Nationalist said: Thanks for the giggle this morning. Technically if Trump came out as trans, that would be the political equivalent of a mic drop during a rap battle. He has already lost weight, why not grow a set of t**s? Write it off from your business expenses. Consider it a sound investment. Pulling the T card, is as bulletproof as you can get. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 14 hours ago, eyeball said: I don't know, I've been saying Trump's assassination will be an inside job for years now. Oh well, if I'm right it'll only be cuz my clock broke. You basically claim to have said virtually everything can can be said at some point in the vague hopes something somewhere will be right and you can gloat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 49 minutes ago, Perspektiv said: Technically if Trump came out as trans, that would be the political equivalent of a mic drop during a rap battle. Technically it would be more like the political equivalent of a neutron star collapsing into a black hole engulfing much of the galaxy around it. America would literally explode. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 8 hours ago, Perspektiv said: Minus the looks. If he comes out as trans, I may reconsider my words. You mean "reconsider" again. You've already added "minus the looks." And you know that "coming out as trans" ain't gonna make Trump look any better. She'd still be an obese slob with a poor dye job and a comb over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Perspektiv said: Technically if Trump came out as trans, that would be the political equivalent of a mic drop during a rap battle. He has already lost weight, why not grow a set of t**s? Write it off from your business expenses. Consider it a sound investment. Pulling the T card, is as bulletproof as you can get. Donny in a dress and lipstick...ROFLMAO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Wow you’re dumb. So genius according to your failed understanding if a POTUS murdered someone and then resigned to avoid impeachment as Nixon did, it wouldn’t be possible to prosecute him. correct? What Trumps lawyer is saying is Trump wasn’t impeached while in office therefore he is now permanently immune from being “arrested, indicted, arraigned” as you stated for any crimes he committed while in office and there is NOT “a process that would have to occur before they went to jail.” How do you not understand this You are correct on all counts: Quote Judge Florence Pan, D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals: Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution? John Sauer, Attorney For Donald Trump: If he were impeached and convicted first. Judge Florence Pan: So your answer is no? John Sauer: My answer is qualified yes. There's a political process that would have to occur under our — the structure of our Constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate. Sauer claims if there is no impeachment and conviction, ANY crime remotely related to official duties would be immune from prosecution forever. What he did is bastardize the interpretation of: ArtI.S3.C7.1 Overview of Impeachment Judgments which he cited and which says the exact opposite. Quote Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Which is why the judges were NOT buying that ridiculous argument. But WCM will never admit he's wrong, if history is any guide. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 18 hours ago, WestCanMan said: You're the one who got conned into writing that stupid title, child. ^That^ is a completely false statement. Trump's lawyer did not say that at all. Is this your first language, dropout? Right, he didn’t say it, because that’s the question he was asked, but writing, “Trump’s Lawyer Says Yes” does not convey anything. I know you’re really stuuupid, but it isn’t complicated: The man said, precisely, that the President could not be charged even with murder unless the President was first impeached and convicted. So if the secret is discovered after the President leaves office, the President is Scott free. Or if he resigns, as Nixon did. But Nixon was pardoned by Ford because the clearly did not believe that Nixon was immune from any prosecution. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Wow you’re dumb. So genius according to your failed understanding if a POTUS murdered someone and then resigned to avoid impeachment as Nixon did, it wouldn’t be possible to prosecute him. correct? What Trumps lawyer is saying is Trump wasn’t impeached while in office therefore he is now permanently immune from being “arrested, indicted, arraigned” as you stated for any crimes he committed while in office and there is NOT “a process that would have to occur before they went to jail.” How do you not understand this Stop putting your own stupid words in my mouth, dumbass. This is just another topic that's way over your head. Just let the adults discuss it while you play Pokemon Go with your uncle. For everyone else who's reading this: Impeachment is part of the process for charging a president with a crime. Just learn that. Nixon wasn't impeached, tried, etc. because he was pardoned by Ford. Re: Trump, just like a normal American would be investigated, indicted, etc., criminally charging Trump would need to follow a process as well. The difference is that they'd go through the impeachment process first. That's because judges are not a co-equal branch of the US Gov't. As a result they don't get to rule on executive decisions: it's way above their pay grade. Would it make sense if little Tanya Chutkin could unilaterally rule on executive decisions made by the POTUS? Could she have charged Harry Truman with mass murder for dropping nuclear bombs? Should US presidents be answerable to mere circuit court judges? Obviously not. Trump's lawyer never said anything like "He could go uncharged" or whatever. He just said "There's a process that starts with impeachment" [paraphrasing] Don't take Beave's words or the words of that author as a reasonable summary of the lawyer's comment. They are not. I can tell a person anything, that doesn't make me responsible for their twisted recollection of it. Eg, if Einstein explains the theory of relativity to a child, and they say "light is weird", that doesn't mean that Einstein said "light is weird". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perspektiv Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 40 minutes ago, robosmith said: And you know that "coming out as trans" ain't gonna make Trump look any better. Speak for yourself. Some would be all over a trans woman with a combover! 😍 Imagine this: In pigtails with a thong bikini on. You're welcome. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.