robosmith Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim Quote On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Donald Trump’s arguments that he is immune from prosecution for his efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election. It is likely that all — or nearly all — of the justices will agree that a former president who attempted to seize power and remain in office illegally can be prosecuted. I suspect that some justices may also wish to clarify whether doctrines of presidential immunity might apply in other contexts — for example, to a president’s actions as commander in chief during a time of war. But the justices should also recognize the profoundly negative impact they may have if the court does not resolve these issues quickly and decisively. If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account. Mr. Trump believes he can threaten and intimidate judges and their families, assert baseless legal defenses and thereby avoid accountability altogether. Through this conduct, he seeks to break our institutions. If Mr. Trump’s tactics prevent his Jan. 6 trial from proceeding in the ordinary course, he will also have succeeded in concealing critical evidence from the American people — evidence demonstrating his disregard for the rule of law, his cruelty on Jan. 6 and the deep flaws in character that make him unfit to serve as president. The Supreme Court should understand this reality and conclude without delay that no immunity applies here. And many (foreign) right wingers here believe he SHOULD avoid accountability, because they are CRIMINALS AT HEART. 🤮 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffypants Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 You think its ok that the Democrats are going after their political opponent using lawfare? Don't you think its weird they timed every single trial to happen during an election year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 26 Author Report Share Posted April 26 7 hours ago, Fluffypants said: You think its ok that the Democrats are going after their political opponent using lawfare? I think it's a shame that you watch too much FOS LIES, which never tells you about the EVIDENCE against Trump. 7 hours ago, Fluffypants said: Don't you think its weird they timed every single trial to happen during an election year? They were busy putting Trump's GOONS in prison. It is SOP to arrest and flip the underlings FIRST to gather more evidence against the MOB BOSS. Plus, Trump has been doing everything possible to delay his TRIALS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 The SCOTUS isn't going to layout every situation in which the President has immunity. However, the execution of powers that are specifically enumerated and the powers that are implied/accepted should carry some level of immunity. There is a political process to hold the President accountable for his actions. It appears there is a blurred line that will be drawn. That line will be personal v official actions. They will likely find that keeping documents is an official act as well as verifying election integrity. That will eliminate the Jack Smith case and the GA case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 26 Author Report Share Posted April 26 (edited) 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: The SCOTUS isn't going to layout every situation in which the President has immunity. However, the execution of powers that are specifically enumerated and the powers that are implied/accepted should carry some level of immunity. There is a political process to hold the President accountable for his actions. It appears there is a blurred line that will be drawn. That line will be personal v official actions. They will likely find that keeping documents is an official act as well as verifying election integrity. That will eliminate the Jack Smith case and the GA case. Elections are OFFICIALLY run by the states. There is NO ROLE for the POTUS in the certification of Federal elections. AKA, he was acting on HIS PRIVATE interests as a CANDIDATE. As DEMONSTRATED by his demand for GA SoS to "find" just enough votes to CHANGE THE RESULTS. AKA, said NOTHING about CORRECTING the count. Why do Canadians believe you are experts on US elections? Edited April 26 by robosmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 They should rule quickly, but his flunkeys will drag it out to buy him time as if it was something that requires more than 3/10ths of a second to see is utter bullshit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 19 hours ago, robosmith said: The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim And many (foreign) right wingers here believe he SHOULD avoid accountability, because they are CRIMINALS AT HEART. 🤮 More stupidity from the Left's poster child for the woke virus. Don't you worry, robowoke, the SC will put your lawfare to sleep and Americans will breath easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Elections are OFFICIALLY run by the states. There is NO ROLE for the POTUS in the certification of Federal elections. AKA, he was acting on HIS PRIVATE interests as a CANDIDATE. As DEMONSTRATED by his demand for GA SoS to "find" just enough votes to CHANGE THE RESULTS. AKA, said NOTHING about CORRECTING the count. Why do Canadians believe you are experts on US elections? Now you are just making stuff up. I'm not Canadian. Oh, and yes, the POTUS has supervisory role over all federal offices. That includes the EAC. Don't worry, you don't have to go to Google to find out what the EAC is. EAC stands for Election Assistance Commission. Their purpose is to assistant state and local officials in election security, integrity and accuracy. The EAC falls under the Independent Agencies that are overseen by the Executive Branch (AKA the President). It was well within the President's preview to monitor the accuracy of an election. As for the phone call, you know about him asking Brad to find the votes. That is a key word too, "find". You can't find votes that don't exist. They must exist to fond them. However, do you know about the lengthy case President Trump laid out for massive voter fraud in GA? Because he did. He made the request that the state analyze every signature in Fulton County. He laid out specific numbers in illegal or highly suspected votes. He wanted to challenge the validity of 300,000 votes. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html That isn't someone trying to steal an election. That is someone making the case that the election was stolen. Now, it may very well be that the information they had was wrong. But that is the point of asking for an investigation. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 23 hours ago, Fluffypants said: You think its ok that the Democrats are going after their political opponent using lawfare? Don't you think its weird they timed every single trial to happen during an election year? No, not weird at all. Many of these trials would be over if Trump hadn't cynically played every delay tactic in the book. Much easier to pretend to be a political victim if you marry the timing to politics! Clever enough to fool you, and probably some Americans. 6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: The SCOTUS isn't going to layout every situation in which the President has immunity. However, the execution of powers that are specifically enumerated and the powers that are implied/accepted should carry some level of immunity. There is a political process to hold the President accountable for his actions. It appears there is a blurred line that will be drawn. That line will be personal v official actions. They will likely find that keeping documents is an official act as well as verifying election integrity. That will eliminate the Jack Smith case and the GA case. No, it will not eliminate those cases. Both are chock full of personal actions that have nothing to do with the duties of the office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 When the Supreme Court rules in Donnie favor Biden will use the appropriate ruling to extend his soviet reign and target Christians like the soviets of old 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 12 minutes ago, West said: When the Supreme Court rules in Donnie favor Biden will use the appropriate ruling to extend his soviet reign and target Christians like the soviets of old Probably not that extreme, but yeah...something along those lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 31 minutes ago, West said: When the Supreme Court rules in Donnie favor Biden will use the appropriate ruling to extend his soviet reign and target Christians like the soviets of old Neither of those things will happen. This is a shallow and corrupt incarnation of the court, but even this tattered shadow isn't so far gone as to establish an executive with unlimited immunity. It's probably also worth pointing out that Biden IS an actual Christian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: Neither of those things will happen. This is a shallow and corrupt incarnation of the court, but even this tattered shadow isn't so far gone as to establish an executive with unlimited immunity. It's probably also worth pointing out that Biden IS an actual Christian. Biden vowed to take out "Christian nationalism" in his SOTU address. What that is nobody can define it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 3 minutes ago, West said: Biden vowed to take out "Christian nationalism" in his SOTU address. What that is nobody can define it. Oh that is an interesting topic. You see, he defines Chistian Nationalists as these radicals that want the nation to be a theocracy. Of course, virtually no one wants that. He also ignored the black nationalists, the Muslim nationalists and everyone else that wants to be dictator for life. It's the christians that worry him. Ok, so, it doesn't sound so bad to stop a theocracy. Never mind that that is in no way a plan of any seriousness any where. The point is to create a boogeyman. Someone you can blame for everything and Noone will defend him because he's not real. Then the creep can start. You add a belief here and a belief there. Something fringe that most won't agree with like polygamy and virgin sacrifices. Then you start adding more and more mainstream views and one day we all wake up and if you've ever owned a Bible, you are a Christian Nationalist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 6 minutes ago, West said: Biden vowed to take out "Christian nationalism" in his SOTU address. What that is nobody can define it. Nah, it's pretty well defined. The short version is that Christian Nationalists do not believe in a separation of church and state or the first amendment freedom of religion. Rather, they want the United States to be a nation of and for Christians. Which sucks pretty bad for everyone else. Think Taliban rule in Afghanistan, but Christian sharia. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caswell Thomas Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 On 4/25/2024 at 4:19 PM, Fluffypants said: You think its ok that the Democrats are going after their political opponent using lawfare? Don't you think its weird they timed every single trial to happen during an election year? But you think its okay for Trump to pass signals in his televised media speeches to those agents of mayhem he has emboldened to create and pass on total bull puck propaganda to "energize his base" in trumpspeak which in plain English are simply lies and the formation of future conspiracies and plots to intimidate witnesses and current and future juries, judges and their staffs and families and foment treason against the United States in order to weaken its stance against our enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 11 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Oh that is an interesting topic. You see, he defines Chistian Nationalists as these radicals that want the nation to be a theocracy. Of course, virtually no one wants that. He also ignored the black nationalists, the Muslim nationalists and everyone else that wants to be dictator for life. It's the christians that worry him. Ok, so, it doesn't sound so bad to stop a theocracy. Never mind that that is in no way a plan of any seriousness any where. The point is to create a boogeyman. Someone you can blame for everything and Noone will defend him because he's not real. Then the creep can start. You add a belief here and a belief there. Something fringe that most won't agree with like polygamy and virgin sacrifices. Then you start adding more and more mainstream views and one day we all wake up and if you've ever owned a Bible, you are a Christian Nationalist. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/grand-canyon-university-largest-christian-university-in-the-us-faces-record-37-7-million-fine-over-deceptive-practices/3458221/%3famp=1 Already doing it by levying unreasonable fines to shut down major evangelical universities. 11 minutes ago, Hodad said: Nah, it's pretty well defined. The short version is that Christian Nationalists do not believe in a separation of church and state or the first amendment freedom of religion. Rather, they want the United States to be a nation of and for Christians. Which sucks pretty bad for everyone else. Think Taliban rule in Afghanistan, but Christian sharia. Nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 13 minutes ago, West said: https://www.nbcwashington.com/ 15 minutes ago, West said: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/grand-canyon-university-largest-christian-university-in-the-us-faces-record-37-7-million-fine-over-deceptive-practices/3458221/%3famp=1 Already doing it by levying unreasonable fines to shut down major evangelical universities. Nonsense. news/national-international/grand-canyon-university-largest-christian-university-in-the-us-faces-record-37-7-million-fine-over-deceptive-practices/3458221/%3famp=1 Already doing it by levying unreasonable fines to shut down major evangelical universities. Nonsense. Oh, really? Are non-Christian universities held to the same standard? ,(They are.) so how is it religious persecution? Do you believe that being "Christian" means that the laws don't apply? BTW, which part of that post do you disagree with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: Oh, really? Are non-Christian universities held to the same standard? ,(They are.) so how is it religious persecution? Do you believe that being "Christian" means that the laws don't apply? BTW, which part of that post do you disagree with? No they aren't. It's a record fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 20 minutes ago, West said: No they aren't. It's a record fine. Was it a record violation? Do you even know the facts before you cry persecution? It's a for-profit college issuing more federal student aid than any other institution in the county. Hm... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 1 hour ago, Hodad said: Was it a record violation? Do you even know the facts before you cry persecution? It's a for-profit college issuing more federal student aid than any other institution in the county. Hm... Joe Biden puts evangelicals on notice then starts levying massive fines 30x the normal. Forgive me for not giving him the benefit of the doubt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 2 hours ago, Hodad said: Was it a record violation? Do you even know the facts before you cry persecution? It's a for-profit college issuing more federal student aid than any other institution in the county. Hm... No. It wasn't. And the facts... what facts? Have you seen the documents the Department of Education has that outlines their methodology and reasoning for the fine? Last I checked, they were not releasing those and folks were fighting to get them with FOIA. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona testified to Congress on the record last week that he was going to shut them down. The facts seem to show this is a very vindictive targeting of them, and likely out of retaliation. They fined them 37 Million because they claimed they were not disclosing the continuation credtis often needed to complete a Doctoral program, when GCU did in fact provide a calculator which showed this to student on one of the website pages to help them calculate costs. Here you go, if you want to read some more on this: https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2024/04/19/cardonas-vow-to-shut-down-gcu-called-disturbing-and-inflammatory/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 35 minutes ago, West said: Joe Biden puts evangelicals on notice then starts levying massive fines 30x the normal. Forgive me for not giving him the benefit of the doubt Hang on, is it your position that evangelicals=Christian Nationalists? Are these terms interchangeable, in your view? And look, I didn't know who convinced you of the (wildly improbable) prescription motive here, but it's probably time to abandon that news source. At least read up on it before making hateful allegations. It's a for-profit college, so you should trust it about as far as you can throw it. GCU's beef with the DoE goes back to the Trump administration. Was that administration persecuting Christians as well? And these penalties don't seem extreme for the scale. Remember, students end up paying $10k to $12k more than they were lead to expect. "The penalty amounts to $5,000 per violation, which totaled 7,547—the number of students who enrolled in doctoral dissertation programs from Nov. 1, 2018, to Oct. 19, 2023. ... The department noted in its fine notice that it could have issued a maximum penalty of $509.7 million, because the agency can impose up to $67,544 fine per violation." So the penalty amount was about half of the "ill-gotten" gains and just 7% of the maximum assessable penalty for these violations. That sure doesn't seem vindictive. Relatively gentle, actually. Any of that information cause you to re-evaluate? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 27 Author Report Share Posted April 27 5 hours ago, West said: Biden vowed to take out "Christian nationalism" in his SOTU address. What that is nobody can define it. It's clearly the idea that we are a Christian nation; which is explicitly prohibited by the 1st amendment and something Republicons have a hard on for establishing. Duh Which you might know if you were an American and not so IGNORANT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 27 Author Report Share Posted April 27 3 hours ago, West said: Joe Biden puts evangelicals on notice then starts levying massive fines 30x the normal. Forgive me for not giving him the benefit of the doubt There's no doubt if you actually discover the details. Duh Quote Grand Canyon University Fined $37.7M for 'Lies' to Students. The university, which has been locked in a years-long battle with the Education Department, vowed to fight back. Grand Canyon University misled students about how much a doctoral dissertation program cost, the Education Department found.Nov 1, 2023 Education Department fines Grand Canyon University $37.7M 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.