SC rules presidents have immunity

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

I think you are projecting.

The tyranny we are experiencing is through the unconstitutional and antidemocratic lawfare waged by the Biden administration. SCOTUS ended some of that. That is a good thing. Your hyperbolic arguments that Joe can do anything he wants now are absurd.

The only thing the SCOTUS did was reinstate things to pre2020.

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. 

[Fluffypants]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

This doesn't mean the President can't be prosecuted, it means the court is going to have to determine whether what he did falls under an official act or not.

This decision just increases scrutiny on prosecutors when going after a President.

You Democrats opened up a dangerous can of worms by going after Trump and the Supreme court is trying to put them back into the can.

 

 

[User]

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

So, you think that anything he does is an official act, including ordering assassinations of citizens?

Show us what part of the ruling you got that from. 

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

Ford never argued he "had" to Pardon Nixon because there was no immunity... he said he pardoned him because it was not in the nations interest to have a long drawn out trial trying to prosecute him and the nature of there being on legal precedents for this. 

The pardon was more about avoiding any drama not accepting the inevitable outcome had he not pardoned him. 

You know, what Biden should have done. We are here because this administration has chosen to push their DOJ into trying to get Trump by any means they can, so here we are finally testing these legal theories out for the first time. 

10 hours ago, herbie said:

So if he orders the Secret Service officially to shoot a man down in the street cuz he doesn't like his face, he can't be prosecuted. Just like he said he could and now can.
And all his little sycophants can say, he can't be prosecuted so he didn't do anything illegal and is not a criminal so he's my hero... (sucking noises)

Nope. Not accurate at all. 

[User]

11 hours ago, Hodad said:

Oh, fark off, you phony. You haven't read it. Most of us will not go beyond the first 20 pages. It's neither well reasoned nor well written, and rather just drones on making excuses for granting absurd power to the executive which the founders certainly didn't include--or believe existed--in the Constitution. 

Once again, political convenience puts the lie to the self-styled "textualists" and "originalists" who are inventing "essential" new executive powers after functioning without then (and better for it) for nearly 250 years.

I have read a good chunk of it so far, still reading. 

I am also not the one here espousing absurdities like you are. I will take this as an admission that you were wrong to claim what you did. 

[Hodad]

18 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

This doesn't mean the President can't be prosecuted, it means the court is going to have to determine whether what he did falls under an official act or not.

This decision just increases scrutiny on prosecutors when going after a President.

You Democrats opened up a dangerous can of worms by going after Trump and the Supreme court is trying to put them back into the can.

 

 

Sure the problem is not the first attempted coup in American history. The real problem is an effort to hold accountable the perpetrators through our justice system. 🙄

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, User said:

I have read a good chunk of it so far, still reading. 

I am also not the one here espousing absurdities like you are. I will take this as an admission that you were wrong to claim what you did. 

You can make up whatever straw men you like. Have fun playing with 'em. And keep waving your hands like the new presidential superpowers are nothing new at all. 

Poor Nixon. Poor Trump. Finally they are vindicated. Just poor presidents trying to get along on this cruel world but being hassled for criminal behavior.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You can make up whatever straw men you like. Have fun playing with 'em. And keep waving your hands like the new presidential superpowers are nothing new at all. 

Poor Nixon. Poor Trump. Finally they are vindicated. Just poor presidents trying to get along on this cruel world but being hassled for criminal behavior.

Not making up anything. You made a stupid assertion, now you are too dishonest to admit you have nothing to back it up. 

[BeaverFever]

28 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

This doesn't mean the President can't be prosecuted, it means the court is going to have to determine whether what he did falls under an official act or not.

This decision just increases scrutiny on prosecutors when going after a President.

You Democrats opened up a dangerous can of worms by going after Trump and the Supreme court is trying to put them back into the can.

 

 

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.

 

[Fluffypants]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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.

 

If that is the case Biden can solve the Trump problem right now then couldn't he?

[BeaverFever]

32 minutes ago, User said:

So, you think that anything he does is an official act, including ordering assassinations of citizens?

Show us what part of the ruling you got that from. 

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. 

[User]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

Where does it say that in the ruling?

 

[BeaverFever]

2 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

If that is the case Biden can solve the Trump problem right now then couldn't he?

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

[Deluge]

23 hours ago, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-immunity-case-supreme-court-rules-ex-presidents-substantial-protection-prosecution

This isn't good as Joe has been committing many human rights violations while President 

We (the people) need to be going after the a$$holes who brought the charges up. Everyone knows it's a witch hunt. 

[Deluge]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

It RIDICULOUS that you believe attempting to overthrow an election is NOT tyranny.

 

It's even more ridiculous that you think an overthrow was attempted. 

Go play with your Ken & Ken dolls. 

Edited July 2, 2024 by Deluge

[West]

51 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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.

 

Like every other ridiculous talking point the Democrats have, Sotomayor was speaking in extremes and not in reality. 

The facts are this would not be considered an official presidential act as it would act outside the constitution. 

Just like Pinocchio Joe assigning a personal SS agent to target his political adversaries without congressional approval which is illegal and outside presidential powers. 

[BeaverFever]

51 minutes ago, User said:

Where does it say that in the ruling?

 

An understanding of what constitutes an official act already exists. The purpose of SCOTUS ruling is not to define what is an official act, other than it is anything “in the outer perimeter of his official responsibility” as long as it is "not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority." And the in the case of a specific prosecution the court will have to decide if the action in question was official. 
 

I think even you can understand that an Executive Order of the POTUS is an official act of the POTUS This is already the case and how could it be otherwise?  Does anyone think that when Obama issued the kill order on Bin Laden or when Trump did the same for al-Baghdadi that wasn’t an official act of the president?  
 

Let’s say a radical terrorist Antifa/BLM/Trans Activist/Bud Light drinker is who is an American citizen is blowing up buildings amd the valiant hero Trump declares him am enemy of the state and issues a kill order even though BLM supporters think the terrorist is a heroic?  Do you think that’s not an officials act subject to immunity?  What if then a Democrat president after another Republican Jan 6 event and Gretch Whitmer plot declares his republican opponent a threat to democracy and issues his own draconian orders?

Note that many of Trump’s scams and schemes such as the fake electors scheme don’t even come close to being official acts so he isn’t off the hook but he likely will face fewer charges as a result  

 

 

[User]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

An understanding

That is a lot of words to avoid saying you have not read the ruling and have no clue what you are talking about. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

Not making up anything. You made a stupid assertion, now you are too dishonest to admit you have nothing to back it up. 

I really have no idea WTF you're talking about, because, as usual, you've not even bothered to make an argument. You simply wave your hands and say, "Read the opinion!" which you yourself haven't done. 🙄

[User]

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I really have no idea WTF you're talking about, because, as usual, you've not even bothered to make an argument. You simply wave your hands and say, "Read the opinion!" which you yourself haven't done. 🙄

Playing dumb is the last refuge of your dishonest game, now it seems. 

Let me clear this up for the audience:

You ignorantly claimed:

"With no law capable of constraining the executive, the last barrier to dictatorship has fallen, along with all of John Roberts hopes for legacy. Instead, should the country survive to remember, this court will live in infamy."

You have nothing to back that stupid assertion up. 

It was not only stupid, it was so self-evidently absurd. That you are still here playing dumb only shows the depths of dishonesty you are willing to go to. 

[Hodad]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Playing dumb is the last refuge of your dishonest game, now it seems. 

Let me clear this up for the audience:

You ignorantly claimed:

"With no law capable of constraining the executive, the last barrier to dictatorship has fallen, along with all of John Roberts hopes for legacy. Instead, should the country survive to remember, this court will live in infamy."

You have nothing to back that stupid assertion up. 

It was not only stupid, it was so self-evidently absurd. That you are still here playing dumb only shows the depths of dishonesty you are willing to go to. 

Bullshit. If it's an "official act" the President is now immune from criminal liability. In his interviews with David Frost, Nixon very famously said "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

For decades, that appalling statement was anathema to American democracy--the clearest testament that Nixon had crossed every bright line. Yesterday, despite John Roberts' weak protestations, the Supreme Court made what was once an unthinkably repugnant statement into our new reality. 

Long live King Biden, newly elevated above the law. 

 

[User]

41 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Bullshit. If it's an "official act" the President is now immune from criminal liability. In his interviews with David Frost, Nixon very famously said "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

For decades, that appalling statement was anathema to American democracy--the clearest testament that Nixon had crossed every bright line. Yesterday, despite John Roberts' weak protestations, the Supreme Court made what was once an unthinkably repugnant statement into our new reality. 

Long live King Biden, newly elevated above the law. 

 

"If"

You are singing a different song now adding in a huge qualifier there that you did not before. 

Then you follow it up with another ignorant comment about long live king Biden. 

You have no interest in any kind of honest intelligent discussion here. 
 

[gatomontes99]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

 No. Whether or not he needed to be pardoned was in question. Ford did it to end that question.

The question would have been; Is stealing data from an opposing campaign part of the official duties as POTUS? I am pretty sure that answer is an emphatic no. So, yes, he was in legal jeopardy under this ruling that changed nothing prior to the Biden admin.

As for DJT, there are two cases were this applies:

1. DC case regarding actions taken on J6. That amounts to second guessing how the POTUS handled his official duties. Case should be dismissed.

2. GA case regarding vote counts. DJT requested that the Gov "find the votes." That case will rest completely on whether DJT had a good faith belief that the votes existed or if the "find the votes" was a threat that implied making up votes. That later theory will be impossible to prove. Especially since every single outward projection of Trump and his team included the belief that there was cheating. You won't agree with that presumption, but the intent is key. There is overwhelming evidence that they believed there was fraud and that they turned over every rock they could to find that evidence, to no avail. Thisncase should be dismissed, but probably won't. The left is far to triggered to let it go.

[Fluffypants]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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

You mean like prosecuting their political opponents?

Democrats keep telling us Trump is a traitor and a dictator why not take out the most dangerous man in America before he can become President?

Edited July 2, 2024 by Fluffypants

[BeaverFever]

3 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

You mean like prosecuting their political opponents?

If the politician is suspected of a crime, as Trump is,  they should be investigated and prosecuted if warranted

Note that it not Biden bringing the charges against his opponent it is state and federal prosecutors, state prosecutors are not under federal jurisdiction and all prosecutors have broad independence and prosecutorial discretion.  They might have their own anti-Trump agendas but it’s not Biden ordering Trump’s prosecution.