SC rules presidents have immunity

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, User said:

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

No not at all. And if you’ve read today’s news Trumps legal team is mow claiming that even his tweets from his time in office are official acts.  But how you can do the mentally gymnastics to claim that that him saying to a general “as your commander in chief I order you to do x” is not an official act. 
 

Lets be clear, hiring a hitman would not be an official act. Ordering the military to murder his wife would not be an official act, but designating someone to be an enemy of the United States and then issuing a kill order to the military in order to “defend” the USA is certainly an official act. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Lets be clear, hiring a hitman would not be an official act. Ordering the military to murder his wife would not be an official act, but designating someone to be an enemy of the United States and then issuing a kill order to the military in order to “defend” the USA is certainly an official act. 

So... you want to charge Obama with murdering American citizens abroad with drones now?

 

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No not at all. And if you’ve read today’s news Trumps legal team is mow claiming that even his tweets from his time in office are official acts.  But how you can do the mentally gymnastics to claim that that him saying to a general “as your commander in chief I order you to do x” is not an official act. 
 

Lets be clear, hiring a hitman would not be an official act. Ordering the military to murder his wife would not be an official act, but designating someone to be an enemy of the United States and then issuing a kill order to the military in order to “defend” the USA is certainly an official act. 

[BeaverFever]

One thing we haven’t touched on in this thread is that the Republican SCOTUS also saw a small schism when Republican Amy Coney Barrett ruled disagreed witjher colleagues and joined democrats on part of their ruling

The republican majority ruling said not only are official acts presumed to be immune but they can’t be raised as evidence in prosecutions for eligible non/official acts. For example let’s say Biden took a million dollar bribe to issue someone a pardon.   You can prosecute him for the bribe but you can’t mention the pardon. It’s pretty hard to establish quid pro quo when it’s illegal to even mention the quo…and that’s probably the point. 

And now Trump wants his tweets considered official acts because they’re evidence in a number of his trials including his hush money conviction that je now wants overturned as a result. 

[myata]

If independent and impartial justice goes, it will be a chaos. The curtain, end.

[CdnFox]

5 hours 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. 

For sure. And he can be impeached for it. And honestly if congress and the senate would not impeach for that then the US has far bigger problems.

But honestly we were 95% of the way there with the bullshit legal challenges that trump has faced already. Once you make it okay to attack your political rival using the tools of the state, things tend to break down quickly.

I don't know how many times it was said, but the democrats and you were both warned many times wear that crap leads to. And I'm not talking about the legitimate document issues, but "criminal bookkeeping"  Is a massive joke and it's obviously an attempt to repress a political opponent. Of course they were going to look to strike back. This is just the opening salvo.

[BeaverFever]

2 minutes ago, User said:

So... you want to charge Obama with murdering American citizens abroad with drones now?

 

Well we would have to charge every Bush and Trump if that’s the case.  BTW Trump had far more drone strikes than Obama and Biden did. And then they stopped reporting them under Trump as well. Some of these talking points you guys are recycling from the 2016 election need to be retired. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Well we would have to charge every Bush and Trump if that’s the case.  BTW Trump had far more drone strikes than Obama and Biden did. And then they stopped reporting them under Trump as well. Some of these talking points you guys are recycling from the 2016 election need to be retired. 

Bush and Trump were killing Americans?

I don't think so... 

This is the garbage you are pushing here. If anyone has come close to the whole OMG TRUMP WILL ORDER AMERICANS TO BE ASSASSINATED is Obama. 

 

[BeaverFever]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Bush and Trump were killing Americans?

I don't think so... 

This is the garbage you are pushing here. If anyone has come close to the whole OMG TRUMP WILL ORDER AMERICANS TO BE ASSASSINATED is Obama. 

 

You were talking about Obama’s drone strikes. Trump has the all-time record for the number of drone strikes. 

Must be one of those statistics that only matters when there’s a democrat in the White House. 

As for the supposed republican outrage over the death of the teenage son of an Al-Qaeda member at an al Qaeda base in Yemen it’s a pretty hilarious position for any conservative or republican to take. 

Obama didn’t personally push the button it was a CIA mission 

Considering Republican/MAGA’s hardened views on civilian casualties in Gaza, repatriation of ISIS brides and ISIS POWs, Omar Khadr, even Maher Arar…it’s pretty obvious you’re trying to gin up an argument of convenience that you really don’t care about.   Are you really concerned about the rights and welfare of al-Qaeda members fighting abroad and their family members?

[User]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

You were talking about Obama’s drone strikes. Trump has the all-time record for the number of drone strikes. 

Must be one of those statistics that only matters when there’s a democrat in the White House. 

As for the supposed republican outrage over the death of the teenage son of an Al-Qaeda member at an al Qaeda base in Yemen it’s a pretty hilarious position for any conservative or republican to take. 

Obama didn’t personally push the button it was a CIA mission 

Considering Republican/MAGA’s hardened views on civilian casualties in Gaza, repatriation of ISIS brides and ISIS POWs, Omar Khadr, even Maher Arar…it’s pretty obvious you’re trying to gin up an argument of convenience that you really don’t care about.   Are you really concerned about the rights and welfare of al-Qaeda members fighting abroad and their family members?

I quite specifically said drone strikes of American citizens. 

It must be that you did not read what I wrote.

Well... when Trump uses his newfound immunity to order the military to assassinate anyone he wants to it will not be him pushing the button either!

 

[BeaverFever]

8 minutes ago, User said:

I quite specifically said drone strikes of American citizens. 

It must be that you did not read what I wrote.

Well... when Trump uses his newfound immunity to order the military to assassinate anyone he wants to it will not be him pushing the button either!

 

I didn’t understand the reference because it’s completely dishonest to say that Obama personally ordered  or oversaw the drone strike against an Al Qaeda target

 

And it’s even more dishonest to say that a CIA drone strike against a legitimate Al Qaeda target overseas is the exact same as a president personally ordering the murder of his political rival. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I didn’t understand the reference because it’s completely dishonest to say that Obama personally ordered  or oversaw the drone strike against an Al Qaeda target

 

And it’s even more dishonest to say that a CIA drone strike against a legitimate Al Qaeda target overseas is the exact same as a president personally ordering the murder of his political rival. 

You're changing your tune so often here that we might start calling you 'Mashup'.   

His point is simple. Obama kills American citizens with drone strikes. It is illegal to kill American citizens. Should he be charged? The answer is no because he was acting in a presidential official capacity and cannot be charged for crimes under those conditions.

This has been historically known going back to the beginning. It is only the democrats using the courts as a weapon against their political enemies that has forced this to become enshrined in law.

It would not be possible for the government to function without this.

There is still and always has been recourse if a president does something truly egregious. And it does not cover those things which are not part of his presidential capacity.

Started this and cannot be whining about the outcome.

[User]

43 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I didn’t understand the reference because it’s completely dishonest to say that Obama personally ordered  or oversaw the drone strike against an Al Qaeda target

 

And it’s even more dishonest to say that a CIA drone strike against a legitimate Al Qaeda target overseas is the exact same as a president personally ordering the murder of his political rival. 

Personally oversaw?

OK.. Trump will not personally oversee the people he is ordering to be executed either. 

Don't worry, he will come up with a reason to kill them too, remember, he will declare them to be enemies of the state. 

They will be legitimate targets. 

Also... Obama killed more than that one American citizen... 

[BeaverFever]

To my knowledge nobody including anyone in the Obama administration claimed they had immunity under language covering official acts  They argued, apparently successfully, that Congress’s 2001 Authorization to use lethal military force against Al-Qaeda and a court eventually dismissed a lawsuit against the US government  If you have knowledge of  someone claiming official act immunity please share  

 

 

[User]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

To my knowledge nobody including anyone in the Obama administration claimed they had immunity under language covering official acts  They argued, apparently successfully, that Congress’s 2001 Authorization to use lethal military force against Al-Qaeda and a court eventually dismissed a lawsuit against the US government  If you have knowledge of  someone claiming official act immunity please share  

 

 

 

No one tried to use lawfare like this to get Obama after he left office... 

[West]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Well we would have to charge every Bush and Trump if that’s the case.  BTW Trump had far more drone strikes than Obama and Biden did. And then they stopped reporting them under Trump as well. Some of these talking points you guys are recycling from the 2016 election need to be retired. 

What you are asking for is Venezuela style socialism where whatever Biden decrees as a crime goes and results in imprisoning political adversaries. It's quite sick

[BeaverFever]

1 minute ago, User said:

No one tried to use lawfare like this to get Obama after he left office... 

If they could have they would have, they simply don’t have the evidence. Trump is dirtier than most politicians, the Dems are no dirtier than the rest, so anything that would take them down  would also take down a lot of powerful republicans and Trump allies if not also Trump himself. 

3 minutes ago, West said:

What you are asking for is Venezuela style socialism where whatever Biden decrees as a crime goes and results in imprisoning political adversaries. It's quite sick

That’s absolutely false, checks and balances abound, especially considering republicans have rigged the courts.  What you want is Russia style dictatorship where the President is above the law 

[BeaverFever]

12 minutes ago, User said:

Also... Obama killed more than that one American citizen... 

if your definition of who “Obama” killed is anyone ordered by officials from his administration then AFAIK this was the only one. There were 3 more individuals who were terrorists or family members of them but they were collateral damage. 
 

Also did you know that under the Trump administration the same terrorist’s 8 yr old daughter was later killed in a special forces raid  personally approved by Trump himself?  Will you say Trump killed her?  Where’s the outrage now?

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, User said:

"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. 
 

That's not a huge qualifier. There is almost nothing that can't be argued as an "official act" for which there is full or at least presumptive immunity.

Oh, I'm quite interested in honest, intelligent discussion. Do you know where I can find some? This forum seems to be filled with cheerleaders, hand wavers and people pretending that this extreme SCOTUS opinion doesn't really do anything. 

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

To my knowledge nobody including anyone in the Obama administration claimed they had immunity under language covering official acts  

They didn't need to. Nobody was stupid enough to charge them for it.

Like I said, prior to the democrats this was sort of taken as the way things were. The democrats opened the can of worms and now this is what we have as a result.

[User]

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's not a huge qualifier. There is almost nothing that can't be argued as an "official act" for which there is full or at least presumptive immunity.

Oh, I'm quite interested in honest, intelligent discussion. Do you know where I can find some? This forum seems to be filled with cheerleaders, hand wavers and people pretending that this extreme SCOTUS opinion doesn't really do anything. 

The person doing the hand waving here was you... again, nothing honest about this:

"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."

[Aristides]

Turns out Nixon didn't need to resign after all. The Watergate coverup was legal.

[West]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

If they could have they would have, they simply don’t have the evidence. Trump is dirtier than most politicians, the Dems are no dirtier than the rest, so anything that would take them down  would also take down a lot of powerful republicans and Trump allies if not also Trump himself. 

That’s absolutely false, checks and balances abound, especially considering republicans have rigged the courts.  What you want is Russia style dictatorship where the President is above the law 

The check on Biden's abuse of power is the Supreme Court. He's now attacked and threatened the Supreme Court for a ruling that he doesn't like. Just today he demanded hospitals provide abortions which opposes the Supreme Court ruling

And you are okay with that?

[User]

24 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Turns out Nixon didn't need to resign after all. The Watergate coverup was legal.

He was about to be impeached and would have been convicted in the Senate. He was pressured to resign so it wouldn't come to that. 

 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Oh, I'm quite interested in honest, intelligent discussion.

Your first post here and continued insistence of not backing off it prove otherwise. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They didn't need to. Nobody was stupid enough to charge them for it.

Like I said, prior to the democrats this was sort of taken as the way things were. The democrats opened the can of worms and now this is what we have as a result.

Haha nice try. They were loudly criticized and were forced into justify the legality of the strike, including a court -ordered release of internal memos on the topic and its legality….not once did they claim presidential immunity applied which would have been a much easier way to shut down the discussion.