Top | Newest First | Oldest First
If the SCOTUS grant Trump immunity for his crimes in office, then Biden should immediately order a hit-squad to take out Trump and then tell the American people he did it.
View 3 more replies »
BizSuitStacy · M
@Aidankenny23 but the president is simply going to say he did it. Everyone would know someone else did it. Go ahead...see if you get past his security detail or end up in a body bag yourself.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
KunsanVeteran · 61-69, M
@Aidankenny23 …actually he should tell them the SCOTUS did it
JSul3 · 70-79
SCOTUS is one decision away from becoming a Kingmaker court for Trump.
The right wing nuts have no intention of making a ruling until after the election. That was the plan since December.
The right wing nuts have no intention of making a ruling until after the election. That was the plan since December.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
I don’t see what the debate is. Generally a president has immunity if the accused crime was part of their official duties relating to national interests. So you can’t charge the president with manslaughter for signing a law that loosens gun restrictions. But if the crime is to further personal interests, why should a president be immune?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@trollslayer There isn't really a debate, right? What you wrote is accurate and widely accepted. The only reason this has been raised is to allow it to go before the Supreme Court, who mysteriously decided to hear it... at the last possible minute... and who will now delay, delay, delay, and generally buy time for their owner.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@newjaninev2 Exactly.
Wiseacre · F
@trollslayer why indeed?
Northwest · M
The Supremes can certainly go that direction, but nor likely.
The primary issue they're weighing, is how to hold bad actors to their bad deeds, while making sure that future administrations, do not prosecute a pervious President, for no particularly good reason. Kind of like third world countries, where a "political" transition meant a relocation, primarily to another country, of the pervious administration.
The final outcome is likely to be a watered down version of Presidential immunity, that will further complicate the legal proceedings, and delay them past election day.
The primary issue they're weighing, is how to hold bad actors to their bad deeds, while making sure that future administrations, do not prosecute a pervious President, for no particularly good reason. Kind of like third world countries, where a "political" transition meant a relocation, primarily to another country, of the pervious administration.
The final outcome is likely to be a watered down version of Presidential immunity, that will further complicate the legal proceedings, and delay them past election day.
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP
i think trumps wants them to remove imunity.
for when he installs two rabid pittbulls at the DOJ/FBI
for when he installs two rabid pittbulls at the DOJ/FBI
Vin53 · M
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout He lost by 3mm votes against Hilldawg, then 4 years later as an incumbent he lost by 7mm votes. And you think being convicted and in prison makes him recover those 7mm votes? I want some of what you're smoking! LMAO
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP
@Vin53 of course he did.. because signature verification and chain of command of ballots are only important if dems lose right?
why dont you just stop bothering me?
i cant work out why you bother with me...
why dont you just stop bothering me?
i cant work out why you bother with me...
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
Yes. In general Presidents have immunity.
Obama had Osama bin Ladin killed. Under ordinary circumstances that's murder. The Presidential exception. In this case, was for national security reasons.
Presidents can't act if they're every move will prosecuted when they leave office.
Obama had Osama bin Ladin killed. Under ordinary circumstances that's murder. The Presidential exception. In this case, was for national security reasons.
Presidents can't act if they're every move will prosecuted when they leave office.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@HoraceGreenley Don't you know that the next President can toss the previous President's EOs in the shredder?
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Diotrephes
Yes. But that didn't happen in this case.
Again, my explanation of the legal situation is correct.
The world doesn't conform to the way you think it should function.
Yes. But that didn't happen in this case.
Again, my explanation of the legal situation is correct.
The world doesn't conform to the way you think it should function.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Diotrephes
In Ford's case, the Supreme Court ruled on his executive order and is the basis for today's legal foundation on this issue.
In Ford's case, the Supreme Court ruled on his executive order and is the basis for today's legal foundation on this issue.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
It is outrageous to the point of criminal. And just barely possible. If it happens, kiss both democracy and the Republic goodbye. You are headed for the "Peoples Democratic Republic of America"😷
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP
There’s already a mech in place to remove corrupt presidents..
It’s called impeachment.. it should be fresh on your minds. You failed twice.. to remove trump..
This is how desperate election thieves have got.. 🍿
It’s called impeachment.. it should be fresh on your minds. You failed twice.. to remove trump..
This is how desperate election thieves have got.. 🍿
Fungirlmmm · 51-55, F
The world had gone crazy and absolutely anything is possible.
Wiseacre · F
@Fungirlmmm true..anything!!!
calicuz · 51-55, M
I think it's doubtful. That will send a message to future Presidents that they can break the law and have no regard for the Constitution.
calicuz · 51-55, M
@whowasthatmaskedman
"Technically," Presidents "manipulate," the Constitution, which in my opinion is the same as trampling on the Constitution, but under "the law" it is just translating it differently.
"Technically," Presidents "manipulate," the Constitution, which in my opinion is the same as trampling on the Constitution, but under "the law" it is just translating it differently.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@calicuz I prefer the word, "interpret" Thats how the bible gets misused..😷
calicuz · 51-55, M
@whowasthatmaskedman
That's why I call it "doctrine" and not "scripture," there is a distinct difference.
That's why I call it "doctrine" and not "scripture," there is a distinct difference.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@Wiseacre If the dummies do that then Biden should quickly eliminate the orange traitor and the dummies in Congress and on the SCOTUS within 10 minutes of them saying that. After all, they just said that the law doesn't apply to the President so he couldn't be charged with any crimes.
walabby · 61-69, M
If they do they should realize that Biden would also have total immunity.. ! XD
tindrummer · M
@walabby and he could use it to trump and magites' disadvantage
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@walabby [quote]If they do they should realize that Biden would also have total immunity.. ![/quote]
We might be expecting too much from at least 5 dummies.
We might be expecting too much from at least 5 dummies.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
softspokenman · M
'Total immunity' is what Putin has in Russia.
TexChik · F
Trump has committed no crimes.
Manneeds · 41-45, M
Trump did not do anythibg the demosewerrat demowrecker demoliberial demophyscopath demomental case demoredart democraps are trying to make it look like he did vecause they are tryibg to steal and con another election
Manneeds · 41-45, M
@KunsanVeteran i am no fake i am truthfull and honest there is a large diffeence. !!!
Manneeds · 41-45, M
@KunsanVeteran thevonly one that has committed treason is demosewerrat demowrecker demoliberial demophyscopath demomental case demoredart demochild sniffee demochild molestor democrao biden !
KunsanVeteran · 61-69, M
@Manneeds You, Quad Indicted, and KJU having [b]dream sex with demons AGAIN?!?[/b]
RedBaron · M
Trump and his attorneys don’t care at this point. Their main objective was to delay the trial about his 2020 election BS until after this year’s election, and they’ve accomplished that.
jehova · 31-35, M
Then theyd have to put clinton back in office. overturning his impeachment?
KunsanVeteran · 61-69, M
Was it possible for a Supreme Court Justice to [b]refuse to recuse himself when his WIFE participated in the January 6th insurrection?[/b]
jehova · 31-35, M
Its possible but id say shouldnt be. No one has complete immunity.
KunsanVeteran · 61-69, M
@jehova Given that: Ginny Thomas (spouse of Clarence Thomas) was a core member and instigator of the January 6th INSURRECTION I’d say that Thomas’s [b]refusal to recuse himself[/b] was a tacit [b]admission of guilt [/b]and should result in his immediate impeachment.
jehova · 31-35, M
@KunsanVeteran that seems a fair assessment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
BizSuitStacy · M
Boomerang effect
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jehova · 31-35, M
Unprecedented probably illegal but it increasinhly looks like a mob rule protecting their own so. . .
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment