SCOTUS rules Trump IMMUNE from prosecution. Too bad Jack.

[jb1215]

Listen, are you so thick headed you just did not read the decision, trolling, or just not sharp between the ears? Please try to inform yourself before running off at the mouth. Just like we told you your boy has dementia and you refused to listen. The ruling has NOTHING to do as you say here. If you actually paid for an education, I suggest going for a SERIOUS refund. You got screwed

I have found many people as well as those that go to college CANNOT think for themselves. They are robots who regurgitate whatever their teachers and/or professors tell them. They just have Pavlovian responses to information put before them. He is Exhibit #1.

 

[JimGaster]

Suck it you neofascist leftists!

 

[Gator Fever]

No they didn’t.

They ruled the President has immunity from acts taken in official capacity. So Obama is clear for drone striking US citizens without a trial.

Biden’s influence peddling all happened prior to his time in the WH.

And Thomas made it clear that Jack Smith had to confirmed by Congress. He’s basically a private citizen that’s been deputized by the Biden DOJ to prosecute anyone, let alone the former PUSA/prime political opponent. It’s about balance of powers and it is meant to stop exactly what’s happening here - prosecution of political opponents by a sitting PUSA.

Jack Smith is done. His appointment was unconstitutional.

Thomas footnote or whatever it was has no legal authority. I think if that issue was ever truly resolved (Cannon could force it possibly) it would come down to whether the Supreme Court buys the argument the special counsel is really an inferior officer controlled by the AG. Not sure if enough see it the way Thomas does. I could be wrong but when they changed the law on that I think it spelled out the AG was over the special counsel unlike before. Now is that enough to make it a lesser officer? No imo but so far they have said it is in crooked DC courts I think.

 

[fatman76]

Thomas footnote or whatever it was has no legal authority. I think if that issue was ever truly resolved (Cannon could force it possibly) it would come down to whether the Supreme Court buys the argument the special counsel is really an inferior officer controlled by the AG. Not sure if enough see it the way Thomas does. I could be wrong but when they changed the law on that I think it spelled out the AG was over the special counsel unlike before. Now is that enough to make it a lesser officer? No imo but so far they have said it is in crooked DC courts I think.

It’s a written opinion from a sitting Justice.

It absolutely sets the precedent that the court likely agrees with Congress that a SC can’t be appointed without their approval.

It’s not a law or a ruling but it’s a pretty clear signal that there’s a massive problem here, and the court is very likely to find his appointment unconstitutional.

 

[Gator Fever]

It’s a written opinion from a sitting Justice.

It absolutely sets the precedent that the court likely agrees with Congress that a SC can’t be appointed without their approval.

It’s not a law or a ruling but it’s a pretty clear signal that there’s a massive problem here, and the court is very likely to find his appointment unconstitutional.

Concurring opinions with statements like that are not binding though like you say. I would like to see Cannon force the issue outside the DC courts though which have said it is legal so far. My guess is Roberts and possibly another on the right might say it's legal also. Not really sure how conservative the 11th Circuit is now who would likely take it up first if she does that.

 

[fatman76]

Concurring opinions with statements like that are not binding though like you say. I would like to see Cannon force the issue outside the DC courts though which have said it is legal so far. My guess is Roberts and possibly another on the right might say it's legal also. Not really sure how conservative the 11th Circuit is now who would likely take it up first if she does that.

I just think the matter is so plainly obvious it's going to be another 6-3 decision easily.

The merit of the checks and balances argument is pretty solid.

Eventually the issue would get to an originalist...if an appointed bureaucrat can appoint anyone he wants to prosecute anyone he chooses this country could be in trouble.

 

[nail1988]

Oh boy

Yo Kal / shifty / Jimbus

 

[nail1988]

 

[Capt Ron 1]

I have found many people as well as those that go to college CANNOT think for themselves. They are robots who regurgitate whatever their teachers and/or professors tell them. They just have Pavlovian responses to information put before them. He is Exhibit #1.

I think you are spot on in this case. I am a HS grad, and cannot fathom some of the stuff that spews from some of our "educated". Can you believe ANYONE on the planet thought FJB was not mentally challenged? THEY HID HIM IN THE BASEMENT for the 2020 election! WTF do they think they did that for? They believed the Russia hoax.

 

[fatman76]

Oh boy

Yo Kal / shifty / Jimbus

View embedded media

View embedded media

That second tweet is something I didn't even consider.

Ho Lee Fook...

I don't see any way they don't rescind the jury's decision and start all over.

What will liberals do when they can't say "34 felonies" over and over?

 

[NavigatorII]

No they didn’t.

They ruled the President has immunity from acts taken in official capacity. So Obama is clear for drone striking US citizens without a trial.

Biden’s influence peddling all happened prior to his time in the WH.

And Thomas made it clear that Jack Smith had to confirmed by Congress. He’s basically a private citizen that’s been deputized by the Biden DOJ to prosecute anyone, let alone the former PUSA/prime political opponent. It’s about balance of powers and it is meant to stop exactly what’s happening here - prosecution of political opponents by a sitting PUSA.

Jack Smith is done. His appointment was unconstitutional.

It

That second tweet is something I didn't even consider.

Ho Lee Fook...

I don't see any way they don't rescind the jury's decision and start all over.

What will liberals do when they can't say "34 felonies" over and over?

I posted something this morning that had some relevance to all of this, but the forum had a glitch and I wasn't going to rewrite all of that. Russia Russia Russia gate was very similar, because Sessions was such a pussy and recused himself. Rosenstein really had no authority to appoint Mueller for the witchhunt, which we ALL know was a joke and should have been pinned on Hillary Clinton and not Trump. These special counsels are nothing but rubber stamps for the whims of the Deep State, which includes the justice department and their thug henchmen, the FBI. And before anyone says Biden gets immunity for his classified documents bullshit, he wasn't President. He was just a VP, without any of those powers.

 

[fatman76]

It

I posted something this morning that had some relevance to all of this, but the forum had a glitch and I wasn't going to rewrite all of that. Russia Russia Russia gate was very similar, because Sessions was such a pussy and recused himself. Rosenstein really had no authority to appoint Mueller for the witchhunt, which we ALL know was a joke and should have been pinned on Hillary Clinton and not Trump. These special counsels are nothing but rubber stamps for the whims of the Deep State, which includes the justice department and their thug henchmen, the FBI. And before anyone says Biden gets immunity for his classified documents bullshit, he wasn't President. He was just a VP, without any of those powers.

Right.

He may get immunity for the border, but not the classified docs. And if Sotomayor is so "terrified" of a POTUS going on a crime spree, why is she only worried about Biden? He's got a longer criminal track record than Trump.

But now even liberals know why Hur said he was too feeble to convince a jury he knows what he's doing.

 

[NavigatorII]

Right.

He may get immunity for the border, but not the classified docs. And if Sotomayor is so "terrified" of a POTUS going on a crime spree, why is she only worried about Biden? He's got a longer criminal track record than Trump.
But now even liberals know why Hur said he was too feeble to convince a jury he knows what he's doing.

Oh they knew, and now they can't pretend anymore. Orange Man Bad! is their only go to.

 

[NavigatorII]

Right.

He may get immunity for the border, but not the classified docs. And if Sotomayor is so "terrified" of a POTUS going on a crime spree, why is she only worried about Biden? He's got a longer criminal track record than Trump.

But now even liberals know why Hur said he was too feeble to convince a jury he knows what he's doing.

The SocialistcRats are losing their minds this week. It's been an amazing few days. Karma is a cruel mistress.

 

[NavigatorII]

I'm a little sad that Cucky isn't here to enjoy the revelry. 😂 😂 😂

 

[gatordad3]

SO I guess that mean you will stop calling Biden a criminal or whine about his corrupt justice system? The SCOTUS ruled that is an official act to tell your justice department to do something. So if you believe that Biden put Jack Smith on Trump, that's legal.

A white trash liberal being racist towards a black man, shocking.

 

[fatman76]

UPDATE: Redacted Jack Smith Documents Reveal MASSIVE Breach Of Presidential Records Act

...

conservativesnews.com

 

[BCSpell]

UPDATE: Redacted Jack Smith Documents Reveal MASSIVE Breach Of Presidential Records Act

...

conservativesnews.com

Thats why Biden had them use Jack Smith, he has previously shown that he will do anything to try and win his case.

 

[kalimgoodman]

No they didn’t.

They ruled the President has immunity from acts taken in official capacity. So Obama is clear for drone striking US citizens without a trial.

Biden’s influence peddling all happened prior to his time in the WH.

And Thomas made it clear that Jack Smith had to confirmed by Congress. He’s basically a private citizen that’s been deputized by the Biden DOJ to prosecute anyone, let alone the former PUSA/prime political opponent. It’s about balance of powers and it is meant to stop exactly what’s happening here - prosecution of political opponents by a sitting PUSA.

Jack Smith is done. His appointment was unconstitutional.

Was Trump charged during or before Biden's presidency?

CT was the only one that signed off on his crazy opinion. I would guess he has Alito but CT opinion will need more then 2.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Except that's not what they ruled at all.

The opinion said that Trumps interaction with Clark and the DOJ is an official act. So why wouldn't Biden interaction be an official act?

 

[fatman76]

Was Trump charged during or before Biden's presidency?

What?

 

[Gator Fever]

Was Trump charged during or before Biden's presidency?

CT was the only one that signed off on his crazy opinion. I would guess he has Alito but CT opinion will need more then 2.

Pretty sure all criminal charges were officially made after they saw he was going to run in 2024. All that was directed by the Democrat crooks in the DOJ etc.

Not sure on the special counsel stuff if Cannon was to say it's illegal. My hunch is Roberts would fight to get at least a 5-4 vote to say it is legal buying the BS argument it's an inferior position. The change in the law on that did not get the desired effects. They do have the weak argument the AG technically has control though.

 

[NavigatorII]

Was Trump charged during or before Biden's presidency?

CT was the only one that signed off on his crazy opinion. I would guess he has Alito but CT opinion will need more then 2.

During Biden's illegitimate reign. What kind of question is that? 😂

 

[nail1988]

What?

 

[NavigatorII]

The opinion said that Trumps interaction with Clark and the DOJ is an official act. So why wouldn't Biden interaction be an official act?

😂

 

[NavigatorII]

No tags..........But you know who this intended for.

 

[LordofallSocks]

@BradDad57 @treygator29

What's your take on the dems proposed constitutional amendment removing Presidential Immunity?

I think its a dog and a nonstarter, just in terms of national security interests, but I'm not a lawyer just a crayon eater.

 

[NavigatorII]

@BradDad57 @treygator29

What's your take on the dems proposed constitutional amendment removing Presidential Immunity?

I think its a dog and a nonstarter, just in terms of national security interests, but I'm not a lawyer just a crayon eater.

Isn't it odd that every time the Dim Rats propose something like this it always comes around full circle and bites them squarely on the ass? Then they howl like wounded buffalo. NOT FAIR! Harry Reid comes to mind. Karma is a cruel bitch.

 

[treygator29]

@BradDad57 @treygator29

What's your take on the dems proposed constitutional amendment removing Presidential Immunity?

I think its a dog and a nonstarter, just in terms of national security interests, but I'm not a lawyer just a crayon eater.

@BradDad57 @treygator29

What's your take on the dems proposed constitutional amendment removing Presidential Immunity?

I think its a dog and a nonstarter, just in terms of national security interests, but I'm not a lawyer just a crayon eater.

As I’m sure you know, amending the Constitution is incredibly difficult. One way to amend is if 2/3’s of the states push to amend. This will not happen in this case. Another way to amend is to pass by 2/3s at a national convention. This has never happened before in the history of the US. It’s not rational to think the Constitution will be amended in such a manner.

The most common way and path of least resistance is 2/3s in the house and the senate. The Constitution historically has been amended only after years of heated debate on a topic. IE slavery, separate but equal, women getting the right to vote and lowering the voting age to 18. These are all usually topics that the public pushes for over a span of time. In these instances the government is very reactionary. This to me doesn’t seem like it will have a long shelf life. I’m not sure how much they can try to convince the public between now and November that this is a dire issue and needs to be addressed asap. I think most people can see through this. There would need to be quite a few Republicans to come over to the Dems side on this one. I don’t see how they have the numbers.

I’m sure I’m missing something as this was off the top of my head, but this is the gist.

 

[LordofallSocks]

As I’m sure you know, amending the Constitution is incredibly difficult. One way to amend is if 2/3’s of the states push to amend. This will not happen in this case. Another way to amend is to pass by 2/3s at a national convention. This has never happened before in the history of the US. It’s not rational to think the Constitution will be amended in such a manner.

The most common way and path of least resistance is 2/3s in the house and the senate. The Constitution historically has been amended only after years of heated debate on a topic. IE slavery, separate but equal, women getting the right to vote and lowering the voting age to 18. These are all usually topics that the public pushes for over a span of time. In these instances the government is very reactionary. This to me doesn’t seem like it will have a long shelf life. I’m not sure how much they can try to convince the public between now and November that this is a dire issue and needs to be addressed asap. I think most people can see through this. There would need to be quite a few Republicans to come over to the Dems side on this one. I don’t see how they have the numbers.

I’m sure I’m missing something as this was off the top of my head, but this is the gist.

I'm curious what you thought about this thru the lens of national security and the the international court.

Example, President Obama tasks elements of Seal Team 6 with a direct action operation in Somalia to rescue American citizen Jessica Buchanan and British citizen Dane Poul from SomalI pirates and termination of said pirates with extreme prejudice. Without permission to incur into Somali airspace or territory.

 

[treygator29]

Just about any president could be accused of war crimes. Your example for instance is a perfect one. Or when Obama had an American citizen killed by drone strike. Not exactly innocent until proven guilty.

However, in both of those instances, I’d argue Obama did the right thing, albeit not possibly legal. For the president to be effective and do his job, they need a certain amount of freedom. One can’t make these decisions with the idea that they’ll be hauled off to jail in the back of their mind. So in terms of national security, I’d argue Presidential immunity is an absolute necessity. The best counter argument for it I’ve seen on the boards are @Illegal-shift posts. Although we ultimately disagree on the topic, he brought up some excellent counter points that were well thought out and very sensible. Reading his posts, one could come to the conclusion that a president should not have immunity.

As far as the international court and opinion goes, US can and always has, bought the allegiance of countries where their opinion is important. You need certain allies on your side. Many of these allies can’t afford not to be standing next to the US on almost all issues. Taking Somalia for example, who cares what they think about the US on a national level and if they get upset about what was done. Nothing they can do about it.

The international court located in The Hague, usually settles disputes between nations themselves. I’m not sure they’d ever bring charges to a sitting leader of any kind unless something approaching genocide is occurring in a particular country.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Just about any president could be accused of war crimes. Your example for instance is a perfect one. Or when Obama had an American citizen killed by drone strike. Not exactly innocent until proven guilty.

However, in both of those instances, I’d argue Obama did the right thing, albeit not possibly legal. For the president to be effective and do his job, they need a certain amount of freedom. One can’t make these decisions with the idea that they’ll be hauled off to jail in the back of their mind. So in terms of national security, I’d argue Presidential immunity is an absolute necessity. The best counter argument for it I’ve seen on the boards are @Illegal-shift posts. Although we ultimately disagree on the topic, he brought up some excellent counter points that were well thought out and very sensible. Reading his posts, one could come to the conclusion that a president should not have immunity.

As far as the international court and opinion goes, US can and always has, bought the allegiance of countries where their opinion is important. You need certain allies on your side. Many of these allies can’t afford not to be standing next to the US on almost all issues. Taking Somalia for example, who cares what they think about the US on a national level and if they get upset about what was done. Nothing they can do about it.

The international court located in The Hague, usually settles disputes between nations themselves. I’m not sure they’d ever bring charges to a sitting leader of any kind unless something approaching genocide is occurring in a particular country.

This is pretty spot on....however the Hague WOULD go after Trump. 100% they would. He stands in their way.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Just about any president could be accused of war crimes. Your example for instance is a perfect one. Or when Obama had an American citizen killed by drone strike. Not exactly innocent until proven guilty.

However, in both of those instances, I’d argue Obama did the right thing, albeit not possibly legal. For the president to be effective and do his job, they need a certain amount of freedom. One can’t make these decisions with the idea that they’ll be hauled off to jail in the back of their mind. So in terms of national security, I’d argue Presidential immunity is an absolute necessity. The best counter argument for it I’ve seen on the boards are @Illegal-shift posts. Although we ultimately disagree on the topic, he brought up some excellent counter points that were well thought out and very sensible. Reading his posts, one could come to the conclusion that a president should not have immunity.

As far as the international court and opinion goes, US can and always has, bought the allegiance of countries where their opinion is important. You need certain allies on your side. Many of these allies can’t afford not to be standing next to the US on almost all issues. Taking Somalia for example, who cares what they think about the US on a national level and if they get upset about what was done. Nothing they can do about it.

The international court located in The Hague, usually settles disputes between nations themselves. I’m not sure they’d ever bring charges to a sitting leader of any kind unless something approaching genocide is occurring in a particular country.

A covert action in a foreign country could be construed as an act of war.

For instance, assassinating a high ranking general with a drone strike in a country we are not at war with or conduct a police action sanctioned by the UN in.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

A covert action in a foreign country could be construed as an act of war.

For instance, assassinating a high ranking general with a drone strike in a country we are not at war with or conduct a police action sanctioned by the UN in.

Soleimani for instance....

 

[treygator29]

A covert action in a foreign country could be construed as an act of war.

For instance, assassinating a high ranking general with a drone strike in a country we are not at war with or conduct a police action sanctioned by the UN in.

Absolutely. But the US is always careful about these moves. You drone strike someone in Somalia. Not England. The idea being England is strong enough to protect itself. Somalia doesn’t have the infrastructure to combat the issue. If they get upset, declaring war isn’t really an option for them.

By the way Lord, you’re one of my favorite posters on here. Always well informed. Keep posting

 

[Gator Fever]

The ICC is a complete joke unless you are in a weak country. They are mostly a left wing propaganda arm also. They will make token charges against groups like Hamas and then charge Israel's leaders for headlines. Same with that Russia Ukraine stuff.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

The ICC is a complete joke unless you are in a weak country. They are mostly a left wing propaganda arm also. They will make token charges against groups like Hamas and then charge Israel's leaders for headlines. Same with that Russia Ukraine stuff.

They HATE America...so I hate them.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Absolutely. But the US is always careful about these moves. You drone strike someone in Somalia. Not England. The idea being England is strong enough to protect itself. Somalia doesn’t have the infrastructure to combat the issue. If they get upset, declaring war isn’t really an option for them.

By the way Lord, you’re one of my favorite posters on here. Always well informed. Keep posting

The last time we assassinated a high ranking officer, Admiral Yamamoto, we did it in wartime in contested battle space. It's a far cry from whacking out someone out in his own country without warning and Iran, while engaging in multi front proxy actions against our allies. hasn't directly directly engaged the US militarily since Operation Praying Mantis.

Generally if international law goes against the Constitution, we feel free to ignore it, like that ridiculous small arms treaty.

Removing presidential immunity is just dumb. I've said it before and I'll say it again it's not the person but the job that needs immunity.

 

[treygator29]

The last time we assassinated a high ranking officer, Admiral Yamamoto, we did it in wartime in contested battle space. It's a far cry from whacking out someone out in his own country without warning and Iran, while engaging in multi front proxy actions against our allies. hasn't directly directly engaged the US militarily since Operation Praying Mantis.

Generally if international law goes against the Constitution, we feel free to ignore it, like that ridiculous small arms treaty.

Removing presidential immunity is just dumb. I've said it before and I'll say it again it's not the person but the job that needs immunity.

I agree

 

[Capt Ron 1]

The last time we assassinated a high ranking officer, Admiral Yamamoto, we did it in wartime in contested battle space. It's a far cry from whacking out someone out in his own country without warning and Iran, while engaging in multi front proxy actions against our allies. hasn't directly directly engaged the US militarily since Operation Praying Mantis.

Generally if international law goes against the Constitution, we feel free to ignore it, like that ridiculous small arms treaty.

Removing presidential immunity is just dumb. I've said it before and I'll say it again it's not the person but the job that needs immunity.

Solemani was a high ranking officer...but I get your point.