SCOTUS rules Trump IMMUNE from prosecution. Too bad Jack.

[Orangeclad]

Trump has no immunity for UNOFFICIAL acts

So the arguments will be what is official vs unofficial.

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

The Supreme Court weighed in on whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for conduct allegedly involving official acts.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Orangeclad]

Dems, if you're PO'd, blame Harry Reid.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

This has been one hell of a week for America! GOD BLESS AMERICA!! These tyrants are getting whipped at every corner.

 

[fatman76]

Trump has no immunity for UNOFFICIAL acts

So the arguments will be what is official vs unofficial.

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

The Supreme Court weighed in on whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for conduct allegedly involving official acts.

www.foxnews.com

Wow.

I'm honestly shocked. SCOTUS has been very hit or miss this cycle of decisions.

But it's the right decision, and one that protects other Presidents from prosecution as well.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Wow.

I'm honestly shocked. SCOTUS has been very hit or miss this cycle of decisions.

But it's the right decision, and one that protects other Presidents from prosecution as well.

I think we now have some justices that actually try to interpret the intentions of the Constitution instead of how their political affiliation wants them to rule. THANK YOU TRUMP!!

 

[fatman76]

I think we now have some justices that actually try to interpret the intentions of the Constitution instead of how their political affiliation wants them to rule. THANK YOU TRUMP!!

Sometimes.

Barrett has been a disaster and Kavanaugh hasn't been much better lately.

 

[BillytheC]

I am not shocked and saw no way they could rule any other way- there was tons of precedent on this

 

[Orangeclad]

Democrats going beezerk over ruling today. Hyperbolic as usual.

 

[JimGaster]

Very reasonable decision. The entire Lawfare against Trump is a bunch of BS and is collapsing.

 

[jsfgators]

The establishment is exposed and on the ropes. This is a very dangerous moment. Wounded cornered animals.

 

[LordofallSocks]

"In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure."

"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President," he said.

yaaaaaaassssss lawd.

 

[fatman76]

"In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure."

"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President," he said.

yaaaaaaassssss lawd.

Holy sh!t

Thomas is the absolute best, and he's 100% spot on. Fascist tyrants hate checks and balances.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Holy sh!t

Indeed.

 

[nail1988]

The final blow for thug Jack Smith

 

[nail1988]

Good nite Jack thug Smith you POS

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Sometimes.

Barrett has been a disaster and Kavanaugh hasn't been much better lately.

I think whether we agree with them or not their intention is to follow the constitution.

 

[nail1988]

You can’t make this up 😂😂😂

 

[fatman76]

I think whether we agree with them or not their intention is to follow the constitution.

Not taking up the Gov't censorship case on lack of standing is not following the Constitution.

They basically green lit gov't censorship (via a 3rd party) in the heat of an election cycle.

 

[nail1988]

Not taking up the Gov't censorship case on lack of standing is not following the Constitution.

They basically green lit gov't censorship (via a 3rd party) in the heat of an election cycle.

Barrett lied about being an originalist during her confirmation and following the constitution. She has lurched left on several decisions.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

You can’t make this up 😂😂😂

View embedded media

One of the dumbest people in congress questioning some of America's brightest.

 

[NavigatorII]

Wow.

I'm honestly shocked. SCOTUS has been very hit or miss this cycle of decisions.

But it's the right decision, and one that protects other Presidents from prosecution as well.

Do you think Hiden will now remember his business dealings with Ukraine and China? 😂

 

[NavigatorII]

You can’t make this up 😂😂😂

View embedded media

Good luck with that! 😂😂😂😂

 

[kalimgoodman]

Trump has no immunity for UNOFFICIAL acts

So the arguments will be what is official vs unofficial.

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

The Supreme Court weighed in on whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for conduct allegedly involving official acts.

www.foxnews.com

This is what I expected. The only shocking part was that you can't even look into "official acts".

 

[kalimgoodman]

Not taking up the Gov't censorship case on lack of standing is not following the Constitution.

They basically green lit gov't censorship (via a 3rd party) in the heat of an election cycle.

They were right about lack of standing but they will eventually rule in your favor.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Do you think Hiden will now remember his business dealings with Ukraine and China? 😂

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.

 

[GatorTrooper]

Big day for Trump. His cases will quietly drift away.

 

[BCSpell]

Wow.

I'm honestly shocked. SCOTUS has been very hit or miss this cycle of decisions.

But it's the right decision, and one that protects other Presidents from prosecution as well.

Yeah, means not only Trump, BUT Biden, Bush, Obama are all safe.

 

[Gator Fever]

"In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure."

"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President," he said.

yaaaaaaassssss lawd.

Curious what happens with that. I think with most soft right Judges (the majority of them) the argument is whether they are truly under the control of the Attorney General as an inferior officer and we know they usually aren't in reality despite the lies of the administrations. They had good reason to change the law on them when they did but its not being used how it was intended to be in reality.

 

[nail1988]

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.

 

[NavigatorII]

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.

Of course not. You still believe a dementia patient is competent "because Orange Man bad!". The Bidens are as corrupt as they come, with no mention of being morally bankrupt. 😁

The best part of all of this? It's like 2016 all over again. 😂🤣😂

 

[jsfgators]

Barrett lied about being an originalist during her confirmation and following the constitution. She has lurched left on several decisions.

This was bound to happen to some degree with the 3 SCOTUS picks. She is still much better than Ginsburg. Kavanaugh is better than Kennedy. Gorsuch seems pretty solid. Overall we still swung the court for a generation and I feel that the court is moving in the right general direction. Imagine if Garland got the Scalia seat...and then Hiliary won and got to replace Kennedy and Ginsburg

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Yeah, means not only Trump, BUT Biden, Bush, Obama are all safe.

As they all should be.

 

[LordofallSocks]

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.

Except that's not what they ruled at all.

 

[NavigatorII]

Except that's not what they ruled at all.

Can you explain this to certain parties like they are 5? 😂

 

[fatman76]

They were right about lack of standing but they will eventually rule in your favor.

My favor? It’s not my favor.

We aren’t on teams, the 1st amendment is clear.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Can you explain this to certain parties like they are 5? 😂

Why the Eff should I, he still think you can be convicted of a criminal charge in civil court.

 

[fatman76]

Except that's not what they ruled at all.

Holy sh!t

2nd one today

 

[fatman76]

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.

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.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

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.

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

 

[fatman76]

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

Someone is flailing.

I’d feel sorry for him if we hadn’t tried so hard to warn.