Trump immunity case

[seer]

There basically won't be anything limiting what crimes he can commit.

Oh stop Stoic, you know better...

[Mountain Man]

Biden is, actually. And all the complaints about Biden using the DOJ to target his opponents, misdirected as they were, are complaints about something SCOTUS just ruled is both legal and not subject to thorough investigation by a subsequent DOJ.

-Sam

joe.jpg

[Sam]

joe.jpg

And you're excited about the prospect.

Probably for the best that everyone finally understands all the fake outrage and made-up complaints about Obama, Biden, et al. were just an exercise in creating a permission structure for what you yourself are totally jazzed about seeing done.

-Sam

[Stoic]

Oh stop Stoic, you know better...

You know it's true.

[CivilDiscourse]

And you're excited about the prospect.

Probably for the best that everyone finally understands all the fake outrage and made-up complaints about Obama, Biden, et al. were just an exercise in creating a permission structure for what you yourself are totally jazzed about seeing done.

-Sam

Congress is full of big wigs attacking the judges right now.

[Stoic]

What, exactly, is to stop a president from accepting a $10 billion bribe now? Impeachment? Even if a president were to be impeached and convicted over such a thing, why should they care if they can keep the money and not worry about being charged afterward?

Theoretically, at least, impeachment would remove the immunity:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

As a practical matter, the Republican party would never allow Trump to be convicted.

[Sam]

According to the Roberts majority, Biden can order the destruction of all the material relating to Hur's investigation and Garland can't be subpoenaed to testify that he warned Biden this would be illegal. Total immunity now, presumptive immunity with a strong shield of protection after Biden's term ends. DOJ can respond to this subpoena by saying "the audio files have been destroyed, nothing we can do".

Great system y'all are caping for here.

ScreenShot00058.png

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

And you're excited about the prospect.

Probably for the best that everyone finally understands all the fake outrage and made-up complaints about Obama, Biden, et al. were just an exercise in creating a permission structure for what you yourself are totally jazzed about seeing done.

-Sam

I'm just excited to watch liberals like you blow your tops over a Supreme Court decision that doesn't actually change anything, it simply clarifies existing law.

First of all, I'm not buying this liberal nonsense that anything a president does can be arbitrarily called an official act (no, Trump can't order Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political rivals and call it an "official act"); and second, Congress retains the power to remove a lawless president from office, and then he can be prosecuted for his crimes in civil court.

What this ruling effectively does is prevent a president from being harassed by frivolous lawsuits after leaving office.

[Sam]

Theoretically, at least, impeachment would remove the immunity:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

As a practical matter, the Republican party would never allow Trump to be convicted.

I don't think this ruling would remove immunity from the impeached offense but I'm open to correction; the above text is stating that impeachment doesn't serve as a substitute for criminal prosecution — that impeached presidents can still be tried in criminal court later. This ruling, by my reading, completely upends that for official conduct and effectively upends it for unofficial conduct that can be colored as official.

-Sam

[Ronson]

Biden is, actually. And all the complaints about Biden using the DOJ to target his opponents, misdirected as they were, are complaints about something SCOTUS just ruled is both legal and not subject to thorough investigation by a subsequent DOJ.

Are you suggesting that Trump use those agencies to go after his perceived enemies?

[seer]

You know it's true.

Really Stoic, you are unhinged - not like you...

[Ronson]

According to the Roberts majority, Biden can order the destruction of all the material relating to Hur's investigation and Garland can't be subpoenaed to testify that he warned Biden this would be illegal. Total immunity now, presumptive immunity with a strong shield of protection after Biden's term ends. DOJ can respond to this subpoena by saying "the audio files have been destroyed, nothing we can do".

The Hur tapes are far less relevant now that Biden exposed his cognitive decline for the whole country to see.

[seer]

The Hur tapes are far less relevant now that Biden exposed his cognitive decline for the whole country to see.

Now we know why they are hiding them.

[Sam]

Are you suggesting that Trump use those agencies to go after his perceived enemies?

I believe the answer to this question, if it is being asked with any sincerity, can be reliably inferred from even just my posts on this thread.

-Sam

[CivilDiscourse]

The Hur tapes are far less relevant now that Biden exposed his cognitive decline for the whole country to see.

At the same time, so is the rationale for hiding them.