Todays SCOTUS ruling

[55dawg]

Changed nothing. Not sure why they even had to rule. It’s well established government officials from county commissioners to the POTUS have immunity for actions taken in their official capacity. Todays ruling changed nothing. Shocking any Justice could rule otherwise. The real travesty are the 3 dissenting judges. . Just like the Mayor of Willacoochie, the POTUS must have immunity for official acts. You couldn’t govern otherwise. Of course all bets are off on actions taken outside your official capacity. And yes ordering seal team 6 to execute your political opponent is outside your official capacity.

 

[zingerdawg]

Wow. Biden has stooped to an all time low. You got your ass kicked moron. The biggest twerp to ever hold the office. He didn’t take a question. He ran like the coward he is. They had to stop him from prosecuting his rival. It is on him. This country is in a clusterf. They will do literally anything to remain in power.

 

[Moosefish]

...They will do literally anything to remain in power.

It's so obvious & if you remove Trump's name from all efforts, it should be obvious how out of bounds the last 2 year have been. Those defending actions against Trump & wailing against the 'righting of the ship' only have:

1. "But, Trump"
2. *insert hyperbolic example*

I've never subscribed to the "TDS" accusations (mostly because I think that label is stupid), but I'm starting to understand why that term is thrown around.

People are abandoning simple logic & reason.

 

[PotimusWillie]

Changed nothing. Not sure why they even had to rule. It’s well established government officials from county commissioners to the POTUS have immunity for actions taken in their official capacity. Todays ruling changed nothing. Shocking any Justice could rule otherwise. The real travesty are the 3 dissenting judges. . Just like the Mayor of Willacoochie, the POTUS must have immunity for official acts. You couldn’t govern otherwise. Of course all bets are off on actions taken outside your official capacity. And yes ordering seal team 6 to execute your political opponent is outside your official capacity.

Today, to mandate and assure lower crime rates in major Dem run cities, Biden passed a sweeping new law that makes it a crime to kill someone…….

That is how the Dem’s fix the problem. Just pass new laws that do what old laws did but make an announcement that it will fix the problem. Of course, a new director will be hired who will hire a committee to oversee a new budget entry backed by the promise to raise taxes on the rich and all greedy oil companies.

 

[zingerdawg]

It's so obvious & if you remove Trump's name from all efforts, it should be obvious how out of bounds the last 2 year have been. Those defending actions against Trump & wailing against the 'righting of the ship' only have:

1. "But, Trump"
2. *insert hyperbolic example*

I've never subscribed to the "TDS" accusations (mostly because I think that label is stupid), but I'm starting to understand why that term is thrown around.

People are abandoning simple logic & reason.

And they claim no tds. It is nothing but tds. Like you said if you remove trump it becomes what it is. Absolute insanity. I feel like I am in the twilight zone. Biden sounded like he wanted to start a civil war. Completely unhinged.

 

[PotimusWillie]

It's so obvious & if you remove Trump's name from all efforts, it should be obvious how out of bounds the last 2 year have been. Those defending actions against Trump & wailing against the 'righting of the ship' only have:

1. "But, Trump"
2. *insert hyperbolic example*

I've never subscribed to the "TDS" accusations (mostly because I think that label is stupid), but I'm starting to understand why that term is thrown around.

People are abandoning simple logic & reason.

Absolutely

 

[Moosefish]

"SCOTUS: You can’t just throw your rival in prison because you don’t like him.

DEMOCRATS: So you’re saying we can drop bombs on him?

SCOTUS: You really can’t even charge your rival with a crime because his presidency made you mad.

DEMOCRATS: Got it. So we can incinerate his house with him in it?

SCOTUS: The Constitution protects officials from being terrorized with lawfare for official actions they undertook while in office.

DEMOCRATS: Ah. Makes sense. So we can officially assassinate everyone we don’t like?

SCOTUS: Prosecuting a politician because you don’t like his politics would destroy our country, and we’re not going to allow it.

DEMOCRATS: Roger that. So what you’re saying is: we are officially allowed to eliminate Trump and the Supreme Court as long as we, like, say it’s official and stuff?"

(highlight/emphasis added)

 

[Georgia Jim]

And they claim no tds. It is nothing but tds. Like you said if you remove trump it becomes what it is. Absolute insanity. I feel like I am in the twilight zone. Biden sounded like he wanted to start a civil war. Completely unhinged.

FTMFer.

 

[woofn]

It's so obvious & if you remove Trump's name from all efforts, it should be obvious how out of bounds the last 2 year have been. Those defending actions against Trump & wailing against the 'righting of the ship' only have:

1. "But, Trump"
2. *insert hyperbolic example*

I've never subscribed to the "TDS" accusations (mostly because I think that label is stupid), but I'm starting to understand why that term is thrown around.

People are abandoning simpleuld fit logic & reason.

Agree, but will say “tds” is real…there’s several abbreviations of letters you can put together to link democrats hate of Trump and will do anything to stop Trump.

 

[SLC_Dawg]

Changed nothing. Not sure why they even had to rule. It’s well established government officials from county commissioners to the POTUS have immunity for actions taken in their official capacity. Todays ruling changed nothing. Shocking any Justice could rule otherwise. The real travesty are the 3 dissenting judges. . Just like the Mayor of Willacoochie, the POTUS must have immunity for official acts. You couldn’t govern otherwise. Of course all bets are off on actions taken outside your official capacity. And yes ordering seal team 6 to execute your political opponent is outside your official capacity.

Thanks to Biden they had to make it official.

 

[SLC_Dawg]

View embedded media

"SCOTUS: You can’t just throw your rival in prison because you don’t like him.

DEMOCRATS: So you’re saying we can drop bombs on him?

SCOTUS: You really can’t even charge your rival with a crime because his presidency made you mad.

DEMOCRATS: Got it. So we can incinerate his house with him in it?

SCOTUS: The Constitution protects officials from being terrorized with lawfare for official actions they undertook while in office.

DEMOCRATS: Ah. Makes sense. So we can officially assassinate everyone we don’t like?

SCOTUS: Prosecuting a politician because you don’t like his politics would destroy our country, and we’re not going to allow it.

DEMOCRATS: Roger that. So what you’re saying is: we are officially allowed to eliminate Trump and the Supreme Court as long as we, like, say it’s official and stuff?"

(highlight/emphasis added)

No, seriously. They talking that crap in the comments section of the NYT.

 

[willdup]

View embedded media

"SCOTUS: You can’t just throw your rival in prison because you don’t like him.

DEMOCRATS: So you’re saying we can drop bombs on him?

SCOTUS: You really can’t even charge your rival with a crime because his presidency made you mad.

DEMOCRATS: Got it. So we can incinerate his house with him in it?

SCOTUS: The Constitution protects officials from being terrorized with lawfare for official actions they undertook while in office.

DEMOCRATS: Ah. Makes sense. So we can officially assassinate everyone we don’t like?

SCOTUS: Prosecuting a politician because you don’t like his politics would destroy our country, and we’re not going to allow it.

DEMOCRATS: Roger that. So what you’re saying is: we are officially allowed to eliminate Trump and the Supreme Court as long as we, like, say it’s official and stuff?"

(highlight/emphasis added)

Democrats: so you are saying that a sitting president can pressure the DOJ, with zero supporting evidence, to publicaly declare an election fraudulent as part of an effort to undermine election results and steal the election?

SCOTUS: Check. Official act. Immune.

Dems: So the president can go to the AG and request, and I quote, "just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me", and that’s totally cool now, right?

SCOTUS: official act. Cool cool.

Dems: And the President can tell the DOJ who to investigate anyone, for any reason whatsoever?

SCOTUS: official act. Immune.

Dems: but isn’t that exactly what Trump
and the GOP are accusing Biden of doing to Trump?

SCOTUS: ………..

Dems: what about Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution that states that even if a President is IMPEACHED and CONVICTED, the President "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

SCOTUS: whatever.

Dems: In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the President would be "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the "King of England," who was "sacred and invulnerable," and the "President of the United States."

SCOTUS: Hamilton was the bastard son of a whore. We don’t like those kinds of people.

Dems: So, a president can order the assassination or jailing of their political rival, and be immune. They can take a bribe in exchange for an official act, and still be immune. They can organize a military coup to hold onto power, and still be immune?

SCOTUS: "We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

Democrats: so you are saying that a sitting president can pressure the DOJ, with zero supporting evidence, to publicaly declare an election fraudulent as part of an effort to undermine election results and steal the election?

SCOTUS: Check. Official act. Immune.

Dems: So the president can go to the AG and request, and I quote, "just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me", and that’s totally cool now, right?

SCOTUS: official act. Cool cool.

And the President can tell the DOJ who to investigate, for any reason whatsoever?

SCOTUS: official act. Immune.

Dems: but isn’t that exactly what Trump
and the GOP are accusing Biden of doing to Trump?

SCOTUS: ………..

Dems: what about Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution that states that even if a President is IMPEACHED and CONVICTED, the President "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

SCOTUS: whatever.

Dems: So, a president can order the assassination or jailing of their political rival, and be immune. They can take a bribe in exchange for an official act, and still be immune. They can organize a military coup to hold onto power, and still be immune?

SCOTUS: "We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

Get help. I’ve been involved in litigation against municipal government and municipal government officials. This is no different.

It is why governments and government officials rarely get sued even when the same facts in a dispute between private enterprises would be a slam dunk.

Immunity in official capacity is understood. The burden is on whether they acted in an official capacity or not.

Get over it. All of these hypotheticals regarding terrible things that have or will result are just that Hypotheticals. What terrible thing happened as a result of any of the things Trump has been indicted on?

The only thing “terrible” it seems is that the public doesn’t care about these “crimes”,, and the bed wetting about the failure of the legal system to disqualify him is evidence that the only “damaged party” is the Democratic Party.

 

[willdup]

Get help. I’ve been involved in litigation against municipal government and municipal government officials. This is no different.

It is why governments and government officials rarely get sued even when the same facts in a dispute between private enterprises would be a slam dunk.

Immunity in official capacity is understood. The burden is on whether they acted in an official capacity or not.

Get over it. All of these hypotheticals regarding terrible things that have or will result are just that Hypotheticals. What terrible thing happened as a result of any of the things Trump has been indicted on?

The only thing “terrible” it seems is that the public doesn’t care about these “crimes”,, and the bed wetting about the failure of the legal system to disqualify him is evidence that the only “damaged party” is the Democratic Party.

On January 3rd, 2021, after Trump had tried and failed to get the DOJ to publicaly say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn’t, he attempted to install Jeffry Clarke as AG as Clarke would be compliant and fully participate in the plan the steal the election.

The only thing that stopped Trump was that the entire leadership of the DOJ refused to go along and threatened to resign en masse.

That happened. That’s not a hypothetical. What would have happened had Trump been successful in installing Clarke before certification on the 6th? You can’t say and neither can I, but an official statement from the DOJ about fraud may very well have impacted the efforts to delay certification and thus allow Trump more time to execute his plot. We know Pence seriously considered whether he could stop certification. If the DOJ claimed fraud, that may have given him the air cover he needed to do it.

So stop with the idea that this is all hypothetical. It isn’t.

 

[jlstone412]

On January 3rd, 2021, after Trump had tried and failed to get the DOJ to publicaly say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn’t, he attempted to install Jeffry Clarke as AG as Clarke would be compliant and fully participate in the plan the steal the election.

The only thing that stopped Trump was that the entire leadership of the DOJ refused to go along and threatened to resign en masse.

That happened. That’s not a hypothetical. What would have happened had Trump been successful in installing Clarke before certification on the 6th? You can’t say and neither can I, but an official statement from the DOJ about fraud may very well have impacted the efforts to delay certification and thus allow Trump more time to execute his plot. We know Pence seriously considered whether he could stop certification. If the DOJ claimed fraud, that may have given him the air cover he needed to do it.

So stop with the idea that this is all hypothetical. It isn’t.

And now...none of this can be used as evidence...so did it REALLY happen?

Can't impeach/convict a president again. Not due to a numbers game. But due to SCOTUS bastardizing immunity for POTUS.

Look...I'm all for immunity for official acts...but this is basically granting absolute immunity because it's nearly impossible to get past presumptive immunity given the conditions the court outlined.

 

[willdup]

And now...none of this can be used as evidence...so did it REALLY happen?

Can't impeach/convict a president again. Not due to a numbers game. But due to SCOTUS bastardizing immunity for POTUS.

Look...I'm all for immunity for official acts...but this is basically granting absolute immunity because it's nearly impossible to get past presumptive immunity given the conditions the court outlined.

Exactly. It’s amazing to me that the Trump supporters accuse the left of overly dramatic hyperbolically, when we’ve already seen what Trump is capable when he had more guardrails. Now?

 

[ugafish]

On January 3rd, 2021, after Trump had tried and failed to get the DOJ to publicaly say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn’t, he attempted to install Jeffry Clarke as AG as Clarke would be compliant and fully participate in the plan the steal the election.

The only thing that stopped Trump was that the entire leadership of the DOJ refused to go along and threatened to resign en masse.

That happened. That’s not a hypothetical. What would have happened had Trump been successful in installing Clarke before certification on the 6th? You can’t say and neither can I, but an official statement from the DOJ about fraud may very well have impacted the efforts to delay certification and thus allow Trump more time to execute his plot. We know Pence seriously considered whether he could stop certification. If the DOJ claimed fraud, that may have given him the air cover he needed to do it.

So stop with the idea that this is all hypothetical. It isn’t.

Nothing trump did comes remotely close to the damage biden has done. That’s what it comes down to.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

On January 3rd, 2021, after Trump had tried and failed to get the DOJ to publicaly say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn’t, he attempted to install Jeffry Clarke as AG as Clarke would be compliant and fully participate in the plan the steal the election.

The only thing that stopped Trump was that the entire leadership of the DOJ refused to go along and threatened to resign en masse.

That happened. That’s not a hypothetical. What would have happened had Trump been successful in installing Clarke before certification on the 6th? You can’t say and neither can I, but an official statement from the DOJ about fraud may very well have impacted the efforts to delay certification and thus allow Trump more time to execute his plot. We know Pence seriously considered whether he could stop certification. If the DOJ claimed fraud, that may have given him the air cover he needed to do it.

So stop with the idea that this is all hypothetical. It isn’t.

This alternate reality where he remained in power is the dictionary definition of hypothetical. You proved my point. The actual reality was that he left office when he was supposed to leave office. The checks and balances I keep mentioning ensured that.

Also - maybe he thought there was evidence of fraud and they didn't? Again - all open to interpretation, as there were a ton of reports of wierd shit going on around election night.

I am still waiting to hear about the crazy damage he has done to anyone due to his "abuse of power." Actual damage. And what he will do if God forbid he wins the White House again. Porn Stars? "inflating" asset values on successful deals?

 

[willdup]

This alternate reality where he remained in power is the dictionary definition of hypothetical. You proved my point. The actual reality was that he left office when he was supposed to leave office. The checks and balances I keep mentioning ensured that.

Also - maybe he thought there was evidence of fraud and they didn't? Again - all open to interpretation, as there were a ton of reports of wierd shit going on around election night.

I am still waiting to hear about the crazy damage he has done to anyone due to his "abuse of power." Actual damage. And what he will do if God forbid he wins the White House again. Porn Stars? "inflating" asset values on successful deals?

So, there can only be a crime if the criminal effort was successful? That's not how the law works at all.

 

[jlstone412]

So, there can only be a crime if the criminal effort was successful? That's not how the law works at all.

In their world...yes....that's how it works.

"Who was harmed?" - trump org case
"It was just a little crime" - business records case
"But he didn't stay in power" - Jan 6 case

It's ridiculous.

Might as well call him King Biden now. No check and balance on him. He can do WTF he wants with impunity now; just qualify that all acts are official acts. And no one can complain. Because of SCOTUS.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

In their world...yes....that's how it works.

"Who was harmed?" - trump org case
"It was just a little crime" - business records case
"But he didn't stay in power" - Jan 6 case

It's ridiculous.

Might as well call him King Biden now. No check and balance on him. He can do WTF he wants with impunity now; just qualify that all acts are official acts. And no one can complain. Because of SCOTUS.

Actually a cornerstone of any litigation is standing and whether or not there is a damaged party. Not having one opens the door for prosecution for any reason whatsoever. Like, maybe political???? The NYC real estate values case was particularly the most egregious. Let's just bankrupt a private business for no reason whatsoever.

Coincidentally, the "highly biased" supreme court ruled in favor of the Biden admin last week in the area of the ability to influence social media.....something that is a huge issue for conservatives, yet the criminally biased SCOTUS ruled against them. Why? Lack of standing.

 

[doerunn]

In their world...yes....that's how it works.

"Who was harmed?" - trump org case
"It was just a little crime" - business records case
"But he didn't stay in power" - Jan 6 case

It's ridiculous.

Might as well call him King Biden now. No check and balance on him. He can do WTF he wants with impunity now; just qualify that all acts are official acts. And no one can complain. Because of SCOTUS.

Well he did refuse a supreme court decision. Hes not following the rule of law at the border, hes locking up old ladies praying close to an abortion clinic, didnt give the order to kill the suicide bomber before it killed 13 service men. Allowing special prosecutor to prosecute a former prez without being comfirmed by the senate, giving illegal aliens social security and benefits, let russia take over our base in africa. so there.

 

[55dawg]

Democrats: so you are saying that a sitting president can pressure the DOJ, with zero supporting evidence, to publicaly declare an election fraudulent as part of an effort to undermine election results and steal the election?

SCOTUS: Check. Official act. Immune.

Dems: So the president can go to the AG and request, and I quote, "just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me", and that’s totally cool now, right?

SCOTUS: official act. Cool cool.

Dems: And the President can tell the DOJ who to investigate anyone, for any reason whatsoever?

SCOTUS: official act. Immune.

Dems: but isn’t that exactly what Trump
and the GOP are accusing Biden of doing to Trump?

SCOTUS: ………..

Dems: what about Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution that states that even if a President is IMPEACHED and CONVICTED, the President "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

SCOTUS: whatever.

Dems: In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the President would be "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the "King of England," who was "sacred and invulnerable," and the "President of the United States."

SCOTUS: Hamilton was the bastard son of a whore. We don’t like those kinds of people.

Dems: So, a president can order the assassination or jailing of their political rival, and be immune. They can take a bribe in exchange for an official act, and still be immune. They can organize a military coup to hold onto power, and still be immune?

SCOTUS: "We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

Was shocked to see CNN call out the nonsense regarding immunity. Nothing has changed. Other than the witch hunts tge Biden DOJ has attempted will be a little more difficult. Dems are just trying to scare the uneducated public and to change the talk about the debate. This extreme talk such as Seal team 6 nonsense is pathetic. MSM has really stepped up their game to influence this election

 

[WyoDawg307]

And now...none of this can be used as evidence...so did it REALLY happen?

Can't impeach/convict a president again. Not due to a numbers game. But due to SCOTUS bastardizing immunity for POTUS.

Look...I'm all for immunity for official acts...but this is basically granting absolute immunity because it's nearly impossible to get past presumptive immunity given the conditions the court outlined.

And the SC did this precisely because of the lawfare from the DOJ, circuit court and the appeals court. Specifically, the appeals court refused to hold hearings and determine what was official vs unofficial acts - Roberts said precisely this. And he is no "conservative" judge.

The lefts irrational behavior/TDS led to this decision and surprise, surprise - they don't like it. No different that a young children pitching a fit when told they cannot do something. Sad state of a declining nation.

 

[WyoDawg307]

In their world...yes....that's how it works.

"Who was harmed?" - trump org case
"It was just a little crime" - business records case
"But he didn't stay in power" - Jan 6 case

It's ridiculous.

Might as well call him King Biden now. No check and balance on him. He can do WTF he wants with impunity now; just qualify that all acts are official acts. And no one can complain. Because of SCOTUS.

LOL! Your guy cannot wipe his own butt, but yeah he can do "anything" now...he really showed last week he cannot even speak.

 

[ClydeDawg]

In their world...yes....that's how it works.

"Who was harmed?" - trump org case
"It was just a little crime" - business records case
"But he didn't stay in power" - Jan 6 case

It's ridiculous.

Might as well call him King Biden now. No check and balance on him. He can do WTF he wants with impunity now; just qualify that all acts are official acts. And no one can complain. Because of SCOTUS.

You mean like forgiving student loans after the Supreme Court says its illegal?

 

[55dawg]

You mean like forgiving student loans after the Supreme Court says its illegal?

And the border

 

[agentorange70]

Richard Nixon engaged in a private act of burglary on his enemies,...this was concluded as a private act and not an official act,..and he was deserted by his enemies and his own party

no new law was written or powers expanded

It was an unwritten rule that didn't need to be expressed by the Supreme Court until now,..but unfortunately now the Supreme Court needs to elucidate in rulings what was once understood without explanation for 235+ years because of the current attacks on political opposition by the Dems

 

[ToddBburn]

Richard Nixon engaged in a private act of burglary on his enemies,...this was concluded as a private act and not an official act,..and he was deserted by his enemies and his own party

no new law was written or powers expanded

It was an unwritten rule that didn't need to be expressed by the Supreme Court until now,..but unfortunately now the Supreme Court needs to elucidate in rulings what was once understood without explanation for 235+ years because of the current attacks on political opposition by the Dems

We have justices that cannot define what a woman is and obviously more clarity is needed.

 

[agentorange70]

We have justices that cannot define what a woman is and obviously more clarity is needed.

300 years from now, the Supreme Court will need to write stick figures in a cartoon book to explain things, if we still have a Supreme Court by then

 

[oldmandawg]

Richard Nixon engaged in a private act of burglary on his enemies,...this was concluded as a private act and not an official act,..and he was deserted by his enemies and his own party

no new law was written or powers expanded

It was an unwritten rule that didn't need to be expressed by the Supreme Court until now,..but unfortunately now the Supreme Court needs to elucidate in rulings what was once understood without explanation for 235+ years because of the current attacks on political opposition by the Dems

Well said.

 

[agentorange70]

Well said.

To touch on that,...Nixon left the presidency in shame,..and some wanted his ass in jail for political persecution afterwards,...but at that time for the sake of the country Richard Nixon was allowed to just retire to make peace,...Jefferson Davis was held in prison for a short time then left to retire after the civil war to make peace,....the greatest enemy we face are not among us or within us,..unless they attempt a new way of persecution not accustomed

 

[willdup]

Richard Nixon engaged in a private act of burglary on his enemies,...this was concluded as a private act and not an official act,..and he was deserted by his enemies and his own party

no new law was written or powers expanded

It was an unwritten rule that didn't need to be expressed by the Supreme Court until now,..but unfortunately now the Supreme Court needs to elucidate in rulings what was once understood without explanation for 235+ years because of the current attacks on political opposition by the Dems

But the recording that took him out was a conversation with Bob Halderman, who was his chief of staff.

One of the concerning elements of yesterday’s decisions is that evidence from an official act, such as a conversation with staff, can not be used to prove criminality in an unofficial act. That means SCOTUS does not force the release of the tape and the country never hears Nixon’s guilt in his own voice, which was what resulted in the loss of party support and being forced to resign.

With no tapes, Watergate is an entirely different situation that Nixon might have survived.

Another element that’s beyond concerning is the fact that Trump’s efforts to pressure the DOJ to go public about evidence of fraud that never existed are now entirely immune.

But hey, SCOTUS fully legalized bribery last week as long as it comes after the corrupt award and not before, so we shouldn’t be surprised.

 

[ToddBburn]

But the recording that took him out was a conversation with Bob Halderman, who was his chief of staff.

One of the concerning elements of yesterday’s decisions is that evidence from an official act, such as a conversation with staff, can not be used to prove criminality in an unofficial act. That means SCOTUS does not force the release of the tape and the country never hears Nixon’s guilt in his own voice, which was what resulted in the loss of party support and being forced to resign.

With no tapes, Watergate is an entirely different situation that Nixon might have survived.

Another element that’s beyond concerning is the fact that Trump’s efforts to pressure the DOJ to go public about evidence of fraud that never existed are now entirely immune.

But hey, SCOTUS fully legalized bribery last week as long as it comes after the corrupt award and not before, so we shouldn’t be surprised.

If that discussion was about a criminal act then it would not be an official act.
They did not legalize bribery. That is a jackass statement. You cannot be reasoned with this is insane and you are no better than the fear mongers in the Democrat party and MSM.

 

[agentorange70]

We are in the middle of this current crises...it's a wait and see,.,.explain how the supreme court ruled in favor of bribery exactly?

If the supreme court accepted bribes from the far right,...explain the affiliation and money trail

 

[willdup]

If that discussion was about a criminal act then it would not be an official act.
They did not legalize bribery. That is a jackass statement. You cannot be reasoned with this is insane and you are no better than the fear mongers in the Democrat party and MSM.

So pressuring the DOJ to lie about election fraud is an official act? SCOTUS expressly determined that it was and Trump is immune.

I think that your interpretation regarding the Nixon tapes is highly generous given the application of immunity cited above.

And my apologies regarding the bribery question. As long as a $13k payment comes after the award of a $1m contract and it is characterized as a gratuity related to “consulting services”, it’s all good.

Of course it’s more nuanced than what I said, so I do actually apologize for that one.

 

[ToddBburn]

So pressuring the DOJ to lie about election fraud is an official act? SCOTUS expressly determined that it was and Trump is immune.

I think that your interpretation regarding the Nixon tapes is highly generous given the application of immunity cited above.

And my apologies regarding the bribery question. As long as a $13k payment comes after the award of a $1m contract and it is characterized as a gratuity related to “consulting services”, it’s all good.

Of course it’s more nuanced than what I said, so I do actually apologize for that one.

No pressuring anyone to lie/miss represent would not be an official act. I think if both sides would quit pointing fingers at each other and focus on the truth and law and quit assuming anything. The goal should be to treat everyone fairly and quit trying to fabricate scenarios that suit a purpose.

 

[zingerdawg]

No pressuring anyone to lie/miss represent would not be an official act. I think if both sides would quit pointing fingers at each other and focus on the truth and law and quit assuming anything. The goal should be to treat everyone fairly and quit trying to fabricate scenarios that suit a purpose.

Exactly. It is embarrassing what is coming from the dnc. Talk about division. They are pissed because they brought this on themselves. In their haste to get trump, they opened Pandora’s box. Got their ass spanked. In the debate, and by the Supreme Court, then proceded to act like damn children. At this point they are just making scenarios up. Don’t worry. The dnc will instruct the corrupt judge in the Bragg case to put him in jail past the election. It is going to happen.

 

[ugafish]

In their world...yes....that's how it works.

"Who was harmed?" - trump org case
"It was just a little crime" - business records case
"But he didn't stay in power" - Jan 6 case

It's ridiculous.

Might as well call him King Biden now. No check and balance on him. He can do WTF he wants with impunity now; just qualify that all acts are official acts. And no one can complain. Because of SCOTUS.

Of course there is no defense of this nature when discussing all of the Liberal issues that affect our nation. You and Will cant defend any of them.

 

[zingerdawg]

In their world...yes....that's how it works.

"Who was harmed?" - trump org case
"It was just a little crime" - business records case
"But he didn't stay in power" - Jan 6 case

It's ridiculous.

Might as well call him King Biden now. No check and balance on him. He can do WTF he wants with impunity now; just qualify that all acts are official acts. And no one can complain. Because of SCOTUS.

Not because of scotus. Because you guys went after a former president for nothing but political reasons. Period. The only people not seeing that for what it is are the never trumpers. Look in the mirror. Sham case after sham case. You brought this on yourselves. Meanwhile Biden has sold out his country and refinanced his home 32 times in an effort to launder his money. You could have let trump walk off into the sunset. But the media needed its point of emphasis. He was done after Jan 6th. Done at the midterms. Somehow you kept him relevant, and in your absolute haste to get him, you brought about this ruling. lol. Now you cant do anything but whine and cry about it. It makes you guys so mad because you only have one group to blame. Yourselves.