The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for Joe to order the DOJ to drop all the charges against Hunter.

So that Trump's DoJ can file even more serious charges against Hunter that were left out come January.

if there had been serious charges, Barr would have filed them in 2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I posted in the other thread, if the theory holds, then Joe can take swift action and it can be against any foes in the House, Senate, SCOTUS, you name it because he would be above the law, right?

Part of me hopes Biden does something crazy just to show how crazy this ruling is. Because the ruling was obviously made with trump in mind, knowing that Biden is levelheaded and wouldn't do anything rash. But if he has impunity, why not do something just to show the court what a Pandora's box they have opened

How about imprisioning Alito, Thomas and Trump for their anti-Amercianism, and Kavanaugh and Barrett for lying to the Senate about "settled law?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I posted in the other thread, if the theory holds, then Joe can take swift action and it can be against any foes in the House, Senate, SCOTUS, you name it because he would be above the law, right?

Part of me hopes Biden does something crazy just to show how crazy this ruling is. Because the ruling was obviously made with trump in mind, knowing that Biden is levelheaded and wouldn't do anything rash. But if he has impunity, why not do something just to show the court what a Pandora's box they have opened

How about imprisioning Alito, Thomas and Trump for their anti-Amercianism, and Kavanaugh and Barrett for lying to the Senate about "settled law?"

Ok. Official duty to protect us all from that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

No he isn’t. The courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) will decide if whatever he did is protected. And what do you think they’ll decide?

I think they - meaning the lower courts - judge the merits and decide on a case by case basis whether a president’s action is covered or not, but hopefully all this Dem initiated lawfare dies down and we don’t have to keep going to the judiciary for these battles. Dems need to win at the ballot box not try to put their opponents in jail. Especially when Hilary (campaign finance) and Biden (documents) are doing the same things.

This case is about insurrection. No one else has done that.

Trump is the only president who launched a failed coup. And he needs to be held accountable for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for Joe to order the DOJ to drop all the charges against Hunter.

So that Trump's DoJ can file even more serious charges against Hunter that were left out come January.

if there had been serious charges, Barr would have filed them in 2019.

And yet Bragg waited until 2023 to file his. Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

No he isn’t. The courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) will decide if whatever he did is protected. And what do you think they’ll decide?

I think they - meaning the lower courts - judge the merits and decide on a case by case basis whether a president’s action is covered or not, but hopefully all this Dem initiated lawfare dies down and we don’t have to keep going to the judiciary for these battles. Dems need to win at the ballot box not try to put their opponents in jail. Especially when Hilary (campaign finance) and Biden (documents) are doing the same things.

This case is about insurrection. No one else has done that.

Trump is the only president who launched a failed coup. And he needs to be held accountable for it.

You use these words yet have nothing to back it up. Trump wasn’t charged with insurrection. Nor were the rioters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

No he isn’t. The courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) will decide if whatever he did is protected. And what do you think they’ll decide?

I think they - meaning the lower courts - judge the merits and decide on a case by case basis whether a president’s action is covered or not, but hopefully all this Dem initiated lawfare dies down and we don’t have to keep going to the judiciary for these battles. Dems need to win at the ballot box not try to put their opponents in jail. Especially when Hilary (campaign finance) and Biden (documents) are doing the same things.

This case is about insurrection. No one else has done that.

Trump is the only president who launched a failed coup. And he needs to be held accountable for it.

You use these words yet have nothing to back it up. Trump wasn’t charged with insurrection. Nor were the rioters.

Yes, the Oath keepers and Proud Boys were convicted of insurrection.

On March 2, 2022, Oath Keeper Joshua James pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, admitting in his plea that "from November 2020 through January 2021, he conspired with other Oath Keeper members and affiliates to use force to prevent, hinder and delay the execution of the laws of the United States governing the transfer of presidential power."[103][104] Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs, also of the Oath Keepers, were found guilty of seditious conspiracy on November 29, 2022.[105] Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years and Meggs to 12 years.[106]

On June 6, 2022, five members of the Proud Boys—their leader Enrique Tarrio, together with Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean and Dominic Pezzola—were indicted for seditious conspiracy.[107] On May 4, 2023, all but Pezzola were convicted. A few months later, they were sentenced. Pezzola was sentenced on September 1, 2023.[108]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%202021,found%20guilty%20of%20federal%20crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

No he isn’t. The courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) will decide if whatever he did is protected. And what do you think they’ll decide?

I think they - meaning the lower courts - judge the merits and decide on a case by case basis whether a president’s action is covered or not, but hopefully all this Dem initiated lawfare dies down and we don’t have to keep going to the judiciary for these battles. Dems need to win at the ballot box not try to put their opponents in jail. Especially when Hilary (campaign finance) and Biden (documents) are doing the same things.

This case is about insurrection. No one else has done that.

Trump is the only president who launched a failed coup. And he needs to be held accountable for it.

You use these words yet have nothing to back it up. Trump wasn’t charged with insurrection. Nor were the rioters.

Yes, the Oath keepers and Proud Boys were convicted of insurrection.

On March 2, 2022, Oath Keeper Joshua James pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, admitting in his plea that "from November 2020 through January 2021, he conspired with other Oath Keeper members and affiliates to use force to prevent, hinder and delay the execution of the laws of the United States governing the transfer of presidential power."[103][104] Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs, also of the Oath Keepers, were found guilty of seditious conspiracy on November 29, 2022.[105] Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years and Meggs to 12 years.[106]

On June 6, 2022, five members of the Proud Boys—their leader Enrique Tarrio, together with Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean and Dominic Pezzola—were indicted for seditious conspiracy.[107] On May 4, 2023, all but Pezzola were convicted. A few months later, they were sentenced. Pezzola was sentenced on September 1, 2023.[108]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%202021,found%20guilty%20of%20federal%20crimes.

2 out of 20,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the constitution never said it forbids abortion restrictions in 1972. Judges made it up.

Judges make stuff up I guess.

Republican judges make stuff up to protect the powerful.

You disagree with their interpretation of the law. Eh, it happens.

The judges in 1973 literally made up Roe vs Wade out of thin air.

Ok sure. These judges are special, not like those 1973 judges.

Yes, SCOTUS today didn’t make up a law complete with breakdown of regulations by trimester. Why is this all confusing to you? Interpreting the constitution isn’t making up legislation.

The SCOTUS today made up a law that gives absolute immunity to the president.

Totally bizarre reading of the opinion. Today, SCOTUS took away absolute immunity for various specified circumstances. Including an insurrection.

There was never absolute immunity for anyone, including the president. So conferring any immunity at all is a loss for the American people.

There was almost absolute immunity for Hunter, though. Darn judge!

[Anonymous]

Seditious conspiracy is not insurrection.
Seditious conspiracy is plotting, and as the name implies, conspiracy.
Insurrection is a violent attempt to overthrow, an act.

So again. No insurrection charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seditious conspiracy is not insurrection.
Seditious conspiracy is plotting, and as the name implies, conspiracy.
Insurrection is a violent attempt to overthrow, an act.

So again. No insurrection charges.

...

SMH

[Anonymous]

I am baffled that "legal experts" here along with the justices think this is an appropriate conclusion even if it "follows the law." It's so vague you can effectively never actually regulate the president, because they will always claim they are reasonable and in line with presidential duties-hell, technically they are the most knowledgeable about what that vaguely means and can stretch the law (as these justices do every ruling more and more) to fit their narrative. I don't think this is a "party" question, but a genuine concerning ruling by people openly ruling that it is fine for our presidents to commit crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seditious conspiracy is not insurrection.
Seditious conspiracy is plotting, and as the name implies, conspiracy.
Insurrection is a violent attempt to overthrow, an act.

So again. No insurrection charges.

...

SMH

Don’t shake your head. Read the NYT.
“While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am baffled that "legal experts" here along with the justices think this is an appropriate conclusion even if it "follows the law." It's so vague you can effectively never actually regulate the president, because they will always claim they are reasonable and in line with presidential duties-hell, technically they are the most knowledgeable about what that vaguely means and can stretch the law (as these justices do every ruling more and more) to fit their narrative. I don't think this is a "party" question, but a genuine concerning ruling by people openly ruling that it is fine for our presidents to commit crimes.

The proper check on this is impeachment.

Not jailing your political opponent in tainted lawfare exercises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am baffled that "legal experts" here along with the justices think this is an appropriate conclusion even if it "follows the law." It's so vague you can effectively never actually regulate the president, because they will always claim they are reasonable and in line with presidential duties-hell, technically they are the most knowledgeable about what that vaguely means and can stretch the law (as these justices do every ruling more and more) to fit their narrative. I don't think this is a "party" question, but a genuine concerning ruling by people openly ruling that it is fine for our presidents to commit crimes.

The proper check on this is impeachment.

Not jailing your political opponent in tainted lawfare exercises.

No, impeachment is for high crimes. Criminal prosecution is for crime.