The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire DOJ prosecution is illegal because Jack Smith can't be appointed by the Attorney General. It was always egregious given the plain language of the Appointments Clause, but the idea that the DOJ can, by fiat, create a position rescinded by Congresss is absurd.

All you folks worried about "King" Trump should look in the mirror because the Dems are the ones taking unilateral action not authorized by the Constitution.

Trump is a clown but he's no tyrant. Whoever follows Trump may be.

Well now, according to the Supreme Court, Biden can't be prosecuted for official acts. And president following can't be prosecuted for official acts.

Not sure the GOP and donors thought this out too well.

They are counting on Biden AND ALL FUTURE DEMS being wimps and living by the "When they go low, we go high."
They are betting that we are all upright citizens who will play by the rules. And, looks like they may be right. Someone really smart needs to be at the helm at this moment in time. Someone with cojones.

Exactly. I said this earlier in the thread. They know the Democrats will "be the bigger person" and not test the ruling.

If true, be prepared for the next step. I hope you chickenshit Dems have enough balls to at the very least protect yourselves when the guns coming pointing in your direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire DOJ prosecution is illegal because Jack Smith can't be appointed by the Attorney General. It was always egregious given the plain language of the Appointments Clause, but the idea that the DOJ can, by fiat, create a position rescinded by Congresss is absurd.

All you folks worried about "King" Trump should look in the mirror because the Dems are the ones taking unilateral action not authorized by the Constitution.

Trump is a clown but he's no tyrant. Whoever follows Trump may be.

Well now, according to the Supreme Court, Biden can't be prosecuted for official acts. And president following can't be prosecuted for official acts.

Not sure the GOP and donors thought this out too well.

They are counting on Biden AND ALL FUTURE DEMS being wimps and living by the "When they go low, we go high."
They are betting that we are all upright citizens who will play by the rules. And, looks like they may be right. Someone really smart needs to be at the helm at this moment in time. Someone with cojones.

Exactly. I said this earlier in the thread. They know the Democrats will "be the bigger person" and not test the ruling.

If true, be prepared for the next step. I hope you chickenshit Dems have enough balls to at the very least protect yourselves when the guns coming pointing in your direction.

What guns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am thankful I do not have any current or former family members who died in service to the USA fighting against tyranny abroad and democracy at home. What a total waste.

According to Trump, they would have been losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This week the SCOTUS has dealt a death blow to American democracy. Our ancestors are rolling over in their graves. What a tragic day for America.

How?
Because they ruled that a president has immunity from prosecution for official acts? You realize this goes beyond Trump don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden is speaking on this decision tonight. Wonder how many lies he will tell about what this ruling covers?

Makes no difference anymore. He has immunity now. The election is guaranteed. He can do whatever he wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of you decrying the Supreme Court’s decision must not have learned about the Nixon administration in school or if you are old enough, you don’t remember it.

Nixon orchestrated an actual break-in. His orchestration wasn’t documented. He was pardoned by his successor after his resignation “so the country could move on.”

The Democrats are tying themselves into knots trying to convict Trump of doing what scores of hoarder ex Presidents have done. Biden’s garage was full of boxes of classified documents yet he is not facing charges.

The Supreme Court had to issue this ruling. It’s our last hope before this country descends into a total banana republic.

Well no pardon is required. This court would have said that Nixon's criminal activities were immune from prosecution. He would not have resigned from office and there would not have been a President Ford. What's your point exactly. Pardon not necessary for presidents anymore because they are not liable for their actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

Not sure about that one but the bribery for official acts seems unenforceable if the the official act part of the scheme is not admissable.

[Anonymous]

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

Wait until after the election and pardon Hunter.

[Anonymous]

This helps Obama to not get life in prison for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens over and over. I don’t like it but understand the concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

Not sure about that one but the bribery for official acts seems unenforceable if the the official act part of the scheme is not admissable.

Bribery is illegal and not an official act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this was a bought decision with the three appointed by Trump and I would not be surprised that the three discussed this with Trump. Trump is corrupt and he chose corrupt people to save him.

However. I don't think this is as wonderful as trump thinks it is. The likelihood of Republicans and Independents who find this decision as repugnant as most of us. I think many will vote for Biden.

Sadly, I think you would lose this bet.

[Anonymous]

Biden can test this tonight starting by arresting Ginny Thomas for organizing a coup against his legitimate Presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

How can selling pardons be an official act. He has the power to grant pardons not to sell pardons.

Because the pardon power is a core constitutional power, and the Idiots have made clear that motive is not relevant.