Supreme Court Oral Arguments 4.25.2024 - Are PRESIDENTS IMMUNE From Later Being Prosecuted.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

So Biden can have the military kill Trump and face no prosecution? According to Trump's lawyer, that's exactly the case.

The president can do whatever he wants, but his actions have repercussions and he can be impeached and removed, then prosecuted for the crime he was impeached for as I understand it. But the process of Impeachment is the mechanism used against an unlawful POTUS. If that's not the case, then why bother with such a silly waste of time.

a reply to: namehere

You’re assuming Biden isn’t doing that exact thing currently. LoL

a reply to: Threadbarer

This is simply not true and not is what be being argued. This is about immunity from doing his job. What is official and not-official. A stupid argument and one without any real merit until Trump.

There will always be due process when something is criminal such as murder. However, nothing done by Donald Trump on 1/6 was not official. He was the sitting POTUS not a candidate at that time.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Liberal Justices attempting to divert with red herring hypotheticals. Standard when they have a losing ticket. 😃

Hypotheticals are not red herrings. Asking hypotheticals is exactly how Supreme Court justices figure out where the boundaries of the litigants' arguments are. It happens in pretty much every case that's brought before the Supreme Court. The Conservative justices are also asking hypotheticals.

Here's one:

"Justice Samuel Alito, a staunch conservative and appointee of former President George W. Bush, said he considered it “implausible” that a president could legally order Navy SEAL Team Six to order the assassination of a political rival.

That skepticism matters because that hypothetical is something that the Trump team has suggested could theoretically be protected from prosecution...."

apnews.com...

If Trump's team thinks that this kind of question is a red herring then their simplest course of action is to say "No, we're not arguing that the President could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival." And then that argument goes away.

But they didn't. They're the ones who raised the hypothetical.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

So Biden can have the military kill Trump and face no prosecution? According to Trump's lawyer, that's exactly the case.

Actually that's NOT what he said. Stop with the innuendo 😀

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: WeMustCare

I see this as a very slippery slope. Sure today, it's about Trump, and it's Biden's DOJ. but what about tomorrow, what about 5 years from now? WIll someone bring Barry into the court and charge him with Murder? Will someone dig up Joey's corpse and charge him with Treason? This is yet another avenue that not much thought has been used in other than to "get Trump".

I almost wish there is no immunity for Trump, so it can be used to rattle some cages in a few months.

Sometimes when you give what you give, you get what you get.

The same Supreme Court who makes a decision this year, can change that decision.. 2, 5, or 10 years from now.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: WeMustCare

I see this as a very slippery slope. Sure today, it's about Trump, and it's Biden's DOJ. but what about tomorrow, what about 5 years from now? WIll someone bring Barry into the court and charge him with Murder? Will someone dig up Joey's corpse and charge him with Treason? This is yet another avenue that not much thought has been used in other than to "get Trump".

I almost wish there is no immunity for Trump, so it can be used to rattle some cages in a few months.

Sometimes when you give what you give, you get what you get.

The same Supreme Court who makes a decision this year, can change that decision.. 2, 5, or 10 years from now.

as long as it gets Trump today, amirite.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Liberal Justices attempting to divert with red herring hypotheticals. Standard when they have a losing ticket. 😃

Thanks for the updates. I'm not paying attention minute-to-minute.

a reply to: matafuchs

Sauer was asked if the President having the military kill a political rival they declared corrupt should be considered an official act. Sauer said yes.

originally posted by: namehere
you conservatives should be careful what you wish for, because if they rule for immunity for the president do you all think biden wont take advantage of it? nothing will be illegal for him, like say removing elected officials for talking about impeaching him for example or actively interfere with elections to ensure that only Democrats win, maybe even launching political purges if he was so inclined.

YAAAHoooooo the case is about immunity with official acts, not personal bitterness and seething jealousies like with what Biden is doing.

YAAAHoooooo ❗️

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: WeMustCare

I see this as a very slippery slope. Sure today, it's about Trump, and it's Biden's DOJ. but what about tomorrow, what about 5 years from now? WIll someone bring Barry into the court and charge him with Murder? Will someone dig up Joey's corpse and charge him with Treason? This is yet another avenue that not much thought has been used in other than to "get Trump".

I almost wish there is no immunity for Trump, so it can be used to rattle some cages in a few months.

Sometimes when you give what you give, you get what you get.

The same Supreme Court who makes a decision this year, can change that decision.. 2, 5, or 10 years from now.

as long as it gets Trump today, amirite.

If the court becomes LIBERAL again, the decision to make former Presidents eligible for arrest/trial for what they did while President, will be quickly reversed. But not before BIDEN is arrested for TREASON next year....assuming Trump or a MAGA Republican is President on 1/20/2025.

a reply to: Boomer1947

LOL different contexts 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Your own red herring is an EPIC Fail

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: namehere
you conservatives should be careful what you wish for, because if they rule for immunity for the president do you all think biden wont take advantage of it? nothing will be illegal for him, like say removing elected officials for talking about impeaching him for example or actively interfere with elections to ensure that only Democrats win, maybe even launching political purges if he was so inclined.

YAAAHoooooo the case is about immunity with official acts, not personal bitterness and seething jealousies like with what Biden is doing.

YAAAHoooooo ❗️

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs

Sauer was asked if the President having the military kill a political rival they declared corrupt should be considered an official act. Sauer said yes.

Sauer is smart. He's setting the stage which will enable Biden's 2025 Treason (or accessory to murders at the least) trial.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs

Sauer was asked if the President having the military kill a political rival they declared corrupt should be considered an official act. Sauer said yes.

Sauer is correct, and you know it.

a reply to: Vermilion

yeah well whether that's true or not wont matter all of a sudden if they rule for immunity, all these silly arguments you all have against biden suddenly wont have any meaning because even if it all turns out to be true it wont be punishable anymore.

a reply to: Vermilion

It really is funny to see you goes openly advocating for tyranny.

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: Vermilion

yeah well whether that's true or not wont matter all of a sudden if they rule for immunity, all these silly arguments you all have against biden suddenly wont have any meaning because even if it all turns out to be true it wont be punishable anymore.

It's tempting to hope they rule a former President is IMMUNE, just to see Biden's souped-up "988" hotline explode with calls from liberals.


But best for America long-term is to have Biden punished for all the US deaths he has intentionally enabled by opening the US-Mex border.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Vermilion

It really is funny to see you goes openly advocating for tyranny.

The funny thing is that you believe that.

If the president has anybody killed with the military it’s presidential conduct.
Since it’s presidential conduct then the president has immunity.
Right, wrong or indifferent.
Now if the president hires some crazy person to kill somebody then that would be outside is presidential conduct.
A personal thing outside of their office and has zero immunity from.

The president can’t do their job without that immunity.

Dreeben getting chopped and channeled by Barrett. 😃