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

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Vermilion

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

It's funny to see logic not used in an argument.

Does the target matter when the POTUS orders someone killed? Or is the act of the POTUS ordering the death of a US citizen NOT an act the president can legally do?

Ketanji with more scripted Q&A. Dreeben responding too fast to hide it. 🤣🤣🤣

There's a reason why the Liberal Justices are dragging the Q&A on and on like forever. 95% off topic and irrelevant 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 all with a perfect Liberal Attorney playmate.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Vermilion

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

Just as funny as you guys in other threads advocating for anarchy when paid agitators call for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” by labeling it “free speech”?

It’s nobody’s fault except your own that you guys couldn’t see how good you had it under Trump if it wasn’t for your butt hurt feelz.

a reply to: WeMustCare

sounds like we exist in two different worlds, youre not getting what im saying at all. Republicans will regret this ruling i have no doubt about that, but keep believing whatever you want to i guess.

a reply to: Boomer1947

so whatabout the context and impact level of "intent vs motive" ? 😃

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: WeMustCare

sounds like we exist in two different worlds, youre not getting what im saying at all. Republicans will regret this ruling i have no doubt about that, but keep believing whatever you want to i guess.

and I think the opposite, that Democrats will rue the day this decision is made, should it call for no presidential immunity. Remember, Obama ordered that a US citizen be killed and he was. Murder is a crime. What if Trump wins in November and in February of next year, his new DOJ indicts Barry? I see that as a logical direction this could go.

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki. A 16 year old US citizen who was killed by President Obama in a drone strike. Can he be charged with murder?

Because Sotomayor said what Obama did was ok because it was not personal....she is a joke.

Never before has politics been so exposed as corrupt than now. We can all list 100's of things each president 'got away with' but it was never an issue until Donald Trump.

A president at one time was a unique and powerful office. Congress has made that not a fact anymore and have weaponized the DOJ.

The POTUS should be immune to each charge bought by Smith.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Dreeben getting chopped and channeled by Barrett. 😃

Dreeben was not that good today, I take it. 😒

Isn't the whole point here to prove that trump can't be prosecuted and thus disqualified from running for office, versus a witch hunt targeting all the previous presidents which is beside the point?

a reply to: matafuchs

Biden has personally enabled the deaths of these 14 innocent human beings on our soil..

Biden must be brought to justice: www.breitbart.com...

Biden WILL be brought to justice, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules CORRECTLY. 🙏

a reply to: TzarChasm

A conviction wouldn't disqualify him from running for office.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: WeMustCare

sounds like we exist in two different worlds, youre not getting what im saying at all. Republicans will regret this ruling i have no doubt about that, but keep believing whatever you want to i guess.

What if Trump wins in November and in February of next year, his new DOJ indicts Barry? I see that as a logical direction this could go.

What's the statute of limitations on murder?

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: WeMustCare

sounds like we exist in two different worlds, youre not getting what im saying at all. Republicans will regret this ruling i have no doubt about that, but keep believing whatever you want to i guess.

What if Trump wins in November and in February of next year, his new DOJ indicts Barry? I see that as a logical direction this could go.

What's the statute of limitations on murder?

I don't think there is one.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Isn't the whole point here to prove that trump can't be prosecuted and thus disqualified from running for office, versus a witch hunt targeting all the previous presidents which is beside the point?

I think the broader point, is if it's ruled that POTUS has no immunity, then NO POTUS has immunity, meaning the system can be used as it's being used even if it's an R going after a D. Not advocating for partisan douchbaggery in the court, just stating a reality factoid that the current system is using partisan douchbaggery in the court.

a reply to: network dude

Correct. Congress would get less done then than now if you can believe that.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Isn't the whole point here to prove that trump can't be prosecuted and thus disqualified from running for office, versus a witch hunt targeting all the previous presidents which is beside the point?

I think the broader point, is if it's ruled that POTUS has no immunity, then NO POTUS has immunity, meaning the system can be used as it's being used even if it's an R going after a D. Not advocating for partisan douchbaggery in the court, just stating a reality factoid that the current system is using partisan douchbaggery in the court.

Which means the judiciary is consumed by a cyclical tit for tat death spiral. That's the opposite of what we're paying them to do. Make a broad decision about immunity, or more accurately clarify what the constitution already says, and let the voters do the rest. The last thing we need is a blood feud.

a reply to: TzarChasm

They do it now. It is ok because there is more concern for Gaza and Ukraine than downtown Chicago, Baltimore or NY. I actually read that murders are down 25% in NY and also nationally? Please.

a reply to: matafuchs

Murder conviction down 25% due to not giving a #.

Justice Alito Destroys Jack Smith’s Prosecutor During Trump Immunity Oral Arguments with One Question (AUDIO) 😃

As expected, the liberal justices, similar to the appellate court judges, floated absurd hypotheticals.

The justices then had the opportunity to grill Jack Smith’s prosecutor Michael Dreeben. Recall that Dreeben was one of Mueller’s goons in the special counsel’s ‘Trump-Russia’ inquisition.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito destroyed DOJ prosecutor Michael Dreeben with one question.

“If the president gets advice from the attorney general, that something is lawful, is that an absolute defense?” Alito asked Dreeben.

“Yes, I think that it is,” Dreeben said.

“But won’t that give presidents incentive to be sure to pick an Attorney General who will reliably tell the president that it is lawful to do whatever the president wants to do if there’s any possible argument in favor of it?” Alito asked Dreeben.

“I think the Constitutional structure protects against that risk. The president nominates the attorney general and the Senate provides advice and consent,” Dreeben said.