SCOTUS should NOT Make Former Presidents Immune to Prosecution for Crimes Committed in Office.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Knowingly

The President thinks there’s fraud and acts accordingly.
I don’t see any “knowingly” intent to defraud there.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Without a signature from a state official, how will you provide evidence of fraud?

You can't. And given all available information, every action was made with the mind being as lawful

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If it upset precedent it wouldn't be littered with precedent.


Your framing is too stupid to be stupid.

And, not one of the cases cited address criminal conduct.

You can lie to yourself and the site all you want.

Or you could read the opinion and actually know what you're talking about .....

a reply to: Vermilion

You’re saying today’s opinion says the president now cannot be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

I'm saying that Nixon would not have been required to turn over the tapes to Congress, which contained evidence of criminal malfeasance that would have led to his impeachment, if he hadn't resigned.

Even though Nixon notoriously said, "When the president does it, it's not illegal", SCOTUS made him hand over the tapes to Congress anyway.

a reply to: Vermilion

The fake electors knew they were not the duly selected electors for their state yet claimed to be so anyway.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If it upset precedent it wouldn't be littered with precedent.


Your framing is too stupid to be stupid.

And, not one of the cases cited address criminal conduct.

You can lie to yourself and the site all you want.

Or you could read the opinion and actually know what you're talking about .....

Prove me wrong, or a liar if you think I'm deliberately hiding some SCOTUS rationale. Cite a pertinent criminal case in which absolute immunity was addressed, under the guise of an "official act", in Robert's opinion.

Roberts is dancing around, creating a mythical web of unconstitutional presidential protection.

a reply to: JinMI

They signed a document claiming to be the duly selected electors for their state (which they weren't) and then submitted that document to Congress and the Archivist with the intent of having their electoral votes counted instead of the electoral votes of the states actual electors (which in turn defrauds the people of Michigan of their votes.)

It clearly meets the definition of fraud.

If I start practicing medicine without a license, but I have a fake license on my wall, am I not committing fraud just because my fake license hasn't been signed by the state medical board?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Except he's not as evidence by his rationale of Article II duties and 6th amendment protections

Sorry it's above you.

(It's still clear that you've not read the opinion)

a reply to: Threadbarer

Still haven't provided evidence to the effect of a state official.

Which will need to be required to fill one of the fraud elements.

a reply to: JinMI

Where in the state law does it say a state signature is required for a forgery charge?

a reply to: JinMI

Except he's not as evidence by his rationale of Article II duties and 6th amendment protections

That is artful ballet, but it is just a dance. It's sheer as his tutu.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If it upset precedent it wouldn't be littered with precedent.


Your framing is too stupid to be stupid.

And, not one of the cases cited address criminal conduct.

You can lie to yourself and the site all you want.

Or you could read the opinion and actually know what you're talking about .....

Prove me wrong, or a liar if you think I'm deliberately hiding some SCOTUS rationale. Cite a pertinent criminal case in which absolute immunity was addressed, under the guise of an "official act", in Robert's opinion.

Roberts is dancing around, creating a mythical web of unconstitutional presidential protection.

So I assume you think that Obama should be charged and tried for murder then?
Or is drone striking a US citizen and killing them OK?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

They signed a document claiming to be the duly selected electors for their state (which they weren't) and then submitted that document to Congress and the Archivist with the intent of having their electoral votes counted instead of the electoral votes of the states actual electors (which in turn defrauds the people of Michigan of their votes.)

It clearly meets the definition of fraud.

If I start practicing medicine without a license, but I have a fake license on my wall, am I not committing fraud just because my fake license hasn't been signed by the state medical board?

if it's illegal, then they will be charged and found guilty. If it's not, then it won't happen. I thought the courts were competent in dealing with things like this?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If it upset precedent it wouldn't be littered with precedent.


Your framing is too stupid to be stupid.

And, not one of the cases cited address criminal conduct.

You can lie to yourself and the site all you want.

Or you could read the opinion and actually know what you're talking about .....

Prove me wrong, or a liar if you think I'm deliberately hiding some SCOTUS rationale. Cite a pertinent criminal case in which absolute immunity was addressed, under the guise of an "official act", in Robert's opinion.

Roberts is dancing around, creating a mythical web of unconstitutional presidential protection.

So I assume you think that Obama should be charged and tried for murder then?
Or is drone striking a US citizen and killing them OK?

2 words.
PATRIOT ACT

a reply to: network dude

They have been charged.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

They have been charged.

Yes, and the courts do their thing. Or would you prefer country justice?

a reply to: network dude

So if the Michigan courts find the fake electors guilty, you'll call Jin an idiot anytime he tries to claim there were no fake electors?

The leftist tears.....

are so




sweet.


The ruling went just about the way I thought it would.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Where in the state law does it say a state signature is required for a forgery charge?

I asked you for the elements of fraud

Had you done so, we could be having a competent discussion.

But since we both know why you skirted away from it, I'll make it known.

What you won't be able to prove is intent to deceive without that signature of a govt official.

Without that you also don't have reliance on the deception.

The same elements are required for this forgery statute since we seem to be moving away from fraud......