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

a reply to: JinMI

I gave you Michigan's statute cited in the case against the fake electors.

a reply to: Threadbarer

You did, my mistake.

So how are you arguing their mens rea were you in the prosecutions seat?

a reply to: JinMI

The defendants haven't exactly been quiet about their intent.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Got a link?

originally posted by: frogs453
Did we all not know that the President has immunity for official acts? This will now go to Judge Chutkin to hold hearings as whether the charges were official acts or not. Even Comey Barrett stated in a footnote that she believes the fake elector scheme is not an official act.

If ATS believes the ruling states that all acts are official, then there is a President currently in office that could commit all sorts of crimes that he could never be charged for.

Is it going to Judge Chutkan for real? If she's like scumbags Engoron and Merchan, she'll make every charge by Jack Smith against (former) President Trump, a private, non-official act.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Well , this Whole Issue is Explained here . Government Agencies Will be Held Accountable for Dubious Acts of Unlawful Edicts .

" Supreme Court Ruling a New Blow to Federal Regulations "

The Supreme Court opened the door Monday to new, broad challenges to regulations long after they take effect, the third blow in a week to federal agencies.

The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of a truck stop in North Dakota that wants to sue over a regulation on debit card swipe fees that the federal appeals court in Washington upheld 10 years ago.




www.newsmax.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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

Really no need to whine then.
If murder is OK then Trump should be able to do the same already and claim terrorism.
No SC ruling even needed today, so your seal team 6 diatribe is fine. Trump will able to do that anyway and claim Biden was a terror threat.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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

Really no need to whine then.
If murder is OK then Trump should be able to do the same already and claim terrorism.
No SC ruling even needed today, so your seal team 6 diatribe is fine. Trump will able to do that anyway and claim Biden was a terror threat.

By the Way , the " Patriot Act " is Unconstitutional and was Passed at the Time Under Duress.......

Lets say that the SC did actually rule on an etirely political basis to protect Trump today.
Not sure it matters
The Democrats would just be getting a taste of their own tactics.
It's they who opened the door to corruption of the judical system.
So, one could say, tough.

Really shouldn't have opened Pandora's box.
If Trump wins in November and then rounds up the entire Democrat party then I see no way the Democrats could complain.
They have literally rounded up hundreds of conservatives on bogus charges including Trump and may of his associates and colleagues.

Probably shouldn't have changed the rules of the game in the first place.
Complaints now?
Diddums.

anyone remember Trump saying ask him in a week during the debate?

He said it a couple times talking to a moderator . he said we could do an interview in a week and he would see then said again ask him in a week.

A week is the 4th. Any speculation on what was in a week?

a reply to: WeMustCare

Chutkan is going to have to have an evidentiary hearing, which she should have done in the first place.
She erroneously took the allegations in the indictment as true instead of holding that hearing.
She’s corrupt.
Now that SCOTUS decided and sent it back down, she now has to have that evidentiary hearing.
Now there are special instructions because SCOTUS did their job to stop the lawfare.

a reply to: JinMI

This doesn't cover congress or impeachment.

It covers "absolute immunity" for official acts, even if those acts break a law. This opinion concludes that Nixon would not have had to turn over those tapes, that had evidence of malfeasance for Congress to use to impeach, today.

The Jan 6th Committee wouldn't have been able to subpoena White House officials or the Zelinsky phone call, used in Trump's impeachment trials.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What body will determine if a given act was official?

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: WeMustCare

Chutkan is going to have to have an evidentiary hearing, which she should have done in the first place.
She erroneously took the allegations in the indictment as true instead of holding that hearing.
She’s corrupt.
Now that SCOTUS decided and sent it back down, she now has to have that evidentiary hearing.
Now there are special instructions because SCOTUS did their job to stop the lawfare.

Hmm...A Jury of his " Peers " will Now Decide Mr. Trumps Fate in that Particular Case as it should have been in the First Place . This Judge Chutkan is Obviously IGNORANT of the Law or Influenced by " Outside " Forces Pretaining to this Case and is Now Needing the SCOTUS to Remind her of the Letter of the Law , and Base Any Rulings she has in that Regard .

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Biden openly weaponizes the DOJ and the rest of the government against Trump
SCOTUS calls out the bs
The libs and media call Trump the dictator 🤡

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What body will determine if a given act was official?

In impeachment? Congress.
In criminal or civil court, the courts.

In the Nixon case, Congress was able to subpoena the Oval Office tapes. That wouldn't happen today. Today, the Jan 6th Committee wouldn't have been able to subpoena White House staffers.

a reply to: Vermilion

Biden openly weaponizes the DOJ and the rest of the government against Trump
SCOTUS calls out the bs

They did not, so put your clown away. They legalized it.