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

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Go ahead and give us the explanation from those documents then.

Murder is not now, nor has ever been, an "official business" by any president. You are as delusional as you are insane for thinking such nonsense.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I really think there are a few of you that should really get help for your TDS, gotten bad the last few months.

Please, enlighten us on how the execution of a private citizen would be classified as "official business" for the president?

you try so hard, and get nowhere. Bless your heart

National security and the Patriot Act, coupled with this new SCOTUS opinion.

WTF are you on about?

How does any of that mean a President can murder a politcal opponent or any US citizen using a seal team?

a reply to: UKTruth

It doesn't she just has nothing better to do than to try and be a troll, as per usual

a reply to: PorkChop96

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: UKTruth

The Commander in Chief clause bestows upon the President the authority to command the military. Therefore, anny order given by the President to the military can be interpreted as an official act.

The only way to prove otherwise would be to dig into the President's motives behind an order. Something this court just ruled is not allowed.

a reply to: UKTruth

If a President claims such an assassination was performed as a matter of national security, how would prove that is not the case?

a reply to: Moon68

LOL
Did you come into this thread just to Moon us? Do you have anything to contribute other than your mockery and dismay at people discussing the actual issues, just like everybody else?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I really think there are a few of you that should really get help for your TDS, gotten bad the last few months.

Please, enlighten us on how the execution of a private citizen would be classified as "official business" for the president?

you try so hard, and get nowhere. Bless your heart

National security and the Patriot Act, coupled with this new SCOTUS opinion.

WTF are you on about?

How does any of that mean a President can murder a politcal opponent or any US citizen using a seal team?

What don't you understand, national security, The Patriot Act, how this opinion protects POTUS from even being investigated for any "official acts", under the "presumption of immunity" that SCOTUS made up out of whole cloth. Because it's nowhere in the US Constitution?

a reply to: Threadbarer

The military cannot directly engage a private citizen of the United States

You should really do some better research bud

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If by "whole cloth" you mean you didn't read the opinion then OK.

The entire presumption of immunity stems from the 6th amendment and Article II.

Not to mention the exhaustive precedent cited within the opinion.

Which you'd know if .......

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WeMustCare

So you agree that Biden could have Trump killed by SEAL Team 6 and there's nothing that could be done about it? That's what SCOTUS just ruled.

You are reacting emotionally.
The ruling makes perfect sense.
It means all cases need to be assessed against Presidential immunity. It is not a carte blanche to murder people
Stop being stupid.

Read and try to understand this is a great win for Democracy because it undercuts the use of the law to go after political opponents.

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.

The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.

That's why I said earlier today, it appears nothing has changed.

Exactly and the SC only needed to step in because of the banana republic lawfare the Democrats have undertaken.

We don't want too much restriction. President Trump and his DOJ will need freedom to drain the swamp.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat ofviolent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self defense. Nor would it violate otherwise applicable federal laws barring unlawful killings in Title 18 or the assassination ban in
Executive Order No. 12333.

Source

The DOJ disagrees with you.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Threadbarer

The military cannot directly engage a private citizen of the United States

You should really do some better research bud

Maybe that's why Nancy Pelosi told the National Guard to stay away on Jan 6, 2021?

a reply to: Threadbarer

From your link, the headline reads:

Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force

Jesus Christ how dense are you people?

Please, explain how a private citizen running for president would be a "member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States".

I will wait right here for your explanation, please make it a good one bud.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: PorkChop96

Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat ofviolent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self defense. Nor would it violate otherwise applicable federal laws barring unlawful killings in Title 18 or the assassination ban in
Executive Order No. 12333.

Source

The DOJ disagrees with you.

A U.S. President Inviting that enemy force into our country to attack citizens he took an oath to protect, probably violates several federal laws and state laws.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Nancy Pelosi told the NG to stay away because she knew the results would be what unfolded. She didn't think her actions would be uncovered and would be able to shovel all the blame on Trump, which completely backfired on them.

a reply to: PorkChop96

If the rationale given for ordering the killing of political opponent is that they're a threat to national security, how would you go about proving that's not the case when you can't question the President's motives or have access to any of the communications related to the order?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Threadbarer

From your link, the headline reads:

Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force

Jesus Christ how dense are you people?

Please, explain how a private citizen running for president would be a "member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States".

I will wait right here for your explanation, please make it a good one bud.

Devil's advocate:

"Trump being (choose your adjective de jour) of Russia!"

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: WeMustCare

Nancy Pelosi told the NG to stay away because she knew the results would be what unfolded. She didn't think her actions would be uncovered and would be able to shovel all the blame on Trump, which completely backfired on them.

Not only that. House GOP leaders say their forensic experts have recovered much of the material the Jan 6th committee of Trump-MAGA haters, thought they had deleted, after Americans handed control of the U.S. House over to Republicans, in November 2022.

Destroying evidence will be another criminal count added to leaders of Pelosi's Jan 6th committee.

So, with the SCOTUS ruling that Presidents have more immunity, should we expect to see more targeting of political appoints by the current and future administrations?

Would it be crazy to see the Biden administration target Trump knowing they have immunity?

a reply to: EndTime

They have been doing exactly that.......

Given Trump's polling and campaign funds, it would now appear it is clear that the American people do not approve.

Regardless of legality.


I'm happy to see however that you remain committed to the approved and regurgitated talking points.

You're providing a valuable service.