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

a reply to: JinMI

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

Whole cloth nonsense! Article II doesn't say the president can break the law and your invocation of the 6th Amendment here is laughable, but irrelevant. This opinion is a blatant example of SCOTUS legislating from the bench, as usual.

Not to mention the exhaustive precedent cited within the opinion.

LOL Kinda like "When the President does it, it not illegal!"? There is no precedent that supports presidential absolute immunity when the president breaks the law. There is no precedent making any POTUS above the law.

Look, you guys are accusing Biden if using the DOJ to prosecute his political enemies. SCOTUS just said that's perfectly legal and acceptable. Are you okay with that now, because it clears Trump of his collusion with the DOJ and state governors to throw out Biden votes and find more Trump votes too?

Trump just keeps lower the bar.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You should go actually read the opinion before regurgitating talking points.

It's clear you don't know what you're talking about as the opinion directly addresses your issues.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

We have been over this. They were duly elected by their party. Not signed off on by the states representation. SoS, Governor etc.

Nor did they claim to be. Nor was it without historical precedent.

As you were also shown....historically.

Random church congregation member in Michigan was duly elected by the party? Would love to see the info on that. He was asked by a GOP member from his church. Because the GOP member asked another GOP member who smartly said heck no!

And again as has been pointed out to you, the one time alternate electors were used the Governor and SOS were aware of the situation and the counting still going on. And they did not sign false certificates of ascertainment in the middle of the night, not authentic provided ones at the Capitol when the electors convened the next day, although they signed saying they did.

Not the same at all.

a reply to: frogs453

Yea, the GOP like the DNC elect their own. Sucks but that's the rules.

If they were signed off by a state official, go ahead and produce it.


You can't, that's why you're wrong. Xbearer too.

a reply to: PorkChop96

And once again, declaring someone a threat to national security is solely the prerogative of the Executive Branch.

So if the Executive Branch declares someone a threat to national security and has them killed, how are you going to prove they're lying when you're not allowed to question their motives or access evidence?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Again, the impeachment process exists...

a reply to: JinMI

How about you show the church member was elected? Because there is no documentation of any such thing and he testified in a recent hearing how he was asked and what he did. Not one mention of being elected to do so. You also cannot dispute the certificate itself which they signed admittedly in the middle of the night and not at the Capitol and that Trump’s campaign provided them the certificates. Notice that word...campaign, a candidate who lost the election provided it. The Michigan election law, which has been provided to you multiple times clearly explains the process. They did not follow the laws set forth.

a reply to: Threadbarer

This is becoming impossible to figure out why you are so blood thirsty that you are hoping and praying that the president has people killed just for funsies.


Your regurgitation of the same nonsensical bs does not make it accurate or true.

The only document you have provided was for a known terrorist acting outside of this country, find one where they went after someone in the Us for being a "threat to national security" and then we might be able to have a decent conversation without you sounding like a warmongering imbecile.

a reply to: JinMI

I read it. I'm seeing Justice Roberts artfully spin hero mythology into a tale of justification for why we must now accept SCOTUS' new rules of absolute presidential immunity for official acts, even if they break a law or two.

This isn't a constitutional decision, it's legislation from the bench. So much for conservative textual originalist, or respecting precedent. This SCOTUS is an activist court.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yet it is as specified in Article II and the sixth amendment.

Not to mention all the existing precedent.

Sorry you don't understand but that isnt my problem.

a reply to: frogs453

So you can't provide an official state signature?

Then there goes your fraud allegations.....

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Thanks to this ruling, no "tard-ass" court ever see such a case. Even Congress wouldn't have access to the testimony of any conversations/order between the Executive Branch and his cabinet officers and their staff.

I smell Putin.

a reply to: JinMI

Keep dreaming there. Fraud occurred the minute they signed in the GOP HQ at 1:30 am and not at the Capitol the following day when the law states that it's when it should occur. They were not even allowed in the Capitol building with their already signed document because the official electors were already there.

a reply to: JinMI

These people certainly seem to have signed documents claiming to be the duly selected electors for their state and submitted them to Congress and the Archivist.

Source

a reply to: frogs453

The irony of "keep dreaming" coming from the person who has found themselves on the wrong side of every absurd "get Trump" scheme for the past decade.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

These people certainly seem to have signed documents claiming to be the duly selected electors for their state and submitted them to Congress and the Archivist.

Source

Can you point out what page was signed by a state official please.....?

a reply to: JinMI

Yet it is as specified in Article II and the sixth amendment.

Saying so doesn't make it true. Article II doesn't authorize the president to break the law to perform his job duties, or preclude checks and balances if he does so. Under this opinion, POTUS can't even be impeached for breaking the law, as long as there is a claim of presidential duties and a "persumption of immunity", let alone indicted.

Again, invoking the 6th Amendment here is an irrelevant, yet laughable distraction.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Thanks to this ruling, no "tard-ass" court ever see such a case. Even Congress wouldn't have access to the testimony of any conversations/order between the Executive Branch and his cabinet officers and their staff.

I smell Putin.

Smells like dirty, dark money to me.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

This doesn't cover congress or impeachment.

Nice try though.

I do find it amazing that not only a few weeks ago were you badgering posters about opposing SCOTUS and lower courts opinions because the courts are always right.

Your two faced and disingenuous nature make your opinions irrelevant. Let alone not understanding what was written in the opinion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Thanks to this ruling, no "tard-ass" court ever see such a case. Even Congress wouldn't have access to the testimony of any conversations/order between the Executive Branch and his cabinet officers and their staff.

I smell Putin.

Smells like dirty, dark money to me.

Leftists when Trump is convicted for a crime no one even understands, even the jury - 'you have to trust the courts and it's anti-democratic to question them'

Also Leftists, after a decision they don't like - 'It's Putin and dark money corruption'.