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

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.

A normal day for you then.

a reply to: JinMI

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

Well, I'm speaking for myself. You, however, haven't posted anything except regurgitated talking points, specifically crafted to distract from the fact that SCOTUS made up some rules that promote their redistribution of power agenda.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

While I accept your allegation of regurgitated talking points, mine came directly from the opinion while yours come from sources that make their baskets of money keeping folks like you kept, complacent and ignorant.

originally posted by: UKTruth

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'.

Were you looking for consistency based on values and logic?


Well, g'luck sir

a reply to: JinMI

Last time I checked, state officials weren't being charged. Just the people that signed a document claiming to be the duly selected electors for their state and submitting that document to Congress and the Archivist.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Cool, so what are the elements of fraud again?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

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

Well, I'm speaking for myself. You, however, haven't posted anything except regurgitated talking points, specifically crafted to distract from the fact that SCOTUS made up some rules that promote their redistribution of power agenda.

Actually the ruling put power back where it is supposed to be - blocking political lawfare without robust checks and balances.
The obscene misuse of the legal system by Democrats had to be checked.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

Cool, so what are the elements of fraud again?

Interestingly there was a very public campaign back in 2016 - with an organisation set up and fully supported by the Democrats to try to get the electoral college to vote against state elections and install Hillary as President.
No one seemed to mind then, funnily enough.
2020 seems to be another 'heinous crime' that only became so in 2020 under the Democrats when their quite obvious election fraud was questioned and challenged.

a reply to: JinMI

Every state has their own fraud statutes. What state are we talking about?

a reply to: UKTruth

Faithless electors are different than fake electors. Faithless electors are electors that were duly appointed by the state that don't go along with how the state voted. While some states do have laws against this, it generally just means a fine.

No states have statutes in place that lets a person falsely claim they are there duly selected elector for their state and then have that person cast their electoral vote in place of the actual electors for the state.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Every state has their own fraud statutes. What state are we talking about?

Pick your favorite to win.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

While I accept your allegation of regurgitated talking points, mine came directly from the opinion while yours come from sources that make their baskets of money keeping folks like you kept, complacent and ignorant.

Not really. You just point to this very controversial opinion, written by Justice Roberts, that upsets precedent, as your authority. You don't even cite any particular section or case to make your case.

I'm not buying Robert's hocus-pocus, the president has absolute immunity now. as anything other than legislating from the bench.

a reply to: UKTruth

You are speaking about faithless electors. Happens often. A duly elected elector, votes not for the candidate who won the state. They are usually subject to a fine.

Quite different than stating you're a duly elected elector,obtaining copies of a certificate of ascertainment. Signing the falsely procured document, and as in Michigan, not as a duly elected elector, signing in the GOP HQ, not the Capitol at the date and time also required by Michigan law. Then still working with the losing campaign to fly off if necessary to get these false set of documents to the archivist and Congress.

a reply to: UKTruth

This is not an accurate summation of the implications of this opinion. It's magical thinking.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not buying Robert's hocus-pocus, the president has absolute immunity now. as anything other than legislating from the bench.

46 Presidents have had this immunity.
It’s nothing new.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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


Your framing is too stupid to be stupid.

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.

a reply to: Vermilion

46 Presidents have had this immunity.

Under this opinion, would Nixon have been required to hand over those tapes? They certainly couldn't be used against him, under this opinion.

a reply to: JinMI

Michigan

168.933a Forgery; definition.
Sec. 933a.

Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person who does either of the following for any purpose under this act is guilty of forgery:
(a) Knowingly makes, files, or otherwise publishes a false document with the intent to defraud.
(b) Knowingly makes, files, or otherwise publishes a document that contains false signatures with the intent to defraud.

Source

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

46 Presidents have had this immunity.

Under this opinion, would Nixon have been required to hand over those tapes? They certainly couldn't be used against him, under this opinion.

You’re saying today’s opinion says the president now cannot be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?
You seriously need to just breakdown and go read it. Seriously. Like do it.
It’ll help you not look like an ignorant partisan hack.