Trump Immunity Case being Discussed in SCOTUS

This is really good if you want to go and listen to what each judge says and how they are trying soooo hard to make this about Trump and not the Constitution.



It is worth it.

They are walking a very very fine line on what can be done to a president moving forward.

The justice department right now is telling the SCOTUS NO Act, even official, is not immune.

The one thing I am getting from this is that they keeping referring to the AG as the person who advises. It is like they are trying to make sure they are protecting someone else.

If they decide no immunity, it's open season on Biden and Obama. Not to mention Bush, Bush Sr, Clinton......

I'd bet there a lot of Conservative AGs just waiting for Pandora's Box to open.

This is very very interesting to listen to. The different judges are great to listen to.

Just listened to a bit - the DoJ seems to be arguing that they can separate out private acts as opposed to Presidential ones and they are completely lying in their argument - without being challenged by Barratt - that the effort to investigate fraud in the election was a PRIVATE act that was to do with a campaign... even though Trump was President and the election was over.

Bizarre - and it sounds like that argument will work, so the Democrats can just claim 'private act' and press on with any indictment they want.

Supreme Court just about to totally fail to protect the country from legal corruption and political lawfare by the sound of it.

originally posted by: matafuchs
This is really good if you want to go and listen to what each judge says and how they are trying soooo hard to make this about Trump and not the Constitution.

It is worth it.

They are walking a very very fine line on what can be done to a president moving forward.

The justice department right now is telling the SCOTUS NO Act, even official, is not immune.

PLEASE...NO IMMUNITY, Scotus!

ATS members overwhelmingly agree: www.abovetopsecret.com...

🙏

Fascinating they waited this long to discuss the case amongst themselves.

The Oral Arguments were way back on April 25th: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: DAVID64
If they decide no immunity, it's open season on Biden and Obama. Not to mention Bush, Bush Sr, Clinton......

I'd bet there a lot of Conservative AGs just waiting for Pandora's Box to open.

Yeah , and they should also Dig Up LBJ's Bones and try them for the Illegal Escalation of the Viet Nam War too .

Personally, I believe the SoS can use whatever means of communication suits her. Then again, there are rules, Smokey.

So, if the President doesn't have an official immunity then what happens if as their last official act is to grant himself and all the officials in his administration pardons saying as of this date this person is pardoned for all crimes real or imagined? And if he can't pardon himself what if he resigned for the last day or a few and let his vice president pardon him?

Seems like whatever the Supreme court decides all they're doing is adding a few steps to the process.

a reply to: DAVID64

Only problem is the statue of limitations have run out on Clinton and Obama. And Joe is going to claim senility after his term runs out if they attempt to bring charges. And no matter how the election goes Hunter is getting a pardon after it. If he doesn't already have one squirreled away in a safety deposit box somewhere.

a reply to: ntech620

Whats the statute of limitations on murder?

a reply to: matafuchs

If they find he is immune to prosecution.

You may as well give him a crown.

And confine that 248-year democratic experiment to the annuls of history.

Nobody should be above the law.

Else its simply one law for some and another for the rest.

a reply to: ntech620

Biden has already said he won't pardon Hunter.

abcnews.go.com...#:~:text=President%20Joe%20Biden%20said%20he,80th%20anniv ersary%20of%20D%2DDay.
www.politico.com...
edition.cnn.com...
www.nbcnews.com...

SUPREME COURT RULES TRUMP'S NEW YORK CONVICTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Looks like a tough job being hear of state, many decisions will have some winners and some losers. Would we of made it this far as a civilization without the separation of powers and executive privilege? Some leaders have make a mess, others have kept it together despite all the chaos going on.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: matafuchs

If they find he is immune to prosecution.

You may as well give him a crown.

And confine that 248-year democratic experiment to the annuls of history.

Nobody should be above the law.

Else its simply one law for some and another for the rest.

You clearly don't understand the discussion here at all.
Your repsonse just echoes the cookie cutter nonsense fed to people who have not looked into what is being debated.

originally posted by: kwaka
SUPREME COURT RULES TRUMP'S NEW YORK CONVICTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Looks like a tough job being hear of state, many decisions will have some winners and some losers. Would we of made it this far as a civilization without the separation of powers and executive privilege? Some leaders have make a mess, others have kept it together despite all the chaos going on.

They were not ruling on the Trump case.
It was a different case and the ruling simply made clear what was already the case - that in a criminal trial a jury must be unanimous on all counts.
In the Trump case there was no indictment in relation the 'other crime'.
The indictment was for the book keeping error which was elevated because it was to allegedly hide another crime.
But there was never any indictement for that other crime.

a reply to: UKTruth

Clearly, Trump is guilty as is evidenced by way of the court verdict.

I am well aware of what the Supreme Court is debating ta very much.

And if the outcome is anything other than Trump is just as accountable as anyone else.

Then they should hand him a crown.

Clearly, you wish him to be immune from prosecution.

I suggest you take a swig of your own medicine UKTruth.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UKTruth

Clearly, Trump is guilty as is evidenced by way of the court verdict.

I am well aware of what the Supreme Court is debating ta very much.

And if the outcome is anything other than Trump is just as accountable as anyone else.

Then they should hand him a crown.

Clearly, you wish him to be immune from prosecution.

I suggest you take a swig of your own medicine UKTruth.

Your first two sentences make it clear you do not know what this discussion is about.
Have the good sense to be more prepared and knowledgeable on the subject before posting stuff of no value or relevance.

This is not actually about the New York case.

Here is a link for you with some information.
constitutioncenter.org...

a reply to: UKTruth

You clearly want Trump to be immune from prosecution.

And thats not going to happen if there is an ounce of justice left in the US system and Supreme Court.

As to whatever criminal case it happens to be, welll he's been charged with numerous criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.

Keeping track of them all can be quite a task.

Nobody is above the law.

Have a nice day.