BREAKING: TRUMP WINS! Supreme Court Rules 6-3 on Presidential Immunity

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

We just had a whole trial where this was detailed. Cohen's payment was an unreported, in-kind, campaign contribution. Trump then falsified business documents to cover up the fact.

If only there were an FEC official to tell you that it was not actually an "in-kind" campaign contribution.....

a reply to: JinMI

You mean like all the lawyers at the FEC that recommended charges be brought?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Mahogani

The amount of ignorance in this post is astounding. The president can already do this under the Insurrectionist Act.

Trump could have used this on 1/6. He did not and even if he did we know Milley would never have allowed it.

Not at all true. The Insurrection Act authorizes the deployment of federal troops to quell insurrection. It does not give powers to execute people. They can be arrested, but everyone still has a right to due process, as the Constitution can never be rescinded. For any reason. Due process always applies.

What people are claiming in this thread would authorize the president to execute people without due process, and never be accountable for it.

It's insane. And deeply ignorant. And unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Mahogani

The amount of ignorance in this post is astounding. The president can already do this under the Insurrectionist Act.

Trump could have used this on 1/6. He did not and even if he did we know Milley would never have allowed it.

Not at all true. The Insurrection Act authorizes the deployment of federal troops to quell insurrection. It does not give powers to execute people. They can be arrested, but everyone still has a right to due process, as the Constitution can never be rescinded. For any reason. Due process always applies.

What people are claiming in this thread would authorize the president to execute people without due process, and never be accountable for it.

It's insane. And deeply ignorant. And unconstitutional.

Explain this, I posted a few pages ago.

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

please explain, thank you in advance

originally posted by: Mahogani
The Insurrection Act authorizes the deployment of federal troops to quell insurrection. It does not give powers to execute people. They can be arrested, but everyone still has a right to due process, as the Constitution can never be rescinded. For any reason. Due process always applies.

What people are claiming in this thread would authorize the president to execute people without due process, and never be accountable for it.

It's insane. And deeply ignorant. And unconstitutional.

Again, I think you missed it that Justice Sotomayor's
hysteria is where this started.

“When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor falsely claims. “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.”

Don't blame ATS for this.

a reply to: burntheships

It’s not hysteria, it’s essentially exactly what this ruling allows the president to be immune from. Because it has to be strongly assumed that everything a sitting president does is an official act and can’t be used as evidence against the president.

So even if these things are technically unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has made it basically impossible to collect the evidence to be able to prove the president did it.

a reply to: burntheships

Again, I think you missed it that Justice Sotomayor's hysteria is where this started.

Exactly.
These libs are losing their minds for absolutely zero reason.

Chief Justice Roberts called out their hysterics in the opinion.
This is what he said about Sotomayor’s dissent in particular, because she’s lost her mind.
Here’s a couple excerpts of him smashing the lib justices….

The other dissent, meanwhile, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and paradigms of its own concoction 😆

Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. 🤣

While their confidence may be inspiring, the Court adheres to time-tested practices instead 🔥

Those lib justices were totally unhinged in their dissents.
Supreme Court justices acting like immature petulant children.
They’re trying to get a reaction out of their cult members.
I wonder what that will be.

a reply to: Vermilion

There’s nothing new about the decision.

Would Nixon have had to turn over those tapes, according to Trump United States opinion? NO? Then yes, something has changed.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nixon Caved. Not a fighter.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Supreme Court made him turn over the tapes.
He was impeached.
He resigned.
The system worked.
Are you ok now?

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Mahogani
The Insurrection Act authorizes the deployment of federal troops to quell insurrection. It does not give powers to execute people. They can be arrested, but everyone still has a right to due process, as the Constitution can never be rescinded. For any reason. Due process always applies.

What people are claiming in this thread would authorize the president to execute people without due process, and never be accountable for it.

It's insane. And deeply ignorant. And unconstitutional.

Again, I think you missed it that Justice Sotomayor's
hysteria is where this started.

“When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor falsely claims. “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.”

Don't blame ATS for this.

And I for one believe Sotomayor was in direct contact with Democrat agents to help form that "Opinion" and especially THAT statement. This was all planned. They had months to figure it. 😉

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Sookiechacha

NIXON was not caught in a official lawful act as president.

What?
The Nixon tapes would be shielded, today, from Congressional scrutiny. According to this SCOTUS opinion, Nixon would never have been impeached, the public never would have found out about Watergate, and Nixon would not have had to resign.

According to this opinion, Trump's conversation with Zelinski, soliciting a bribe, would not have been allowed to be leaked to Congress by a whistleblower, because of this new presidential absolute immunity. None of the White House staff would have been subpoenaed by the Jan 6th Committee, and Trump phone call asking for 21K votes from Gov Raffensperger would have been shielded. Neither of Trump's constitutional impeachments would have happened.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

You mean like all the lawyers at the FEC that recommended charges be brought?

If only there were a weaponized justice department.....

Your assertion once again fails the basic smell test.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Nixon tapes would be shielded , today

Yeah if he was a Democrat.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Sookiechacha

NIXON was not caught in a official lawful act as president.

What?
The Nixon tapes would be shielded, today, from Congressional scrutiny. According to this SCOTUS opinion, Nixon would never have been impeached, the public never would have found out about Watergate, and Nixon would not have had to resign.

According to this opinion, Trump's conversation with Zelinski, soliciting a bribe, would not have been allowed to be leaked to Congress by a whistleblower, because of this new presidential absolute immunity. None of the White House staff would have been subpoenaed by the Jan 6th Committee, and Trump phone call asking for 21K votes from Gov Raffensperger would have been shielded. Neither of Trump's constitutional impeachments would have happened.

It’s absolutely mind blowing to how blind they are to what’s actually happened here… all because it benefits Trump.

a reply to: Vermilion

Indeed, and the cabal's hollow criticism of Donald Trump
only serves to point back at them due to the criminal acts that
they themselves have been at ease with for decades.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Neither of Trump's constitutional impeachments would have happened.

What does it matter?
He was innocent in both anyways.

You got 2 choices, he was either innocent or your America hating, loser Democrats are completely incompetent that they couldn’t pin it on Trump.

originally posted by: xuenchen

And I for one believe Sotomayor was in direct contact with Democrat agents to help form that "Opinion" and especially THAT statement. This was all planned. They had months to figure it. 😉

Maybe she was taking points from Huff Po.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nixon Caved. Not a fighter.

Then why did he need a pardon?
Nixon resigned because his supporters in Congress told him if he didn't, they'd impeach him.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Supreme Court made him turn over the tapes.

But they wouldn't today. Are you okay with that?

He was impeached.

No he wasn't

The system worked.

Seems to me the system failed.