Yes!
No
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
10 d
Wow…trumps lawyers are arguing assassinating a political rival can be a GOOD thing. Is that true?
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
Xper 6 Age: 709 dU. S. Fascism less than seven months away should Forty-five become Forty-seven !!!
Trump's ambulance-chasing mouthpieces (I loathe disrespecting an honourable profession such as the law by calling these sleazeballs "lawyers"), like his other cultists, will echo ANY of their Maximum Leader's wishes, no matter how wrong or even criminal.
25 Reply- 7 d
@handsomelad70
Maybe you should tell us what you mean by "fascism" as it clearly isn't related to the original creator's 1930's Benito Mussolini definition. - 7 d
@monorprise It certainly is. (By the way, Mussolini was hanged by his compatriots 79 years ago today, two days before Austria's Moustachioed Madman offed himself. Killing political opponents is out of the Fascist handbook.)
- 7 d
@handsomelad70
Assuming you have read about this I would like to know why you think its Trump's Republican party rather than Biden's democratic party that believes in
* Totalitarianism (Total subservient to the State),
and
* Corporatism economics (State run businesses requiring state permission for everything)
There are historically policies of the left not the right in America. - New 5 d
@monorprise those have been policies of both the left and right. Dumbass.
- New 4 d
@OddBeMe The American right wing is against the permission State of Corporatism and generally against "federal" authority in particular but most goverment authority in general.
This is the general majority opinion of most republicans although there are detractors and exceptions in both broad parties. Politicians in general want to have a say on everything by nature, which is why Republican voters find it soo much more difficult to control them.
Most Helpful Opinions
1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. And the Republitards think Trump will be reelected. You can't make this shit up.
31 Reply
What Girls & Guys Said
1
Opinion
18Opinion
357 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Depending on which side of the isle you sit on, since the Democrats have been trying to assassinate Trump for the last 8 years. Never has this country seen insidious shit like what these arrogant die-hards are trying to do! Putin just kills his opposition as we have see lately.
238 Reply- 9 d
@Bricealan
“.. since the Democrats have been trying to assassinate Trump for the last 8 years.”
How many assassination attempts have been made on Trump this far? I can’t seem to find any information about that. 🤔 - 9 d
@Bricealan
They have successfully crippled Trump via endless lawfair selectively Timed to prevent him from campaigning for President, while also giving themselves an enormous advantage in having a means to spy upon his campaign.
Combine that with a highly well funded vote harvesting and printing operation and there is little chance anyone could keep them from running away with it. - 9 d
@monorprise Trump crippled himself as a result of his terribly poor judgment and lack of impulse control. He need psychiatric treatment years ago and still does.
- 9 d
@msc545 You could latterly say anyone and everyone including Joe Biden himself has the same "terribly poor judgement" having done the same exact things.
Joe Biden has assaulted women.
Joe Biden as vice president (not president) has kept and even bragged about having and improperly storing classified documents.
Joe Biden has not only defamed countless people but plagiarized them as well.
Joe Biden has likewise abused power.
Republicans could have for decades carried out exactly the same charges against Joe Biden like many if not most democrats. They Didn't because that is not how the law has ever worked. - 8 d
@monorprise The "whatabout" argument doesn't work in this case. nice try. We've all literally seen Trump exercise his "judgment". It is horrible.
- 8 d
@msc545 Yes we have seen trump's very successful judgement in office bring us prosperity and peace just as we have seen Joe's corrupt judgement bring us misery and war. As he has made policies to fill the coffers of every lobbies.
In the matter of justice however it is in fact the very defintion of jujstice that we should all get equal treatment under the law. As such this "Whataboutism" is very much the queston if we are going to engage in novel new legal theory which as i pointed out can as easily be applied to criminalize almost anyone, including Joe Biden himself.
And yet he was let off the hook. Allegedly because he was too incomplete to manage said information in the first place, but mostly because Washington D. C. democrats have not interest in equal application of the law in even charging him.
Regardless Joe was never so charged and held captive during his presidential campaign, nor has any other president in history. So it is sad that we can already say this election was by no means a free and fair election. Given the enormous disparity in treatment. - 8 d
@monorprise Trump is very close to going to jail because of his bad judgment.
- 8 d
@msc545 You seem to be skirting over the novel (never before seen) use of the specific laws in question. In claiming a general application of the enforcement of all laws. Law that had until now previously built in and now ignored limits of applicability and time as to prevent said abuse.
A president for example cannot misuse or steal classified information because a president is the original classification authority.(which means in no uncertain terms a president can do whatever he wants with it)
A man cannot be legitimately charged with sexual assault decades after the fact for the first time because there is no reliable evidence after soo much time. Any physical and memory evidences fades.
You cannot charge a man with a property crime out of state without a party having actually lost property. Because you don't know being out of state and no property actually having been lost.
You cannot charge a man with insurrection or obstructions simply because he gave a speech urging non-violent protest and wasn't even present or really even aware of a few unarmed people causing trouble across town.
Theses are absurd positions but nonetheless the ones Democrats have decided to criminalized their political enemies on. While I have no doubt their cherry picked judges and juries can convict their enemies of anything they choose. Ultimately these cases are fraudulent and they know it.
They delayed and timed theses cases to inhibit their political enemies ability to stand against them in an election and it is that election interference that they were after Not a conviction.
After all as was the case with prior republicans soo charged it didn't matter that they were vindicated after they used the case itself to defeat them at the ballot. - 8 d
There is no prohibition against novel use of the law. Unique situations arise that necessitate this. Were it not so, all that a criminal would need to do would be to come up with a new and unique way to break the law and then argue that he couldn't be prosecuted because he was the first one to do this and it never been done before. I can trust you see how untenable this is.
- 8 d
That said, inciting to riot has a very long and ugly history of being illegal and being prosecuted in this country. Just because Trump did it, that not automatically mean that somehow that constitutes a novel use of the law and he can't be prosecuted. He most certainly can and will be if possible.
- 8 d
Remember that we've never had a president who committed the kind of crimes that Trump has committed. So given that the crimes and the person committing them are both unique, it makes sense that the law that we would apply would also be somewhat unique in that it has never been applied in quite this way before. Adaptation is the Hallmark of civilization.
- 7 d
@monorprise "A president for example cannot misuse or steal classified information because a president is the original classification authority.(which means in no uncertain terms a president can do whatever he wants with it)" Except he's on "tape" explaining how he could have declassified a document (plans to attack Iran) he's showing people without any security clearance, when he was president, BUT HE DIDN'T. (And, iirc, the crime he's charged with is about mishandling national security documents, which is independent of classification status.)
There are similar responses to all your other arguments from incredulity. - 7 d
@RainbowMarinade it is called character Assassination. Just a heads up. An Assassination doesn't always result in physical death
- 5 d
@JacobJordan must be character suicide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNfcfYCfn2o - 5 d
He already posted the bond a literal month ago. Please stop this is embarrassing. I searched 8 words and have so very many sources. Do you have something else.
- 5 d
@JacobJordan Sure from no king bibles, lol. And as I said, again… if it’s not contempt it’ll be breaking bond by committing this crime. Dumbass,
- 5 d
He got the $175m from a billionaire that supports him actually. I mean honestly are you going to keep up this charade like you actually know what you are talking about? You are constantly wrong and it is getting embarrassing. I am starting to feel bad. Feel like I am making fun of a mentally disabled person.
- 5 d
@JacobJordan I didn’t that transfer went through. A Trump wannabe. Can’t get worse. Except arguing on their behalf on gag.
- 5 d
Lol nah dummy I don't support trump I just don't tolerate lies and bs. Especially in a day and age when it is so easy to check shit. You are fucking lazy and rather than learn from your constant humiliation at my hands you continue to post bullshit that can be proved false in under 5 minutes.
- 5 d
@JacobJordan you’ll vote for him. Don’t deny it.
- 5 d
I won't be voting until the electoral College is abolished. Good try though. Also I wouldn't vote for either trump or biden. I would sooner vote myself or vivek, or just about anyone else. You gotta stop with the assumptions child you are looking stupid in front of people
- 5 d
@JacobJordan thank god! One less idiot voter.
- 5 d
Says the guy who is voting for the dementia patient.
- 4 d
@JacobJordan Nah, I’m voting for the non demented.
https://youtu.be/v4bU4k0FBSo?si=hO1M1em4H1fD5Hyf - 4 d
Sure you are. Biden inability to string a coherent sentence is plastered all over the place. But hey if you want to destroy America go ahead I am not there so enjoy the consequences of your actions
- 4 d
Jacob, I think you have an inability to argue coherently without calling people names in the process and being rude and insulting. I suspect you do this either consciously or unconsciously in an attempt to get the other person to to stop arguing with you and just go away. In truth, in reading through your arguments, had they been with me, I would have been disgusted and just gone away too because your verbal abuse is not worth putting up with on the basis of some value to your content. It's not that your content is terrible. It's just that it's kind of mediocre. Combine that with abusive language and again the whole thing becomes not worth it. I am not the only one that believes this about you.
- New 4 d
@JacobJordan Don’t have to worry about sleepy Biden falling asleep at his trials. Because he doesn’t have any.
- New 3 d
Yeah because he was declared mentally unfit to stand trial 🤣🤣🤣 did you actually think you were going somewhere with that.
- New 3 d
@JacobJordan bullshit.
- New 3 d
- New 3 d
@JacobJordan Like @msc545 said "you only argue this way when you know for a fact that you have no coherent argument to rely on and it's a way of distracting and dismissing others".
- New 3 d
- New 3 d
@JacobJordan Please link to evidence of your bullshit claim Biden was found “mentally unfit”. I’ll wait,
6.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. odd, you show once again how much of a dishonest idiot you are. How about looking at the issue at from a broader perspective than some idiot fellow leftist's tweet distorting what the attorney's point was?
112 Reply- 7 d
@goaded did you? It very clearly stats in black and white the situation. Trying to indict a president for official acts vs private acts. Private acts absolutely and even his own lawyer is saying that as are the SCJ's official acts though are not targetable unless we want to open up every president going forward to charges based on the most circumstantial evidence. Ie the fact that biden is responsible for numerous murders and brutal assaults due to his shit handling of border security. An act that presently is protected as it is official. If immunity is ruled against what is being argued then biden can be charged arrested and jailed for numerous counts of involuntary manslaughter. That is an extremely slippery road. So again a line must be drawn between what is an official act vs what is a private act and whether or not immunity applies to official acts or not. Most of the stuff trump is being charged for is official acts. So do we open presidents up to charges for official acts or not?
- 7 d
@JacobJordan Like I said to exitseven: Do you understand the word "total"?
Total immunity allows a president to eat a roasted baby on live TV.
Personally, I think GW should have been prosecuted for allowing torture. I definitely think Trump should be prosecuted for stealing and mishandling national security documents, attempting to steal the presidency, including using violence and intimidation to cover it up. Why don't you? - 7 d
- 7 d
@JacobJordan Yeah, and they're arguing that everything a president does can be an official act. Same bloody thing!
- 5 d
@JacobJordan what’s NOT an official act as president? Seriously? Example? Getting him a Diet Coke is official act.
- 5 d
Odd, are you OK with Biden being prosecuted in criminal courts for the following:
1) Illegal possession of classified documents from as far back as 1974
2) Killing innocent Afghans in 2021 during the botched evacuation from that country
3) Influence peddling/taking bribes
4) Tax evasion
5) Illegally opening US borders to waves of illegal invaders
6) Obstruction of justice
7) Fraud
- New 5 d
@Avicenna Yes, I understand the role of the impeachment process, and it's not what Trump's lawyers are currently claiming, it's more like what Trump's lawyers were claiming during his impeachment: a president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while president after he leaves office, EVEN IF that's the result of an impeachment conviction (double jeopardy does not apply). (Not "only if", that's a totally new line of bullshit.)
- New 5 d
@Avicenna Sad.
1. None from that long ago, the oldest were from 1977 and buried in among 1800 boxes of documents; everyone gets a pass for that sort of thing, including Mike Pence.
Hur reported that Biden had returned the documents and cooperated voluntarily with the probe from its beginning, whereas Trump declined multiple opportunities to return documents in his possession and allegedly sought to destroy evidence.
2. It was a war zone, if it even happened.
3. Didn't happen, lies from Comer and Gym Jordan
4. Didn't happen.
Reminder: Trump just lost a lawsuit for nearly half a billion for Tax evasion, his company lost another one before that, and his CEO is in Rikers for his second prison term, the first one was for tax evasion with Trump.
5. A total lie. It's a policy decision with no criminal intent.
Besides, if it were true, it would still be an official act. Trump's lawyers are currently arguing before SCOTUS that that should be totally legal, even if Biden was to be paid a billion dollars by drug traffickers for letting them in. It wouldn't be a bribe, because, they say, presidential official acts can't be considered as part of a criminal case.
6. Never happened.
7. Never happened.
5.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Joe Biden should walk in to the Supreme Court with one soldier on the day they hand down the verdict and if they decide a president has immunity for all official acts he should order the soldier to shoot every member of the court who ruled that way in the face.
00 Reply- 545 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Yoda Age: 398 d
Blatant lie for a question. You even shared it and still choose to lie over being honest. The truth is right there. "Depending on the circumstances assassinating a political rival could be considered an official act" that does not say it is good or bad. It is making an objective statement and a dangerous one. Though admittedly I can think of a few circumstances where such an act would factually be justified
015 Reply- 7 d
- 7 d
- 7 d
- 7 d
- 7 d
- 7 d
@goaded well we have already established that there is at least one justified reason. And you agreed with that justification wouldn't be too hard to figure out a few other justifications for it. But justifying and executing are 2 entirely different things. For example I would wager you would rather we kill pedophiles and rapists. Doesn't necessarily mean you would want to be the one pulling the trigger
- 7 d
No, we haven't "already established that there is at least one justified reason" for a president to kill a political rival. All you suggested is someone attempting to overthrow the government by force, which is not the same thing; it's already illegal, and law enforcement are allowed to stop crimes. The only time anyone's tried that in the history of the US was Jan 6 2021.
- 7 d
6.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. He was not endorsing it for Trump (or Biden). He was describing what total immunity of a President could mean. Your inference is how the legacy media Dan Rather's news items to have an unintended meaning.
29 Reply- 10 d
He was in the process of endorsing the ridiculous idea of total immunity of a President.
He wants it for Trump, but I bet not for Biden. Biden should lock up every "Justice" that votes to give him the power to lock them up and tell every American voter that that proves he should not have that power. See how well Republicans do in the next election. - 9 d
@goaded: that nonsense you posted is a strawman. Just because you want immunity for people whose politics you like (from past statements, this includes pedophiles and violent criminals) and persecution for people you don't like doesn't mean that the other side of the political aisle does.
Here's a novel thought- how about focusing on the actual constitutional issues? Or is that too difficult for you? - 9 d
@goaded: You might not like the legal arguments, but that doesn't make them "lies". The underlying problem here is that the Democrats want to prosecute Trump for things they either don't want to prosecute Democratic Presidents for or are not actual crimes. And there are constitutional questions in this case that Trump is asking the court to rule on. Do you have anything specific to say about those constitutional questions or the arguments on either side?
Democratic Presidents and Bush 43 have enjoyed de facto full immunity for much worse than what Trump has been accused of.
- 9 d
@Avicenna You claimed I want immunity for people whose politics I like, which is a lie, as was who you claim I support.
And, no, no president has ever claimed full immunity from the law; it's counter to the founding principles of the Constitution - no kings.
Trump's lawyers are claiming that because a sitting president has immunity from civil suits (because of the time they could waste), he must therefore have total immunity from criminal prosecution, not just for crimes committed on behalf of the country, but literally every crime imaginable.
I had assumed it was just another delay tactic, but it seems that the fanatics on the SCOTUS are seriously considering making it legal for the president to become a dictator.
Hitler managed to convince idiots in government to allow him to make laws without parliament having a say. Within 4 months he'd outlawed all opposition parties and put an end to democratic elections. - 5 d
@goaded: @JacobJordan explained it to you below. Trump served four years in office without being a dictator; in fact, Democrats actually illegally usurped some of his constitutional power as President. Congressional oversight has also been usurped (mostly by the Democrats, since they control the bureaucracy).
Your analogy to Hitler would be best exemplified by Joe Biden's extensive overreach using executive orders. And I don't see you calling for Joe Biden's prosecution for illegally and insecurely possessing classified documents from as far back as 1974, much less his influence peddling. Hitler also had political prisoners almost immediately (a few of my ancestors were some of them in early 1933), much like your hero Biden does with his 1/6 prisoners.
The underlying issue before the SCOTUS is whether the President's power to make official decisions can be usurped by the threat of prosecution in criminal courts for political differences rather than through the impeachment process. It was clearly not the intent of the framers of the Constitution to have a President prosecuted by political opponents in criminal courts for official decisions made in office. Note what is said about the impeachment process in the Constitution.
As a foreign Stalinist, you unsurprisingly don't care about US constitutional issues.
And, no, goaded, you do want immunity for Democrats, who you do support. So you need stop lying. - 5 d
@Avicenna This is the argument of high standards. Of course America isn’t a fascist state. A former president is finally on trial for doing alleged criminal acts before during and after the election.
The parallels to Germany in 1930s are so fcking obvious but that doesn’t mean Trump = Hitler. Trump has engaged in fascist-like behaviors. Like this week meeting with Victor Orban…a fascist dictator. - 5 d
Hitler was imprisoned after his first attempt to take over the country. Second time, he succeeded, mostly because he was give unprecedented legal authority (the right to pass laws without the input of parliament). Trump wants to be immune from prosecution for any crime that relies on a single "official act". That's unprecedented legal authority...
- 1.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Master Age: 48 , mho 31%9 d
wow, ever played the game telephone? the only way you can smear trump.
very so pathetic!
meanwhile biden actually said "you ain't black" but cancel culture doesn't cancel. liberals are the WORST hypocrites.
01 Reply 2.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Do you mean is it true he argued that or is it true it can be a good thing?
12 Reply12.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. They did not say it is a good thing, they argued it could be an offical act. Maybe they are correct under the right circumstances
212 Reply- 6 d
He's there because it's a criminal case and the defendant is required to be there every day. There's no requirement that he should be allowed home at night.
Give a president absolute immunity, and there would be no need for a sniper, there will be some sequence of "official acts" that he could use to end up with Trump dead.
I'd like to say nobody wants a president to have that much power, but that's what they want. - 6 d
@goaded the reqirement to show up every day is at the discretion of the judge. Naturally the democrat operative in the black robe forbids it. At least it keeps Trump from campaigning as much as he would like to but it also increases the possibility that some registered Democrat nutjob will shoot him
- 6 d
You're right, in New York, the defendant may, with the permission of the prosecution, waive their right to be personally present at the trial and authorize their attorney to conduct their defense, but the default is that they have to be present.
newyork.public.law/.../...edure_law_section_340.50
"1. Except as provided in subdivision two or three, a defendant must be personally present during the trial."
Subdivision 2 is the defendant waiving their right to be personally present at the trial.
Subdivision 3 is the defendant being chucked out of court for disruption.
I don't know if Trump applied to not be present, or if the prosecution objected (as is their right), but either way, don't you think it would have been a good idea for Trump to try to avoid pissing off the judge in his case? - 6 d
@goaded I heard he tried to get the judge to let him skip out. He wanted to attend his son's graduation. The judge refused. Let's face it. This is all done to keep thr leading candidate from campaigning. He is going to be found guilty anyway. There is no way he gets a fair trial. This is a show trial and Americans know it. The polls show Trump leading in all swing states
- 5 d
No, that's what Trump is telling you. If you were in court for stealing a car, do you think the judge would let you skip a day to attend your son's graduation? Trump's been spending millions (of Republican donor money) to delay the trials because he knows two things:
1. He's guilty, in every case
2. If he's convicted, he'll lose massive amounts of support.
If he's not elected, he doesn't get to pardon himself for the crimes he knows he's guilty of. - 5 d
@goaded You mean we hope they won’t allow him to pardon himself. #sadbuttrue
3.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. 
'We're not giving him free pass to do whatever he wants-- we're buying time so he can be re-elected and then do whatever he wants.'
10 Reply7.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Noteven Trump's lawyers believe this. They just say it and argue it because they want to keep collecting paychecks with money collected from the suckers that still believe in Trump.
12 Reply
Anonymous(18-24)10 dI think a lot of people would agree that it could be a good thing depending on circumstances. Hitler, Isis, Al-qaida etc. Many think it is/would be good and maybe the only realistic solution to assasinate those kinds.
12 Reply- New 10 d
so if someone the President of the US thought was evil was running for President, the President should have the authority to assassinate them.
Do you have any idea how many republicans think democrats are evil, traitorous pedophiles? - New 7 d
@OtterMan68 have you seen how many democrats support the mutilation of children...
3.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. That's not really what they're arguing lol.
An "official act" isn't "good" by default.
121 Reply- 7 d
What Biden family members are or were part of the US administration? Trump's son in law who was initially denied security clearance is currently "managing" $2billion of Saudi money, after representing Trump in the Middle East, and worked with China to knock down US company's arms profits...
- 7 d
So the president doesn't have to fear lawfare from corrupt rivals like Jim Crow Biden. Presidents have to make very hard choices.
It depends on the context of the assassination. A lot of countries have protections for their executives.
Impeach the president first if they did a no-no as an official act. - 7 d
So you didn't answer the question: "why would the SCOTUS be arguing that assassinating a political rival should be legal, if not "good"?"
What "context of the assassination" would allow it, in your opinion?
"Impeach the president first if they did a no-no as an official act."
Trump wasn't convicted because some senators, including McConnell, claimed it was up to the courts to convict him. The constitution states explicitly that a president can be indicted by the courts "even if" he's been indicted and convicted; that's just explaining that double jeopardy doesn't count with impeachment convictions.
- 2.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Master Age: 448 d
i heard they were also saying that killing the homeless was a good thing
10 Reply - Xper 6 Age: 248 d
Realistically if 80% of the house and Senate was assassinated we'd be much better off 🤷♂️
01 Reply - Anonymous(36-45)8 d
It must be true. CNN has never fabricated a story in their existence and they always side with the republicans.
00 Reply - 1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Explorer Age: 43 , mho 34%9 d
That is not what he said
10 Reply - 355 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Yoda Age: 3110 d
No, that's not what was said.
10 Reply - 3.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Yoda Age: 2910 d
If you're posting it, it's not true.
127 Reply- 10 d
so what's the truth? Prove him wrong.
- 10 d
@OtterMan68 Dargil's response is below.
- 7 d
- 7 d
@JacobJordan Yeah, and they're arguing that everything a president does can be an official act. Same bloody thing!
- 7 d
@goaded no the fuck it isn't. Holy fuck you are stupid. Honestly bud don't speak again you are not remotely intelligent enough, or educated enough to comment on this because this is very very fuckin easy. A president acting in official capacity is immune to charges. A president acting in private capacity can have charges levied against them.
- 7 d
@JacobJordan Yeah, that's the first lie. The second is everything a president does can be an official act. Including assassinating a political rival.
- 7 d
- 7 d
@JacobJordan Yes, you keep lying, I know. If everything a president does can be an official act, including assassinating a political rival, how is total immunity for official acts not total immunity from prosecution, or being essentially a king or dictator?
- 7 d
@goaded just because you are too stupid to understand the law doesn't mean I am lying lol. Presidents have always had immunity for official acts idiot. Impeachment is how you charge a president when they commit a crime via official act. Private acts apply as they do for everyone else. Actually study something instead of Twitter or whatever woke retard you watch on YouTube. It is very easy to understand how immunity applies and what it applies too
- 7 d
@goaded www.manatt.com/.../official-acts%E2%80%9D%E2%80%94what-they-are%E2%80%A6-and-are-not a brief example of what an official act vs a private act looks like. McDonnell accepted bribes (private act) to do things to benefit the briber. As a result it renders his acts not official. An elected official may only act in the official capacity of their station and there are certain things that render those acts non official. Like bribes for example. Something trumps lawyer stated in the transcript @Avicenna posted. Like I said you are too stupid to be speaking on this subject I very much hope your profile age is not your actual age because if it is your actual age you are far too old to be this astoundingly stupid
- 7 d
@JacobJordan "Presidents have always had immunity for official acts" No, they have not. They have generally been permitted leeway if what they've done can be construed as in the national interest. Not the same thing at all.
- 7 d
- 7 d
@JacobJordan Keep lying. Your insults make you sound really impressive. No president, other than Nixon and Trump, had to worry about prosecution after office. And Nixon was pardoned, Trump has and will not be.
- 7 d
- 7 d
@JacobJordan I know the laws, you're lying.
- 7 d
- 7 d
- 7 d
@JacobJordan Idiot; they are arguing that everything falls under official acts, even attempting to steal the presidency!
- 7 d
@goaded *sigh* read the transcript moron. Better yet: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, what if
you have -- let's say the official act is
appointing ambassadors, and the president
appoints a particular individual to a country,
but it's in exchange for a bribe. Somebody
says, I'll give you a million dollars if I'm
made the ambassador to whatever.
How do you analyze that?
MR. SAUER: That, I think, would fall
under this Court's discussion in Brewster, where
the Court held with respect to legislative acts
that bribery is not an official act, which also
matches the common law background.
Ta-da now silence moron if you are going to waste people's time with your stupidity at least have the decency to not be brain dead when you do it. Do not speak again until you educate yourself. Stop denying reality just because you are a liberal idiot that is too fat, lazy and stupid to actually research things before flapping your gums - 7 d
@JacobJordan He’s also not an American. As with most of these euro trash dickheads, their political opinions are formed through the lens of ruining America. Since their own countries suck ass and they are welfare queens to American defense budgets.
- 7 d
Naturally. It is fascinating how these idiots think they have a right to speak on a subject they know nothing about. Seems the US was too kind after sorting things out in the 40s. Should have kept the dog on a shorter leash
- 7 d
@JacobJordan @gorydetails It’s fascinating how you two would give up the idea of America for an ideologue idiot like Trump. That were even arguing bribery as an “official act” or not…. Remember we bribed the Taliban and prob dozens of tribal leaders to give up Al Quaeda aholes.
- 7 d
The president didn't bribe them moron. Further proving the fuckin point that there is a difference between official acts and private acts. The fact you a full grown adult are incapable of understanding such a blatantly simple concept is both astounding and worrisome because if you don't any children you have by default are already fucked for life meaning you have already failed as a father.
- 7 d
@JacobJordan oh sorry…Operation Enduring Freedom said it was just “winning over the tribal leaders”…
www.history.navy.mil/.../...-enduring-freedom.html - 6 d
@JacobJordan I'm not especially German, it's just where I live, which I'm sure @gorydetails knows but wouldn't bother correcting you while you're engaging in ad hominem.
They're not arguing for qualified immunity, "that whatever act you take has to be within what a reasonable person would do."
They're arguing for absolute immunity, and they go on to explain that they think that should mean that all official acts involved in a criminal scheme cannot be considered when charging a president for crimes.
As Roberts says:
"Well, if you expunge the official part from the indictment, ... that's like a...
one-legged stool, right? I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange, and if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador to a particular country, that is official, the appointment. It's within the president's prerogative. The unofficial part is I'm going to get a million dollars for it."
Remember, Trump's lawyers are working on the DC election interference (including the fake electors) case.
MR. SAUER: "[Blassingame] talks about how actions that are, you know, plausibly connected to the president's official duties are official acts. And it also emphasizes that if it's a close case or it appears there's considerations on the other side, that also should be treated as immune."
"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So apply it to the allegations here. What is plausible about the president insisting and creating a -- a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates? Assuming you accept the facts of the complaint on their face, is that plausible that that would be within his right to do?
MR. SAUER: Absolutely, Your Honor." <<<<<
"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Knowing that the slate is fake? Knowing that the slate is fake, that they weren't actually elected, that they weren't certified by the state, he knows all
those things?
MR. SAUER: The indictment itself alleges -- I dispute that characterization." - 5 d
@goaded scotus? Serisously?
https://youtu.be/DDCz11QIF5k
- Anonymous(25-29)10 d
Sure, look at the Kennedys'
00 Reply
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Home > Society & Politics > Polls > Wow…trumps lawyers are arguing assassinating a political rival can be a GOOD thing. Is that true?
Add your reply For "{0}"
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions