Immunity is not a license it"s a protection.

[justoffal]

From what? From exactly what we're seeing right now, using lawfare to attack a political opponent and contorting written law to force a guilty verdict. Given that federal law is a sprawling word mountain of latent interpretations subject to an indefinite product in the hands of politically inconsistent human judges it is quite understandable that some form of protection would be needed.

Taking it to extremes of rediculous hypotheticals doesn't really do the subject justice since the entire reaction of the court is one in response to an existing extreme.

No, it doesn't mean that a POTUS can rape, murder or persecute with impunity. It means that law cannot be weaponized for political gain.

Jo

 

[candycorn]

Too bad the blob’s lawyers are wanting “total immunity”...

 

[justoffal]

Too bad the blob’s lawyers are wanting “total immunity”...

I seriously doubt that.

 

[candycorn]

I seriously doubt that.

so?

Supreme Court seems skeptical of Trump's claim of absolute immunity but decision's timing is unclear

The Supreme Court seems highly skeptical of former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution.

apnews.com

educate yourself.

 

[justoffal]

so?

Supreme Court seems skeptical of Trump's claim of absolute immunity but decision's timing is unclear

The Supreme Court seems highly skeptical of former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution.

apnews.com

educate yourself.

Read your own links.

 

[candycorn]

Read your own links.

I did--absolute immunity was their argument.

 

[rightwinger]

From what? From exactly what we're seeing right now, using lawfare to attack a political opponent and contorting written law to force a guilty verdict. Given that federal law is a sprawling word mountain of latent interpretations subject to an indefinite product in the hands of politically inconsistent human judges it is quite understandable that some form of protection would be needed.

Taking it to extremes of rediculous hypotheticals doesn't really do the subject justice since the entire reaction of the court is one in response to an existing extreme.

No, it doesn't mean that a POTUS can rape, murder or persecute with impunity. It means that law cannot be weaponized for political gain.

Jo

Nice try

But Trumps legal problems are all a result of his own poor decisions

Don’t bang Porn Stars and pay her with business accounts
When the Government demands you to turn over public documents…do it
When you lose an election, be a man and admit it. Don’t try to steal the election

 

[justoffal]

I did--absolute immunity was their argument.

Not the only one. They're not asking for permission to murder or rape.

 

[justoffal]

Nice try

But Trumps legal problems are all a result of his own poor decisions

Don’t bang Porn Stars and pay her with business accounts
When the Government demands you to turn over public documents…do it
When you lose an election, be a man and admit it. Don’t try to steal the election

Porn star was pre-potus right? If it was being prosecuted like every other case of its kind it will include some kind of a fine, kind of like an accelerated speeding ticket. Certainly not the world war 3 prosecution Bragg is trying to make out of it.

Also I don't see anything in the context Trump's arguments but include ridiculous hypotheticals like murder, rape or theft.

 

[rightwinger]

Porn star was pre-potus right? If it was being prosecuted like every other case of its kind it will include some kind of a fine, kind of like an accelerated speeding ticket. Certainly not the world war 3 prosecution Bragg is trying to make out of it.

Also I don't see anything in the context Trump's arguments but include ridiculous hypotheticals like murder, rape or theft.

I think regardless of what he is convicted of, that will be the sentence….A fine, probation maybe community service

Once again, Trump turns a simple case into an ordeal.
His behavior in court and refusal to allow his attorneys to make any case that involves an admission of fault will lead to a harsher sentence

 

[justoffal]

I think regardless of what he is convicted of, that will be the sentence….A fine, probation maybe community service

Once again, Trump turns a simple case into an ordeal.
His behavior in court and refusal to allow his attorneys to make any case that involves an admission of fault will lead to a harsher sentence

Yeah he certainly hasn't done any reading of self-help journals that's for sure.

 

[Edgetho]

How come Judges and persecutors get ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from; not just civil liability but they can't even be prosecuted for corruption while performing their jobs??

How come?

But those people want to prosecute an elected POTUS for questioning an obviously stolen election? Which is his duty, BTW.

We win this election and start putting those scumbags in prison or we're done as a Country. And the only thing that will stop these scum will be an armed Revolution. dimocrap scum know it.

They're counting on Americans being unwilling to take it that far. To go to War to remove those parasites from the halls of power.

Are they right?

We'll find out if America loses this election and dimocrap FILTH keep control.

 

[rampart]

From what? From exactly what we're seeing right now, using lawfare to attack a political opponent and contorting written law to force a guilty verdict. Given that federal law is a sprawling word mountain of latent interpretations subject to an indefinite product in the hands of politically inconsistent human judges it is quite understandable that some form of protection would be needed.

Taking it to extremes of rediculous hypotheticals doesn't really do the subject justice since the entire reaction of the court is one in response to an existing extreme.

No, it doesn't mean that a POTUS can rape, murder or persecute with impunity. It means that law cannot be weaponized for political gain.

Jo

where is immunity mantioned in the constitution? in the federalist papers? in the law?

ain't no such thing.

lawfare? lololololololol don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Mac1958]

Too bad the blob’s lawyers are wanting “total immunity”...

Pretty funny the way Trumpsters didn't give two shits about either immunity or gag orders until their savior got caught.

 

[Crepitus]

From exactly what we're seeing right now, using lawfare to attack a political opponent

That isn't happening.

Prosecuting criminals is an everyday thing, The only extraordinary thing happening here is that we have our first criminal ex president.

 

[Crepitus]

Porn star was pre-potus right? If it was being prosecuted like every other case of its kind it will include some kind of a fine, kind of like an accelerated speeding ticket. Certainly not the world war 3 prosecution Bragg is trying to make out of it.

Also I don't see anything in the context Trump's arguments but include ridiculous hypotheticals like murder, rape or theft.

Falsifying business records is the crime here, with the corollary that it was done to influence an election.

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah he certainly hasn't done any reading of self-help journals that's for sure.

What's likely to result in prison time is constant gag order violations.

 

[Crepitus]

How come Judges and persecutors get ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from; not just civil liability but they can't even be prosecuted for corruption while performing their jobs??

I don't think that's a thing.

 

[justoffal]

What's likely to result in prison time is constant gag order violations.

IMO .... I have a feeling Trump is counting on it.

 

[justoffal]

where is immunity mantioned in the constitution? in the federalist papers? in the law?

ain't no such thing.

lawfare? lololololololol don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

99% of the writ of federal law isn't mentioned in the Constitution.