BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Trump is entitled to some immunity in Jan. 6 case

[lantern2814]

Total nonsense of course.

Name the law under which Biden could be charged in a court. By a grand jury.

See you in never.

First degree murder and aiding and abetting rape and murder for allowing illegals into the country.

 

[pknopp]

Doesn't matter. Obama, Clinton, any president will always be found right in such situations, Donkeys like you get loaded and forced to submit to facts.,

That's true and why I wish the courts would have fixed that.

It's kinda sad how many bemoan a overbearing government but then still support this. Or champion rights and then still support this.

Nothing actually matters to those who do that other than their politics.

 

[Care4all]

Ah so the govt has immunity. Gotcha

Yes, they do for official act, while sitting as president. Official acts are those duties the constitution gives the president. Commander in chief is one of them and the war on terror, was being fought.....

Because he sought legal advise ahead of the kill as to constitutionality, and he was commanding the Military, it would be impossible to prosecute him while doing this government action.

There are many other instances different from this, where the govt does have SOME immunity also.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, they do for official act, while sitting as president. Official acts are those duties the constitution gives the president. Commander in chief is one of them and the war on terror, was being fought.....

Because he sought legal advise ahead of the kill as to constitutionality, and he was commanding the Military, it would be impossible to prosecute him while doing this government action.

There are many other instances different from this, where the govt does have SOME immunity also.

The entire "war on terrorism" was little more than a scam.

Obama on Mass Government Surveillance, Then and Now | FRONTLINE

 

[struth]

Yes, they do for official act, while sitting as president. Official acts are those duties the constitution gives the president. Commander in chief is one of them and the war on terror, was being fought.....

Because he sought legal advise ahead of the kill as to constitutionality, and he was commanding the Military, it would be impossible to prosecute him while doing this government action.

There are many other instances different from this, where the govt does have SOME immunity also.

Ok, so why is everyone upset about the scotus simply highlighting that point that has been the law?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ok, so why is everyone upset about the scotus simply highlighting that point that has been the law?

Because those that actually like freedom know it should not be law.

People should have been able to sue/charge Obama for those acts and let him defend them in a court of law.

But now it cannot be done. Now the POTUS can do the same thing much closer to home and have absolute immunity.

And you morons are cheering like this is a good thing.

Who knew George Lucas was a prophet.

 

[Care4all]

Ok, so why is everyone upset about the scotus simply highlighting that point that has been the law?

the SCOTUS expanded that immunity to other acts of a president not specifically in the constitution as his duties, giving what they call presumptive immunity, and then tied the hands of criminal prosecutors by saying the white house witnesses or accomplices even, can not be called or forced to be witnesses or admit testimony to the crime ...due to a sort of executive privilege for executive duties.... because the President was involved and his conversations with his admin were private or part of his presumptive duties...just utter bull crap! Even if admin and he were discussing a criminal private act and not an official act....you can't call the president's executives to the stand or subpoena them....

You tie the hands of the DOJ and law enforcement investigating crimes making it impossible to charge or try them, even after leaving office.

That is the part of their decision that is GOD Awful,

And makes any and all presidents immune for their crimes. (And possibly co-conspirators too)

Make the presidential position, ABOVE THE LAW.

so basically, he's above the law

 

[struth]

Because those that actually like freedom know it should not be law.

People should have been able to sue/charge Obama for those acts and let him defend them in a court of law.

But now it cannot be done. Now the POTUS can do the same thing much closer to home and have absolute immunity.

And you morons are cheering like this is a good thing.

Who knew George Lucas was a prophet.

It’s been around since our nation was founded. You have never been able to sue the govt, or charge a police officer with assault for arresting you, unless the govt allowed it

People that don’t want it, have a giant misunderstanding of what govt is, and ironically are the same people that want more govt in their lives.

 

[Care4all]

This supreme court UN-DID Watergate decisions by the Supreme Court entirely!

 

[Care4all]

Just another day, just another reckless previous supreme court decision by this ACTIVIST right wing Supreme Court/Supreme Commander's REVERSAL of supreme court precedence,

making our courts untrustworthy and destabilized in the eyes of the citizens, and country on the whole. They just made us weaker, on the World stage....imo.

 

[struth]

the SCOTUS expanded that immunity to other acts of a president not specifically in the constitution as his duties, giving what they call presumptive immunity, and then tied the hands of criminal prosecutors by saying the white house witnesses or accomplices even, can not be called or forced to be witnesses or admit testimony to the crime ...due to a sort of executive privilege because the President was involved and his conversations with his admin were private...just utter bull crap! Even if admin and he were discussing a criminal private act and not an official act....you can't call the president's executives to the stand or subpoena them....

You tie the hands of the DOJ and law enforcement investigating crimes making it impossible to charge or try them, even after leaving office.

That is the part of their decision that is GOD Awful,

And makes any and all presidents immune for their crimes. (And possibly co-conspirators too)

Make the presidential position, ABOVE THE LAW.

so basically, he's above the law

really? what other acts? and what acts were specifically in the Constitution?

 

[struth]

This supreme court UN-DID Watergate decisions by the Supreme Court entirely!

which watergate case do you think they overturned?

 

[struth]

Just another day, just another reckless previous supreme court decision by this ACTIVIST right wing Supreme Court/Supreme Commander's REVERSAL of supreme court precedence,

making our courts untrustworthy and destabilized in the eyes of the citizens, and country on the whole. They just made us weaker, on the World stage....imo.

what precedence was overturned?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because you’re a hack. Do you think it’s acceptable that he’s not enforcing border and immigration laws?

Sorry, I am not your assistant. I am the guy waiting for you to name the law Biden broke.

 

[WorldWatcher]

what precedence was overturned?

Under this ruling the tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office could not be used as they were Presidential communications.

WW

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So you're this upset that republicans can't go after Biden after he's out of of office? You're right, Biden is not above the law. We should be able to prosecute his senile ass.

This has nothing to do with someone being "above the law." It has to do with behavior like democrats, who decide they don't like a past president, and 3 years later prosecute him for something he did while president. Like a FUCKING PHONE CALL.

If you dems hadn't behaved like childish babies, the big boys wouldn't have had to come in and spank you like they did.

It was not the Dems and Biden who have been spanked, and now, will not be spanked.

 

[struth]

Under this ruling the tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office could not be used as they were Presidential communications.

WW

sure they could, in prosecution of other people. That case dealt with executive privilegde, not presidential immunity.

If the case was against Nixon, the question would of been was what was discussed within his executive immunity, ie was in his duties. If not, then it could be used, and he could be prosecuted for whatever it was they were going to prosecute him for, which I believe was obstruciton of justice

 

[WorldWatcher]

sure they could, in prosecution of other people. That case dealt with executive privilegde, not presidential immunity.

If the case was against Nixon, the question would of been was what was discussed within his executive immunity, ie was in his duties. If not, then it could be used, and he could be prosecuted for whatever it was they were going to prosecute him for, which I believe was obstruciton of justice

The tapes were between Nixon and administration officials. The very people this ruling puts out of reach.

WW

 

[struth]

The tapes were between Nixon and administration officials. The very people this ruling puts out of reach.

WW

Hahaha no it doesn’t. The ruling only applies to the president

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hahaha no it doesn’t. The ruling only applies to the president

That's who we're talking about, Nixon. The Watergate Tapes as Presidential Communications would not be allowed to be used to prosecute Nixon (if Ford hadn't pardoned him).

WW