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

[struth]

Which law, specifically? I didn't ask for a congressional bill that organized some laws.

He didn’t state a bill that organized some laws. He stated a law

Do you know the difference between a bill and a law?

 

[struth]

read the fucking link moron.

I did, from early 2019, and it reminded me how we had a president that handled the border issue, and soon after had a partnership with Mexico, which included the stay in Mexico policy.

Xiden then got elected, undid that policy, and proclaimed he wanted a surge on the border

Thanks for the reminder of this failed xiden admin and the reminder of how dumb you dembots are

 

[forkup]

Immunity deals with being prosecuted, not gathering evidence. Immunity wouldn’t come into play until being indicted.

To get communications they simply have to overcome executive privilege

It seems you have no clue what you are talking about

It seems you have no clue about what's in the opinion. It spells out that this absolute immunity they concocted for "core presidential duties", directly contradicting the constitution, also provides an immunity from those actions being questioned or used as evidence to prove other things a president does.

 

[struth]

It seems you have no clue about what's in the opinion. It spells out that this absolute immunity they concocted for "core presidential duties", directly contradicting the constitution, also provides an immunity from those actions being questioned or used as evidence to prove other things a president does.

How does that directly contridict the constitution?

Well yeah the evidence can’t be used against someone that’s immune. That doesn’t mean it can’t be collected

I mean why is someone’s immunity even an issue if you don’t have any evidence?

I am familiar with the opinion, it’s just you aren’t, nor do you know what it actually means

 

[forkup]

How does that directly contridict the constitution?

Well yeah the evidence can’t be used against someone that’s immune. That doesn’t mean it can’t be collected

I mean why is someone’s immunity even an issue if you don’t have any evidence?

I am familiar with the opinion, it’s just you aren’t, nor do you know what it actually means

immunity the court has recognized in DIRECT contradiction of the constitution. Carving out an exception that is nowhere to be found.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C7-1/ALDE_00000037/
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.



Nowhere does it say. "Unless the office is the presidency and the impeachable offense is a "core duty" of the president "

 

[struth]

Nowhere did the court say that congress counldnt impeach a president in their ruling. The immunity isn’t from impeachment

 

[struth]

Nowhere did the court say that congress counldnt impeach a president in their ruling. The immunity isn’t from impeachment

 

[forkup]

Nowhere did the court say that congress counldnt impeach a president in their ruling. The immunity isn’t from impeachment

It establishishes that a president CAN be prosecuted even FOR "core presidential duties" it just does it in the context of AFTER an impeachment. The ruling simply IGNORES that clearly stated text, and instead conveys absolute immunity without exception.

Thereby DIRECTLY contradicting the Constitution which recognizes no such exception.

 

[Care4all]

So you agree with Biden that he can rape women on the Resolute desk during a televised address, that he can send death squads after Sean Hannity, that he can execute Donald Trump ....

Those are extreme exaggeration scenarios, but....from what i understand, he could commit criminal acts with his admin and cabinet or witnessed by them, and it would take a near miracle to charge or convict him of those crimes ...without law enforcement being able to force via subpoena his cabinet or administration to testify about the crimes they were witness or a party, to.

 

[forkup]

Nowhere did the court say that congress counldnt impeach a president in their ruling. The immunity isn’t from impeachment

Let me put in in the context of Dobbs. The same people who claim that you can't use the Constitution to find limitations on the ability for States to regulate and even ban abortions as they see fit, unless it's specifically mentioned in there.

Also claim you can concoct a rational for granting immunity for the president in certain cases from criminal prosecution and punishment, while it's clearly stated that there are no exceptions on criminal liability for people subject to the provisions in the impeachment clause.

 

[Care4all]

What the hell are you talking about?

What the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling may have meant for Nixon

For the first time, the Supreme Court this week gave presidents a substantial amount of immunity from prosecution. Experts think it could have shielded Richard Nixon.

www.wunc.org