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

[WorldWatcher]

Looked more like he was filling his Depends.

WW

 

[DigitalDrifter]

3 min ago

House majority leader hails Supreme Court immunity decision​

From CNN's Clare Foran
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise praised the Supreme Court’s immunity decision in a statement on Monday.
“With today’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded what we’ve known all along: a president cannot be prosecuted for his official acts. The weaponization of President Biden’s Department of Justice against President Trump is outrageous, unconstitutional, and must cease. While it’s becoming increasingly clear Democrats believe their only path to victory in November is through prosecuting their political opponent, today’s decision makes it clear this is not allowed in our constitutional system,” Scalise said.

 

[Rambunctious]

Oh, I forgot to ask. Could you point to the section in the Constitution where it says Presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution?

Thanks, I'd like to review it.

WW

The constitution grants the president powers the rest of us do not enjoy.... official duty is all the court said today... this ends Smith's case or in the least it pushes it way past the election when we will have new leadership at the DOJ...
Its over....

 

[DigitalDrifter]

8 min ago

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer decries immunity ruling as other Democrats echo his concerns​

From CNN's Owen Dahlkamp and Morgan Rimmer
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer looks on during a news conference on June 5 in Washington, DC.
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the majority’s ruling, calling it “a sad day for our democracy.”
The New York Democrat also said “the very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president.”
Other congressional Democrats have also expressed outrage over the decision.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, dubbed the ruling as “disastrous,” blaming an “extreme right-wing Supreme Court” for drastically weakening “accountability if a president attempts to use their office for criminal purposes.”
Rep. Frederica Wilson of Texas criticized the court, accusing them of not upholding the tenant of “equal justice under law.” She also highlighted that three Trump-appointed justices sided with the former president in the ruling.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don’t know about all officials…but it’s always been understood that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken.

No it has not. That's literally why the SCOTUS just had to rule on it.

Maybe someone else will try to answer.

 

[Rambunctious]

Looked more like he was filling his Depends.

WW

Biden lovers should know all about that....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

'After the election'................................

"Before inaugiration"

 

[pknopp]

OK.

MEXICO: News of another U.S. gun-tracking program stirs ...​

View attachment 969987
Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com › blogs › world-now › story
Oct 6, 2011 — Bush allowed guns to 'walk' across the border into Mexico during 2006 and 2007. Both undercover programs were intended to track guns bought ...

OK, so both should have been prosecuted.

WTF?
Guess what?
Al-Awlaki was in a foreign country in a war zone.
Do you think the US Constitution follows you around the world?

There is a specific law addressing this. It's illegal for anyone else. Yes, as a citizen your rights follow you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

3 min ago

House majority leader hails Supreme Court immunity decision​

From CNN's Clare Foran
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise praised the Supreme Court’s immunity decision in a statement on Monday.
“With today’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded what we’ve known all along: a president cannot be prosecuted for his official acts. The weaponization of President Biden’s Department of Justice against President Trump is outrageous, unconstitutional, and must cease. While it’s becoming increasingly clear Democrats believe their only path to victory in November is through prosecuting their political opponent, today’s decision makes it clear this is not allowed in our constitutional system,” Scalise said.

Looks like Biden, via Kamala, gets to re-elect himself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The constitution grants the president powers the rest of us do not enjoy...

Not committing criminal acts.

 

[Delldude]

Most of the people-of-the-cult must be freaked out.

Looks more like you're the one freaking out.

You support giving even more power to the government?

Did you bitch when they created TSA, violating your rights under the fourth?

Absolute immunity is what MAGA, the GOP and other partisan nuts have been arguing.

Nope..................for official acts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did you bitch when they created TSA, violating your rights under the fourth?

Did you?

So you cultists are more concerned about the orange slob's rights than your own.

That tracks.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I have to note the hypocrisy. The court over ruled RvW because they said no such protection exists in the Constitution.

Now they rule a president has certain protections despite there being nothing about that in the Constitution.

/—-/ And that is the role of the USSC, to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Smokin' OP]

OK, so both should have been prosecuted.




There is a specific law addressing this. It's illegal for anyone else. Yes, as a citizen your rights follow you.

Really?
What "Law"?

Better tell the Kremlin.

President of Russia (@KremlinRussia_E) / ...​

X · KremlinRussia_E
1.9M+ followers
Official Kremlin news Official Telegram channel: Kremlin. News.

 

[my2¢]

The ruling seems logical to me. Presidential immunity is restricted to conduct related to the nation's business and does not extend to a president's personal affairs.

Excerpts from the ruling's Opinion of the Court section:

Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution.

Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position.

The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution. Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.

Trump v United States

 

[pknopp]

Did you bitch when they created TSA, violating your rights under the fourth?

Yes, I've complained and called for it to end for years. Look it up.

 

[scruffy]

Oh please, explain. Explain the constitutional basis of presidential immunity.

This should be good.

So now the leftards suddenly like the Constitution?

Hypocrite much?

 

[pknopp]

Really?
What "Law"?

9-141.000. Foreign Murder of United States Nationals (18 U.S.C. § 1119)

www.justice.gov

Better tell the Kremlin.

President of Russia (@KremlinRussia_E) / ...​

View attachment 969991
X · KremlinRussia_E
1.9M+ followers
Official Kremlin news Official Telegram channel: Kremlin. News.

None of this has anything to do with Russia. Stay on topic.

 

[Billo_Really]

Here it is:

What you need to know​

• JUST IN: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his presidency in a decision that will likely further delay a trial on the federal election subversion charges pending against him.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24/index.html

Fuck SCOTUS! It's official. The highest court in the land, HAS BEEN BOUGHT!

 

[scruffy]

8 min ago

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer decries immunity ruling as other Democrats echo his concerns​

From CNN's Owen Dahlkamp and Morgan Rimmer
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer looks on during a news conference on June 5 in Washington, DC.
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the majority’s ruling, calling it “a sad day for our democracy.”
The New York Democrat also said “the very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president.”
Other congressional Democrats have also expressed outrage over the decision.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, dubbed the ruling as “disastrous,” blaming an “extreme right-wing Supreme Court” for drastically weakening “accountability if a president attempts to use their office for criminal purposes.”
Rep. Frederica Wilson of Texas criticized the court, accusing them of not upholding the tenant of “equal justice under law.” She also highlighted that three Trump-appointed justices sided with the former president in the ruling.

Fuck Schumer. He's a psycho to begin with