Let's Understand The Choice Some Want to Make

[kyzr]

There is no Banana Republic. Trump broke laws.

We'll see after the appeals courts overturn the 34 bullshit felonies and proves that the dem's "Lawfare" won't stand.
Trump broke no laws, as per legal experts.
Biden can't beat Trump, neither can Kamala, good luck!

 

[luiza]

It might be nice if someone arranged checks on IQ2 to determine whether he is still alive , or is now fully vegetable and `wanting to identify as a big , fat white cauliflower .

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We'll see after the appeals courts overturn the 34 bullshit felonies and proves that the dem's "Lawfare" won't stand.

what is they do not, will you then accept them as legit?

 

[kyzr]

what is they do not, will you then accept them as legit?

Of course. After all the appeals play out, the result is final.

I believe Turley's analysis. Plus the USSC defanged the dem's "Lawfare" initiative.

Buzz Kill: The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal

Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan. There has been considerable criticism of the defense te…

jonathanturley.org

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I believe Turley's analysis.

Of course you do.

Plus the USSC defanged the dem's "Lawfare" initiative.

They defanged the Constitution. But it helped your cult leader so you do not give a fuck.

 

[forkup]

Although the President might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than civil damages suits, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent and plainly more likely to distort Presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages.

The same is true for EVERY citizen. Threat of prosecution is a deterrent from commiting crimes. I would argue that's one of the the main functions of prosecution of crimes. Besides punishment it's also the deterrent factor.

The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under “a pall of potential prosecution,”

A president swears to uphold the laws. Here however the Supreme Court he should be able to break them. As for a "pall of potential prosecution," Crimes get prosecuted. The US provides a whole slew of protections against wrongful prosecution. The ethical obligations of a prosecutor subject to review and sanctions,Grand Juries, jury trials, Judges, and several levels of judicial review. This decisions only mentions one, this in rebuttal to the dissent. Namely the prosecutor and ONLY in the context of possible abuse. It in no way identifies an actual reason to declare those protections insufficient, besides the bizarre notion that following the actual law is a hindrance to "fearlessly and fairly" execute his office. Wtf??? For some reason breaking the law is necessary to "fairly" execute the office of President of the United States?

Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action. But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary responsibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.” Id., at 756.

Only this case doesn't handle "innumerable functions," those functions the prosecution has deemed as potentially criminal have been delineated. So why not at the very least decide those in this particular case? The majority here gives a framework and then REFUSES to apply that framework on SPECIFIC allegations.

The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”

A 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 "

 

[sparky]

There has been no lawfare.

~S~