Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trump was indicted and he has to win the trialYou’re an idiot.
I read it and I understood it.
You maybe didn’t read it at all. But if you did, you’re one of the one who didn’t understand it.
Lots of people get ducted. Some (like Trump) are completely innocent and it’s the accuser who has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.Trump was indicted and he has to win the trial
he will lose
We see many of our liberals railing against the Trump legal team’s contention that the President is supposed to be immune from the nonsensical criminal charges brought by the current Administration’s DOJ and its misnamed “special counsel.”
It may be that the legal arguments for that position could fail. But the arguments against it — as offered by many of our liberals — are ignorant and quite insipid.
They don’t seem to understand (on any level) some of the more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team. Too bad. The liberals’ counter-arguments might carry some weight if they’d honestly address those legal points. But, they don’t. They don’t even try.
I suspect it’s because our liberals are too dismissive and too ignorant.
For future reference, here is a link to the Trump brief on his claims for immunity:
DocumentCloud
www.documentcloud.org
One of the more interesting facets of the arguments made in support of extending Presidential immunity to “criminal” cases involves consideration of the import of Trump’s Senate acquittal in both of his impeachments. This involves a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting: double jeopardy.
Good stuff. Well worth the read and some actual consideration.
You’ve not managed to prove that you either don’t read the Trump brief or you lack any ability to understand any arguments involving anything beyond the most straightforward linear thinking.Oh dear Lord. How did any of you manage to Graduate Middle School?
Fifth Amendment
www.law.cornell.edu
If convicted by the Senate would Trump have been sent straight to prison? No? Then there is no double jeopardy you blithering idiots.
I swear. Every idiotic thing Trump says you fools come out like Moses holding the tablets with the 10 Commandments.
"I made a bet. If Obama wins re-election, then I leave the Board." - Liability/Backagain
www.usmessageboard.com
You’ve not managed to prove that you either don’t read the Trump brief or you lack any ability to understand any arguments involving anything beyond the most straightforward linear thinking.
I would consider having you go back and try to read all the words (including modifiers, etc.), but let’s be real. You still wouldn’t grasp anything.
You still don’t understand. And you’re wrong.I read it. It’s nonsense. Let’s take the first argument. The outer perimeter nonsense. Causing individuals to be issued false electoral certifications is not part of the duties of the President. Even the outer perimeter. It is so far outside of the outer perimeter that Neptune is close by comparison.
His actions regarding the Tweets not being official communications. Nonsense. There was a lawsuit when he barred someone from his Twitter feed and he was ordered by the court to reinstate the person as Trump used it as official communication from the office of President. See page five.
That is the funny thing. All of these claims have been addressed previously.
Page 8. The question has been addressed by the actions of previous Presidents. President Ford issuing a pardon for former President Nixon. President Clinton arranging a plea deal to avoid prosecution during the waning hours of his administration. Regarding the claims on page 8.
Immunity is for actions within the scope of your duties. Not for obvious criminal activity outside of that scope.
The section of the Constitution quoted has not been tested. But if that was the case why did Nixon accept a Pardon? Why did Clinton accept a plea bargain deal?
I could go on. But it is obvious that the lawyers employed by Trump are not being serious. They’re throwing mashed potatoes at the wall hoping something sticks.
You still don’t understand. And you’re wrong.
It’s not nonsense. It is absolutely fair and logical legal reasoning.
It isn’t surprising that you don’t understand any of this. But the truth remains — all the same. Not everything about the Constitution is always found in the text. Someone is found by logical necessary implication.
I dislike President Potato. But I wouldn’t want for any of his most crucial decisions to be skewed out of fear of civil liability or criminal liability from some idiot down the road.
web.archive.org
capitalresearch.org
You’re simply and mindlessly repeating yourself. Very unpersuasive.No it isn’t. Historically two Presidents faced potential criminal charges from actions while in office. Those two were Nixon, and Clinton. Both were advised by legal council that prosecution was a real threat when they left office.
THE LEGAL AFTERMATH: CITIZEN NIXON AND THE LAW
For Richard Nixon, the sacrifice of his office very likely will not bring even a week of surcease. Within minutes of the resignation speech, Leon Jaworski pointedly announced that so far as...
They had every intention of prosecuting Nixon. The only thing that could stop it was a Pardon.
Pardon of Richard Nixon - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
That’s the problem with Trump’s arguments. They go against every thing in American History. That’s why I laugh so hard when you guys rush out like Moses with the Ten Commandments.
Clinton? He avoided prosecution. The plea deal?
Bill Clinton’s Plea Bargain
Today, 20 years ago on this date began the final few hours of a presidential administration—the Clinton administration. The InfluenceWatch profile of President Bill Clinton reveals that he was concerned as much about his legal jeopardy as his political legacy. The prosecution Clinton was...
Republicans were outraged that he got a sweetheart deal weren’t they? Why? If they couldn’t prosecute him why was there a plea deal?
You’re simply and mindlessly repeating yourself. Very unpersuasive.
Nixon could have been prosecuted and so could Bubba as Trump currently is. And the reason for that is that (to date) the Presidential Immunity is limited to civil liability. This is already known and it’s the very point made by team Trump. Their contention remains that the scope of the immunity ought to be formally recognized as also encompassing possible criminal liability for the official actions they undertake within the bounds of their sworn duties.
Go try to figure it out.
I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet ...Concession (of a kind) and Goodbye.
I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet (Zona's revenge :lol: ): and the terms were simple. I bet that Pres. Obama would NOT get re-elected. Based on everything I have seen tonight, the election actually...
No. Try to follow along. He seeks to expand the already existing immunity into the criminal realm. And of course his motivation includes himself. Given the way this has come about, that’s hardly a surprise. But the import of his legal proposal goes well beyond his own needs.Yeah. So Trump wants a whole new right created out of thin air because he says he needs it.
This is not brilliant legal argument.
Your ignorance prevents you from seeing much of anything.It is a child demanding something that his parents have said no to.
No. Try to follow along. He seeks to expand the already existing immunity into the criminal realm. And of course his motivation includes himself. Given the way this has come about, that’s hardly a surprise. But the import of his legal proposal goes well beyond his own needs.
Yes. It is.
Your ignorance prevents you from seeing much of anything.
Why do you smooth brain twats insist on having your to have everything repeated?So help me out. Explain where in the Constitution this new right is found? Originalists always point to the Constitution and scream that it isn’t in there don’t they?
He has no honor.I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet ...
Thus, I am obliged to leave USMB. I have been' assured' by lots of my lib "buddies" that I will come back under some other username. Nope. Gone means gone.
Interesting isn't it. Pure cognitive dissonance. Ahh, its all good. The dreaded 'lib buddies' were right all along.
As he says -- Probably the way he (Liability), was raised.He has no honor.
a Constitutional originalist
Have a caution little the dainty reawakened. You’re once again trodding over the line. Keep the “no family rule” in mind, you scumbag.As he says -- Probably the way he (Liability), was raised.
Why do you smooth brain twats insist on having your to have everything repeated?
Your lack of comprehension about what a Constitutional originalist believes is apparent.
In any event, suffice it to say that analysis of the Constitution often requires resorting to reasonable inferences.
Educate yourself:
That’s enough to scratch the surface.
