Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[Hutch Starskey]

Correct.

Lawyers may present a battery of conflicting claims in defense of their client.

Albeit stupidly.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, yes. You Democrats are so proud of yourselves for tumbling to the fact that lawyers and advocates make multiple arguments in defending against multiple attacks.

You meant conflicting arguments.

 

[Seymour Flops]

McConnell's speech was not a false argument. It was a spot on summation of Benedict Donald crimes the Senator left unpunished. Probably felt guilty as hell, well if he had a soul that is......

If he’s not an authority why bring him up?

You meant conflicting arguments.

yes that’s what they do. You seriously did not know that?

Have either of you figured out how many FBI operatives dressed as Trump supporters were in the capital on January 6?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Then you don’t know how lawyers work.

If it were against the law to make a speech or file court cases.

It’s exactly because I know how lawyers work.
They only go as far out on a limb as is required.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

There is little that can be done against people like Trump. we cant previse everything. It's not humanly possible to prepare for such an animal.

When the mob is seduced all we can do is fight back, fight like hell to preserve our democracy.

“Fight like hell”.
You’re an insurrectionist! You should be thrown in jail immediately!

 

[forkup]

What 'crimes' can a President be prosecuted for, scumbag?

Jay-Walking? Bombing a hospital during wartime? Not paying his taxes?

What? You're so fucking smart, douche, tell us what a President can and can't be prosecuted for?

fucking idiots. All dimocrap scum are not just stupid, you are FUCKING STOOPID

Ah, the. Surely it's ridiculous to state a president can't be prosecuted because it still has to fall within the scope of his duties argument.

The Commander In Chief has the authority to order military units to attack enemies. The President can do so without approval of Congress. And as such has the authority to decide who's a treat to national security.

There you go "outer boundaries"

Just like saying that lying about what the DOJ is telling you so you can insist the election was stolen from you. Ignoring the findings of over sixty judges, and claiming the VP can ignore the certified election results because he unilaterally decides he doesn't believe the results. Is simply an expression of a President's duty to ensure a free and fair election.


Motivated reasoning is a powerful thing. And if you don't care about the credibility of the argument by stating "outer boundaries" of presidential duty you can basically justify most anything

If you have lawyers who are willing to argue that a president can't be impeached because the law will take care of it. And in another case argue that the law can't take care of it UNLESS he's impeached.

I don't think there's any crime he can't justify as being within the "outer boundaries" of presidential power.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then you don’t know how lawyers work.

If it were against the law to make a speech or file court cases.

You keep saying dumb shit that shows everyone you know less than nothing about this case.

 

[noonereal]

“Fight like hell”.
You’re an insurrectionist! You should be thrown in jail immediately!

I will be defending the Capital not storming it violently, moron.

 

[Lastamender]

I don't think they understand what "proof" means.

To them, 1+1+_____+_____ = "Proof"

Like you do not understand obvious corruption?

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you have lawyers who are willing to argue that a president can't be impeached because the law will take care of it. And in another case argue that the law can't take care of it UNLESS he's impeached.

Another Democrat, shocked, shocked! Shocked that lawyers argue out of both sides of their mouth.

Do you realize that in law school they have what is called moot court, and which they are assigned a position and told to argue it? They don’t get to say oh wait, I don’t think I agree with that position. They literally practice making arguments whether they agree with the arguments or not.

That’s the point of being a lawyer. The point of being a lawyer is making any argument you can on behalf of your client and hope that one or more of them. Holds sway.

 

[Lastamender]

A 5 second blurp in a 3600 second fire driven inciting speech, obviously meant nothing, to the people there...

Then why would they listen to the other things the said?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another Democrat, shocked, shocked! Shocked that lawyers argue out of both sides of their mouth.

Do you realize that in law school they have what is called moot court, and which they are assigned a position and told to argue it? They don’t get to say oh wait, I don’t think I agree with that position. They literally practice making arguments whether they agree with the arguments or not.

That’s the point of being a lawyer. The point of being a lawyer is making any argument you can on behalf of your client and hope that one or more of them. Holds sway.

No, that's stupid. An educated lawyer doesn't "hope" an argument has merit. Lawyers go to law school to learn which arguments have merit and which do not.

Trumps lawyers know full well their arguments have no merit. They are engaging in theater for Trump and for the public.

 

[Lastamender]

No, that's stupid. An educated lawyer doesn't "hope" an argument has merit. Lawyers go to law school to learn which arguments have merit and which do not.

Trumps lawyers know full well their arguments have no merit. They are engaging in theater for Trump and for the public.

The theater was the J6 committee and the clown show is every one of court cases against Trump. Biden got 81 million votes. Right? What possible worry can there be?

 

[Lastamender]

Judge Florence Pan started off her questioning of Trump lawyer John Sauer by offering a novel scenario.

“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and was not impeached, could he be subjected to criminal prosecution?” Pan asked.

After some back and forth, Sauer said, “Qualified yes, if he’s impeached and convicted first.”

Trump doubles down after DC hearing: ‘Most people agree that we’re entitled to immunity’ – as it happened

If the judges rule in favor of Trump, it could lead to the dropping of the criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith

www.theguardian.com

This is not how democracies run. It is how imperial dictators run things. The US fought against this but perhaps the founders had not considered a trump when forming the constitution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The theater was the J6 committee and the clown show is every one of court cases against Trump. Biden got 81 million votes. Right? What possible worry can there be?

I guess you forgot that you admitted you didn't watch any of the hearings. So not only is your opinion of them worthless, you just embarrassed yourself.

 

[forkup]

Another Democrat, shocked, shocked! Shocked that lawyers argue out of both sides of their mouth.

Do you realize that in law school they have what is called moot court, and which they are assigned a position and told to argue it? They don’t get to say oh wait, I don’t think I agree with that position. They literally practice making arguments whether they agree with the arguments or not.

That’s the point of being a lawyer. The point of being a lawyer is making any argument you can on behalf of your client and hope that one or more of them. Holds sway.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Republican would selectively quote a single paragraph from a reply. Claiming I'm dishonest and then make the same argument I make in that reply.

I neither deny nor am shocked that lawyers make whatever argument they think they can get away with. In fact, it's precisely that, that invalidates the premise that there's any act that could not be justified as falling within the scope of Presidential Power.

Something, that is the exact fault the judge exposed in Trump's absolute immunity claim by posing the hypothetical. And what I said and demonstrated in my reply.


Something that brings me to this.

How, can anybody support a person that tries to argue that a President is absolutely immune from prosecution. If it is acknowledged that a lawyer is trained to be able to justify every position?

 

[OKTexas]

It's funny how conditional you claim everything is.

"Well a circuit court shouldn't consider setting a precedent because it's rare that they need too."

"Well an appeals court shouldn't consider setting precedent even if what they are ruling is precedent because..." Well, I'm curious actually. If you concede that an appeals court sets precedent. And this argument was brought before an appeals court. Why shouldn't they consider that they're setting precedent if it isn't appealed, or SCOTUS doesn't pick it up?

It's pretty simple for adults to understand. An appeals court only sets precedent if their decision is not overturned or modified by SCOTUS. And those usually come from an en banc decision, not a 3 judge panel.

.

 

[Lastamender]

I guess you forgot that you admitted you didn't watch any of the hearings. So not only is your opinion of them worthless, you just embarrassed yourself.

Watching one minute of the hearings would have any thinking person disgusted. I see it did not bother you a bit.

 

[forkup]

It's pretty simple for adults to understand. An appeals court only sets precedent if their decision is not overturned or modified by SCOTUS. And those usually come from an en banc decision, not a 3 judge panel.

.

So, your answer is. "An appeals court should not consider precedent because it MIGHT not be. I hope you realize the ridiculousness of the argument, even when I have no doubt, you won't recognize it out loud."

 

[Godboy]

If you think Obama performed a criminal act, you are welcome to prove it in court.
Prosecutors are providing proof of Trumps criminal acts.

Was banging a Porn Star and paying her off part of Trumps Presidential Duties?
Was illegally taking Top Secret Documents and sharing them with uncleared people part of his Presidential Duties?
Was interfering with a legal election part of his Presidential Duties?

The proof is the fact that Obama did it. There is no dispute of that.