- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS Hears Case - POTUS Trump's lawyer offers no rebuttal.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think there was ever a response to an election like what we saw after 2020.
Because there was never such blatant frickery employed in real time in front of millions of Americans' eyes while the media was wholly complicit in the steal by telling the people that they definitely weren't possibly seeing the things they were absolutely, positively seeing.
1
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I prefer to live like a monk more than a priest
Do one that's taken a vow of silence, then.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:20 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Everything he does while he is POTUS is an official act.
That is not how D. John Sauer answered Justice Barrett when she questioned him about specific acts. Of course, he is not dumb enough to think that is the case.
Presidents clearly engage in public and private acts while in office. Some acts are easily defined as one or the other there are certain acts that are much more muddy.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:23 pm to Datbawwwww
Serious question...couldn't the AG in each conservative state put charges on Obama, Biden, and Clinton, and issue arrest warrants for the same type of charges against Trump?
That way those Dems wouldn't be able to enter and campaign, without being arrested?
That would put a fire under their assessment on SCOTUS
That way those Dems wouldn't be able to enter and campaign, without being arrested?
That would put a fire under their assessment on SCOTUS
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:26 pm to GumboPot
I think you meant to respond to my post in the other thread 
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think you meant to respond to my post in the other thread
Sorry about that. I have to switch from phone to computer because work blocks X.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:27 pm to ChatGPT of LA
Based on the argument the DOJ was making, yes. And that’s exactly what the SCOTUS wants to avoid, from what I heard today.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:33 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Presidents clearly engage in public and private acts while in office. Some acts are easily defined as one or the other there are certain acts that are much more muddy.
This is why limited immunity wouldn’t work.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We aren't discussing the merits ITT
The question is if that call was part of his executive function or not.
That's not the question of this thread at all.
The question for this thread, and what is being reviewed by the Supreme Court is whether presidents enjoy immunity and to what extent.
You've moved on to determining official vs. unofficial acts, because you've suddenly accepted that Presidents do have some criminal immunity. I've enjoyed your retreat on that point.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:35 pm to moneyg
quote:Who decides what's "official"? And how is the question brought to their attention?
First of all, it’s not blanket immunity. It’s immunity for official acts as president.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:38 pm to da prophet
quote:
This is why limited immunity wouldn’t work.
Why?
That's been the de facto conceptualization of this for a long time.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:40 pm to moneyg
quote:
That's not the question of this thread at all.
quote:
The question for this thread, and what is being reviewed by the Supreme Court is whether presidents enjoy immunity and to what extent.
No shite that's what I said.
But it's pretty much a given executive function will be immune.
Hence
quote:
The question is if that call was part of his executive function or not.
quote:
because you've suddenly accepted that Presidents do have some criminal immunity
That's literally always been my position
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:44 pm to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
Serious question...couldn't the AG in each conservative state put charges on Obama, Biden, and Clinton, and issue arrest warrants for the same type of charges against Trump?
Could they not prosecute GWB for obstructing an official proceeding for allegedly lying to Congress to justify the Iraq war?
How about WJC for lying to Congress to conceal his extramarital affairs?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:47 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Serious question...couldn't the AG in each conservative state put charges on Obama, Biden, and Clinton,
quote:
Could they not prosecute GWB for obstructing an official proceeding
He said the states, not the federal DOJ.
And for GWB, no, because that would be part of his executive function, clearly.
State prosecutions are an entirely different animal, in terms of the Constitution.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:48 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Article I Section 3 Senate Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments 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.
Is that supposed to be what you think strips a POTUS of his immunity for official acts? Because it doesn’t.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:49 pm to Indefatigable
They don't know how to read laws and want the USSC to legislate from the bench and add words to the Constitution that don't exist in reality...like Roe v. Wade.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:51 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I guess it doesn't have to happen in that order
That would be because it doesn’t. Relative to this conversation, the clause merely sets out that impeachment does not preclude criminal prosecution for the same act, and nothing more.
There are zero immunity implications.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:52 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That would be because it doesn’t. Relative to this conversation, the clause merely sets out that impeachment does not preclude criminal prosecution for the same act, and nothing more.
There are zero immunity implications.
Yeah it's basically saying that "conviction" following impeachment is not "conviction" for criminal double jeopardy.
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News