- 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 12:31 pm to ronricks
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:31 pm to ronricks
quote:
Can you imagine Nixon himself getting on a phone call asking to "find votes"
I am sorry. What is illegal about asking a Secretary of State to find the votes? Isn't the Whip of each party in Congress being asked to "find the votes" all the time? The SoS could say, we are looking for every official ballot and will count those.
Explain the broken law.....
2
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:32 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
I am sorry. What is illegal about asking a Secretary of State to find the votes? Isn't the Whip of each party in Congress being asked to "find the votes" all the time? The SoS could say, we are looking for every official ballot and will count those.
Nothing. We have all heard the call.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:33 pm to ronricks
quote:
phone call asking to "find votes
You fricking moron. Clearly you’re getting your news from CNN and are just the useful idiot they love. Read the transcript of the call and educate yourself instead of wallowing in complete ignorance. Anyone that reads the transcript knows there was absolutely nothing wrong with that call. My God, it must hurt being so completely ignorant about so many things you smugly opine about.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:34 pm to Tasseo
quote:
The lefties are acting like people are saying POTUS can legit walk up and murder someone. Which is the way theyll take advantage of in the future.
I mean...Obama essentially did exactly this.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:34 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
What is illegal about asking a Secretary of State to find the votes?
The question is how that is an executive function and not a personal function.
quote:
Isn't the Whip of each party in Congress being asked to "find the votes" all the time? T
For legislation pursuant to federal rules, yes. The President's official duties would work here, too.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:35 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Obama essentially did exactly this.
Through his executive function as CIF, pursuant to military authorizations from Congress.
Same with GWB's bullshite.
Neither example applies to Trump's behavior in any way.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you want to argue it's his responsibility to investigate claims of fraud in state elections, then the proper avenue is to have the DOJ investigate (which he did, and he's not being attacked over)
And the proper avenue to try him is via Congressuonal impeachment, not for the doj of the opposite party to go after him in the federal courts. Political persecution that is going on right now is WAY worse than anything Trump did, and people are legitimately excusing it.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
SFP.. You think you will no face the final judgement?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:37 pm to Tasseo
quote:
And the proper avenue to try him is via Congressuonal impeachment,
The Constitution is clear that impeachment is only for removal from office and is separate from criminal prosecutions.
quote:
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office,
quote:
not for the doj of the opposite party to go after him in the federal courts.
Well 2 of his trials (including the one going on today) are state trials.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:37 pm to imjustafatkid
But, he was ......Questioning the legality of anything government related is a part of the job.
The only thing lacking was a veto......
The only thing lacking was a veto......
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:39 pm to 756
quote:
SFP.. You think you will no face the final judgement?
I can't answer that. I'm not a god.
However, this discussion has nothing to do with sins, judgment, or morality. This is a legal-political discussion.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:40 pm to bluedragon
quote:
.Questioning the legality of anything government related is a part of the job.
His investigatory arm is the DOJ.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It is very likely that there will be an immunity from criminal prosecution for official Acts. The issue is that what Trump is accused of doing is almost certainly not an official act so if they give immunity for official acts he's still in the box
During the argument the justices were asking the DOJ who makes the determination between private and official acts? The DOJ responded that the president needs to seek legal counsel from the DOJ to make that determination. I got the impression that the justices did not buy that argument. But if they do, why does only the DOJ become the official arbiter to decide private and official acts? What about any other legal counsel? Because President Trump sought legal counsel from John Eastman and a couple of other WH lawyers to challenge aspects of the 2020 election.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:43 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You fricking moron.
There was no reason for Trump to be on that call begging for votes
It opens a can of worms that was completely avoidable. Have someone make the call don't be on the call yourself. It was fricking stupid and once again was totally avoidable. You Trump sycophants that think he has never done anything wrong or made a bad decision are truly mentally insane. You have actual TDS.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I can't answer that. I'm not a god.
Have you told yourself that? Because you come across as seeming to think you are.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:43 pm to Timeoday
quote:
DA? If "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" occur impeach the President. Otherwise, leave the President alone.
Impeachment has nothing to do with any criminal proceeding, ever.
The line for criminal immunity is whether the alleged acts were within POTUS’s official duties.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
His investigatory arm is the DOJ.
This assumes that the DOJ and the presidency are not adversarial. Why not WH counsel?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
Which he did as POTUS so they should have done the impeachment before he left. So going after a President after he is out better damn well be a better reason than him trying to make sure the election was on the up and up. Legit criminal action not some made up BS.
And the current Democrats DOJ is involved in the cases including State ones. Proven in the Fulton emails.
And the current Democrats DOJ is involved in the cases including State ones. Proven in the Fulton emails.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:44 pm to GumboPot
quote:
It sounded like the government was trying to make the distinction between the presidents private matters and official matters.
That’s the entire issue, so yes, that is what the argument revolved around.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:45 pm to Indefatigable
If running for reelection isn’t considered an official duty, then there are a lot of politicians who should be in serious legal trouble IMHO.
Lots of shady shite is done for the purposes of reelection under claim of official duties.
Lots of shady shite is done for the purposes of reelection under claim of official duties.
Page 3 of 13
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News