- 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 12:58 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Impeachment is an act of congress.
Why or how would that ever have any bearing on criminal law?
Congressional impeachment and conviction would remove immunity opening up criminal prosecution.
2
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:59 pm to Tasseo
quote:
He was POTUS and federal elections integrity should fall under his purview. Also, as a candidate he should have the right to make sure things were done right.
Uh, that's why the Department of Justice (under the Executive Branch) exists. Bill Barr investigated those claims of issues of elections integrity at the direction of Trump and found that there were none. That's an official act, and Trump hasn't been charged in any court for any official act regarding directing federal agencies (with the requisite authority) to investigate those claims.
That's different from making a call to a State Secretary of State (Raffensburger) and asking someone to find 11,000+ votes. That is not an official act, and the President has no authority (federal authority) to direct a state official to perform an act regarding the results of a state election, when he doesn't have authority over that state official or the state's elections.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:59 pm to GumboPot
quote:
So could an incumbent President running for re-election violate campaign finance law without worry during that election? Yes.
Yikes.
quote:
The House can impeach and the Senate can convict and in doing so remove presidential immunity for criminal prosecution on a particular matter.
What’s your basis for this?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:00 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Congressional impeachment and conviction would remove immunity opening up criminal prosecution.
No, it unequivocally would not.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:00 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Everything he does while he is POTUS is an official act.
During the first debate, Trump calls Joe Biden's mother a whore.
Biden walks up to him and pulls out of his jacket an 18th century dueling pistol and shoots Trump in the face.
Immunity? He is the President. Senate passes on Impeachment trial.
(It is very clear that the President enjoys high level of immunity for official acts, and likely little to none for personal acts. It just becomes a question of what those acts are defined as)
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So could an incumbent President running for re-election violate campaign finance law without worry during that election? Is that private or official?
Or as Kavanaugh asked, what about Obama's intentional droning (murder) of American citizens? So functionally, the answer is the law can be applied to Republicans and not Democrats. Or more kindly, Republican motives are bad and prosecutable and Democrat motives are good and nothing to see here.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:01 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
What’s your basis for this?
Congress passes laws.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:02 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Congress passes laws.
Congress passed a law stating that an impeachment and removal would strip POTUS of his immunity for an official act?
Weird, I must have missed that legislation.
You do understand that Congress can impeach and remove a POTUS for whatever the hell Congress wants to impeach and remove him for, right? It is functionally no different than a motion of no confidence in parliamentary systems—our set up just makes it a lot harder to do because of the 2/3rds requirement. There is no legal standard for what “high crime or misdemeanor” means in a purely political context.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
If you are a lawyer, Our justice system is worse then I thought. Whatever meets your narrative is what you believe. Guess I am saying you suck as a Lawyer.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:04 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Why not?
... because Congress is vested with the authority it is granted by the Constitution. The only authority vested in Congress related to reigning in the President is impeachment (and in the Senate removal from office).
That's completely different from prosecutorial authority granted by an actual federal law enforcement agency. Congress is a law making authority, not a law enforcement authority.
Even when someone is held in contempt of Congress, those contempt charges are pursued by law enforcement.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:04 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
What do you mean, offers no rebuttal?
Usually done if the other side's case is extremely strong or extremely weak. In this case, it's extremely weak.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Official act is using the executive legally, which Trump did. He had his DOJ investigate. Notice he's not being prosecuted for that or even accused of anything for that.
Did the prosecution list the predicate acts in this indictment? Have you considered those? Are any of those official acts?
Is speaking to the American people about a possible fraudulent election not an official act?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:07 pm to moneyg
quote:
Official act is using the executive legally
I don't think an executive action has to be technically legal to be an "official act" within the purview of immunity.
It just has to be an act relating to the official duties of the president.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:10 pm to ronricks
quote:
Have we ever had a President do the dumb things Trump has done?
Biden has demonstrated the ability to be wrong on nearly every domestic and foreign policy decision, so yes, we are currently watching an installed president do incredibly dumb and irresponsible BS.
The better question is, has the PT Forum ever had a more TDS addled poster than ronricks? TBD.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:11 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
It just has to be an act relating to the official duties of the president.
Correct, with the caveat of replacing “related to” to “within”.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:12 pm to Indefatigable
And the interesting question becomes:
what exactly does that mean?
what exactly does that mean?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:13 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
That's different from making a call to a State Secretary of State (Raffensburger) and asking someone to find 11,000+ votes. That is not an official act, and the President has no authority (federal authority) to direct a state official to perform an act, when he doesn't have authority over that state official.
Agree
Unpopular opinion here but I've said this several times. IMO where Trump really fricks himself on this call is when he says . “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have”. Not "let's recount the votes" or something similar, but referencing a specific number to proclaim him the winner. He can dance around it all he wants, but Trump is asking Raffensburger to sway the election his way
IMO of course, YMMV
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:14 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
what exactly does that mean?
We’ll find out in a few weeks. This is first impression—where that line is.
But no reasonable person disputes that there is a line between official and non official duties/actions.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:15 pm to beaux duke
I want to know why Trump ever thought that call was appropriate in any possible situation.
Regardless of legalities, it was monumentally stupid.
Regardless of legalities, it was monumentally stupid.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 1:24 pm to beaux duke
POTUS Trump has Raffensberger on record. POTUS Trump knows the election was stolen and there will be hell to pay soon. The perps are changing their pants more frequently these days.
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News