no immunity (Page 1/7)
ray b FEB 06, 11:05 AM
court rules no immunity
ray b FEB 07, 02:54 PM
funny when the con lose
they no longer want to talk about it at all

your hear that the HEAD PIG LOST HIS CLAIM TO BE ALLOWED TO BREAK LAWS

I THINK ALL THE PIGS SHOULD LOSE THAT RIGHT ALSO or never have had it !!

AS THE LAW STANDS ANY COP JUDGE OR COURT STATE EMPLOYEE HAS

''SO CALLED LIMITED IMMUNITY'' OR A SCREWED UP PIG RIGHT NO NORMAL CITIZEN HAS

THE CITIZEN IS TOLD IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE [UNLESS YOUR ARE A PIG]
BUT PIGS WHO'S JOB IS THE LAW ARE EXCUSED FROM KNOWING THE LAWS OR EVEN FOLLOWING THEM
unless certain BS cases are EXACTLY MET SO NOT VERY LIMITED AT ALL
BingB FEB 07, 03:08 PM
Elected officials generally need immunity in order to do their jobs. The key is that it as limited to his official duties. If someone is damaged by an official carrying out his official duties then the government is responsible, not the individual.
jdv FEB 07, 03:27 PM
People generally don't respond to useless babbling. They have some idea of the process that is going on.
82-T/A [At Work] FEB 07, 04:29 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

funny when the con lose
they no longer want to talk about it at all

your hear that the HEAD PIG LOST HIS CLAIM TO BE ALLOWED TO BREAK LAWS

I THINK ALL THE PIGS SHOULD LOSE THAT RIGHT ALSO or never have had it !!

AS THE LAW STANDS ANY COP JUDGE OR COURT STATE EMPLOYEE HAS

''SO CALLED LIMITED IMMUNITY'' OR A SCREWED UP PIG RIGHT NO NORMAL CITIZEN HAS

THE CITIZEN IS TOLD IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE [UNLESS YOUR ARE A PIG]
BUT PIGS WHO'S JOB IS THE LAW ARE EXCUSED FROM KNOWING THE LAWS OR EVEN FOLLOWING THEM
unless certain BS cases are EXACTLY MET SO NOT VERY LIMITED AT ALL




I wasn't really sure what you were talking about... I don't follow Trump's life day in and day out, so I didn't see it.

But this should be expected. ~45 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled against the Nixon Administration that "Presidential Immunity" was not a thing, and that Nixon had to hand over the tapes. This same concept applies. There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that defines "Presidential Immunity." As a matter of fact, it's a completely made up concept that the various courts have ruled on over the years that has "applied" to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Clause 3 of Section 2 of Article II:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

How in God's name the Supreme Court in the mid 1800s determined that a President is immune against civil lawsuits based on this line is completely beyond me, and at this point in time, not worth trying to figure out (because it doesn't matter). The Supreme Court ruled that the President is not immune to CRIMINAL lawsuits, which of course, they shouldn't be. None of this means Trump is guilty of any crime (which he obviously isn't). It just means that tactic didn't work, and the charade that is the DOJ gets to continue on.

BUT... the positive outcome of this is that Democrats have now forced the Supreme Court to rule on this. Once again, in the Democrat's frenetic and psychotic effort to manipulate government, they end up opening doors that that in fact will harm them in the future. It is now official, Presidents are NOT immune to criminal liability. SO... that means we've now set a new standard, and Democrat presidents ... even while in office, can now be sued criminally by states. That is correct... be very concerned.


Free bonus content... there is also absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says a President can pass Executive Orders, and even further... the whole concept of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" in the U.S. for criminal law is ALSO not even in the U.S. Constitution. It literally doesn't exist... but people thought it was a good idea, and eventually in 1970 the Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause effectively means "beyond reasonable doubt" in Winship vs Mississippi.

EDIT:... not 45 years ago... I dunno... whenever Nixon was looking to get impeached and Archibald Cox was on his ass. I guess that was 1973 or something?

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 02-07-2024).]

williegoat FEB 07, 04:38 PM
In the long run, I would rather see it go to trial than get dismissed. I want ALL of the dirty laundry out in the open. And I do mean ALL of it.

But as regards this thread, rayb posted this as the topic was being discussed in another thread. He just didn't like the way that thread was going.
Fats FEB 07, 08:18 PM
Awesome. That means that immunity doesn't exist for other politicians and I'm excited for where this lawfare takes us.
Doug85GT FEB 07, 08:25 PM
This was expected. The appeals will continue and it will eventually go to SCOTUS. The delays confound the Democrats lawfare.

If this stands then I look forward to Obama being tried for manslaughter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...bdulrahman_al-Awlaki

George Bush and Bill Clinton better leave the country or someone will come up with something to charge them. A whole bunch of children were burned to death under Clinton and there could be all sorts of charges brought up on Bush over Iraq. This might just turn into a new process where every president and their entire cabinet are banished from the country when they leave office.
82-T/A [At Work] FEB 07, 09:50 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fats:

Awesome. That means that immunity doesn't exist for other politicians and I'm excited for where this lawfare takes us.




Hahah... me too...
rinselberg FEB 08, 08:50 AM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
In the long run, I would rather see it go to trial than get dismissed. I want ALL of the dirty laundry out in the open. And I do mean ALL of it.


If memory serves me, the votes of four Supreme Court justices would be enough to "grant cert" or agree to hear Trump's appeal of the decision that he does not have presidential immunity. But there would have to be votes from five Supreme Court justices to put his trial on hold while his case is being argued before the Supreme Court. That means that Trump's courtroom trial in the federal case against him over the 2020 election could be moving forward, at the same time as the Supreme Court is hearing his appeal of the lower court's decision to deny Trump presidential immunity and leave him open to prosecution on the federal charges.

That's "Two Things at Once." It's amazing that no one before Pfizer ever mathematically formalized the "Two Things at Once" conjecture before. It seems to be everywhere you look!



A good thing I'm here, eh?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-08-2024).]