Post: Trump wins on Immunity... for the most part

Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage

Historic: 538: Biden approval -20
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 3, 2024 12:59 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [34 views]

US Goes After War Crime and Human Rights Violators
Crime by oldedude     July 2, 2024 10:00 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (12 comments) [127 views]

In 2016, Hillary won the popular vote by 2.1 percent...
Media by HatetheSwamp     July 3, 2024 11:40 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [50 views]

Trump wins on Immunity... for the most part
Law by HatetheSwamp     July 1, 2024 9:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (28 comments) [261 views]

(Nate) Silver Bulletin 2024 presidential election forecast
President by HatetheSwamp     July 2, 2024 10:44 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (9 comments) [88 views]

Like it or not, Kamala Harris is probably our only hope
Politics by ROB3RT     July 2, 2024 9:14 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [79 views]

Quick question. Multiple choice.
History by Ponderer     July 2, 2024 6:42 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [57 views]

Who's still planning to vote for Biden?
Government by HatetheSwamp     July 2, 2024 8:50 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [99 views]

"Watch me!"
President by HatetheSwamp     July 2, 2024 5:16 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [57 views]

gtnish7 is annoying and needs to go away.
Advice by BionicleFan1994     June 25, 2024 1:40 pm (Rating: 0.6) Last comment by: Indy! (28 comments) [493 views]

Law selectors, pages, etc.

Trump wins on Immunity... for the most part

By HatetheSwamp
July 1, 2024 9:51 am
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

I ain't a legal eagle. Yet,...

This is pretty much what I expected, not because I once clerked at the Supreme Court and now teach at an Ivy League law school (wink wink),...

...but because the Court scheduled the announcement of the decision all the way into July.

They wanted to be able to get their butts the h£ck out of town.

They knew that the metaphorical po would be seriously p¡$$£d off!

Cited and related links:

Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.

Comments on "Trump wins on Immunity... for the most part":

by oldedude on July 1, 2024 10:27 am
I haven't reviewed the decision, and what I've heard is the most radical on both sides have been eliminated from a "right." The rest has to be shown in court. My view is that this is about as "nailed down" as it's going to get. Trumpster isn't going to get all he wants. The dims aren't going to get all they want. Okay.

I think there are many, many times a president is going to ask an advisor, analyst, etc what they think. That needs to be between them. Classified meetings. Leave classified. So my thoughts on what needs to be covered by the immunity is pretty narrow. It needs to be available, and there needs to be some rules.

by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2024 10:43 am

What I think p¡$$£$ po, metaphorical and literal, is that the likelihood that Trump will be found guilty in the J6 Stalin Show Trial BEFORE THE ELECTION is diminished.

If the SwampDems had only brought the DC and Florida Show Trial charges a year earlier, the verdicts would probably have come in during the spring or about now. As po made clear in the Fourteenth Amendment keep Trump off the ballot scheme, they don't believe in due process... especially for non white wokesters. And, they failed to take into account that Trump would receive due process.

Big mistake. Big, big mistake.

by Indy! on July 1, 2024 10:58 am

Comical. The board law experts think it's Ds vs Rs when the credibility of the American judicial system is the one hanging in the balance.

by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2024 11:56 am

Here's Lawrence Tribe on MSNBC on the immunity decision.

Does anyone who's a white woke electric limousine lovin Swampcult progressive realize that, if Trump wins in November, his AG could charge that "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" with numerous crimes? And, The ONE, too?

by Curt_Anderson on July 1, 2024 11:58 am
The majority has attempted to distinguish between official and unofficial presidential actions. Illegal actions in a president's capacity as a candidate are not immune from prosecution. Apparently what would normally be considered illegal actions if done as a president are immune.

If any of us made a speech in front of the White House and riled up a crowd "to take back our country" and to storm the Capitol we'd be charged with a inciting a riot. It seems the conservative justices give Trump as pass on that.

This is great news for Democrats now that Joe Biden can with an executive order direct Seal Team Six to take out Trump.

by oldedude on July 1, 2024 12:23 pm
I'm not sure where you got the SEAL Team VI thing. They don't have the ability to do anything to US Citizens in our territory.

by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2024 12:23 pm

If any of us made a speech in front of the White House and riled up a crowd "to take back our country" and to storm the Capitol we'd be charged with a inciting a riot.

"Storm the Capitol?" Link to that. Unlike you, pb watched the speech. Trump did say, "peacefully and patriotically."

Actually, Curt, given who the judge is... and the jury pool, I think Trump will, in time, be found guilty.

However, probably not before November 5...

... and not in a way that would survive appeal.

But, face it. Trump's already a felon, convicted 34 times over. Joe said that at the debate... and Trump's pulling away.

What pb said earlier: Maybe... if the Dems
had filed these charges a year earlier, due justice would have run its course and by now, or about now respectable verdicts would be in play...

Maybe.

by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2024 12:36 pm

'Trump Will Imprison His Political Opponents!’ Says Guy Imprisoning His Political Opponents"

Bingo

babylonbee.com

by Curt_Anderson on July 1, 2024 12:52 pm
"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," Trump said.

Trump also said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Does one statement negate the other? And if so, which one? The reality is that some in the crowd heard one message and did not hear or ignored the other.

But even if we take Trump's more benign statement as his real intent, he's basically instructing the mob to disrupt a perfunctory and ceremonial congressional procedure. There have been a lot of "peaceful protests" recently that have shut down universities and even street traffic.

by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2024 1:55 pm

I missed the "storm the Capitol" part.

But, as I noted, with this judge and jury pool, Trump can convicted but it's not likely before November 5 and, very unlikely to survive appeal.

If you're still dreaming that lawfare is going to win the day?, dream another dream.

by Curt_Anderson on July 1, 2024 2:20 pm
HtS,
Notice I did not put quotes around "the storm the Capitol". I wasn't attributing that to Trump or anybody else. I said WE could not say that without be arrested. But from what I understand of today's ruling, a US president could say it in his/her "official" conduct as president.

“Whether the tweets, that speech and Trump’s other communications on Jan. 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. That doesn't seem to offer much guidance to the judges in lower courts.

by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2024 2:25 pm

But from what I understand of today's ruling, a US president could say it in his/her "official" conduct as president.

That's the part of this I'm not sure of. It's extremely possible that we will find out.

by oldedude on July 1, 2024 7:58 pm
My thought is that what Judge Roberts was talking about in the case. Are they going to do it now? Not the conservative judges. They'll shoot it down to a lower court where it belongs.

Many folks think that when a case is won or lost, that's the end of the case. Not so much in the US. and not so in constitutional comparison laws.

My bet is there will be a bunch of other cases that hit the SCOTUS in the next 20-30 years. We'll figure out how this goes, and it will be back and forth. Is it fast? no. I pretty much actually agree with SCOTUS. If it has to do with talking to people where they are giving you information and guidance, that's good and should be protected. The end result may not be, but the PROCESS of how you reach the decision, like a lawyer, should be protected.

Does murdering your political opponent by SEAL Team VI come into this?
How about WTF? It makes no sense. so just deal with that as a stupid idea. If it happens, walk away and consider the US gone off the face of the earth. You'd better have food, guns, and ammo (and booze, and Drugs to sell).

by Curt_Anderson on July 1, 2024 9:42 pm
Did you consider it legal for the Obama to order Seal Team Six take out Osama bin Laden? Would it be legal for Biden to order Seal Team Six to take out Putin or Kim Jong Un? Either of those actions could arguably seen as "official" actions by the President. What if candidate Trump happened to be visiting Putin or Kim at the time? Would Biden's official presidential action be immune from prosecution if both the enemy nation's leader and Trump were killed?

It's interesting, amusing really, that House Republicans have made noise about impeaching Biden for the chaotic departure from Afghanistan, issues about the southern border and other complaints that I am forgetting to list. Well, I never thought those efforts would go anywhere, and with this immunity ruling, the GOP can really forget about it.

by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2024 2:56 am

Did you consider it legal for the Obama to order Seal Team Six take out Osama bin Laden? Would it be legal for Biden to order Seal Team Six to take out Putin or Kim Jong Un?

Legal? Huh?!!!!! Covered by Presidential immunity? Yes. See the Bill Barr video. Hedabomb. He'd be a pb Legal Goober if he spoke more often. See video.

It's interesting, amusing really, that House Republicans have made noise about impeaching Biden for the chaotic departure from Afghanistan...

Noop, nuh uh. Ab$olute bull$#¡t.
View Video

by oldedude on July 2, 2024 3:37 am
Did you consider it legal for the Obama to order Seal Team Six take out Osama bin Laden? Would it be legal for Biden to order Seal Team Six to take out Putin or Kim Jong Un? Either of those actions could arguably seen as "official" actions by the President.

I'll agree with those cases. The issue is that you either don't understand, or know that being at war with someone, the President still requires notice of the heads of the leadership in the house and senate. With Vlad and Kim Jong Un, it requires agreement (v. "notice") for a president to do that. Murdering a US citizen within the confines of the country is a whole different story about what has to be done. As is stands now (different than the pedojoe legal warfare), it's a far stretch to do that. Do you have charges they have been found guilty of (in a court, not just in someone's little mind). Without a doubt, that would be considered "outside the bounds of the president's normal duties).

So this completely fictional account is stupid to bring up. There are way too many things prohibiting the "president" from doing such a thing. I think it was stupid for the SCOTUS membership to even bring that up, and irresponsible.

by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2024 4:48 am

Chief Justice Roberts is the perfect Justice on this Court to tackle this very serious question. I'm not a former Supreme Court clerk, like Curt and po, and, of course, there will be future cases that will test the wisdom of the decision,... just as Dobbs refined Roe.

But, IMO, this is an adequate place to start, at the very least...

Dem politicking notwithstanding.

Bottom line: Joe's claim that he "beat Medicare" and that "women are being raped... by their sisters" and immigration and inflation spell doom for Biden's re-election.

by oldedude on July 2, 2024 6:39 am
I think this starts the conversation, which is good. It can be honed as we go.

by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2024 8:14 am

Same with Dobbs and Roe. Same with the (Kennedy) praying football coach/Louisiana Ten Commandments poster law.

The times are changing. po and Curt and Indy wanting Big Brother government is passé. The Court is backing away from federal government oppression of individual liberty.

This immunity thing, IMO, anticipates the Dems' strategy of governing through lawfare. The Roberts Court stands for freedom and the future

by Indy! on July 2, 2024 11:46 am

You obviously can't even speak for yourself, PB - don't try to speak for your betters.

by oldedude on July 2, 2024 8:47 pm
I think the lawfare is a great distinguishing mark between the olde and new style of Politics (democracy be damned!).

by Indy! on July 3, 2024 1:05 am

It’s kabuki thater for the stupid. How about doing what we pay them to do?

by oldedude on July 3, 2024 5:03 am
Same with Dobbs and Roe.
Even Ginsberg of all people said Roe was a bad reading. Dobbs just corrected that. Yes, different states have different "interpretations" of what they want. The do the same thing with 2A, and even with 1A issues. The states have that right. That's the way our federalist system is built.

This immunity thing, IMO, anticipates the Dems' strategy of governing through lawfare. The Roberts Court stands for freedom and the future

I think the whining in this is from people that refuse to understand or actually look at the decision.

It doesn't say that things out of the scope of what a President does is closed off to scrutiny, and even things that are required (war powers act, etc) they be held accountable. I see this as a way trumpster may be more accountable for j6, depending on how the courts read what is legal or not. He'll fight it of course, but the facts remain that if THE COURT doesn't agree with him, then it may be harder for him to argue the point. Of course, at the same time, it may also hold pedojoe accountable.

And, in the day to day and exceptional decisions presidents make in closed meeting say, with the JCS, those aren't considered releasable in court. I agree with that, assuming the meeting is say, regarding Iranian missiles in the Gulf of Hormuz, or intel and options retaliation for killing our military members.

by HatetheSwamp on July 3, 2024 5:31 am

Even Ginsberg of all people said Roe was a bad reading. Dobbs just corrected that.

Thing is, the progressive crowd knew that RBG was right but they chose to pretend that Roe was Holy Writ... and, now they're paying the price.

Trump’s gunna win and, in Trump’s fourth year, Thomas can retire and Thomas 2.0 can replace him... one who's in his/her/their early 40s, baha.

by oldedude on July 3, 2024 9:15 am
Lead- Yeah, and even with evidence, they refuse to believe she would ever say such a thing. And yet, here we are.

I had a really good teacher in high school. A one-armed guy that actually shingled his own roof. What a stud! He got me interested in government. This was the early 1970's and his point (he said) was to teach us the basics that a very small percentage of US citizens actually understand. His view (and mine now) is that to graduate HS, you needed to be able to pass the US Citizenship test. He was really good at the federalism part. And how many people expect the federal government to do much more than what is constitutionally available to them. That got me into government and law for the rest of my days.

by Indy! on July 3, 2024 11:28 am

RBG was actually very conservative - especially at the end. The fact she stayed on the Court to make sure a conservative took her place supports that idea.

by oldedude on July 3, 2024 2:44 pm
Lead- Update on me and my hip. After the surgical amputation and reattachment, things have been progressing. They used a CAT Scan, AI, and a radar computer program to make sure the hip went in at the correct angle and had the correct amount pressure in the femur (there are a lot of breaks in the femurs because these are usually done on old people (go figgur). It's called a MAKO system. Anyway, on my fifth week, I'm about 80-90% off my cane. I was driving on day 11, so everything is going well.

by Indy! on July 3, 2024 3:34 pm

That explains why you've been crotchety lately. How do you explain the rest of your life? 🤔

Go To Top

Comment on: "Trump wins on Immunity... for the most part"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart^® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page