- 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 isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:24 pm to Rip Torner
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:24 pm to Rip Torner
quote:
List all the presidents and judges that have been criminally prosecuted for doing what Trump has done.
Not a single other President caught on a recording literally asking a state official to “find him votes.”
Totally legit and legal thing to do :/
1
Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:32 pm to dafif
The devil is going to be in the official act/ private act details. Maybe they’ll give us some factors to consider.
But this will have to be flushed out from this ruling and within the inferior courts over time. SCOTUS may chime in if someone goes out of bounds but this is generally new territory and that’ll be for the district and appellate courts to work through.
All derivative from Trump’s post 2020-election behavior, of course.
But this will have to be flushed out from this ruling and within the inferior courts over time. SCOTUS may chime in if someone goes out of bounds but this is generally new territory and that’ll be for the district and appellate courts to work through.
All derivative from Trump’s post 2020-election behavior, of course.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:06 am to SlowFlowPro
Jeez dude. Sometimes you just need to stop. HoW many times can you prove yourself wrong, by what you actually posted?
I mean, you posted it. And didnt even bother to read it
When was Trump convicted of an impeachable offense? And the Supremes are ruling on immunity. Not on whether he can now be held liable, AFTER he left office
quote:
but the party convicted
I mean, you posted it. And didnt even bother to read it
When was Trump convicted of an impeachable offense? And the Supremes are ruling on immunity. Not on whether he can now be held liable, AFTER he left office
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:07 am to Robin Masters
quote:
I’m certainly no lawyer but doesn’t the part about “convicted party” indicate that the criminal indictments needs to be predicated on being found guilty in an impeachment proceeding?
I am a lawyer, and the answer to your question is no.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:08 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
I am a lawyer
quote:
CreoleTigerEsq
We know. Possibly the douchiest thing ever.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:09 am to Robin Masters
quote:
I know. Point being you have to be convicted during the impeachment proceedings to then be eligible for criminal indictment.
Nope.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 10:09 am
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:10 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Google “convicted”.
They are differentiating "conviction" in the Senate from "conviction" at trial, to ensure there are no issues with Double Jeopardy
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:11 am to dafif
quote:
There is the potential that Biden and others could be subject to prosecution in Texas for violation of their laws regarding illegal aliens
This is beyond a "No" and is hard "frick No".
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:12 am to RobbBobb
quote:
When was Trump convicted of an impeachable offense?
He wasn't.
Where does the Constitution clearly list that as a requirement for criminal prosecution?
Hint: it does not.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is beyond a "No" and is hard "frick No".
By normal rules.
But it could be done using leftist rules. Because they don't operate by any.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:26 am to TrueTiger
quote:
By normal rules.
But it could be done using leftist rules. Because they don't operate by any.
There are a few angles that would kill this.
I mean the TX law itself is likely to be ruled Unconstitutional
Then there is the federalism/Supremacy clause issue
AND it's clearly an official act of the Executive
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's clearly an official act of the Executive
To be derelict in his duties.
Strange world.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:33 am to TrueTiger
quote:
To be derelict in his duties.
It's the President's option, but it's clearly an Executive function. The immunity protects that discretion you disagree with, specifically.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
. The immunity protects that discretion
The president literally makes decisions that sometimes decide who lives and who dies.
So yes no one would do the job without it.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:53 am to TrueTiger
That's why there is little dispute/debate about the immunity over official acts.
The question is whether the USSC will give absolute immunity or limit it to official acts.
If they do, then it becomes an issue of his alleged behavior and where it falls.
The question is whether the USSC will give absolute immunity or limit it to official acts.
If they do, then it becomes an issue of his alleged behavior and where it falls.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If they do, then it becomes an issue of his alleged behavior and where it falls.
And his sincere beliefs and if he was being advised by attorneys.
No one thinks that Trump did not believe election irregularities were afoot and deserved more time to be examined.
It would be his duty as president to look into it.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:08 am to SlowFlowPro
"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.
Only if convicted through the impeachment process can the President be liable and subject to indictment, trial etc, note the utilization of the colon. If impeachment isn't a requisite, then how does one convicted of a crime, then get indicted and tried for the crime? Non-seqitor.
Only if convicted through the impeachment process can the President be liable and subject to indictment, trial etc, note the utilization of the colon. If impeachment isn't a requisite, then how does one convicted of a crime, then get indicted and tried for the crime? Non-seqitor.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:08 am to TrueTiger
quote:
And his sincere beliefs and if he was being advised by attorneys.
That is a different question.
For the "find the votes" type behaviors, what's going to hurt him is that the proper Executive function to investigate fraud is having the DOJ investigate (which they did). Most anything Trump did outside of that is going to be hard to argue is a legitimate executive function.
quote:
No one thinks that Trump did not believe election irregularities were afoot and deserved more time to be examined.
And the DOJ looked into it, which was the proper avenue for this issue to be investigated.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The question is whether the USSC will give absolute immunity or limit it to official acts.
I can't imagine them granting absolute immunity. I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by their opinion. It seems like they'll just say that official acts are immune and then try and set up a way for future courts/prosecutors to determine what is and isn't an official act.
Without any facts in Trump's case, I don't see how they'll rule specifically about him. They can't determine whether what he did was in his official capacity if they don't have anything other than allegations at this point.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:18 am to JoeHackett
quote:
I can't imagine them granting absolute immunity. I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by their opinion. It seems like they'll just say that official acts are immune and then try and set up a way for future courts/prosecutors to determine what is and isn't an official act.
Yup. Then they'll kick it back to the trial court for determinations. That was my prediction yesterday after having listened to none of the oral arguments.
quote:
Without any facts in Trump's case, I don't see how they'll rule specifically about him. They can't determine whether what he did was in his official capacity if they don't have anything other than allegations at this point.
They'd have to have a hearing on this issue to sort that out.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News