- 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 3:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ensuring the integrity of an election could be official duties. Many Presidents have reached beyond their "assigned responsibilities" in an official capacity.
2
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:56 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Many Presidents have reached beyond their "assigned responsibilities" in an official capacity.
If by many, you mean all really.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:56 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Ensuring the integrity of an election could be official duties.
Sure.
The DOJ is the Executive agency to do that (which did happen).
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:00 pm to da prophet
quote:
This is why limited immunity wouldn’t work.
The distinction between official and non-official acts for the purpose of criminal immunity already exists for every public official and employee at every level of government in the United States
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:02 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Is that supposed to be what you think strips a POTUS of his immunity for official acts? Because it doesn’t.
You're trying to play semantics with me.
The presidency doesn’t have any immunitys expressly in the Constitution.
The Department of Justice holds that a president is immune from criminal prosecution.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:03 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The distinction between official and non-official acts for the purpose of criminal immunity already exists for every public official and employee at every level of government in the United States
Thank you
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:03 pm to moneyg
quote:
First of all, it’s not blanket immunity. It’s immunity for official acts as president.
For example, Obama received immunity for droning known American citizens in another country without due process, but Trump is guilty of an "insurrection" for telling his supporters to peacefully protest.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:04 pm to LSUbest
quote:
The Department of Justice holds that a president is immune from criminal prosecution.
No there is a memorandum from the doj that says that Federal prosecution of a president would violate separation of powers
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:05 pm to LSUbest
quote:
The Department of Justice holds that a president is immune from criminal prosecution.
For official acts, yes. And specifically, as a matter of practice, from prosecution while holding office.
No one or department anywhere has ever had a policy that any person in the United States has blanket immunity for all acts whatsoever (except I suppose credentialed foreign diplomats) forever.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:14 pm to rt3
quote:
Trump's side went 1st
DOJ went 2nd
Trump's side had a chance to rebut the DOJ's argument but just said "nothing further"... apparently already feeling their case had been made... ending the proceedings
That's because Trump's legal team knows their argument is not going to pass muster...
But that wasn't the point. Taking the case to SCOTUS was just a ploy to delay the trials until after the election. They admit it:
Trump’s lawyers don’t expect the Supreme Court to bless his absurd immunity claims. “We already pulled off the heist,” says a source close to Trump
Rolling Stone: Team Trump is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They're Celebrating
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're asking for a super wide immunity that would kill every criminal case at once.
This appeal exists because the Federal judge ruled that presidents enjoy NO criminal immunity once out of office.
quote:
“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office,” Chutkan wrote.
There was no distinction between official acts or unofficial / personal acts.
That's what the Jack Smith argued.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:15 pm to Lee B
quote:
Rolling Stone
Oh, Jesus!
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No shite that's what I said.
No, you said the question was whether his actions were personal vs. official. That's not yet being argued. You tried to move on to that and in one post tried to defacto state that his actions weren't official acts. I mocked you for that.
quote:
That's literally always been my position
Your initial position was that it wasn't clear that presidents had any criminal immunity because there hadn't been a case. You abandoned that in this thread when it became clear (to you) that the president does have criminal immunity.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:43 pm to Lee B
quote:
Rolling Stone
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:02 pm to moneyg
quote:
No, you said the question was whether his actions were personal vs. official.
Yes, as the immunity is likely to only extend to official acts.
quote:
whether presidents enjoy immunity and to what extent.
quote:
whether presidents enjoy immunity
Almost assuredly a limited immunity
quote:
and to what extent.
for official acts pursuant to duties of the Executive
quote:
Your initial position was that it wasn't clear that presidents had any criminal immunity because there hadn't been a case.
Well yeah we're assuming, but it's pretty much accepted that will be the result. There is, in fact, no case determining any of this as of April 25, 2024.
quote:
You abandoned that in this thread when it became clear (to you) that the president does have criminal immunity.
No. This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:15 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
What do you mean, offers no rebuttal?
Means the Special Counsel didn't say anything (nor did a Justice ask a question) they felt warranted any additional argument.
Sends a message.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:19 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Article I
Section 3 Senate
Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
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.
Makes it real clear, don't ya think? Today was a waste of time for SCOTUS. Besides, once a President takes the oath of office, I believe that until he is no longer the acting President, all of his time as President is OFFICIAL!!
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:28 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I want to know why Trump ever thought that call was appropriate in any possible situation.
Regardless of legalities, it was monumentally stupid.
This is what I'm getting at
Agree or disagree with Trump's policies
In the end he isn't smart and makes stupid decisions
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:37 pm to ronricks
quote:
Can you imagine Nixon himself getting on a phone call asking to "find votes"
no - but I find it even harder to believe there is a son-of-a-bitch alive today who actually is dumb enough to believe that Trump did get on the phone and asked to 'find votes.'
You are displaying a fatal dose of MSNBCism - Morning Joe is not your friend.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Ensuring the integrity of an election could be official duties.
====
Sure.
The DOJ is the Executive agency to do that (which did happen).
OK - just how did the DOJ 'ensure' the "integrity of the election"
All I ever heard of them doing was say "we have seen no evidence that would overturn the results"
They did NOT say they had investigated the proposition that there were illigitimate actions taking place.
All they did was rely on the people who cheated to declared 'we didn't cheat' and took their word for it.
NOBODY has looked into the actual actions of election officials during the counting process.
It has all been overridden by lawfare mumbo jumbo 'words of art.'
The steal was on - and nobody would even lift a finger to investigate - they demanded that the 'losers' conduct all the 'investigation' - acquire and legitimize all the 'evidence' - do it all before the drop dead date with abject resistance from those in charge of all the information.
Plus there was the 'standing' default which nobody could surpass.
yeah - that election lacked any integrity.
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News