- 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 12:45 pm to MemphisGuy
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:45 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Have you told yourself that? Because you come across as seeming to think you are.
0
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:45 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Impeachment has nothing to do with any criminal proceeding, ever.
It should be.
quote:
The line for criminal immunity is whether the alleged acts were within POTUS’s official duties.
Congress should be making this determination via the impeachment clause.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
His investigatory arm is the DOJ
That's going to be an interesting reminder to you lefties, when you complain how the DOJ shouldn't be working directly for the Repub president.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:46 pm to GumboPot
quote:
This assumes that the DOJ and the presidency are not adversarial.
Barr and Trump weren't
quote:
Why not WH counsel?
They don't have the legal authority
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:46 pm to Tasseo
quote:
That's going to be an interesting reminder to you lefties, when you complain how the DOJ shouldn't be working directly for the Repub president.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They don't have the legal authority
Why not?
Why does the DOJ?
What law outlines the arbiter between private and official matters?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Barr and Trump weren't
On many issues they were aligned. On contesting the 2020 election they were not. Trump WH lawyers were aligned with Trump on this issue.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not in office
They can also be prosecuted
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:49 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Why does the DOJ?
They're literally granted the authority by Congressional statute
quote:
What law outlines the arbiter between private and official matters?
Ultimately, it's going to be case law. We may get that ruling, at some point during this process. There isn't a precedent as of today b/c this is a novel issue/case of first impression.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:49 pm to Tasseo
Gorsuch made the obvious point that every single candidate in every single election makes decisions that can be construed to be both in his personal interest and his official capacity. And that to allow his political opponents to analyze and criminalize his motives selectively is ridiculous.
To which the twink, and SFP hero Michael Breeden, attorney for special counsel, responded that their motives as prosecutors here, are pure and above reproach. The government would NEVER use lawfare to consolidate power and destroy those who stand in the way, you see. Not the Democrats. No never.
To which the twink, and SFP hero Michael Breeden, attorney for special counsel, responded that their motives as prosecutors here, are pure and above reproach. The government would NEVER use lawfare to consolidate power and destroy those who stand in the way, you see. Not the Democrats. No never.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:50 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not in office
The Constitution does not make a distinction, so this is likely not true.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:51 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Gorsuch made the obvious point that every single candidate in every single election makes decisions that can be construed to be both in his personal interest and his official capacity. And that to allow his political opponents to analyze and criminalize his motives selectively is ridiculous.
So could an incumbent President running for re-election violate campaign finance law without worry during that election? Is that private or official?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Through his executive function as CIF, pursuant to military authorizations from Congress.
Same with GWB's bullshite.
Neither example applies to Trump's behavior in any way.
You're right. Their behavior was far worse.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:52 pm to teke184
quote:
If running for reelection isn’t considered an official duty, then there are a lot of politicians who should be in serious legal trouble IMHO.
I don’t see anything about running for office in article 2’s grant of powers to the executive.
Would be a very bad argument if thats what was put forward. Ensuring that the constitutional election process was secure and executed in accordance with the law would be the appropriate argument.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:52 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?
Obama did that. He got a fine.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
hey're literally granted the authority by Congressional statute
What authority? The authority to determine what is a private or official act?
What is the CFR # on this?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:53 pm to Tasseo
quote:
Which he did as POTUS so they should have done the impeachment before he left.
Didn’t they?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:54 pm to GumboPot
quote:
It should be.
Why? It was specifically and totally separated by the plain language adopted by the founders.
Impeachment is an act of congress.
Why or how would that ever have any bearing on criminal law?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So could an incumbent President running for re-election violate campaign finance law without worry during that election?
Yes.
quote:
Is that private or official?
Shouldn't matter.
Congress should make the determination. The House can impeach and the Senate can convict and in doing so remove presidential immunity for criminal prosecution on a particular matter.
The problem here is the Executive and the Judicial branches are potentially abdicating the role of the Legislative branch in these matters. I hope SCOTUS places the decision making square on the Legislative branch and does not give that body a pass.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:58 pm to rt3
quote:
Trump was acting as a private citizen (or "office seeker") during the acts in question and not as a government official (or "office holder")
They said some was private and some was official.
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News