- 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: Should Joe Biden be immune from prosecution for taking bribes while in office?
Posted on 1/6/24 at 9:54 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 1/6/24 at 9:54 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Saint
Stop trying to police what’s discussed in the thread.
It's very important to keep discussions on topic to avoid illogical diversions to replace rhetoric
quote:
If your arguments aren’t strong enough, get new arguments
Try to make an actual argument on topic that has any sort of logic.
You have not made a retort, only an attempt to discuss something unrelated to this topic. If you can't stay on topic, you're welcome to make your own thread for your unrelated "argument"
0
Posted on 1/6/24 at 9:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not an expert on the UCMJ but I don't think it's jurisdiction extends beyond those in the military.
To my knowledge, it would only occur if the civilian courts were suspended, and it involved either sedition, and / or treason.
So only under incredibly unlikely scenarios.
Nonetheless, I believe that it would be possible under those extreme circumstances.
My point is, that no matter how remote, it could be done (I think).
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:00 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki. He was a 16 year old boy. He also had a secret kill list that his administration fought against becoming public.
So would he be opened up (potentially) to prosecution?
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
You are an ignorant bitch
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:06 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
So would he be opened up (potentially) to prosecution
Theoretically but since it's a military operation he'd likely have immunity. Official duties will likely be protected no matter what.
That's why you have to get into non-official stuff like bribes, selling state secrets, child rape, etc. for the discussion.
Carving our exceptions for official duties just means that immunity would not be absolute.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:14 pm to SCLibertarian
Right. So according to SFP, had someone made a case against Obama, and his best defense was executive immunity, any president could do whatever tf they want forever.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:16 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
So according to SFP, had someone made a case against Obama, and his best defense was executive immunity, any president could do whatever tf they want forever.
Huge difference in immunity over official acts and absolute immunity
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
The problem is, all the rules and standards are gone. Definitions are rewritten in real time.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Hell no he should be made an example of and In a just world he would hang for treason along with many other politicians
This post was edited on 1/6/24 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:26 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
all the rules and standards are gone. Definitions are rewritten in real time.
Well not in this case because it's never been written in the first place. It's a very rare opportunity over a serious constitutional question.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
How about no bribes at any time? If you are an "elected" official.
This post was edited on 1/6/24 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:55 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:Iwas not believe all women dumbass. I said Kavanaugh should not have been confirmed because he lied in every one of his confirmation hearings.
You were believe all women with Kavanaugh. When someone called you out in the Tara Reade thread, you were nowhere to be found. That was (D)ifferent.
I was not called out in the Tara Reade thread, and you’re full of shite.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 2:00 am to texridder
Bitch yes you were
Posted on 1/7/24 at 2:54 am to SlowFlowPro
This is where SFP uses Jack Smith's slanted view of Trump's argument and a re-framing of the issue, and tosses out some bait, thinking he's going to score points. It's a pathetic, 3rd grade rhetorical ploy.
He's carrying the water for the most corrupt administration and most corrupt law enforcement effort in the history of this nation.
Not only that, but he intentionally muddies the waters by introducing bribery, knowing that bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, which casts a different scheme of analysis on the situation than for other behavior that is not specifically mentioned. My guess, he will then try to say that doesn't matter, but we all know that it does matter, otherwise we wouldn't have some things specifically singled out by the Founders and other things not singled out. Like an amoeba, his argument will continually morph into whatever form he requires in order to keep the game going in order to placate his ego - much like how Trump operates.
Not sure why people entertain him in these games. It's disingenuous and sophomoric. He's not an honest broker in these discussions and they are always a waste of time.
He's carrying the water for the most corrupt administration and most corrupt law enforcement effort in the history of this nation.
Not only that, but he intentionally muddies the waters by introducing bribery, knowing that bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, which casts a different scheme of analysis on the situation than for other behavior that is not specifically mentioned. My guess, he will then try to say that doesn't matter, but we all know that it does matter, otherwise we wouldn't have some things specifically singled out by the Founders and other things not singled out. Like an amoeba, his argument will continually morph into whatever form he requires in order to keep the game going in order to placate his ego - much like how Trump operates.
Not sure why people entertain him in these games. It's disingenuous and sophomoric. He's not an honest broker in these discussions and they are always a waste of time.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 5:05 am to LSU2ALA
quote:NO!
It’s a logical gotcha as it’s the natural endpoint of Trump’s argument that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken while president.
The OP is completely disingenuous. SFP is trolling, and he hooked you, brother.
Trump’s argument is that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, not for any act, but rather for acts taken which fell within his official responsibilities as President.
Covering up a campaign burglary, lying under oath and suborning perjury about oval office blowjobs, extorting foreign governments for personal gain, or accepting bribes are examples of actions which do not fall remotely close to the official responsibilities of a President.
---
Put some neosporin on the wound SFP's troll hook left in your cheek. Call a doctor if it starts to fester.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 6:42 am to texridder
quote:
I was not called out in the Tara Reade thread, and you’re full of shite.
You and the rest of the prog filth lie like normal people breathe. An 8-page thread calling out your specific hypocrisy over Kavanaugh and Tara Reade.
Texridder Tara Reade thread
Posted on 1/7/24 at 7:18 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Not only that, but he intentionally muddies the waters by introducing bribery, knowing that bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution
Doesn't matter. A specific ground for impeachment doesn't have relevance to this discussion, because this discussion is about criminal prosecutions.
I picked bribery because we have a lot of evidence that Biden is guilty of bribery.
quote:
his argument will continually morph
Has not happened. Sorry to disappoint. You could have just read the thread instead of making an incorrect guess after you're already proven incorrect.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 7:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Trump’s argument is that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, not for any act, but rather for acts taken which fell within his official responsibilities as President.
What about allegations not tried before the Senate after an impeachment?
That's immunity if you can avoid impeachment, which is the point of the thread.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 7:20 am to SCLibertarian
Texdiddler is such a pos
Posted on 1/7/24 at 7:21 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
The answer to the original question is no. Biden should not be immune and Trump should not be immune. If the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, then that’s a major failure of our system.
Impeachment and removal are the tools for this.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News