- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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 2:34 pm to Lsupimp
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:34 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Or as Kavanaugh asked, what about Obama's intentional droning (murder) of American citizens? So functionally, the answer is the law can be applied to Republicans and not Democrats.
Has nothing to do with partisanship (since I have already included GWB).
Obama's droning was pursuant to a military operation authorized by Congress and therefore, clearly under his Executive role as CIC.
Executive role = immunity.
1
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:34 pm to Hobie101
quote:
Seems like giving a president blanket immunity would be creating a new law,
Which is not the job of the courts.
So you are fine if we start trying the presidents still alive?
According to you we already should have. Since there is no law against it and this would create a new law.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Again, not in the Constitution.
You read that part of the Constitution wrong per the "SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity" thread.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obama's droning was pursuant to a military operation authorized by Congress
Link?
Oh and this pretty much is case closed on Israel.
quote:
Public Law 107–40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible
for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that
the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad;
They had their 911 so anything goes.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
trump didnt threaten raff, he asked him to do his job
how is that a crime?
I just re-read the transcript and to me it reads like a candidate who felt like he was wronged and asked them to investigate the election
GA disputed Trump’s allegations and said it did investigate and then Trump went to court with terrible results for him as a candidate for re-election
where is the crime?
how is that a crime?
I just re-read the transcript and to me it reads like a candidate who felt like he was wronged and asked them to investigate the election
GA disputed Trump’s allegations and said it did investigate and then Trump went to court with terrible results for him as a candidate for re-election
where is the crime?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:36 pm to beaux duke
quote:
Unpopular opinion here but I've said this several times. IMO where Trump really fricks himself on this call is when he says . “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have”. Not "let's recount the votes" or something similar, but referencing a specific number to proclaim him the winner. He can dance around it all he wants, but Trump is asking Raffensburger to sway the election his way
Let me emphasize, the question for this thread isn't whether that call is illegal.
The question for this thread is if that phone call is an executive function under the Constitution.
The merits of the criminality are only discussed once we make that determination, and only if it's not an executive act. We aren't discussing this, ITT>
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:37 pm to The Boat
quote:
You read that part of the Constitution wrong per the "SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity" thread.
Naw
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:37 pm to supatigah
quote:
trump didnt threaten raff, he asked him to do his job
how is that a crime?
We aren't discussing the merits ITT
The question is if that call was part of his executive function or not.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:38 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of
* treason
* bribery
* or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
its right there
other high crimes and misdemeanors
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:40 pm to GumboPot
On insurrection, 2 happened, 3 did not, Trump was acquitted, so theoretically 4 can’t happen.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:41 pm to supatigah
quote:
other high crimes and misdemeanors
quote:
other high crimes and misdemeanors
Permits removal.
Impeachment (and conviction in the Senate) is how you achieve removal.
They only apply to removal.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We aren't discussing the merits ITT
The question is if that call was part of his executive function or not.
there it is
those pesky merits of the accusation
so if jack gets his way then a branch of the executive gets to decide what merit is and their path forward
I do not believe trump’s call was an executive function and he did not represent it as such
I believe his call was as a candidate for re-election
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:43 pm to supatigah
quote:
there it is
those pesky merits of the accusation
This thread isn't about the merits.
quote:
so if jack gets his way then a branch of the executive gets to decide what merit is and their path forward
I'm sure the courts will decide which functions are executive or not. I don't think this is even a novel issue for them.
quote:
I do not believe trump’s call was an executive function and he did not represent it as such
Then he likely won't have immunity.
THEN the merits become an issue.
This thread is just about the scope of immunity and the limits of executive action within that analysis.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
which removal then clears the question of political prosection of a POTUS and opens the door for the criminal justice system to run its course of a citizen no longer in office
otherwise we have the opportunity for political prosecution of a POTUS elected by the people
otherwise we have the opportunity for political prosecution of a POTUS elected by the people
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:44 pm to da prophet
quote:
On insurrection, 2 happened, 3 did not, Trump was acquitted, so theoretically 4 can’t happen.
That's the way I see if. If not the DOJ rules the roost of the executive branch for all of eternity.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:45 pm to supatigah
quote:
which removal then clears the question of political prosection of a POTUS and opens the door for the criminal justice system to run its course of a citizen no longer in office
The Constitution says none of this.
quote:
otherwise we have the opportunity for political prosecution of a POTUS elected by the people
The argument against federal prosecution (in the infamous DOJ memo) is via Separation of Powers.
I'm not sure if that issue was analyzed today.
However, this would not apply to the NY or GA prosecutions.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Who fired up the autism box? It was relatively peaceful around here earlier.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This thread is just about the scope of immunity and the limits of executive action within that analysis.
This is just the immunity argument from the defense. What about the 1st amendment argument? Why can't Trump protest the results of the 2020 election without being a criminal conspirator?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then he likely won't have immunity.
THEN the merits become an issue.
This thread is just about the scope of immunity and the limits of executive action within that analysis.
I understand all of that
but SCOTUS has to be very careful here with their ruling and opinion
this is far beyond trump
Posted on 4/25/24 at 2:49 pm to GumboPot
quote:
What about the 1st amendment argument? Why can't Trump protest the results of the 2020 election without being a criminal conspirator?
That is another merits argument
If you want to make a discussion about that as a legal defense to the merits that's a separate discussion and I would suggest making a separate thread about it, to keep things focused and on topic here
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News