- 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: If the US Supreme Court would rule against Trump ...
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:41 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:41 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
The part where they planned it BEFORE the election if he lost, is a problem.
He said they were going to steal the election. Wouldn't you plan a procedural challenge if you knew that was going to happen?
0
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:44 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Moreover, wasn’t he bound by the Constitution to do exactly that if he felt there were election irregularities?
I missed this earlier.
Trump's avenue, as President, to solve this problem was the DOJ and filing lawsuits and investigating criminal activities.
Now Trump as a private person had many more options at his disposal, but those are private and not official duties.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trump's avenue, as President, to solve this problem was the DOJ and filing lawsuits and investigating criminal activities.
That wasn't his only avenue.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
Horsesh*t, and WHO again gets to decide what is official and private duties?
You still haven’t answered the question
You have implied it’s a petite jury.
Which is insane
You still haven’t answered the question
You have implied it’s a petite jury.
Which is insane
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:09 pm to masoncj
quote:
WHO again gets to decide what is official and private duties?
Ultimately, courts interpreting the Constitution
quote:
You have implied it’s a petite jury.
No you have claimed that.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:10 pm to loogaroo
quote:
That wasn't his only avenue
What was? And what constitutional provision or Congressional law creates that avenue?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And what constitutional provision or Congressional law creates that avenue?
Wasn't Cruz going to object until the "insurrection" happened?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
Nope , you said that Scotus will leave in place potus immunity claim to only “official” duties and leave to a lower criminal court proceeding to deem what is and what is not offical duties
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The same thing reinforcing actions would have on Willis-Wade witnesses who were too cowed to come forward w/o encouragement. Sometimes "timid" folks need a little nudge.
If this scheme with Pence was legal, Trump's legal avenue was to pull an LBJ and persuade Pence. What does a rally have anything to do with Mike Pence?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:If this case is decided on the limited basis of the rally/protest, Trump will lose. Haven't we trodden that ground already?
Where is forming rallies found in the enumerated powers of the Executive in the Constitution?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 1:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The loophole in EC procedures allowing for Pence to leave elector envelopes unopened. Should you doubt the loophole was legally available, you should look into the "Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022" which was required to close it.
What was? And what constitutional provision or Congressional law creates that avenue?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 3:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Sometimes "timid" folks need a little nudge.
Via...political rally?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 3:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Should you doubt the loophole was legally available, you should look into the "Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022" which was required to close it.
Clarifying procedure doesn't imply a loophole ever existed.
That's literally conspiracy theorist logic
Posted on 3/5/24 at 3:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Without commenting on the merits of whether this activity is criminal, it's difficult to argue that promoting a political rally to support him is an official duty of the President
You think that was what his Jan 6 speech was?
That's nuts. Giving a speech to the people regarding an alleged fraudulent election is 100% an official duty of the president.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 3:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Wow! Just wow!
Clarifying procedure doesn't imply a loophole ever existed.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 4:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:
Clarifying procedure doesn't imply a loophole ever existed.
Wow! Just wow!
Amazing the denial.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News