- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 12/11/23 at 9:10 pm to Wednesday
quote:
The only other case that has dealt with it I believe involved Nixon who was impeached but who resigned before he was tried in the senate.
I may have only been about six years old at the time, but I recall Nixon was not impeached. Neither by the House nor by the Senate. He resigned before proceedings could begin and Ford issued a preemptive pardon. That was a huge topic of conversation around our house at the time and I listened intently to every word my dad spoke about it and questioned him about every little point. I guess that was my introduction to politics and attempting to understand the insanity of it all.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 9:37 pm to Timeoday
There is no case here which is why it is falling apart! The fact that he is asking SCOTUS to weigh in on the only shred of a case he has should tell all what he has is a hand of shite!
The Former President's defense team is spot on that he had and has Presidential Immunity and precident for that which incljudes the aquittal by the Senate while he was President in Impeaching him for his actions on Jan 6th that House Impeached him for. He legitimately thought the Election was Fraudulent and as President acted to correct that. So he has Presidential Immunity. He also did not incite any riot on Jan 6th that was a set up!
The Former President's defense team is spot on that he had and has Presidential Immunity and precident for that which incljudes the aquittal by the Senate while he was President in Impeaching him for his actions on Jan 6th that House Impeached him for. He legitimately thought the Election was Fraudulent and as President acted to correct that. So he has Presidential Immunity. He also did not incite any riot on Jan 6th that was a set up!
Posted on 12/11/23 at 9:48 pm to Timeoday
The question Smith is posing to SCOTUS is flawed and looks like a trap he is trying to set. Can't believe SCOTUS is entertaining it but maybe they will slap him down for being an idiot.
1. Of course a president does not have absolute immunity. Example, POTUS cannot commit murder and claim presidential immunity.
2. Presidents do have immunity for legal and presidential actions.
3. So SCOTUS should throw this back in Smiths face and ask him to narrow his scope. SCOTUS should not rule on speculation, which is what Smith wants.
4. Smith should have to define where Trump's actions were personal and not in his capacity of presidential. Problem here is that Smith is asking SCOTUS to try his case since a lower court has no even had a trial on those merits.
1. Of course a president does not have absolute immunity. Example, POTUS cannot commit murder and claim presidential immunity.
2. Presidents do have immunity for legal and presidential actions.
3. So SCOTUS should throw this back in Smiths face and ask him to narrow his scope. SCOTUS should not rule on speculation, which is what Smith wants.
4. Smith should have to define where Trump's actions were personal and not in his capacity of presidential. Problem here is that Smith is asking SCOTUS to try his case since a lower court has no even had a trial on those merits.
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 10:51 pm to Swamp Angel
quote:
Nixon was not impeached
Just looked this up - you are correct- he was never impeached. Thus he could neither have been acquitted or convicted.
Ford pardoned him - so he couldn’t be prosecuted.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 10:56 pm to fwtex
quote:
1. Of course a president does not have absolute immunity. Example, POTUS cannot commit murder and claim presidential immunity.
2. Presidents do have immunity for legal and presidential actions.
3. So SCOTUS should throw this back in Smiths face and ask him to narrow his scope. SCOTUS should not rule on speculation, which is what Smith wants.
4. Smith should have to define where Trump's actions were personal and not in his capacity of presidential. Problem here is that Smith is asking SCOTUS to try his case since a lower court has no even had a trial on those merits.
Sure seems like he's looking for an advisory opinion
Posted on 12/11/23 at 11:15 pm to Timeoday
He’s probably [on behalf of the Establishment which gave him marching orders] looking for cover. If SCOTUS rules DJT can’t be prosecuted, Smith has an out. Oh well, we tried, damn that Trump filled Court. If SCOTUS declines to review the case,he can now, and later, claim that he tried to ensure due process ….look how fair i was.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 11:29 pm to Timeoday
I don't understand Jack Smith's race to the SCOTUS, where three of the justices directly owe their jobs to Trump, and then you've got the likes of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Trump only needs to get five votes, and he even has John Roberts as a possible insurance vote. I would have taken my chances at the DC circuit if I were Smith. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he is blowing this.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 11:51 pm to Timeoday
You would think “novel” would mean “innovative.”
In this case, “novel” means “a long form work of fiction.”
In this case, “novel” means “a long form work of fiction.”
Posted on 12/11/23 at 11:59 pm to Swamp Angel
It was before my time but my understanding is that Nixon was figuring on impeachment but thought he could survive.
Goldwater met with him and told him that, under the circumstances, he didn’t see the votes to block a conviction. At which point he resigned.
Short version - it had started but had not really gone anywhere yet. But it was clear it was going to happen and he couldn’t escape conviction, so resigning for Ford to take over was his best option.
Considering that he was told by the Speaker of the House that he was getting Ford as his VP because that was who he would approve, the whole thing comes across as trying to pretend the 1972 assramming of McGovern didn’t happen.
Goldwater met with him and told him that, under the circumstances, he didn’t see the votes to block a conviction. At which point he resigned.
Short version - it had started but had not really gone anywhere yet. But it was clear it was going to happen and he couldn’t escape conviction, so resigning for Ford to take over was his best option.
Considering that he was told by the Speaker of the House that he was getting Ford as his VP because that was who he would approve, the whole thing comes across as trying to pretend the 1972 assramming of McGovern didn’t happen.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 12:04 am to Tall Tiger
It’s probably an attempt to either get a verdict written by a hack like Sotomayor or Brown if they can force recusals of the three Trump appointees or, failing that, trying to claim that SCOTUS is corrupt and should be ignored.
Which would be fricking rich because this attitude only caught fire on the left when Hillary dropped the ball and couldn’t win in 2016 to replace Scalia. Instead, Trump relaxed Scalia and later got to replace RBG who kept telling death “Not today” for years.
Which would be fricking rich because this attitude only caught fire on the left when Hillary dropped the ball and couldn’t win in 2016 to replace Scalia. Instead, Trump relaxed Scalia and later got to replace RBG who kept telling death “Not today” for years.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News