- 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: Jack Smith Court Filing-If Trump reelected, will incite to murder Democrat politicians
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:16 pm to OceanMan
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:16 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Who is prosecuting who?
This is a procedural dispute over legal interpretation. Why does it matter?
Trump is the mover, in this scenario, though.
Both get to make arguments in the dispute
This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 8:16 pm
1
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A standard is not supposed to allow for absurd results.
Just keeps getting funnier
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
What are the absurd results to which you refer? The concept of immunity as it’s been/being asserted in this current context??
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:30 pm to davyjones
quote:
What are the absurd results to which you refer? The concept of immunity as it’s been/being asserted in this current context??
The absurd results are what that standard (absolute immunity) could lead to.
Joe Biden could sell our nuclear secrets to China. Not illegal because he's immune.
He could take bribes from Ukrainian oligarchs.
Engage in sex trafficking of a minor across state lines.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No. That would the equivalent of proving a negative. Otherwise we’d require legal standards be based absurd things like little green men landing in spacecraft and taking over.
That's the point. A standard is not supposed to allow for absurd results.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:32 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Otherwise we’d require legal standards be based absurd things like little green men landing in spacecraft and taking over.
That's a very standard way of making a legal argument.
See how. BBonds also could identify it that easily without reading the brief?
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Then there is no standard. By logcal rules… it’s arbitrary.
That's a very standard way of making a legal argument.
This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:He did all of this.
Joe Biden could sell our nuclear secrets to China. Not illegal because he's immune.
He could take bribes from Ukrainian oligarchs.
Engage in sex trafficking of a minor across state lines.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:40 pm to cajunangelle
Well, in fairness to Jack, a leftist psychopath did try to murder a ball field full of republican lawmakers the first time Trump was elected.
Maybe Jack just got the political affiliations mixed up.
Maybe Jack just got the political affiliations mixed up.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's the point. A standard is not supposed to allow for absurd results.
SFP and I back different candidates. But he is correct here. The court must consider the precedent set. Even if absurd.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
How else do you suggest Trump assert immunity in this case? Seems pretty straightforward to me that the concept of Presidential immunity does indeed exist in some form or fashion, to one degree or another……however it’s quite clear that there needs to be some judicial interpretation on the issue in order to provide clarity on some of those exact questions you’re asking. Looks like it’s working how it’s supposed to.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:43 pm to davyjones
quote:
How else do you suggest Trump assert immunity in this case? Seems pretty straightforward to me that the concept of Presidential immunity does indeed exist in some form or fashion, to one degree or another……however it’s quite clear that there needs to be some judicial interpretation on the issue in order to provide clarity on some of those exact questions you’re asking. Looks like it’s working how it’s supposed to.
Yep. Blanket immunity leads to absurd results. The argument needs to be tightened.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:47 pm to davyjones
quote:
Looks like it’s working how it’s supposed to.
Tell that to OP and those melting down with histrionics
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:48 pm to cajunangelle
ok. Now give us the bad news.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The absurd results are what that standard (absolute immunity) could lead to. Joe Biden could sell our nuclear secrets to China. Not illegal because he's immune. He could take bribes from Ukrainian oligarchs. Engage in sex trafficking of a minor across state lines.
Or he could ignore his own advisors and lie about the Taliban’s advance towards Kabul which led to the deaths of 13 Americans.
Lemme guess, Groomer, that’s (D)ifferent?
This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:58 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
If Trump reelected, will incite to murder Democrat politicians
He says that like it would be a bad thing
Posted on 1/5/24 at 9:00 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Or he could ignore his own advisors and lie about the Taliban’s advance towards Kabul which led to the deaths of 13 Americans.
Lemme guess, Groomer, that’s (D)ifferent?
....... wut
Posted on 1/5/24 at 9:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
I’m guessing here but I believe people who support Trump here don’t believe an assertion of immunity is required when there is no underlying crime.
You must admit. This level of naked partisanship, and Soviet-style lawfare is doing irreversible cultural and social damage, even if the justice system eventually works.
You must admit. This level of naked partisanship, and Soviet-style lawfare is doing irreversible cultural and social damage, even if the justice system eventually works.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 9:10 pm to Vacherie Saint
Trump has proactively asserted immunity already, so I don’t really understand your point.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 9:15 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
assertion of immunity is required when there is no underlying crime.
I suppose it wouldn't be, but there is an allegation of underlying crimes.
Trump has the ability to file his motion to dismiss on other theories and only made the immunity argument, I believe.
You'd think if the indictment was THAT weak legally z he'd have made other arguments
This post was edited on 1/5/24 at 9:17 pm
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News