Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules

Ummmmmm yourself....I'm assuming no such thing. I'm assuming that his immunity appeal, that has been denied by the Appeals Court, will be likewise denied by the Supremes.

Do try to keep up....

 

Dbl post

 

If its obvious, name the year.
Can you tell me the difference between an "Assault rifle" and a "Ranch rifle"?

 

My party didn’t lose and try to steal the election

 

Yah yah and trump really won

 

This is how America operated for how long? You guys wanna blow up everything for this idiotic, and I don’t understand it. He’s a criminal.

 

Nope. Posse Comitatus Act prevents both Trump or his designee from deploying National Guard to perform POLICE functions WITHOUT a request from DC or Congress. AND DC National Guard was there at the request of DC. LIMITED by DC to purely logistics functions.

january6clearinghouseMayorMurielBowserLettertoDOJDODJan52021.pdf (justsecurity.org)

 

Why would we need the national guard and if we did, why wouldn’t he just cancel his rally?

 

Excellent questions. Excellent points. Purpose?? use of force to pressure a change in the election results to favor Trump. We do know the lengths that T would go to retain and now regain power. Just imagine what he will do, when elected again . The constitution is at risk. It seems that his trobe has no idea of the kind of person they are so devoted to. Amongst other things.he is incredibly tribal .

 

He did so much more than "tell people not to riot".

He tried to circumvent the electoral college process by inserting his own voters to the EC. THAT is illegal.

 

The tragedy is that not only do they not care, they actually don't see any problems thre. They have voluntarily given Trump everything he wants , granting him "permission" to do whatever he wishes , and it would be ok with them.

That is a big problem for the country and democracy. They seem to have chosen ONE MAN over democracy , country and liberty for all.

 

Or keep denying that a loss took place. Until T , the transition of power has been respectful, responsible, mature, and civilized.
Trump countered all of the above. and like a crazy person he still believes he has the power. He , like most sociopaths , cannot accept losing at anything. They are emotionally crippled in that regard.
He is desperate for immunity...for several reasons. To absolve himself of al legal problems. To give him a lot more latitude to do things that don't fit within the Democratic boundaries. ( legal, ethical and moral)
Immunity would give him unobstructed free reign. (in his mind boundaries of any kind don't apply to him)...and that makes him dangerous.

 

Again - Trump knew there was going to be trouble - why else would he offer 6,000 troops (you say).
So Trump knew that he was putting law enforcement officers and Congress in harms way by continuing to hold his speech and rally in DC - yet
he ignored the threat and held the rally when he could have cancelled. He's a dick and a traitor.

 

A dick and a traitor.. Those are his "good " points.

Of course he knew. He incited it , fostered it and encouraged it. So why would he try to deal with the violence as it took place. His tribe was doing what he wanted.

 

Actually, as Ive already posted and you ignored-
Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."
Trump wanted troops to protect his supporters at Jan. 6 rally | Reuters

 

They are basically opening the door up for the Obama drone strikes which killed Americans and the George Bush policy of detainees and the torture memos.

 

So your options are that Trump ignored the safety of his supporters or Trump ignored the safety of Congress and Capitol Police. Got it.

Real Men march with their supporters ...

 

IF that is the case, why did he incite the violence to begin with?? Why have the rally, if he knew the protestors "needed protection"
It wasn't the protestors that needed protection. We know who needed it.. from them. No one has any right to protest violently as happened that day. It is a black mark on Trump and also the country.

 

Dude - Presidents have operated under the assumption that they could be indicted for crimes for 200 plus years. They just weren't
stupid enough to back-stab their entire staff to the point where they would turn states evidence ...

 

Regardless, as it was totally IRRESPONSIBLE on h is part. Sadly, it seems the issue of RESPONSIBLIIYY means very little to the T tribe.

 

He didnt. Youve just heard it repeated so many times in the media that he did, it has become your reality. In the real world he told them to march peacefully to the Capitol so your voices could be heard.

 

Opinions don't need qualifications. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.

If that were true, you would agree with me at least, say, 35% of the time, maybe more?
You rarely agree with me, which puts you right of center, which, unbeknownst to you, is partisan.
If you were moderately to the right, you'd agree with me about 25% of the time, so you must be, therefore, further to the right than that. Or, you are a libertarian and most I've observed are wacko.

That's an opinion and that opinion is based on empirical observation, whereby i'm just as qualified to render an opinion as anyone else.

I didn't say you did, so now you are arguing a position I never took. Reminding you of past republican governors doesn't equal 'you defending the 'governator' " proving, once again, you missed the point entirely.

Over and over ands over again, you demonstrate a failure to evaluate objective facts presented.

No, it's an observation filtered through the lens of your world view, which is right of center, which is the very definition of partisanship.

There's an old saying, "it's impossible to get someone to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it' ([paraphrased] courtesy Upton Sinclair), well, here we could substitute 'world view' for 'income', and we'd have a similar concept.

So was Hitler's, so was Lenin's, et al ad nauseum. The road to hell is paved with good intentions --proverb (probably Saint Bernard of Clairvaux)
In other words, your 'position' is a rather meaningless statement because I, and just about everyone in politics, could make a similar claim.

I'm well aware of it's shortcomings, and debating it, per se, was NEVER the point, but the point was, it did, in fact, bring affordable health care to some 18 million persons of whom I was one, and if that made some private health HMOs some dough, it's irrelevant to my point. the point was that Obama and Biden did some darn good things, better than Trump ever did. Trump never brought health care to anyone. In fact, he and his party tried some 60 times to take health care away, and if it weren't for John McCain, he might have succeeded.

Irrelevant to my point. Capitalism, under 'neoliberalism' (the current conservative doctrine of unregulated free market as the panacea for all of our economic ills) allows advertisers to have their way with the airwaves, promoting crap foods on TV, etc., which goes a long ways to make people fatter. That's not a dem thing, that's a neoliberal thing, and there are far more neoliberals on the right than on the left, especially libertarians. Yes, Bill Clinton was a neoliberal.

And you base that sentiment on what facts?

Oh, so we can expect a 10 year old rape victim to ward off a rapist with a firearm, and if she can't, then what, she's just as responsible for her rape? I mean, what the holy f*ck is your point? and whatever it is, it is irrelevant to mine.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Ahh, more trafficking in simplistic claims by Doofenschmirtz. What more should I have expected?

For your edification, free of charge:

The assertion that "tax cuts have never resulted in a loss of revenue for the treasury" is a simplification that lacks nuance and requires clarification. This statement often refers to a concept related to the Laffer Curve, an economic theory that suggests there exists an optimal tax rate that maximizes government revenue. According to this theory, both extremely high and extremely low tax rates can lead to decreased revenue for the government: high rates discourage income-generating activities, while low rates may not capture enough revenue.

However, the real-world application of this theory is complex and context-dependent. Several factors need to be considered:

The impact of tax cuts on revenue can vary depending on the state of the economy. During times of economic growth, tax cuts can potentially lead to increased consumer spending and investment, which might boost economic activity and, by extension, tax revenue from sources other than the reduced taxes. However, this is not guaranteed. (and that, folks, is your refutation)

The effect on revenue depends on which taxes are reduced. Cuts in taxes that affect investment decisions (like corporate taxes or capital gains taxes) might have different economic impacts compared to cuts in income taxes, sales taxes, or VAT (in the pertinent countries that have a VAT)

The assertion assumes that tax cuts will always lead to behavior that increases taxable activities enough to offset the lower rates. While tax cuts can stimulate economic activity, the extent to which this happens varies greatly and might not always compensate for the reduced rates. (a second refutation of your claim)

The statement does not account for government spending. If tax cuts are not accompanied by a decrease in spending, the government may need to increase borrowing, affecting the overall fiscal health and potentially leading to long-term revenue issues.

The short-term effects of tax cuts on revenue can be different from the long-term effects. Initially, tax cuts may decrease revenue, but the long-term effects could potentially be an increase in revenue if the economy grows significantly as a result.

The statement assumes a straightforward comparison without considering what the revenue might have been without the tax cuts. Economic conditions, inflation, and other policy changes can also affect revenue, making it difficult to isolate the impact of tax cuts

So, while there are circumstances under which tax cuts can lead to increased economic activity and potentially higher tax revenues from other sources, it is overly simplistic to claim that lower taxes never result in a loss of revenue. The real-world outcomes depend on a wide range of factors, including the specifics of the tax cut, economic conditions, and how individuals and businesses respond to the tax changes.

In America, there are more guns than people, and, according to Republicans, more guns are supposed to make us safer, and if that were true, then America should be the safest place in the world, but wouldn't you know it -- the odds of being murdered in America are many times greater than in the other western developed countries. Go figure.

Somehow, the right's gun philosophy just doesn't square with the facts.

 

Just as long as we don't interrupt your party's officials flow of sex slaves.

Imagine that the pro slavery party didn't change even after their treason in the civil war.

 

People that support treason would tend to be confused by patriotism. Not really news to anybody.