Is Trump's cry for 'total immunity' the dead canary in the fascist cave?

How is Congress being in charge of prosecution an example of being immune from prosecution? That doesnt make any sense.

You have went even further and said if Congress is in charge of his prosecution, that "he could then order Seal Team Six to shoot two thirds of the Senate so he COULDN'T get removed. Huh? How does that make any sense in your world? You dont think there would be any recourse to that? Are you being serious? That is one of the most irrational claims I have seen on this board, and that is TRULY saying something. My goodness.

How can you possibly be rationalizing that to be the case if Congress were in charge of his prosecution? That is just ridiculous.

What do you have to say that could possibly defend that position?

 

"Huh" indeed.

Nothing Trump does makes sense here on Earth One. But it's clear he wants to try AGAIN to become a dictator. His claim to absolute immunity is clear evidence. And since you are helping him, I just wanted to make you aware of what it was he intends to accomplish.

 

In the hopes that you will respond to what I actually said as opposed to changing the subject...

You have went even further and said if Congress is in charge of his prosecution, that "he could then order Seal Team Six to shoot two thirds of the Senate so he COULDN'T get removed. Huh? How does that make any sense in your world? You dont think there would be any recourse to that? Are you being serious? That is one of the most irrational claims I have seen on this board, and that is TRULY saying something. My goodness.

How can you possibly be rationalizing that to be the case if Congress were in charge of his prosecution? That is just ridiculous.

What do you have to say that could possibly defend that position?

How would this ruling lead to killing Senators?

 

Can you produce a post stating I was voting for him?

 

What you say is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. I'll do it just this ONE time: You expect Congress to be a criminal court. Which it's NOT. Furthermore, the person who would be tried there has more power than Congress because he could legally do ANYTHING to avoid being tried. He doesn't even need to be exonerated. All he needs is for Congress to not get to the point of convicting him. Which he has the whole world of possibilities to accomplish: from hiding evidence, to delaying (order a national 24 hour curfew until his term ends, for example), to appointing Rudy Giuliani as Chief Justice, to even murder... Because he would be legally immune from prosecution for ANYTHING he does to stop them from impeaching him.

But that's irrelevant. Because in reality he's not going to get the courts to agree with such nonsense. You are fixated on the irrelevant. If you have any questions, please read the above again because I am not taking that nonsense seriously anymore.

Now... back to reality. What Trump CAN accomplish in reality if he becomes President is to try to become a dictator. And this case proves that's his intention.

 

Sure. Your response when I asked if you thought it would be OK for Trump to have total immunity.

 

Here’s another interpretation. The founders intended impeachment to the the avenue for removing the president from office, and nothing more. It was not intended to be a condition precedent for charging the president for crimes occurred while he was in office.

 

Hmmm...

Please tell me what on gods green earth this has to do with the post of mine to which you are responding so that it is clear that your response doesnt address it in any manner...

"You have went even further and said if Congress is in charge of his prosecution, that "he could then order Seal Team Six to shoot two thirds of the Senate so he COULDN'T get removed. Huh? How does that make any sense in your world? You dont think there would be any recourse to that? Are you being serious? That is one of the most irrational claims I have seen on this board, and that is TRULY saying something. My goodness.

How can you possibly be rationalizing that to be the case if Congress were in charge of his prosecution? That is just ridiculous.

What do you have to say that could possibly defend that position?

How would this ruling lead to killing Senators?"




Exactly what in that post are you responding to in your above response?

My entire post was centered around the central question of how in your mind this would lead to being able to have Seal team 6 kill Senators resulting in staying in office?

Where is the response to that singular question? You didnt respond. You instead opted to change the subject. You claim that you were answering just "this one time" but then you did not even come close to providing any semblance of an answer. I understand that you position is ridiculous, but Id hope youd at least make an attempt to save face.

How would this ruling lead to killing Senators to remain in office?

 

If the courts say that Trump has immunity from his actions, it will no doubt help Biden.

All presidents do or have done some questionable things. The question is whether or not they can do anything without worry about the consequences (aside from impeachment ... even after they are no longer president as shown by the impeachment of Trump after his term was done).

Joe Biden has done a long list of illegal things. If Trump gets immunity, so does Joe.

Think it through, Democrats.

 

Nothing if your post is not about the topic of this thread. EVERYTHING if it is.

That is what Trump ALLEGUES. That a President could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his political opponents. You don't think that includes senators who would convict him in an Impeachment trial?

ALLEGUING that, means he WANTS to be dictator.

What part are you not understanding?

 

How in your mind would Congress being in charge of convicting a President enable him to order seal team 6 to murder Senators in order to stay in power?

What the hell are you trying to say? That does not make any sense. Literally NONE. One could make the same silly argument over the possibility of a jury not convicting a guilty person. Such a result does NOT mean that therefore they can do anything they please. Why would you think that Congress would be incapable of finding a President guilty of murdering their political opponents? Dont you think they might be afraid that they are next? Dont you think their re-election would be destroyed if they went along with something so outlandish? Your position is silly. It is beyond silly. Where do you think the USSC would come into play in this scenario? Wouldnt the Seal Team members be subject to prosecution by jury?

Explain this pile of nonsensical gibberish please. This is the theater of the absurd.

 

MY mind? Are you even paying attention. That's what Trump's attorney ALLEGUES!!!

NOTHING that Trump says makes any sense. Looks like you're having an epiphany.

 

You and the leftist media are purposefully bastardizing the meaning of that claim. The claim by the legal team is that to adjudicate an alleged crime for president, that would be accomplished only by first impeaching, and then being convicted via the Senate in contrast to the typical jury trial. Their position is that it applies in all circumstances with a sitting President. Just because someone asks them if this would apply to killing political enemies with Seal Team 6 ( no doubt for the express purpose of creating a misleading headline), does NOT mean or imply that he cannot be found guilty and held to account, it only means that it would be accomplished via impeachment and conviction by the Senate. You are playing with words to pretendd as if they say something that they do not. They do not say that the sitting president can kill political enemies with impunity which you are alleging, they only say that the means to convict them would be through the Senate. This is little more than a procedural technicality. Nobody is going to get away with murdering Senators with Seal Team 6.

This would NOT enable the President to murder with impunity. It only means that they would be found guilty by the Senate rather than a jury. The crap they use to fool you folks, and the ensuing gullibility to that deception from your ilk is astounding. It truly is. I typically assume that someone in your position is just being disingenuous, but in this case, I am starting to believe that you may actually be that gullible.

You wonder why nobody takes you and your crew seriously with you dire claims about Trump. This is exactly why. It is pure unadulterated nonsense. This one is truly off the rails into crazy town. Trumps attorney did NOT allege that this ruling would mean that they could murder with impunity. Stop lying even if that lie is to yourself.

 

Did I say I was voting for him?

 

I listened to it live. The judge ASKED him directly if he was alleging that he'd be immune. He answered yes.

How many times do I have to explain to you that this is a hypothetical. Of COURSE not. That is NOT the issue. The issue is that making this claim is yet ANOTHER indication that Trump would attempt to become a dictator, if elected.

 

Yes. You having memory problems that you have to ask ME what you said.

Repeat after me: Person, woman, man, camera, TV

 

Nope I have never said I'd vote for him, I have obviously, but haven't said I'd vote for him again..

I have said I'd vote for Kennedy in a heart beat several times..

IMAGEN THAT GOLEM

 

I would have thought those who say Trump stole the election and attempted a coup etc would be concerned he will pardon everyone involved, then get his pawns to break laws for his benefit, pardon them, etc. I also recall talking heads on news programs questioning in he could pardon himself.

If he ends up going to jail and simultaneously winning the election, can he just release himself?

 

Will you vote for him?

Not too much of a difference. Actually Kennedy is more similar to Hunter Biden than to Trump. Huge advocate for reparations, gun control and women's rights. Defense of Roe v Wade has always been his number 1 issue. So I agree with many of his positions. But he's as mentally unstable as Trump, given his drug abuse. At least different. Kennedy is more on the paranoid side, while Trump is more like a psychopath. So yeah.... Kennedy is more similar to Hunter than to anybody else. But it's extremely unlikely he'll be on the ballot, anyway. So it doesn't matter.

 

Why are you schooling me on Kennedy? I said I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. Then again, as i have stated, I was a D up until the end of Slicks two terms.. Bout the time many RFK Democrat's felt the party was changing into something much different then they were used to DISHONESTY... Slick taught us all the for the people reps were all but a memory..

Aaannnyyyy waaàaaaaaay..

 

Isnt it already obvious that they said it would be up to Congress? Do you sincerely not undertsand that? Have you TRULY been duped or is this an act? They did NOT say be immune as in immune from judgment. They merely are asserting that is Congress' job to impeach and convict.

Hypothetical or not, the principles of this scenario do not change. This would NOT enable the President to murder ( or commit any crime) with impunity. It only means that they would be found guilty by the Senate rather than a jury. The crap they use to fool you folks, and the ensuing gullibility to that deception from your ilk is astounding. It truly is.

Your "hypothetical" bogusly claims that it WOULD enable a President to act with impunity, and then you took it one step further and bogusly claimed that his lawyers SAID it would allow a President to act with impunity. Just because you backtrack now and try to brush it off by saying its just a hypothetical changes nothing.

You are either being dishonest or you are a giant dupe in all of this. Im not sure which would be worse. I frankly find it difficult to believe you could be that easily duped, but you are doing such a good job playing the part that I almost believe it.

 

Regardless, the issue is simply not that important in my opinion. I cannot imagine there being the groundswell of support necessary to do something such as that.

Maybe I am wrong in that assertion. When/if this amendment even gets proposed, I will surely have some crow to eat.

I'm not worried. I'd happily bet my house on it if I could find any takers.

 

Somebody's gotta do it.

I don't think the Democratic Party is ready to embrace Idiocracy yet, like the Republican Party has. Even though Kennedy does kinda remind one of a white version of President Camacho.

Anyway, I guess the one thing that we can draw from this post is that you confirm that you will be voting for Trump. So I reiterate everything I said before.

 

No! It was completely clear that it would be up to the President. That's what shocked the judge who asked.

 

I see I'm making progress

You can guess what do, but you'll never know for