Trumps Immunity.

Our institutions are what makes this country strong. Yet, you have one candidate and a certain segment within a specific political party that has three words in it and starts with a "G" that want to dismantle those institutions. You also have that certain political party that thinks we are in a depression, the economy is bad, etc.

 

...and how is this is relevant to the topic being discussed which is whether or not missing a date would mean that there is no recourse and the vote of the public would have to be invalidated despite it being ruled unconstitutional?

Oh its not relevant? Oh that's right, I have already told you that you are arguing a strawman argument.

I am not interested in going off on your strawman. Sorry.

 

That is not what a strawman argument is buddy. The argument you raised initially had to do with mental decline of a person who is old. I merely said so was Trump, but you ignore that reality and only focus on Biden, which is the argument of "different strokes for different folks."

The Constitution says a lot of things, and it does not say a lot of things. There is no "Presidential immunity" in the US Constitution. None, Zilch, Nada. There is no presidential immunity in the Federalist Papers either. The founding father who wrote that specific Federalist Paper, #77, made the antithesis of that argument, something the Supreme Court ignored IMO. Presidential immunity was first created under the sovereign immunity doctrine when President Johnson was in office in 1867, and then Presidential immunity was created when Nixon was considered to being indicted for crimes as a sitting president. and has now morphed into what it is now. The so-called "originalists" are not being originalists in their thinking. At least not in this case. This ruling is going to murk up even the impeachment clause under Article 2, section 4, which states that certain crimes and misdemeanors, can allow the Legislature to impeach a President and try him for removal. That is totally separate from any civil and/or criminal action in the judicial system. They expanded that memo written in 1990 which the President cannot be tried for crimes while in office. That damn memo should never have been written, along with the John Yoo memo and a few others.

 

If you are talking about "how strong our country is," then yes. It has always been our institutions and we have many of them. But then again, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

 

You do know that there is a written record of our entire exchange on this thread do you not?

I had said to another chatter "You are a sorry one indeed, but it is because you are so easily duped. Our Republic is strong." This was referring to the electoral college proscrbied date and his mistaken belief that missing this date for any reason would mean that the vote would have to be invalidated.

Your response was...

Post 136

This had not one thing to do with the "mental decline of a person who is old", and you did not say to me "so was Trump"

You have fabricated this conversation out of thin air. What are you even talking about? It is as if you are chatting in an alternate universe.

 

Ignoring the bizarre claims you made above that simply did not occur, what is it NOW that you are trying to assert that I "have no idea what the hell I am talking about"?

The irony here is humorous to say the least.

 

WHEN THEY TELL YOU WHO THEY ARE, BELIEVE THEM: Leftists Call for Trump’s Assassination Online.

If Trump was a Democrat, Dirtbag Merrick would do something about this.

 

The way I read it, any official duty as in performing the acts, duties, decisions made directly related to the presidency is immune. But it has to be an official duty involving the office of the presidency. Any unofficial or personal acts committed by the president not directly related to a president’s official duties is not immune. Immunity applies only to the official duties, decisions and action done in a president’s capacity in performing the required duties and functions of the office of the president.


This is basically the way it has always been. Although it will be left to a judge to decide, in my opinion holding a campaign rally is not part of a president’s official duty, it’s personal. Making a phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State telling him to find 11,780 votes isn’t official business of the president either, it's personal as is running for reelection, that personal business, not done in the official capacity of performing presidential duties or business. Paying hush money isn’t part of official presidential duties either, especially when it was done prior to becoming president. Nothing done prior or after a president leaves office is covered by immunity which applies only to the official duties of a president required in carrying out the constitutional functions of the office of the president.


Unless I read this wrong, nothing has changed.

 

It's more of a three prong test.

1. Anything related to core responsibilities the President has absolute immunity.

2. Anything related to his official responsibilities has presumptive immunity.

3. Non-official acts have no immunity.

For the presumptive immunity, the prosecutors have to prove that the prosecution won't weaken the institution of the presidency before they can move forward.

 

Nice, short, precise way to put it.

 

But, the Leftists have no choice but to lie about what the ruling really says.

 

The rhetoric is going to get more dangerous from here in out. Expect extreme violence if he wins.

 

A healthy society needs to prepared to deal quite sternly with lawless violence. I'm sure our Red State Areas are, and would advise staying out of Blue State Areas.

 

There's definitely been a lot of sky is falling arguments with people pre-emptively assuming that the SCOTUS green-lit all of Trump's conduct. That's actually not true in the least.

The majority opinion does not classify any conduct or charges in the indictment. This was done intentionally due to Chutkan's "mistakes." They didn't use the word mistakes, but they called out major negative issues of her handling of the case very clearly including:

• Despite the case being unprecedented and Constitutionally questionable, Chutkan was rushing the pre-trial process.
• She conducted no factual analysis of the charges for SCOTUS to work with.
• She conducted no briefing on how to classify the conduct and charges for SCOTUS to work with.
• She made the unprecedented conclusion that there is no such thing as presidential immunity.
• Etcera.

In short, she made huge errors because she wasn't doing what Cannon has been doing in the Florida case by documenting everything and creating a record for appellate courts to review. She's also been rushing the case based on the election timeline regardless on what impact that has on seeking justice and protecting the defendant's rights.

 

Chutkan is in on the lawfare conspiracy. She wasn't concerned about errors. She just wanted Trump convicted, maybe in jail, before the election. These political show trials had nothing to do with "the rule of law", or "justice". They were 100% about keeping Trump out of the White House.

 

So, did you all really think that the President DOESN'T have immunity for official acts? Seriously? Great question to the leftists. When any of the 6 Republican US Supreme Court Justices decide in their favor they don't complain, they praise them. When the majority of the US Supreme Court Justices decide in their favor they don't complain, they praise them. Since they believe President Trump is guilty of all the leftist Democrats, Trumped UP charges, Trumped UP Pun intended, in these Political Kangaroo Court Trials against him. They want the US Supreme Court to declare President Trump guilty of all the charges, with o immunities.

 

Fake News. The Independent Prosecutor Law was in force then, it no longer is. Lying Jack was illegally appointed and unconstitutionally funded.

 

How was his appointment different from that of the other cases I've mentioned?

 

I already told you. Review my answer.

In addition to Lying Jack being illegally appointed, he is also unconstitutionally funded.

“The Special Counsel’s office has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all drawn unconstitutionally from the Indefinite Appropriation.'

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation.”

Judge Cannon

 

Precedence says Cannon is full of ****.

 

Fake News.

The Independent Counsel Statute expired in 1999.

 

Then why was Mueller's appointment repeatedly upheld?

 

It wasn't.

'The only ruling was a DC Circuit case that
(a) did not seriously grapple with the constitutional questions raised and
(b) is not binding on federal courts in Florida.'

'the D.C. Circuit did not so much uphold Mueller’s appointment as decline to engage objections to it.'

'The three-judge panel in In re: Grand Jury Subpoena wrongly claimed that the appointments-clause issue had been resolved by Nixon, though it hadn’t even been litigated in Nixon. The Circuit rationalized that by entertaining Jaworski’s subpoenas, the Supreme Court must implicitly have validated his appointment; to the contrary, the validity of the appointment was not challenged. Otherwise, the panel trotted out a hodgepodge of statutes covering the attorney general’s authority that do not actually authorize the AG to create the special-counsel position; then, finally, the judges threw up their hands, peremptorily stating that “this court has no need to identify the specific sources of this authority” because the defendant in the case had supposedly waived his right to challenge Mueller’s status.'

https://archive.ph/IrARy#selection-1267.87-1283.629

Ask yourself: If there is a statute creating an office for the Special Counsel, how come no one has simply pointed out that statute?

 

I disagree. We The People are what makes this country strong. Those institutions are supposed to server US. Not government.

 

Lying Jack is illegally appointed and unconstitutionally funded.

JOSH BLACKMAN AND SETH BARRETT TILLMAN TAKE A VICTORY LAP: New in Harvard JLPP Per Curiam: What We Did and Did Not Argue in United States v. Trump. “In case you are living under a rock, yesterday Judge Cannon granted the motion to dismiss the indictment. The court cited several of our arguments.”