Trump wins immunity

[JerryBaumchen 1,261]

30 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

And tell them what? That I think Biden is a namby panby who will fill his depends before saying shit even with a mouth full? If they can't sort it out now without help we are fucked. The more I think about it the more I'm of the mind to go back to my 2016 game plan of not caring. I can take care of me and mine, my staff and my jumpers. Probably I'll pay less taxes and have less regulatory hassle. 

Hi Joe,

Then quit posting on here.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I just sent a message to Chuck Schumer since he is one of those meeting with Joe tomorrow.

[ryoder 1,547]

Somewhere from deep below our feet Richard Nixon is exclaiming:

"See? See? I told you when the president does it, that means it is not illegal!"

[JerryBaumchen 1,261]

5 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Somewhere from deep below our feet Richard Nixon is exclaiming:

"See? See? I told you when the president does it, that means it is not illegal!"

Hi Robert,

I was just thinking about that earlier this morning.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And, why is this thread called Trump's Immunity; it applies to all Presidents.

[JoeWeber 2,562]

Just now, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Then quit posting on here.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I just sent a message to Chuck Schumer since he is one of those meeting with Joe tomorrow.

I understand that as someone with kids and grandkids your concern timeline might differ from mine. And while I do appreciate your frustration, you are not alone. 

[ryoder 1,547]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Robert,

I was just thinking about that earlier this morning.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And, why is this thread called Trump's Immunity; it applies to all Presidents.

Because in two and a half centuries, Nixon was the only one who ever needed it, until the Orange Shitgibbon came along.

[GeorgiaDon 355]

I think this decision will come to be seen as on par with Dred Scott.  Like Dred Scott, the damage will likely require a constitutional amendment or two to repair.  Perhaps the Democrats should campaign on putting forward a couple of amendments, one to limit presidential immunity and to define a process to decide what acts are "official" and what are not (with self-dealing firmly in the "not" category), and a second amendment to impose term limits on supreme court justices.  An enforceable code of ethics would be good too.  Perhaps another amendment could introduce an upper age limit to the presidency. 

Another thing they could campaign on is a repeal of the Comstock Act.

[Faicon9493 133]

“I don’t want to know what the law is. I want to know who the judge is.” - Roy Cohn, Donald Trump’s Mentor

[normiss 723]

Is this for real??

[gowlerk 2,097]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

Is this for real??

That would be one way for Biden to regain the advantage.

[kallend 1,822]

The Supreme Court has given to the President the power that Parliament removed from the English king in 1649.

And Americans have the nerve to call Brits "subjects" as a slur.  Who are the subjects now?

[Phil1111 1,077]

Happy 4th. On a sadder note its exactly 200 days until an admitted dictator might be sworn in. Oh well 248 years was a good run.

[ryoder 1,547]

Devin Stone (adjunct law professor at Georgetown) analyzes, and shreds the SCOTUS ruling. He also explains why the distinction between "official" and "unofficial" acts is meaningless.

 

[nigel99 288]

From the onion on the pros and cons of Trump immunity. Sadly it isn’t that satirical 

• PRO: Can finally stop pretending we live in a democracy.
• CON: Nothing we can print out of fear of retribution.
• PRO: Saves a ton on prosecution costs.
• CON: One more jaywalker.
• PRO: Nice to finally have it in writing.
• CON: Encourages him to put personal crimes on company card.
• PRO: Country won’t last long enough for him to use it very often.
• CON: Being president will probably get boring after the fourth or fifth time

[winsor 220]

For all the hoopla regarding this decision, it is but a tempest in a teacup.  If anything, it states that some actions are arguable and others lack immunity, where whatsisname claimed absolute immunity.

In practice, presidents have routinely done things that are patently illegal as part of their official duties and gotten a pass.  Obama carrying out a hit against an American working for Daesh was entirely illegal, and nobody batted an eye (including me).  Clinton was taken to task for playing hide-the-salami with Lewinski et al and lying about it, and survived impeachment.  As an aside, I think it would have been amusing if he got his wish to have the case handled by the UCMJ as CIC; commanders committing adultery are routinely cashiered (seems to have happened in the last week, IIRC).

When all is said and done, our only hope is that Biden steps aside, thanks Harris for her service, and is replaced by someone who is truly competent.  Not bloody likely, but one can dream.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

[JoeWeber 2,562]

Just now, winsor said:

For all the hoopla regarding this decision, it is but a tempest in a teacup.  If anything, it states that some actions are arguable and others lack immunity, where whatsisname claimed absolute immunity.

In practice, presidents have routinely done things that are patently illegal as part of their official duties and gotten a pass.  Obama carrying out a hit against an American working for Daesh was entirely illegal, and nobody batted an eye (including me).  Clinton was taken to task for playing hide-the-salami with Lewinski et al and lying about it, and survived impeachment.  As an aside, I think it would have been amusing if he got his wish to have the case handled by the UCMJ as CIC; commanders committing adultery are routinely cashiered (seems to have happened in the last week, IIRC).

When all is said and done, our only hope is that Biden steps aside, thanks Harris for her service, and is replaced by someone who is truly competent.  Not bloody likely, but one can dream.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

What is being missed by everyone is that the President can’t just fire their VP. Unless Harris agrees there is no tricky way out. Biden needs not to resign but to not seek reelection. Of course with the new immunity guarantee he could have her boxed up until after the election, I suppose.

[SkyDekker 1,288]

37 minutes ago, winsor said:

Obama carrying out a hit against an American working for Daesh was entirely illegal, and nobody batted an eye (including me).

Except he asked DOJ for their opinion prior to order and was told otherwise....

 

37 minutes ago, winsor said:

Clinton was taken to task for playing hide-the-salami with Lewinski et al

You mean the one where she said it was entirely consensual. Please do outline the illegality.

 

As usual your comparisons don't support your position.

[winsor 220]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Except he asked DOJ for their opinion prior to order and was told otherwise....

 

You mean the one where she said it was entirely consensual. Please do outline the illegality.

 

As usual your comparisons don't support your position.

As far as you can tell, I'm sure.

[SkyDekker 1,288]

23 minutes ago, winsor said:

As far as you can tell, I'm sure.

nope, not as far as I can tell. The White Paper is public....but I know facts are fluid for you. They matter when they support your position and are entirely optional when they do not....

 

https://irp.fas.org/eprint/doj-lethal.pdf

[kallend 1,822]

If you read Federalist #68, the purpose of the Electoral College is very clearly stated as the means to keep people like Trump from becoming president.

What an abysmal failure!

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

[Phil1111 1,077]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

If you read Federalist #68, the purpose of the Electoral College is very clearly stated as the means to keep people like Trump from becoming president.

What an abysmal failure!

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

Trump has proven that the US constitution has holes in it big enough to drive battleships through. i.e.

Impeachment

The purpose of checks and balances.

The nomination process of the USSC.

The three independent arms of the state.

etc. Oh well,  its the greatest place on the planet and far superior to shithole countries.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,261]

7 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Trump has proven that the US constitution has holes in it big enough to drive battleships through. i.e.

Impeachment

The purpose of checks and balances.

The nomination process of the USSC.

The three independent arms of the state.

etc. Oh well,  its the greatest place on the planet and far superior to shithole countries.

 

Hi Phil,

IMO it is not the nomination process; but, the Advise & Consent process; or lack thereof => Mitch McConnell & Obama.

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 2,097]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Oh well,  its the greatest place on the planet and far superior to shithole countries.

I have relatives who won’t go to “that shithole country” anymore.

[JoeWeber 2,562]

22 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Trump has proven that the US constitution has holes in it big enough to drive battleships through. i.e.

Impeachment

The purpose of checks and balances.

The nomination process of the USSC.

The three independent arms of the state.

etc. Oh well,  its the greatest place on the planet and far superior to shithole countries.

 

And doesn't it drip with irony that in defense of democracy we liberal types are calling for Biden, or anyone with the will, to use the Presidencies new autocratic powers against our enemies. Oh, but you know, it's for the common good and just for a limited time and, unlike them, we can be trusted. 

[billvon 2,723]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

And doesn't it drip with irony that in defense of democracy we liberal types are calling for Biden, or anyone with the will, to use the Presidencies new autocratic powers against our enemies. Oh, but you know, it's for the common good and just for a limited time and, unlike them, we can be trusted. 

Which is exactly why the original Constitution attempted to limit presidential powers (and immunity.)  To the Founding Fathers, the president was just the leader of the executive branch, and the only time he was expected to take quick or unilateral action was militarily, when there wasn't time to wait for Congress.

[JoeWeber 2,562]

Just now, billvon said:

Which is exactly why the original Constitution attempted to limit presidential powers (and immunity.)  To the Founding Fathers, the president was just the leader of the executive branch, and the only time he was expected to take quick or unilateral action was militarily, when there wasn't time to wait for Congress.

Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way