User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:29:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: M4-AK]
 Trump's SUPREME COURT Oral Arguments on PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY Live Ended. Did they break for lunch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:55:22 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:56:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:57:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: Do you literally believe that a politician won't play both sides of an issue to their advantage? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By sonaliel: Remember, Trump was already out of office at the time of his second impeachment trial in the Senate. Which conveniently gave Republican senators an excuse to vote not guilty, even as they gave speeches saying they believed he was guilty!  Y'all are literally making the argument that they were wrong in their legal process assessment and should have actually voted guilty!  Do you literally believe that a politician won't play both sides of an issue to their advantage? We aren't talking about politicians, we are talking about all the people here who were probably screaming in February 2021 that Trump couldn't be impeached or declared guilty because he was already out of office. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:57:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Hawaii, spare electors, Duh.
Old History. You can charge Trump with anything you want but, in the long run all you did was 2024 election intereference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:58:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: We aren't talking about politicians, we are talking about all the people here who were probably screaming in February 2021 that Trump couldn't be impeached or declared guilty because he was already out of office. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By APPARITION: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By sonaliel: Remember, Trump was already out of office at the time of his second impeachment trial in the Senate. Which conveniently gave Republican senators an excuse to vote not guilty, even as they gave speeches saying they believed he was guilty! Y'all are literally making the argument that they were wrong in their legal process assessment and should have actually voted guilty! Do you literally believe that a politician won't play both sides of an issue to their advantage? We aren't talking about politicians, we are talking about all the people here who were probably screaming in February 2021 that Trump couldn't be impeached or declared guilty because he was already out of office. So the Senators are now not politicians? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:59:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:59:54 PM EDT
[#7]
I’m not quoting the gray bar but I do remember the Rittenhouse case where the charges were so not based in reality and the persecution so malicious that they should have been disbarred so forgive my refusal to take your “indictment” as being worthy of being anything more than a tool to wipe my ass much less as being comparable to the word of God in which regard you seem to hold them.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:01:17 PM EDT
[#8]
So if a President does not have immunity for what he does while in office could that be used as precedent that a judge does not have immunity for violating your civil rights as well? That a congress person does not have immunity for what they do? Slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:01:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? Only if you have a (D) after your name, so your guys are GTG. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:02:00 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:02:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. Well, we all know why the dems put her name out. So, there's that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:02:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dp226: So if a President does not have immunity for what he does while in office could that be used as precedent that a judge does not have immunity for violating your civil rights as well? That a congress person does not have immunity for what they do? Slippery slope. They literally do not care. They believe they’ll always be in charge and they just have to get the orange man. Damn the consequences. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:02:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:02:33 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. I wonder if she’s ever learned what a defines a “woman”. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:03:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Originally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. Ah yes, the wise latina ... What a fucking hag ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:05:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I’m not quoting the gray bar but I do remember the Rittenhouse case where the charges were so not based in reality and the persecution so malicious that they should have been disbarred so forgive my refusal to take your “indictment” as being worthy of being anything more than a tool to wipe my ass much less as being comparable to the word of God in which regard you seem to hold them. This is a gun owners forum, nobody here who uses an indictment as "proof" of anything should be taken seriously in a world where we all regularly see the ATF indict, and even convict (or get plea deals from), people for doing something not only 100% protected by the Constitution but even legal per the laws as they are on the books. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:05:05 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By atavistic: My hope is DJT loses the case, wins in Nov, charges Biden and BHO with every conceivable crime, and we hear the libtards bitch about the world they created for 4 years. If Trumps wins there is no AG candidate that the democrats would allow to be seated if they thought they would go after Biden and his ilk. I do not even think Trump could find a republican AG candidate that would go after Biden even if they were handed the smoking gun. Remember the scumbag Barr said the new administration should not go after the old but this does not apply to the dems. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:05:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: st0newall]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: I’m fine. Went to the news because no one here will give a simple answer. lol They will rule in May or June. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: Are you ok? I’m fine. Went to the news because no one here will give a simple answer. lol They will rule in May or June. there is not nor will there be a simple answer. a guess. the supremes would just as soon not have to deal with the issue at all and may return it to the lower courts. presidential immunity is a sticky subject that really should be left alone. ruling on it either way opens up a real can of worms. leave it be, trump loses in november. then bidet should pardon trump just to make the whole thing go away and to make heads explode too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:05:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I’m not quoting the gray bar but I do remember the Rittenhouse case where the charges were so not based in reality and the persecution so malicious that they should have been disbarred so forgive my refusal to take your “indictment” as being worthy of being anything more than a tool to wipe my ass much less as being comparable to the word of God in which regard you seem to hold them. Yes, you are right--a statement of facts in a court of law is definitely completely irrelevant to a discussion of the merits of the charges.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:05:51 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? As ever, it depends upon the law, the prosecutor and the finder of fact. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:06:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? Al-Alawki was a US citizen, as was his 16 Yo son and his 8 YO daughter. That’s the difference. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:06:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Yep, a whole lot of hypotheticals. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Originally Posted By Crazyascanbe: I hear a lot of what ifs but I dont hear anything in the terms of what happened Yep, a whole lot of hypotheticals. That's kind of the point. Stopping a President from unilaterally killing or locking up political rivals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:07:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfdentd: 6-3 in favor of Trump is my prediction |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:07:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: I’m fine. Went to the news because no one here will give a simple answer. lol They will rule in May or June. LOL seriously funny, that anyone would think SCOTUS would rule same day on any case. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:08:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: 5-4 One of the soft conservatives, probably Roberts, will vote with liberals. Then Biden should immediately kill or house arrest Trump. Since you think a President has full immunity. Hey he can argue democracy is at stake. Nobody can stop him. Fucking clown world |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:08:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? I bet you think it was a legitment election too. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:09:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I'm not sure, at this point, that anyone should be compelled, bullied or hectored into agreeing that the allegations contained in the indictment are "facts." I understand, but the DOJ hasn't covered themselves in glory regarding DJT. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:09:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CTM1: I agree with you that there has to be a way to hold a former president accountable for crimes if they are discovered after they leave office and they are either not seeking a second term or are excluded via term limits. Pelosi went after President trump with a second impeachment for Jan 6th and according to some legal scholars she did not follow procedure. The articles of impeachment went nowhere and she knew they would not but she said history will show he has been impeached twice. If she had gone after him with what is being alleged in this case and framed it as a high crime and misdemeanor and he was not convicted in the senate does the next presidents DOJ get to cry foul and go after a political enemy by saying he was not properly held accountable? A sitting president has a duty to ensure election integrity even if it benefits them. Optics are a thing in this nation and let us not forget millions of voters believe Biden did not win. Millions believe the Russian Hoax perpetrated by our own gov't cost President Trump votes. Millions believe the first impeachment was unfounded and purely political, and now the opposition party is going after the same man yet again and on several fronts. I understand many people believe that all the charges filed against Trump are bogus, the DOJ is on nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt, and as such, would love to see a SCOTUS ruling that somehow protects him. But the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges against Donald Trump, shouldn't be used either way to address the larger question of criminal immunity for a former president. Remove Trump from the equation entirely and the issues still remain. If probable cause exists to believe a former president committed a crime while in office, should he be held to account by the criminal justice system? Does it matter if the president was not impeached while in office? What if the probable cause was not discovered until after the president left office? Does it matter if the action was taken as part of presidential duties (Obama drone strikes, for example), or was purely of a personal nature? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:09:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: "Legitment votes" LOFL I bet you think it was a legitment election too. seriously. he must think biden got 80 mil votes after only getting 1% in his last 2 campaigns. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:09:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LittleBigHorn]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? Interesting that you are using that word “facts”. They aren’t at all “facts”. Try again with the correct word usage, and it makes your entire argument pointless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:10:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Yep, a whole lot of hypotheticals. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Originally Posted By Crazyascanbe: I hear a lot of what ifs but I dont hear anything in the terms of what happened Yep, a whole lot of hypotheticals. Maybe it's somewhere in the 4 hour video. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:10:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: I'm not sure, at this point, that anyone should be compelled, bullied or hectored into agreeing that the allegations contained in the indictment are "facts." I understand, but the DOJ hasn't covered themselves in glory regarding DJT. agreed but the corruption is as bad as this country as ever seen, obvious and in our face. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:11:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfdentd: 6-3 in favor of Trump is my prediction Man, I hope so. Trying to find the good bits, but that's a long ass video. I'll have to listen more after work. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:12:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Greenhorn: As Tim Pool accurately and often points out, the president is immune from prosecution from ANYTHING he does in his official capacity as president, UNTIL he is impeached and convicted. Acts outside of official duties, for example shooting someone in the head, can be treated as a criminal offense outside of impeachment. No. Nixon resigned and was about to face prosecution, until Ford pardoned him. Nobody ever thought up until now that a President is totally immune unless impeached and found guilty by the Senate. 230 years of believing the President is not above the law... until Trump cult came along. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:12:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:13:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Then Biden should immediately kill or house arrest Trump. Since you think a President has full immunity. Hey he can argue democracy is at stake. Nobody can stop him. Fucking clown world The constitution has a tool for criminal presidents. It is called impeachment. Why add anything else. The constitution is absolute. Outside impeachment the constitution is clear, the pres has immunity from civilian prosecution because there is impeachment. Once impeached, the civies can prosecute. That is old news. As to your scenario, that might happen. This administration is that corrupt. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:15:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Then Biden should immediately kill or house arrest Trump. Since you think a President has full immunity. Hey he can argue democracy is at stake. Nobody can stop him. Fucking clown world If Garland blesses off on it, Biden could burn Trump at the stake in Times Square, have Baron drawn and quartered, and have Ivanka sold off into the sex trade and have full immunity from prosecution. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:16:32 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I'm not quoting the gray bar but I do remember the Rittenhouse case where the charges were so not based in reality and the persecution so malicious that they should have been disbarred so forgive my refusal to take your "indictment" as being worthy of being anything more than a tool to wipe my ass much less as being comparable to the word of God in which regard you seem to hold them.  |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:19:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: The constitution has a tool for criminal presidents. It is called impeachment. Why add anything else. The constitution is absolute. Outside impeachment the constitution is clear, the pres has immunity from civilian prosecution because there is impeachment. Once impeached, the civies can prosecute. That is old news. As to your scenario, that might happen. This administration is that corrupt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Then Biden should immediately kill or house arrest Trump. Since you think a President has full immunity. Hey he can argue democracy is at stake. Nobody can stop him. Fucking clown world The constitution has a tool for criminal presidents. It is called impeachment. Why add anything else. The constitution is absolute. Outside impeachment the constitution is clear, the pres has immunity from civilian prosecution because there is impeachment. Once impeached, the civies can prosecute. That is old news. As to your scenario, that might happen. This administration is that corrupt. No.... as it's already happened. A ex-president who wasn't impeached, had to be saved by a Pardon to avoid criminal charges for things he did as President. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:21:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: As ever, it depends upon the law, the prosecutor and the finder of fact. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? As ever, it depends upon the law, the prosecutor and the finder of fact. Ok--so what is the evidence that Obama did not follow the law? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:21:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino: Disagree, killing OBL wasn't murder, it was killing an enemy. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? It can be both. It's one thing until adjudged the other thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:22:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I understand many people believe that all the charges filed against Trump are bogus, the DOJ is on nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt, and as such, would love to see a SCOTUS ruling that somehow protects him. But the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges against Donald Trump, shouldn't be used either way to address the larger question of criminal immunity for a former president. Remove Trump from the equation entirely and the issues still remain. If probable cause exists to believe a former president committed a crime while in office, should he be held to account by the criminal justice system? Does it matter if the president was not impeached while in office? What if the probable cause was not discovered until after the president left office? Does it matter if the action was taken as part of presidential duties (Obama drone strikes, for example), or was purely of a personal nature? Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:23:15 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: I'm not sure, at this point, that anyone should be compelled, bullied or hectored into agreeing that the allegations contained in the indictment are "facts." I understand, but the DOJ hasn't covered themselves in glory regarding DJT. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I'm not sure, at this point, that anyone should be compelled, bullied or hectored into agreeing that the allegations contained in the indictment are "facts." I understand, but the DOJ hasn't covered themselves in glory regarding DJT. I defer to your expertise--what is the consequence to Jack Smith if he presented false evidence to the grand jury and in his indictment? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:24:24 PM EDT
[#44]
So now we wait months for their ruling?
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:24:27 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: If Garland blesses off on it, Biden could burn Trump at the stake in Times Square, have Baron drawn and quartered, and have Ivanka sold off into the sex trade and have full immunity from prosecution. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Then Biden should immediately kill or house arrest Trump. Since you think a President has full immunity. Hey he can argue democracy is at stake. Nobody can stop him. Fucking clown world If Garland blesses off on it, Biden could burn Trump at the stake in Times Square, have Baron drawn and quartered, and have Ivanka sold off into the sex trade and have full immunity from prosecution. or trump could, if re-elected. dress hunter biden up in a gimp suit and keep him in a dungeon underneath the white house and bring him out to watch trump rape various womenz he would send seal team zero out to capture and bring back for his enjoyment. heck i wanna be president, its like being a god. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:24:38 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: No.... as it's already happened. A ex-president who wasn't impeached, had to be saved by a Pardon to avoid criminal charges for things he did as President. There was an Impeachment committee that already voted out articles of impeachment on Nixon, the impeachment did not move forward when he resigned and Ford pardoned him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:24:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: The danger I see when applying this standard to other situations. In Obamas case, the DOJ said he was good to go. I don’t see anything stopping a future DOJ from looking back and saying actually he wasn’t good to go and starting the ball rolling for impeachment and criminal charges. There’s no possible way it doesn’t end in a tit for tat. Ultimately, it’s going to rest on the DOJs interpretation of the laws passed by Congress. They have given the Executive branch pretty wide discretion in this regard. I’m not particularly concerned about the tit for tat in any meaningful way, the mechanism is already in place to do it and the same constitutional questions remain. I’m going to side on holding the powerful to account than I am concerned about time and resources wasted on witch-hunts. Let’s be honest it’s not like both parties don’t spend lots of time and resources doing it already. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:25:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Ok--so what is the evidence that Obama did not follow the law? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Is premeditated murder within the law? Was the assassination of Bin Laden premeditated murder? Yes, by definition it is a murder. Not the same as an American citizen, but you knew that right? So then we agree that premeditated murder could be legal in certain circumstances? As ever, it depends upon the law, the prosecutor and the finder of fact. Ok--so what is the evidence that Obama did not follow the law? What law? Is killing a US citizen without due process legal? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:25:21 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RLR350: Kagan and Jackson, Biden’s attorneys disguised as Supreme Court Justices, are arguing no immunity should apply. Trump’s lawyer is arguing absolute immunity does not exist. Impeachment is the remedy for official acts. Robert’s is trying to bring some sanity back to the questioning. “You’re arguing that a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.” Directed at the special counsel. The special counsel is saying political prosecutions won’t happen because of the checks and balances in place. Laughable. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RLR350: Originally Posted By Alex_F: TLDR: for those of us in Teams meetings who can't watch the video? Kagan and Jackson, Biden’s attorneys disguised as Supreme Court Justices, are arguing no immunity should apply. Trump’s lawyer is arguing absolute immunity does not exist. Impeachment is the remedy for official acts. Robert’s is trying to bring some sanity back to the questioning. “You’re arguing that a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.” Directed at the special counsel. The special counsel is saying political prosecutions won’t happen because of the checks and balances in place. Laughable. Thanks! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:26:08 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Did Obama act within the law? I guess it is up to who is interpreting the law. The DOJ looked at the hush money payments and apparently did not see a violation of the law but Manhattan DA Bragg has a vastly different interpretation of the law by using a federal law to justify his use of a state law to bring a case. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
