I look forward to Biden having trump taken out
- Thread starter BlIIlken2
- Start date
Honestly, I hope that is part of the arguments. "If you rule that Trump is immune, Biden will be able to steal your assets, assassinate your family, and have you jailed for life. Is that what you want to do?"
But of course, the ruling was never the point. Delaying the trials was.
I agree with you that immunity for anyone is quite concerning.
Last edited:
I bet you somehow consider yourself a good person as you wish death on others, don't you..
It was in the original trial. To which trumps dumb **** bimbo lawyers said yes.
Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity
Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive&…
thehill.com
The process has been followed. The claim was denied. The SCOTUS doesn’t take every case offered to them. Are you really so dense as to say the court needs to weigh in on this because it’s unprecedented? Yeah it’s unprecedented. We had a criminal in office. It’s only happened once before.
Liberal logic here...
Curiosity as to why someone would reassign their gender= POS scumbag.
I want people who voted for Donald Trump to die= Hero, fighting the good fight.
And now people are whining about mods not banning every conservative user because the old regime banned everyone who offended a liberal. This board is getting what it deserves.
Curiosity as to why someone would reassign their gender= POS scumbag.
I want people who voted for Donald Trump to die= Hero, fighting the good fight.
And now people are whining about mods not banning every conservative user because the old regime banned everyone who offended a liberal. This board is getting what it deserves.
You do get the irony of my post? I’m literally pointing out the argument laid out by trumps lawyers. But please make it something else.
Hyperbole is lost on trump supporters when Trump is actually seeking to do the thing you're jokingly saying
Biliken, I was referring to this post and not yours. I should have quoted it in my response.
You might want to actually wait to see how it turns out. The hearing should be fun though.
Than why did they take the case. . . Oh to give their boy some more time. All he has to do is make it to November without the trial. If he wins the presidency or arranges a coup so he wins regardless of the vote he will just have the special council fired, replaced with a crony who will drop all the charges and say he was totally vindicated.
This is a naked political move by the supreme court to help Donald Trump. Everyone knows very clearly that the longer this can be delayed the better it is for Trump. And they are hearing a case based off a stupid theory that would have made any nearly any American and certainly nearly any lawyer laugh.
It's a theory his people don't even in fact believe in because they themselves said in the 2nd impeachment hearing that it was unnecessary because he could be charged after leaving office.
I gave the SCOTUS too much credit when I thought that they wouldn't take up this case.
So you don't believe everyone is entitled to the full extent of the judicial process? Should the SCOTUS rule against Trump, will you come back to this thread and update or affirm your opinion? BTW, SCOTUS is actually expediting the hearing by their own standards. They could have delayed the hearing until June, or October.
I might be wrong, but I think they affirm the Circuit decision. They have a court record to use as a basis, which is how they prefer to do things.
No one is entitled to a Supreme Court review, they only choose to do it over controversial issues. The question of if the president has absolute immunity IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. He doesn't.
This is a naked move to buy him some time.
As posted early if they really wanted to take this case, they could hear it and rule on it in 3 days. They did that with Bush v. Gore. They could do that here.
Due process.
Which raises the question. Why did it take 32 months to indict? I mean if it's critical to get the trial in before the election you'd think the justice department would have been balls to the wall to get this to trial. They had to have known there would be delay tactics by the Trump team.
It took over 2 and a half years to actually indict him.
Everyone is entitled to appeal to the SCOTUS. Everyone isn't entitled to certiorari. That's a nuance for sure, but an important one. There's a process, and sometimes time is of the essence, and sometimes it isn't. Time is only of the essence in this case because of politics. I personally would prefer Trump being convicted and sentenced to prison before the election, but it's always been doubtful that would happen. You should probably blame the DoJ instead of SCOTUS.
Is it gross and unamerican to remove your chief political opponent off the ballot?
@binsfeldcyhawk2 is right. It's going through the judicial process and it's likely SCOTUS will rule against trump overwhelmingly. Nothing wrong with hearing it, because the issue will not be settled in the minds of Americans until the SCOTUS knocks him down for good.
Now...back to that first question...how can anyone claim they're protecting democracy and at the same time remove their primary political opponent from the ballot? If trump actually gets convicted of a felony that sticks (survives appeals, etc) then there's a reasonable argument, but that's not a thing yet and likely won't be prior to the election...
Plus, why wouldn't Dems WANT trump on the ballot? Even Biden is going to be at him in a general election. Continuing to attack him using putinesque tactics just makes his support stronger...how does it make sense?
They could have decided already. Now they won't start hearing arguments until 4/22 and people are saying a decision will come in June, or later.
Since Smith can't proceed with the trial until there's a ruling, it's starting to look unlikely that Trump could be convicted before the election.
Are they deliberately dragging things out? Sure looks that way.
Understandable why the cons on the court are doing this. Interesting that the libs on the court are silent about it (so far).
Maybe they want to hear the case
Why did it take until 18 November 2022 to assign a special counsel to the case? 22 months after Jan 6....
If Garland and the Justice Department there would have been more wiggle room for the inevitable delays and get it to trial before the election.
The same crime? Really?
Biden also ignored requests and subpoenas? Biden also moved files around in an effort to conceal them? Biden also claimed he had declassified the documents? Biden also claimed the documents belonged to him? Biden also told others without clearance about his possession of classified documents and even pointed them out?
Really?
Seems relevant when someone brings up the case not making it to trial before the election.
The whole premise of the case. It's not part of a democratic republic, bins. Let's ask the Supreme Court if an authoritarian wannabe can do authoritarian things...in the USA. It shouldn't even be a thing.
Garland’s extreme solicitude to avoid courting the impression of promoting partisanship or other unlovely kinds of divisiveness in the pursuit of accountability on high is clearly a personal shortcoming—but it’s also a more widespread malady afflicting the culture of legal oversight in Washington. Leonnig and Davise reported that Garland and senior DOJ officials even hesitated in authorizing sedition charges against members of the Oath Keepers militia group, who committed some of the worst (and most coordinated) acts of violence outside the Capitol. Things got so bad in the Justice Department and the FBI alike that one Justice official complained that “you can’t use the T word” in deliberations over ultimate responsibility for the January 6 attacks—a state of affairs not unlike a forensic inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic that makes no mention of an iceberg. Other legal figures in the federal justice system were also taking anxious notice of the Justice Department’s dilatory approach to January 6. James O. Carter, a federal judge presiding over a civil suit involving the crackpot proposals of John Eastman to seize the presidency under the clouds of confusion kicked up by the fake electors’ slates, bluntly pronounced the effort a “coup in search of a legal theory,” adding that “the illegality of the plan was obvious.”
“More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability,” Carter went on to observe. “…If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.”
Even so, Garland and his adjutants continued to drag their feet, until they were finally shamed into action by the work of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol—and by the news last November that Trump was going to seek another term. In other words, Justice officials only relinquished Garland’s staid, politics-last MO thanks to, well, politics.
Why Did Trump’s January 6 Indictment Take So Long?
There’s plenty of blame to go around—starting with Attorney General Merrick Garland.
www.thenation.com
why not?
the party that demands a literal, originalist reading of the constitution wants to see if the courts will maybe rule that presidents can commit any crimes they want (including politically-motivated assassinations) without facing repercussions
its completely consistent with history and everything our country and constitution is supposed to stand for
So you now want to deny Trump his due process?
If government screws up and misses turning over evidence it is required to because they were in a hurry what happens? You should also consider a defendants use of delaying (although legal) the process. I mean even you have said you think the immunity filing will be decided against Trump. You know it. I know it. SCOTUS knows it as does Trump and his legal team.
Based on a completely frivolous legal claim that instead of being heard by the Supreme Ct should have resulted in sanctions for Trump's legal team.
This is pure Supreme Ct running interference for a preferred Presidential candidate.
They expedited the Bush v. Gore case in 3 days due to the necessity of needing to know who would be president. Likewise, it would be nice to know who can run for president since the primaries are underway.
Well just in case our esteemed (LOL) SCOTUS rules in favor of the Trump team's argument of immunity, then Dark Brandon should have SEAL Team 6 at the ready to deploy with extreme prejudice. It would qualify as an emergent national security threat IMO.
Why Did Trump’s January 6 Indictment Take So Long?
There’s plenty of blame to go around—starting with Attorney General Merrick Garland.
www.thenation.com
Garland waiting 22 months to appoint a special counsel had nothing to do with due process. There's no reason he couldn't have appointed one in March of 2021.
Last edited:
I forget where the courts sit on it now but if the current ruling is to deny Trump's immunity motion, SCOTUS should have declined to even hear it... It is that simple. A sitting president shouldn't be free to commit whatever crimes they wish... Which is what Trump is saying.
