Trump gets his SC Stay for now
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
So internet spam troll with no distinctive identity other than internet spam troll has taken courses at Harvard. OK. You bet.
Any of your alt handles have actual Ivy League degrees? Paired with your posting content and style, that will really impress people here.
Last edited:
To be clear, I am too, but I do have the sense that when matters relate to elections (eg, 2020, redistricting cases) they tend to be a little more calendar sensitive.
Precisely, that was sort of the whole point of 1776. While we certainly have retained the concept of sovereign immunity in various degrees, the sovereign is not the person holding the office, it is the government as a whole.
Pardoning Nixon was a poor decision, in retrospect. He should have gone to jail, like anyone else, for his crimes.
With that precedent in place, we would not have an army of idiots trying to claim otherwise.
I'm sure you think you said something profound here but you haven't.
That isn't the question at hand before the court. It is where is the line on immunity and the prosecution of crimes.
What has happened here is a great example of political prosecution. Trump or any president should not be immune from prosecution on an absolute sense. At tye same time there is a line somewhere yet ti be determined on what constitutes a case that should be brought and one that shouldn't. Otherwise you see thing like a traffic court judge in Illinois attempting to keep a presidential candidate off the ballot. Weird stuff.
Nixon would have won that case. I doubt you actually know the details of it at all.
He did the right thing to resign and it was the correct thing to grant him immunity from prosecution.
That situation though should put an end to much of the conversation on immunity. People most certainly believed he could be prosecuted for his acts in office which is why he was granted immunity.
The Supreme Court needs to decide where the line is on immunity vs election interference or interference with a duly elected president doing their job
No; he would not.
He had multiple eyewitnesses who testified to his actions AND the obstruction charges he'd have faced on the erased tape "accident".
There IS no such thing as "Presidential immunity" in the commission of actual crimes. There is no 'line' issue.
This was outlined with abject clarity by the lower court. You'd be wise to go read their unanimous opinion on the matter, or a good legal summary of them.
It's not that I didn't get it, it's that it's stupid. Let's continue with your little game of stupid. Let's charge Trump, then let's charge Obama for murder for drone strikes on US citizens. Then let's charge Biden for all the crimes of illegals because he let them in. Then we can move to judges where when they let out people with no bail and they commit murder/crimes, we'll charge them as well. Let's hit Congress next and get rid of their immunity. Shall we go on? Two can play the libtard games.
If SC gets rid of the absolutely retarded invalid use of the Enron statute then what do you idiots who believe Trump "incited an insurrection" going to have left to charge him with? You people know this is lawfare, but you don't care because it's Trump. It's sick.
