Justice Kavanaugh Warns Of Vicious Cycle Of Malicious Prosecutions That Could End Presidency

Justice Kavanaugh Warns Of Vicious Cycle Of Malicious Prosecutions That Could End Presidency


"This case has huge implications...for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country.."

But on the plus side, Obama and his Administration are all largely former office holders as will soon be Biden and his Administration. Hound the bastards for the rest of their natural lives. Bring case after case and suit after suit against them, using the full resources of every level of government, National, State, and County.

The more the Justices argued the case, the more they became alarmed at the precedent that Bribed Joe, Dirtbag Merrick, Lying Jack Smith, and the corrupt DC judge were trying to set.

'The question that is now before the Supreme Court is: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”'

Obama incinerated a Colorado Teenager with a hellfire missile, he's never been indicted or charged for that.

Biden/Obama/Comey/Clinton engaged in a conspiracy to illegally spy on Trump as a Candidate, during the Transition, and even after he was president, based on the lie that Carter Page was Russian Agent when they knew full well he was a CIA asset. They've never been indicted, charged, or even sued for that.

'He raised the question of the “risk” of a “creative prosecutor” using “vague” statutes against a commander-in-chief, telling Mr. Dreeben that this case has “huge implications” for the presidency, and that he was “very concerned about the future.”'

'Justice Kavanaugh cited the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, as “one of the Court’s biggest mistakes” because it “hampered” presidential administrations. He argued that when former presidents are subjected to prosecution, this risks triggering a vicious cycle of vindictive prosecutions.'

Damn right it will. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

'“What would the reaction be if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person?” he asked. “Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him?”'

That's what they have been doing to Trump for 8 years. Toss the immunity, I want to see the entirety of the Obama/Biden Administrations hounded for the rest of their lives.

Victoria Nuland for one. 200,000 dead and counting because of the coup the Obama Administration pulled off in Ukraine during Obama/Biden.

And what about all of Samantha Powers unmasking requests in her search for any dirt on Trump?

Please read the whole thing and discuss.

 

Well, but all this starts with the assumption that the Federal Government (FBI/DOJ/NSA) would go after a democrat, say, brandon, as viciously as they have trump.

They didn't go after Hillary for the Steele dossier.
They didn't go after Lois Lerner for the IRS attacks on conservative non profits.
They didn't go after Kerry for serving as a government agent for Iran.

They won't go after brandon for the border security mess.
They won't go after brandon for willfully exceeding his authority to forgive school loans.
They didn't go after brandon for black mailing Ukraine. (But, they did go after Trump.)

They won't go after Pelosi for insider trading.
They won't go after Pelosi for Hunters Point.

 

Kavanaugh warns us against Republicans abusing power. And he's right. They've been doing this for several years with circus House Committees that end in NOTHING. I guess he can see them escalating this and doing the same by abusing the DoJ. The fact that none of it ever makes it.... not just to trial, but even to some ACCUSATION... will not dissuade them. They believe they can use it to draw attention away from the fact that, when they come to power, they do NOTHING. They don't deliver even on the promises that they made during the campaign.

It is a danger, but that shouldn't keep us from prosecuting politicians who really ARE corrupt and against which there is actual PROOF.

 

None of what he is charged with was an official act. Kavanaugh is setting the expectation that all Presidents be monarchs, entirely above the law.

 

This is why democrats want to pack the court, it's so voices like Kavanaugh's won't matter.

 

Fake News. And you know it.

Just know that whatever you're doing to us, that ****'s coming back.

 

You can't have a president looking behind his back with every decision he or she makes. You can't operate a country with a bunch lawyers deciding if a certain decision is something you can sue an ex president for after her or she has left office. This is a slippery slope, and it's one that the counts and the voters need to come down on hard. The Democrats are abusing the legal system for political ends. That sucks, and it needs to end.

 

Hah!!! My point is made!

 

Real trials require evidence. For Trump, the evidence is there. In many cases, conservatives have sought to get prominent democrats, but lacked evidence to get to where we are with Trump. Sure, it'd be better if they spent more time actually governing. But we can't let presidents feel either invulnerable nor severely hindered. I think distinguishing between official acts (subject only to impeachment) and private acts (subject to either impeachment or regular criminal prosecution), seems like the best balance to strike.

Example of a bad official act: Japanese internment.
Example of a bad private act: Keeping top secret documents as trophies to show off to friends.

 

Oh, so “packing the court” is fair play since Mitch and the Orange Stain did just that.

I’m going to enjoy watching the court swing back to 6-3 liberal. Maybe 7-2.

And , definitely, hound the Orange stain in court for the rest of his life. We here in NY got the next 5 weeks, maybe more, covered. Then we pass the baton or maybe keep him for another month on new charges. YES !

 

Whatever it takes.
Whatever it takes to justify in your own mind.

Get trump, no matter what it takes.

 

I’m quite content to wait for the verdicts.

 

The verdicts from New York and DC are as predictable as the outcome when appeals are final.

 

exhibit one-not understanding what the term "packing the court means" even though the patron saint of the left-FDR-was the one who first floated the idea

 

And failed at it , FYI

 

Your opinions are not proof, and your twist on Kavanaugh's point is laughable - one of four finest cases of "hearing what you want to hear" in recent memory.

 

The have wet dreams every night over getting a court slanted to the left so they can actually do with the imagine what Trump does.

 

Sorry but its you guys with, wait till trump gets into office then you'll be sorry.

 

no what happened was that the court, terrified that FDR would do it-started reversing its years of 10th amendment rulings and becoming FDR's bitch

 

And you claim to be a Yale graduate ?
Overturning the NRA and the AAA was being “FDR’s bitch” ?

Either you were asleep in class for years or you got ripped off for a lot of tuition.

 

you need to work on your history-the first term of FDR saw lots of his pet projects 86d by the court-after he won easily in 36, that is when he floated his court packing scheme and that is when the USSC started changing its tenth amendment views
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government. Flushed with his landslide reelection in 1936, President Roosevelt issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan.

In April, however, before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and by a narrow majority upheld as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. The majority opinion acknowledged that the national economy had grown to such a degree that federal regulation and control was now warranted. Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

 

You could have just said, “sorry I was wrong”.
No shame.

So after that whole dissertation, no court packing, Senate confirmed appointments by FDR , and a couple of justices changed their opinions. No bitches in sight.

 

I guess you either couldn't understand what I wrote or you just plain misrepresented it- I never said his PLAN Was IMPLEMENTED> the MERE THREAT of it caused two justices to reverse course giving FDR the slim majority he needed.

 

The mere threat of a plan that didn’t pass Congress ?

Clearly you have issues with FDR. To the point that you misrepresented the history of FDR’s clashes with the Nine Old Men.

I bet you hated idea of the New Deal and Social Security and the SEC.

 

geez, let's see. FDR threatened to do something. before that plan was implemented, he got his way. thus his plan was no longer necessary and it fell by the wayside. HERE IT IS AGAIN FROM THE ARTICLE I QUOTED

April, however, before 9{take note FMJ BEFORE} the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and by a narrow majority upheld as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act.

TRANSLATION-BEFORE THE BILL WAS DISCUSSED BY CONGRESS AND VOTED ON-WHAT FDR WANTED TO HAPPEN, HAPPENED DUE TO HIS THREAT.



You are going to lose on this argument because it's clear you don't know what you are talking about. Yeah I despise all of the new deal and the social security ponzi scheme. My brother is a managing partner at a major investment counsel. If I had taken all the money withheld from my salaries over the years, the return on it would be 6X at least of what I will get in a couple years from that scheme