Trumps Immunity.

You debunked nothing… please stop claiming that.

 

You asked and answered nothing…. Why was a 135 year old law changed that did not need changed?

 

I very much have. The difference here is that I've actually read about Trump's plan and you haven't. Do you need me to walk you through Texas v Pence? How about the Eastman memo? You have no idea what you are even defending.

 

If a Presidential assertion is Constitutional, it will be upheld. If it is not Constitutional, it will be shot down. It truly is as simple as that.

No, if it were deemed unconstitutional, it would NOT mean that the vote no longer selects the President. The only way that such a maneuver would apply is if it were determined to be Constitutional. There is no other way. No matter what Trump would have attempted, it would have been under strict review of the USSC. The same thing applies to anything that Biden attempts. I dont care what Biden attempts Constitutionally because I understand that the USSC will determine whether it applies.

Good god, step off the ledge. They have done a number on you folks. Whether you know it or not, they have rendered you as useful dupes.

 

If the Democrats are completely unhappy about a very reasonable immunity decision, then perhaps it's time to prosecute Barack Obama for ordering a fatal drone strike on an American citizen in the Middle East, who was not indicted for a crime. That execution could be ruled illegal, and Obama would be responsible.

Families could sue Biden civilly for the loss of the 13 service personnel that were killed in suicide attack during the botched withdraw from Afghanistan. One could argue that Biden was negligent during that withdraw and therefore liable for civil penalties.

You can't run a country if the president has to consult a team of lawyers before he takes an action that is within his powers has the Chief Executive Officer of the country.

 

Asked and answered. No one pretended to be too dumb to read it before. Trump was the first. So they repeated what the law already said. If you had ever read the Constitution, you'd know that the VP's ONLY role is to OPEN ALL of the official EC votes so that Congress can count them. That's it. If you had read the ECA, you'd know that the OFFICIAL EC votes are the ones that appear under the seal of the state, approved by the state executive. Learn these things.

 

That isn't what I was referring to, hence the emphasis.

But, since you want to bring it up, if Trump violated 18 USC 793, then so did Biden and Pence and Clinton. You can't just charge Trump and let everyone else slide. That violated the Equal Protection Clause.

 

Explain the difference.

 

The WH lawn is in DC and it's the official residence, so maybe you are right for that case.

But if he walks out on his Somerset, NJ golf course and bludgeons someone to death with a 5 iron, it would be an unofficial act for which he has no immunity. The NJ police should arrest him and he should be prosecuted for murder. The Supreme Court was pretty clear that there is no immunity for private actions.

That also goes for drowning someone at the Delaware beach house.

 

If you had tried reading my posts, you'd understand. It doesn't matter if the SC declares it unconstitutional when they can still also rule that it goes to the House anyway. Which was the plan all along. The SC could, and likely would, just declare "Well, you shouldn't have done that, but you've successfully delayed things, so now the House votes instead of the EC." I'm not sure how to dumb this down any more.

 

Yeah, we all knew you couldn't answer the question...lol

 

When you vote for president, technically you are voting for your electors, not directly for the president. Only the electors actually get to vote for the president. In most states, those electors have to vote the way the majority of their state did. But a tiny group of these electors, despite being elected, do not have to vote the same way that their state did. Those are called faithless electors. They've never had a real impact on any election and are basically just symbolic. These electors are, notably, still legal. They won their elections, have been approved by the state executive (this is required by the ECA), under the seal of the state (also required).

Trump's fake electors were none of these things. They didn't win. They weren't appointed. Faithless electors are appointed. Trump's fake electors were not.

The first plan was that Pence would have the magic power to choose which envelopes to open, and select the fake electors while ignoring the real ones, in direct opposition to the Constitution and the ECA. See Texas v Pence. No one has ever tried a plan like this before. Pence was unwilling to go along with it.

The next plan was for Pence to declare that any states with these "competing" fake electors be taken out of the total entirety, removing the EC votes of 5-7 states and declaring Trump the winner based on the remaining states. This has never been tried before and blatantly violates the Constitution and the ECA. Georgia? You don't get to vote anymore. Sorry. But you guys are apparently okay with that. If Gore had the same philosophy, this would have won him the election.

The next plan was for Pence to declare that, since there were these fake electors, there should not be an EC vote at all but that, instead, it should go to a House vote. Are you starting to get what actually happened?

 

They can absolutely declare the delay unconstitutional while still allowing it to go the to the House. Easily. By pointing out the deadline had passed.

 

I did. Please explain what about the answer you did not understand.

 

Whether or not Trump actually has immunity for anything related to J6 is still to be determined. SCOTUS didn't rule on that. They couldn't rule on it because the case put before was vague.

And yes, they do believe that the President had no immunity. And should have no immunity. Just look at all the posts hollering doom and gloom and how Biden can now kill indiscriminately and how Trump can use it to stay in power forever if he gets re-elected.

 

A President cannot incorrectly assert that it is Constitutional that the house selects the President, the USSC says it is not unconstitutional, and then the house selects the President anyway. That is preposterous. Such an attempt would create an immediate injunction and nothing would go forward until constitutionality or lack thereof is determined. If somehow it did go forward as if it happened in a flash, they would/could reverse it.

Who told you this nonsense? They are lying to you. In the big picture, there are not a ton of you folks out there even amongst leftist voters that believe this bombastic nonsense, but there is a shocking number of you folks that have been led down the primrose path.

My worry that some Democrat in the future is going to name themselves Monarch is exactly zero because I am a rational person.

 

Some claim they are part of a larger crime. If that claim is made will it be considered an official act or not an official act. That is not known.

 

Welcome to Politics? This your first time interacting with it?

I see nothing extremist in any of their rulings.

 

Trump was pressuring his VP to assert that. And, yes, the House does select the president if there is no EC winner. And if Congress missed its date for the EC vote, regardless of the cause, the SC could, and likely would, rule that there is no official EC winner, the counting date being missed, so that the House vote is the only remaining option.

 

It doesn't "give" the President anything. Immunity has always existed. Several examples have been given where it has shown through in our history.

Yes, Trump will use it to his advantage. Trump has always did his best to use the court system to his advantage. So have Democrats and Republicans. "Judge shopping" is not anything new for example.
It doesn't convolute impeachment at all.
How can the conservative justices be political when the immunity has always existed?

 

Except that, again as I've told you before, Trump did not organize a riot.

 

We have had this discussion before. Trump intentionally violated 18 USC 793 while Biden did not, and neither did Pence. That's the difference and how the DOJ has always prosecuted these types of crimes for the past 70 years or so.

Trump violated a new york statute with his fake documents citing "legal expenses" when in fact they were personal expenses. Trump is the type of guy who if it is paid out of his business account, then it must be deductible, including personal trips whose funds are used by the business. This is a basic concept in accounting and in business law, including business crimes like fraud, embezzlement, state or federal tax fraud, etc.

 

They can't make a definitive answer on that. It has to be a case by case basis due to the fact that there is a LOT that the President must do as President.

 

Dude, no one has ever been prosecuted under 18 USC 793 without some evidence of intent. Ever. And court precedence indicates it may be unconstitutional to do so. You are literally demand we violate the Equal Protection Clause. You are literally demanding a different standard for dems.

 

Presidential immunity began with Nixon, and soverign immunity with President Johnson from civil suits on offical acts of the President.. Before that, it didn't occur in the minds of the public until Nixon was criminally charged. But that was put to rest by an act of pardon by Ford, the first unelected President of the US. And it was that act why he lost the 1976 Presidential race to someone named Jimmy Carter. To illustrate, George Washington got caught traveling on the Sabbath. In that state, Virginia I believe, had a law that no traveling is allowed for business reasons. It goes against the Sabbath and the "day of rest" doctrine, the background for such law. This was in 1783 or so. President Washington had to be in the capital by a certain time to conduct official duties as president. Washington accepted the fine, paid the fine, and that was it. He was ONE of the founding fathers in this country, and no one at that time thought about "Presidential immunity." Furthermore, nothing in the Federal Papers about presidential immunity. It talks about Government or sovereign immunity for official acts in Federalist #77. Then of course we have Article 2, section 4, which holds that Presidents, while in office, can be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Are you suggesting that we now have nullified through the judicial ruling that an impeachment that meets the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is no longer valid? It appears that is what this ruling may be leading to for "official Presidential acts."

Congress has immunity through the speech and debate clause. But nothing is specific in Article 2 of the US Constitution. OTOH, governments, federal, state, and tribal governments enjoy sovereign immunity. That is one cannot be sued if doing official acts within that scope or on the floor of the House or Senate where one can make any accusation whatsoever. We see this with the limited or qualified immunity for employees of the government who are doing their job without violating overtly any law that may be on the books. We call this the rule of law.

Finally, judge shopping has been stopped except for one court. That can be stopped through the law. And it should be IMO. It should be bipartisan. However, for Trump criminal cases, the Georgia case is there because that is where the crime occurred. The January 6th federal case is in Washington DC because that is where the crime occurred. The Florida case is there because that is where the crime occurred by hiding those damn secret and top secret documents, among other things. So, no "judge shopping" there. Yes, trump will use this to his advantage, but in the end, most, if not all the charges remaining will be allowed. It is just a delaying tactic by SCOTUS judges to "protect one of their own." That is all this ruling is.