Trumps Immunity.

I didn't say so, I said if Biden organized a riot there would be no immunity for him because it would not be an official act, but an non-official one. Courts will decide whether or not Trump "incited riot", but he doesn't enjoy immunity either way for the same reason Biden would not have it.

 

This could dismiss the Mar-a-Lago case. The entire case initially relied on two very shaky legal theories:

1. Jack Smith has prosecutorial powers despite his office never being approved by Congress and not following the Appointment's Clause.
2. President Trump has no presidential immunity.

Number 1 hasn't yet been decided by SCOTUS, but Thomas outlined the problems Merrick Garland is going to have to overcome, and it seems like a lofty task. Number 2 was ripped out from under Jack Smith. What to do with presidential records from one's administration has traditionally been a presidential power. The other problem Jack Smith has is that if an action has immunity it can't be used as evidence of a crime. It's unclear what evidence will remain, even if the charges can stand.

 

1) would be stupid because this is already settled case law since Nixon and 2) would be stupid because he would be demanding presidential immunity for non-presidential actions. Cannon may be corrupt enough to buy this garbage, though.

 

Robert Hur said in his report that Biden had intent. I'd suggest reading it.

 

You challenge yourself, I'm out of your league !
Please cite the exact passages to support what you are saying and are you limiting your 'saying" to what you have posted? Cite the passages....

 

Unlike you, I did read it. And Hur said he saw no grounds for criminal prosecution. I'd suggest doing more homework.

 

That doesn't change the fact that 793(f) only requires "gross negligence". It's literally the law. It hasn't been changed.

Besides that, there's no way Biden accidentally took classified documents from the SCIF. That was an intentional act.

Biden also admitted to his ghost writer that he had classified documents and even showed them to him

Keep pushing the double standard, though. As long as Trump is held to a different standard, there will be more Supreme Court rulings that will blow up in the faces of the Democrats.

 

Saying he doesn't recommend charges due to x, y, or z is completely different than saying Biden didn't have intent. This is basic English comprehension. If you've read the report, as you claim, try reading sentence THREE again. You don't have to read a lot of it to know your talking point is disinformation.

 

I've already addressed this. No one has ever been charged under "gross negligence" alone for this law. Ever. You are demanding a double standard. And court precedence is it would probably be unconstitutional to do so. Catch up.

 

You asked for "my own words". Don't hurt yourself moving the goalposts...lol

I have a better idea, how bout you post the text that proves me wrong? But yeah, we all know your not going to do that.

 

Hur said Biden was mentally competent to stand trial. He never said there was a lack of evidence.

 

Legal acts are part of a larger crime?...lol

 

You should try actually reading what he said.

Then why didn't he recommend charges? And why did he say he did not see grounds for criminal charges?

 

Where did he say there was no evidence?

 

I thought the ruling applies to every president?

Is that not true?

 

Try reading his report. He explains that he can't recommend charges.

 

OMG.

BASIC ENGLISH COMPREHENSION

Sentence 3

willful
adjective
done deliberately : INTENTIONAL

 

whatabouism?

The ruling applies to all presidents. Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

 

Well, it's pretty clear you are, per the norm, making **** claims up. Hence, not very credible, also per the norm. You still can't prove yourself right, that 's the result of lack of cred.

 

Try reading the rest of it. You won't. You can't.

 

What in the world are you even talking about? You said Hur didn't say Biden intentionally did the act. Hur clearly said Biden did. Not recommending charges is different than saying he didn't do something with intent.

 

Hur said he didn't have enough evidence for criminal charges, dude. Catch up.

 

Oh my word!

Again, saying he doesn't recommend charges doesn't mean his conclusion wasn't that Biden intentionally did something. Biden admitted he knew the classified documents laws. He admitted he knew he had them. He admitted that he shared them without someone who knew he didn't have clearance to view them. HE CONFESSED.

However, Hur said a jury might not put a lot of weight on these confessions because he said them in a single sentence, and he's a confused old man with dementia, and they'd likely take pity on him. Thus it was his conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction, due to Biden's fragile state, but he clearly and objectively said Biden intentionally broke the law. That's not debatable. Saying otherwise is spreading disinformation.

 

....and if the Vice President had made such an assertion, an immediate injunction would have been filed and the USSC would weigh in on whether this is constitutional.

Your notion that a date could be missed thus rendering the USSC irrelevant is nonsensical. It is a figment of your ( the far left's) ridiculously overactive imagination. They know what they are implying is unmitigated nonsense, but they also know there are many people like yourself that will go forth and spread that nonsensical message as if it has merit. It does not.

 

It is not debatable. He did not find enough evidence for criminal charges.