dajo9 said:
Does President Biden have a sniper tailing Trump as he waits to see how this hearing goes?
Trump was impeached. Twice. This is criminal prosecution.concordtom said:
Amy CB points out that all 9 justices can be impeached, many others too. asks why the president is special
Ketanji-Jackson rails away at him saying that the fear of prosecution has kept the presidency more cautious than the risk-free notion being argued for.
Wow. You are tragically dense.MinotStateBeav said:
LOL "What about Obama's drone strikes, could he later be charged for example murder?"
Biden DOJ Attorney "Nah..we think that's okay, we wouldn't charge em for that."
You just called the DOJ attorney and Supreme Court Justice dense then, clown.WalterSobchak said:Wow. You are tragically dense.MinotStateBeav said:
LOL "What about Obama's drone strikes, could he later be charged for example murder?"
Biden DOJ Attorney "Nah..we think that's okay, we wouldn't charge em for that."
That seems to be the entire thing. Whether or not the President is acting an official act or private act. Tbh I don't know how you split that unless its such an outlandish act of personal gain that its impossible to view the act as official. To me, the Senate is the presidential oversight. I don't see how you can criminally prosecute a president after he's left office if the act he's done can be viewed in any way as a official act.tequila4kapp said:
I missed the 1st half of the argument.
I thought Deeban did a really good job, except for that part where he claimed there was no Presidential immunity even for official acts.
As I was listening to Deeban I was kind of buying into his proposed structure of official vs unofficial (though technically, I think his construct wasn't quite that clean - I believe he argued only some official acts are covered by defacto immunity). But afterward the arguments concluded I was reconsidering. The immunity concept is meant to protect the presidency, to ensure an operational government. Imagine - purely hypothetically - Clinton's Lewinsky stuff somehow invoked criminality. Should he face criminal charges while in office? You can easily see how this could be abused like crazy to harass a political opponent. But flip side, nobody is above the law. It is a very hard question.MinotStateBeav said:That seems to be the entire thing. Whether or not the President is acting an official act or private act. Tbh I don't know how you split that unless its such an outlandish act of personal gain that its impossible to view the act as official. To me, the Senate is the presidential oversight. I don't see how you can criminally prosecute a president after he's left office if the act he's done can be viewed in any way as a official act.tequila4kapp said:
I missed the 1st half of the argument.
I thought Deeban did a really good job, except for that part where he claimed there was no Presidential immunity even for official acts.
One thing I didn't like was Sotomayor cutting off the defense attorney trying to answer, I know that's not a new thing in these supreme court hearings, but for public consumption it's a lot more appreciative if the public can hear the entire answer of the attorney (defense or DOJ). I understand if they do it so the attorney doesn't go off track, but many times it seemed like he was on track and she just wanted to get to the next question. I remember him saying something like "There are 3 reasons for such and such, the first is (this), the second is..." and then the SC justice cuts him off. It's like..HEY I WANNA HEAR THE OTHER TWO REASONS FOR WHY HE THINKS THAT!! lol.
No, I didn't."LOL"MinotStateBeav said:You just called the DOJ attorney and Supreme Court Justice dense then, clown.WalterSobchak said:Wow. You are tragically dense.MinotStateBeav said:
LOL "What about Obama's drone strikes, could he later be charged for example murder?"
Biden DOJ Attorney "Nah..we think that's okay, we wouldn't charge em for that."
MinotStateBeav said:
One thing I didn't like was Sotomayor cutting off the defense attorney trying to answer, I know that's not a new thing in these supreme court hearings, but for public consumption it's a lot more appreciative if the public can hear the entire answer of the attorney (defense or DOJ). I understand if they do it so the attorney doesn't go off track, but many times it seemed like he was on track and she just wanted to get to the next question. I remember him saying something like "There are 3 reasons for such and such, the first is (this), the second is..." and then the SC justice cuts him off. It's like..HEY I WANNA HEAR THE OTHER TWO REASONS FOR WHY HE THINKS THAT!! lol.
MinotStateBeav said:That seems to be the entire thing. Whether or not the President is acting an official act or private act. Tbh I don't know how you split that unless its such an outlandish act of personal gain that its impossible to view the act as official. To me, the Senate is the presidential oversight. I don't see how you can criminally prosecute a president after he's left office if the act he's done can be viewed in any way as an official act.tequila4kapp said:
I missed the 1st half of the argument.
I thought Deeban did a really good job, except for that part where he claimed there was no Presidential immunity even for official acts.
Wellllllllll...concordtom said:MinotStateBeav said:That seems to be the entire thing. Whether or not the President is acting an official act or private act. Tbh I don't know how you split that unless its such an outlandish act of personal gain that its impossible to view the act as official. To me, the Senate is the presidential oversight. I don't see how you can criminally prosecute a president after he's left office if the act he's done can be viewed in any way as an official act.tequila4kapp said:
I missed the 1st half of the argument.
I thought Deeban did a really good job, except for that part where he claimed there was no Presidential immunity even for official acts.
Yes. Official vs unofficial act.
Is it an official act to order seal team 6?
A partisan Senate (one split 50-50) is NOT the "check" the founding fathers intended. Impeachment remedy being proposed has No teeth!!!!
Elsewhere, beyond weighing official/unofficial, Justices were pondering evaluating a president's mindset. How can we assess whether the president intended something for the good of the whole vs the good of himself?
This felt absurd.
Yo - you tried to overturn the election in an illegal coup! Go to jail.
Like pornography, we know it when we see it.
tequila4kapp said:Trump was impeached. Twice. This is criminal prosecution.concordtom said:
Amy CB points out that all 9 justices can be impeached, many others too. asks why the president is special
Ketanji-Jackson rails away at him saying that the fear of prosecution has kept the presidency more cautious than the risk-free notion being argued for.
Mitch was using the whole thing as a way to blackmail Trump. It's pretty much understood that Trump wanted to pardon Assange and Snowden and was alluding to it for months before his term ended, then all the sudden he comes out and doesn't do it. We believe McConnell basically said, you do that and we're going to impeach you. The intel agencies have a massive stiffy for those guys never getting pardoned.concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:Trump was impeached. Twice. This is criminal prosecution.concordtom said:
Amy CB points out that all 9 justices can be impeached, many others too. asks why the president is special
Ketanji-Jackson rails away at him saying that the fear of prosecution has kept the presidency more cautious than the risk-free notion being argued for.
As stated, in a partisan world, impeachment is meaningless other than putting something on record.
Mitch (and others) said before and after impeachment #2 that trump was guilty, and yet voted not. So, it's a pathetically laughable situation. Or, laughably pathetic.
Criminal prosecution, therefore, remains the "check" which is necessary. Thus, do not grant this presidential immunity request.
According to the OLC memo (and most Republicans, as we saw during the Trump presidency), a sitting president is not subject to criminal charges. The remedy for a criminal sitting president is impeachment, which as we all know is a political process. They argued, during the impeachment when they chose not to convict Trump, that Trump would be subject to criminal law for any crimes he committed as POTUS, following his term. They have since argued that because he wasn't convicted in the senate, he no longer would have any criminal liability. Had he been convicted in the senate, they would be arguing that he no longer has any criminal liability because it would be double jeopardy or some other made up nonsense.tequila4kapp said:As I was listening to Deeban I was kind of buying into his proposed structure of official vs unofficial (though technically, I think his construct wasn't quite that clean - I believe he argued only some official acts are covered by defacto immunity). But afterward the arguments concluded I was reconsidering. The immunity concept is meant to protect the presidency, to ensure an operational government. Imagine - purely hypothetically - Clinton's Lewinsky stuff somehow invoked criminality. Should he face criminal charges while in office? You can easily see how this could be abused like crazy to harass a political opponent. But flip side, nobody is above the law. It is a very hard question.MinotStateBeav said:That seems to be the entire thing. Whether or not the President is acting an official act or private act. Tbh I don't know how you split that unless its such an outlandish act of personal gain that its impossible to view the act as official. To me, the Senate is the presidential oversight. I don't see how you can criminally prosecute a president after he's left office if the act he's done can be viewed in any way as a official act.tequila4kapp said:
I missed the 1st half of the argument.
I thought Deeban did a really good job, except for that part where he claimed there was no Presidential immunity even for official acts.
One thing I didn't like was Sotomayor cutting off the defense attorney trying to answer, I know that's not a new thing in these supreme court hearings, but for public consumption it's a lot more appreciative if the public can hear the entire answer of the attorney (defense or DOJ). I understand if they do it so the attorney doesn't go off track, but many times it seemed like he was on track and she just wanted to get to the next question. I remember him saying something like "There are 3 reasons for such and such, the first is (this), the second is..." and then the SC justice cuts him off. It's like..HEY I WANNA HEAR THE OTHER TWO REASONS FOR WHY HE THINKS THAT!! lol.
wow wait until the judges on the supreme court learn how criminal trials work for literally everyone everywhere all the time, theyre going to be furious https://t.co/vbqulGc7rg
— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) April 25, 2024
MinotStateBeav said:Wellllllllll...concordtom said:MinotStateBeav said:That seems to be the entire thing. Whether or not the President is acting an official act or private act. Tbh I don't know how you split that unless its such an outlandish act of personal gain that its impossible to view the act as official. To me, the Senate is the presidential oversight. I don't see how you can criminally prosecute a president after he's left office if the act he's done can be viewed in any way as an official act.tequila4kapp said:
I missed the 1st half of the argument.
I thought Deeban did a really good job, except for that part where he claimed there was no Presidential immunity even for official acts.
Yes. Official vs unofficial act.
Is it an official act to order seal team 6?
A partisan Senate (one split 50-50) is NOT the "check" the founding fathers intended. Impeachment remedy being proposed has No teeth!!!!
Elsewhere, beyond weighing official/unofficial, Justices were pondering evaluating a president's mindset. How can we assess whether the president intended something for the good of the whole vs the good of himself?
This felt absurd.
Yo - you tried to overturn the election in an illegal coup! Go to jail.
Like pornography, we know it when we see it.
The electors that Trump appealed to, after this happened, Congress changed the law and now the President can no longer do that. So didn't the process just work as intended?
MinotStateBeav said:Mitch was using the whole thing as a way to blackmail Trump. It's pretty much understood that Trump wanted to pardon Assange and Snowden and was alluding to it for months before his term ended, then all the sudden he comes out and doesn't do it. We believe McConnell basically said, you do that and we're going to impeach you. The intel agencies have a massive stiffy for those guys never getting pardoned.concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:Trump was impeached. Twice. This is criminal prosecution.concordtom said:
Amy CB points out that all 9 justices can be impeached, many others too. asks why the president is special
Ketanji-Jackson rails away at him saying that the fear of prosecution has kept the presidency more cautious than the risk-free notion being argued for.
As stated, in a partisan world, impeachment is meaningless other than putting something on record.
Mitch (and others) said before and after impeachment #2 that trump was guilty, and yet voted not. So, it's a pathetically laughable situation. Or, laughably pathetic.
Criminal prosecution, therefore, remains the "check" which is necessary. Thus, do not grant this presidential immunity request.
First, we always have to remember this is not about Trump, per se. It is about how this area of the law will work going forward. [my one prediction: however it ends up this will be an extremely narrow decision]concordtom said:
Yes. Official vs unofficial act.
Is it an official act to order seal team 6?
A partisan Senate (one split 50-50) is NOT the "check" the founding fathers intended. Impeachment remedy being proposed has No teeth!!!!
Elsewhere, beyond weighing official/unofficial, Justices were pondering evaluating a president's mindset. How can we assess whether the president intended something for the good of the whole vs the good of himself?
This felt absurd.
Yo - you tried to overturn the election in an illegal coup! Go to jail.
Like pornography, we know it when we see it.
He's just reminding everyone that Trump is incredibly weak. Trump wanted to pardon those baddies but his strong daddy Moscow Mitch wouldn't let him do it.concordtom said:MinotStateBeav said:
Mitch was using the whole thing as a way to blackmail Trump. It's pretty much understood that Trump wanted to pardon Assange and Snowden and was alluding to it for months before his term ended, then all the sudden he comes out and doesn't do it. We believe McConnell basically said, you do that and we're going to impeach you. The intel agencies have a massive stiffy for those guys never getting pardoned.
Oh my god. Really? You're going to muddy the whole Impeachment #2 vote with that?
You're tying yourself into a "theories" knot.
Unit2Sucks said:According to the OLC memo (and most Republicans, as we saw during the Trump presidency), a sitting president is not subject to criminal charges. The remedy for a criminal sitting president is impeachment, which as we all know is a political process. They argued, during the impeachment when they chose not to convict Trump, that Trump would be subject to criminal law for any crimes he committed as POTUS, following his term. They have since argued that because he wasn't convicted in the senate, he no longer would have any criminal liability. Had he been convicted in the senate, they would be arguing that he no longer has any criminal liability because it would be double jeopardy or some other made up nonsense.tequila4kapp said:As I was listening to Deeban I was kind of buying into his proposed structure of official vs unofficial (though technically, I think his construct wasn't quite that clean - I believe he argued only some official acts are covered by defacto immunity). But afterward the arguments concluded I was reconsidering. The immunity concept is meant to protect the presidency, to ensure an operational government. Imagine - purely hypothetically - Clinton's Lewinsky stuff somehow invoked criminality. Should he face criminal charges while in office? You can easily see how this could be abused like crazy to harass a political opponent. But flip side, nobody is above the law. It is a very hard question.MinotStateBeav said:That seems to be the entire thing. Whether or not the President is acting an official act or private act. Tbh I don't know how you split that unless its such an outlandish act of personal gain that its impossible to view the act as official. To me, the Senate is the presidential oversight. I don't see how you can criminally prosecute a president after he's left office if the act he's done can be viewed in any way as a official act.tequila4kapp said:
I missed the 1st half of the argument.
I thought Deeban did a really good job, except for that part where he claimed there was no Presidential immunity even for official acts.
One thing I didn't like was Sotomayor cutting off the defense attorney trying to answer, I know that's not a new thing in these supreme court hearings, but for public consumption it's a lot more appreciative if the public can hear the entire answer of the attorney (defense or DOJ). I understand if they do it so the attorney doesn't go off track, but many times it seemed like he was on track and she just wanted to get to the next question. I remember him saying something like "There are 3 reasons for such and such, the first is (this), the second is..." and then the SC justice cuts him off. It's like..HEY I WANNA HEAR THE OTHER TWO REASONS FOR WHY HE THINKS THAT!! lol.
The only thread is that the GOP does not think Trump should have any criminal liability whatsoever.
But this isn't really a novel concept and the answer has never been that presidents are immune for crimes they commit in office. Nixon wasn't convicted in the senate because he resigned. People still believed he had criminal liability which is why he was pardoned. And, of course, the entire GOP says Biden should somehow face prosecution for every made up thing that they can think of, even during his term (as has been argued again and again by people who think Robert Hur should have indicted President Biden).
Right, it was just a "theory". Bye.concordtom said:MinotStateBeav said:Mitch was using the whole thing as a way to blackmail Trump. It's pretty much understood that Trump wanted to pardon Assange and Snowden and was alluding to it for months before his term ended, then all the sudden he comes out and doesn't do it. We believe McConnell basically said, you do that and we're going to impeach you. The intel agencies have a massive stiffy for those guys never getting pardoned.concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:Trump was impeached. Twice. This is criminal prosecution.concordtom said:
Amy CB points out that all 9 justices can be impeached, many others too. asks why the president is special
Ketanji-Jackson rails away at him saying that the fear of prosecution has kept the presidency more cautious than the risk-free notion being argued for.
As stated, in a partisan world, impeachment is meaningless other than putting something on record.
Mitch (and others) said before and after impeachment #2 that trump was guilty, and yet voted not. So, it's a pathetically laughable situation. Or, laughably pathetic.
Criminal prosecution, therefore, remains the "check" which is necessary. Thus, do not grant this presidential immunity request.
Oh my god. Really? You're going to muddy the whole Impeachment #2 vote with that?
You're tying yourself into a "theories" knot.
