Love the smell of checks and balances in the morning

[nytigerfan]

Lol. Totally unhinged.

But, I'll endulge. I haven't kept talking about biden in the debate. There is nothing to talk about. We all saw what happened. Now the radical left is pushing for him to step aside. Nothing really to say other than his family should be ashamed. They really should and deep down I think you agree.

And to your point about people coming across the border. I'm not sure if you are joking or just that clueless. We've had a major issue at the border the last several years. It's either incompetence or intentional but clearly the "biden" administration is finally acknowledging it.

Trump is not establishment. That's why he is popular. People like Bush, Biden and others are the problem. They have enriched themselves as public servants. The people that surround them have as well.

Regardless of what you think, tens of millions of Americans are happy today because there are checks and balances in our country. One political party should not be allowed to persecute their opponent. It's been non-stop going after the orange man since 2016. Today, the radical left were dealt a major blow.

You didn’t address my point at all.

Why is it OK for magas on here to post every day about the sky falling and the end of America as we know it, but when smart people question the legitimacy of SCOTUS giving the president immunity to commit any crimes that they want, we are the ones who are “unhinged”?

You are not a serious person.

 

[moradatiger70]

You didn’t address my point at all.

Why is it OK for magas on here to post every day about the sky falling and the end of America as we know it, but when smart people question the legitimacy of SCOTUS giving the president immunity to commit any crimes that they want, we are the ones who are “unhinged”?

You are not a serious person.

Evidently, you have not read the SCOTUS entire opinion!

I can see where people like you would question the ruling, when all you do is hear what you want, by whom you want, and do not educate yourself, or maybe just do not want to believe the actual truth!

 

[moradatiger70]

 

[nytigerfan]

Evidently, you have not read the SCOTUS entire opinion!

I can see where people like you would question the ruling, when all you do is hear what you want, by whom you want, and do not educate yourself, or maybe just do not want to believe the actual truth!

you offer no substance. Explain to me exactly how I am wrong without posting catturd tweets.

 

[moradatiger70]

you offer no substance. Explain to me exactly how I am wrong without posting catturd tweets.

"...read the SCOTUS entire opinion"

Don't know what more I can give you unless I come over to your rental house and read it for you!

What is a catturd tweet?

 

[PawsFan_]

Evidently, you have not read the SCOTUS entire opinion!

I can see where people like you would question the ruling, when all you do is hear what you want, by whom you want, and do not educate yourself, or maybe just do not want to believe the actual truth!

^^^^This

Funny that the party that has weaponized the DOJ against its political rivals is concerned about justice.

 

[TigerRagRob]

That's not what they said.

He's not very bright. Even if you type slow with big letters he wont get it...

 

[TigerRagRob]

Thia ewe?

Well Obama did this to an American family and nothing happen...

 

[Willence]

You didn’t address my point at all.

Why is it OK for magas on here to post every day about the sky falling and the end of America as we know it, but when smart people question the legitimacy of SCOTUS giving the president immunity to commit any crimes that they want, we are the ones who are “unhinged”?

You are not a serious person.

Surely you are reasonable enough to know that's not at all what SCOTUS said in this ruling. The mischaracterization of this decision for political purposes is egregious. How much are people willing to give away to stop Trump? People blame Trump for being a divider and certainly he is at times. But my goodness, take a look around the room and see what kind of things are being said and done in the name of stopping this election. Further, doing it all in the name of "saving democracy" when in fact the exact opposite is true is not going to help this country. Both sides have actively been at war with every institution that doesn't do their will. It's created a massive division in our nation.

At some point, shouldn't we stop?

 

[nytigerfan]

"...read the SCOTUS entire opinion"

Don't know what more I can give you unless I come over to your rental house and read it for you!

What is a catturd tweet?

You have nothing scrub. Saying to read the opinion is not an answer. I am here with an exceptional attorney who read the entire thing yesterday. You are wrong.

 

[nytigerfan]

Surely you are reasonable enough to know that's not at all what SCOTUS said in this ruling. The mischaracterization of this decision for political purposes is egregious. How much are people willing to give away to stop Trump? People blame Trump for being a divider and certainly he is at times. But my goodness, take a look around the room and see what kind of things are being said and done in the name of stopping this election. Further, doing it all in the name of "saving democracy" when in fact the exact opposite is true is not going to help this country. Both sides have actively been at war with every institution that doesn't do their will. It's created a massive division in our nation.

At some point, shouldn't we stop?

Prove me wrong. How am I mischaracterizing the decision, specifically.

It said the president cannot be held responsible for anything done in an “official” capacity. For example, telling his VP not to certifiy the election.

Thank god pence has more honor than you do.

 

[PawJourney]

The funny thing is you guys are celebrating your own demise. If you think Trump is gonna help you, you are delusional. He’s going to help me, and already has. I pay less in taxes, and he will not be a threat to the carried interest loophole. I’m also in the process of getting a second passport, so if he does burn this place to the ground, my family will be just fine somewhere else.

 

[Willence]

Prove me wrong. How am I mischaracterizing the decision, specifically.

It said the president cannot be held responsible for anything done in an “official” capacity. For example, telling his VP not to certifiy the election.

Thank god pence has more honor than you do.

OK, we can go that way.

The whole "sky is falling" hyperventilation that we've seen from people massively stretches the meaning of the word "official." The president must have immunity to make decisions that he/she has to make within the office for them to be able to do their job. Presidents make the wrong call sometimes and when they do, it often results in the loss of lives. Should Biden be held criminally liable for his decision to pull out of Afghanistan? Should Obama be held criminally liable for his droning of an American citizen? Of course not.

SCOTUS was very clear that this has no application in the world of a President attacking his political enemies. And this being said in a time when our current president has allowed the jailing of so many people who would be described as political opposition. The overt persecution of someone the Democrats hate is something we've never seen before in this country. So any person that would go on and on about how dangerous this decision is should already be appalled by what's taken place in courts all over. Of course, the exact opposite is true... It falls under what I do to thee doesn't apply to me pathology that is everywhere now.

Roberts clearly stated "when it comes to the president’s other official acts there is on one hand the concern that allowing criminal charges against a former president for his official acts would affect his decision-making while in office. “A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts posited. On the other hand, Roberts noted, the public has an interest in “fair and effective” enforcement of criminal laws. Weighing those two sets of interests, Roberts concluded, a president should have immunity from criminal prosecution for his official – but not his unofficial – acts unless, at the very least, prosecutors can show that bringing such charges would not threaten the power and functioning of the executive branch."

How we define official capacity versus un-official or unlawful conduct is the entirety of this debate if we could ever reach a point where both sides would be honest about the situation. It's not an official act for the President to demand the VP not execute his constitutionally mandated duties. So your example is one that is invalid.

Pence absolutely did what was right. And I have said so many times that I felt it should disqualify Trump from being President the way he behaved after the election. Just as I think how Biden has acted is disqualifying as well even if we were to ignore the fact that Biden is in significant cognitive decline.

 

[TigerGrowls]

The Supreme Court established 40 years ago that presidents are immune from civil prosecution.

Before today, it was never required for the Supreme Court to weigh in on criminal prosecution, because presidents never went after their predecessors in this manner.

Joe Biden changed that forever.

And the Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to his lawfare against President Trump.

 

[leetp]

I read the 119 page ruling and stand by my comment and hers. Did either of you bother to read it?

I'm still reading the ruling.... walking through the majority option now. It seems KBJ lent more than a few "concurrences" in the option.

This thing is so heavily laden with references, I'm not sure it can truly be absorbed without looking up most of them, but then it would take months to consume.

Anyway, back to it. I hope @PrimeIsGettingComfortable will be here to discuss it once I'm done.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

SCOTUS was very clear that this has no application in the world of a President attacking his political enemies. And this being said in a time when our current president has allowed the jailing of so many people who would be described as political opposition.

Can you give more insight to the above? Frustrates me that you would on one hand say Democrats/media/etc are going overboard in their descriptions of this, and then in practically the same sentence imply that the current president is throwing people in jail. If I'm missing where Biden directed something, please let me know.

 

[Willence]

Can you give more insight to the above? Frustrates me that you would on one hand say Democrats/media/etc are going overboard in their descriptions of this, and then in practically the same sentence imply that the current president is throwing people in jail. If I'm missing where Biden directed something, please let me know.

Sure. I didn't imply he was throwing people in jail. He's sitting there and allowing it though. He has the authority in some of these cases to say "no, we're not doing that." If everyone was prosecuted for the crimes in question, it would make more sense. But actual facts show this is decidedly one-sided. We are in a time where there are over the top mischaracterizations of nearly everything (both sides do this). It's terrible for our republic.

Biden ran for President originally to lower the temperature, restore normalcy and in general, calm the nation in a very difficult time. He's done exactly the opposite and I find that terribly disappointing. For me, he's the worst President I have ever seen. I know a lot of others will say it's Trump for them. Whoever wins though, I can still say it won't be the last election and the world will go on.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Sure. I didn't imply he was throwing people in jail. He's sitting there and allowing it though. He has the authority in some of these cases to say "no, we're not doing that." If everyone was prosecuted for the crimes in question, it would make more sense. But actual facts show this is decidedly one-sided. We are in a time where there are over the top mischaracterizations of nearly everything (both sides do this). It's terrible for our republic.

Biden ran for President originally to lower the temperature, restore normalcy and in general, calm the nation in a very difficult time. He's done exactly the opposite and I find that terribly disappointing. For me, he's the worst President I have ever seen. I know a lot of others will say it's Trump for them. Whoever wins though, I can still say it won't be the last election and the world will go on.

So you want the president to decide who to charge etc? I just don't think that's ever been asked of a president, so seems a strange thing to hold him to. I personally don't want my president directing local prosecutors to do anything. Do you have examples? I may just be thinking about different things.

I also don't want my president directing the IRS to go after anyone, the FBI to investigate specific opponents, etc. Think that branch should largely be independent. Of course there are policy issues that they may push on a broad sense (if you want to push environmental policy, maybe you push to go after pollution offenders, etc for example).

 

[nytigerfan]

OK, we can go that way.

The whole "sky is falling" hyperventilation that we've seen from people massively stretches the meaning of the word "official." The president must have immunity to make decisions that he/she has to make within the office for them to be able to do their job. Presidents make the wrong call sometimes and when they do, it often results in the loss of lives. Should Biden be held criminally liable for his decision to pull out of Afghanistan? Should Obama be held criminally liable for his droning of an American citizen? Of course not.

SCOTUS was very clear that this has no application in the world of a President attacking his political enemies. And this being said in a time when our current president has allowed the jailing of so many people who would be described as political opposition. The overt persecution of someone the Democrats hate is something we've never seen before in this country. So any person that would go on and on about how dangerous this decision is should already be appalled by what's taken place in courts all over. Of course, the exact opposite is true... It falls under what I do to thee doesn't apply to me pathology that is everywhere now.

Roberts clearly stated "when it comes to the president’s other official acts there is on one hand the concern that allowing criminal charges against a former president for his official acts would affect his decision-making while in office. “A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts posited. On the other hand, Roberts noted, the public has an interest in “fair and effective” enforcement of criminal laws. Weighing those two sets of interests, Roberts concluded, a president should have immunity from criminal prosecution for his official – but not his unofficial – acts unless, at the very least, prosecutors can show that bringing such charges would not threaten the power and functioning of the executive branch."

How we define official capacity versus un-official or unlawful conduct is the entirety of this debate if we could ever reach a point where both sides would be honest about the situation. It's not an official act for the President to demand the VP not execute his constitutionally mandated duties. So your example is one that is invalid.

Pence absolutely did what was right. And I have said so many times that I felt it should disqualify Trump from being President the way he behaved after the election. Just as I think how Biden has acted is disqualifying as well even if we were to ignore the fact that Biden is in significant cognitive decline.

His lawyers are arguing RIGHT NOW that his election interference case should be thrown out bc he was acting in an "official" capacity. His lawyers are arguing RIGHT NOW that his conviction in NY should be overturned bc the direction he gave his attorney was in an official capacity. (by the way, he was not president then, and he has continually claimed that Coehn was not his attorney; of course, that has changed now).

So, apparently, your expert interpretation of the ruling differs from that of Trump's lawyers.

The gloves are off. I hope Biden breaks every law that he can now to stop you and your Christian fundamentalist bros from taking over our government.

Game on.

 

[Willence]

His lawyers are arguing RIGHT NOW that his election interference case should be thrown out bc he was acting in an "official" capacity. His lawyers are arguing RIGHT NOW that his conviction in NY should be overturned bc the direction he gave his attorney was in an official capacity. (by the way, he was not president then, and he has continually claimed that Coehn was not his attorney; of course, that has changed now).

So, apparently, your expert interpretation of the ruling differs from that of Trump's lawyers.

The gloves are off. I hope Biden breaks every law that he can now to stop you and your Christian fundamentalist bros from taking over our government.

Game on.

You're welcome to disagree with me. But please do not mischaracterize me with the weak labels you so casually throw around. You couldn't possibly have less understanding of my views. Your ignorance doesn't make it OK to bring out your usual bigotry. It's amazing how invested you are in an image of people like me without actually haven't any factual understanding of what I believe and stand for. That's a mental illness.

And of course his lawyers are arguing that. It's their job to get their client out of trouble. The NY case will be overturned because it was total crap. The case on the documents isn't crap and I suspect he'll be convicted there. He totally blew it there by being an ass as usual. I wasn't interpreting his lawyers. I was simply reading a SCOTUS decision and what it means.

 

[Willence]

So you want the president to decide who to charge etc? I just don't think that's ever been asked of a president, so seems a strange thing to hold him to. I personally don't want my president directing local prosecutors to do anything. Do you have examples? I may just be thinking about different things.

I also don't want my president directing the IRS to go after anyone, the FBI to investigate specific opponents, etc. Think that branch should largely be independent. Of course there are policy issues that they may push on a broad sense (if you want to push environmental policy, maybe you push to go after pollution offenders, etc for example).

Nor do I. The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch. After Nixon left office, Ford pardoned him to spare the nation further injury and he did so at great cost to his electoral prospects. Sometimes it's better to shows good faith and let things go. The problem with the time we're in now is that both sides are using the government to capitalize on every little thing that happens. It's destructive as hell. I agree with you but the FBI and DoJ serve the president. They really should be abolished or greatly changed. If I had my way, the IRS would cease to exist immediately. We do not need an IRS. We need to shed 750,000+ of the federal workforce.

 

[leetp]

So you want the president to decide who to charge etc? I just don't think that's ever been asked of a president, so seems a strange thing to hold him to. I personally don't want my president directing local prosecutors to do anything. Do you have examples? I may just be thinking about different things.

I also don't want my president directing the IRS to go after anyone, the FBI to investigate specific opponents, etc. Think that branch should largely be independent. Of course there are policy issues that they may push on a broad sense (if you want to push environmental policy, maybe you push to go after pollution offenders, etc for example).

The President does decide who to charge (and who to investigate). The executive branch is comprised of one person. This person is solely responsible for all of the duties charged to the Executive Branch. This is precisely what the SCOTUS ruling noted in the indictment (that it is within the official duty of the president to determine who to investigate, etc). Any notion that the attorney general of the United States operates independent of the president is artificial and largely a modern contrivance. Sure, many want that to appear to be the case... That the attorney, general, FBI etc, all operate independent of the president. But the fact is their power is manifest in the executive branch, and the president is the chief executive. Any attempt to paint his subordinates as independent is an illusion.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Nor do I. The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch. After Nixon left office, Ford pardoned him to spare the nation further injury and he did so at great cost to his electoral prospects. Sometimes it's better to shows good faith and let things go. The problem with the time we're in now is that both sides are using the government to capitalize on every little thing that happens. It's destructive as hell. I agree with you but the FBI and DoJ serve the president. They really should be abolished or greatly changed. If I had my way, the IRS would cease to exist immediately. We do not need an IRS. We need to shed 750,000+ of the federal workforce.

So I still don't understand why you're upset with him then. Why you would be upset he's "allowed" prosecutors to do their job.

Just get tired of the lawfare argument being used every time someone who is a political operative of some sort is charged with a crime. I'm sure there are situations where a prosecutor is over zealous, etc. But I think people use an overly broad brush basically. The prosecution on Bob Menendez(sp?) is in no way political lawfare but had him kicked out of congress and being investigated.

 

[Willence]

So I still don't understand why you're upset with him then. Why you would be upset he's "allowed" prosecutors to do their job.

Just get tired of the lawfare argument being used every time someone who is a political operative of some sort is charged with a crime. I'm sure there are situations where a prosecutor is over zealous, etc. But I think people use an overly broad brush basically. The prosecution on Bob Menendez(sp?) is in no way political lawfare but had him kicked out of congress and being investigated.

Because they aren't doing things consistently. It doesn't bother you that multiple prosecutors have run for office on the platform they would get Trump? Are you familiar with what happened in New York? They had cases out of the statue of limitations they decided to cobble together to make felony charges and used that to bring a case to trial. It's not something that's been done before. Also, the jury instructions from the judge were flat out wrong and will be overturned on appeal.

Steve Bannon (whom I do not like at all) is in jail now for Contempt of Congress. There are multiple people who have had these charges against them that are not in jail now. Why Bannon? Because he's a right wing lightning rod to the left.

All the J6 people who have been wrongfully charged and are in jail now. No rioters from the Summer of 2020 are in jail. It's just wildly inconsistent.

The President is the head coach of our country. Sometimes, he/she needs to rise above politics and do what's in the best interest of healing for our country. Biden could have done that but instead he's stood back and allowed all this to go on. That would have helped a lot of things and most importantly, it would have allowed us to lower the temperature in our political sphere which is something that is desperately needed.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Because they aren't doing things consistently. It doesn't bother you that multiple prosecutors have run for office on the platform they would get Trump? Are you familiar with what happened in New York? They had cases out of the statue of limitations they decided to cobble together to make felony charges and used that to bring a case to trial. It's not something that's been done before. Also, the jury instructions from the judge were flat out wrong and will be overturned on appeal.

Steve Bannon (whom I do not like at all) is in jail now for Contempt of Congress. There are multiple people who have had these charges against them that are not in jail now. Why Bannon? Because he's a right wing lightning rod to the left.

All the J6 people who have been wrongfully charged and are in jail now. No rioters from the Summer of 2020 are in jail. It's just wildly inconsistent.

The President is the head coach of our country. Sometimes, he/she needs to rise above politics and do what's in the best interest of healing for our country. Biden could have done that but instead he's stood back and allowed all this to go on. That would have helped a lot of things and most importantly, it would have allowed us to lower the temperature in our political sphere which is something that is desperately needed.

What role did the DOJ have in New York? What could Biden have done other than apply political pressure that honestly I don't think a president should apply with it not being his DOJ that is charging?

Are there any differences in how Bannon has handled anything, negotiated with them, etc? I also would not personally hitch my wagon to that guy for any argument. That being said, I have researched any differences at all in his contempt charge. Both a person going 2 mph over and a person street racing are speeding. Doesn't mean they should be charged the same (call back disclaimer to my not that I haven't researched this and know whether it is the case, just see people comparing things like this a lot when they claim a two tier justice system, when really, they just committed different levels of the act)

Can you give me more details in how J6 people have been wrongly charged? And saying no rioters from 2020 are jailed is just a wild claim to me. Absolutely people when to jail. Secondly, again, the president doesn't control local law enforcement across the country.

I am fine with your last paragraph and how I would hope someone would come in and handle things, at least as far as temperature/language/etc. Though I wouldn't want them to do much more than maybe encourage forgiveness or something. Because again, they don't control local or state law enforcement.

 

[Willence]

What role did the DOJ have in New York? What could Biden have done other than apply political pressure that honestly I don't think a president should apply with it not being his DOJ that is charging?

Are there any differences in how Bannon has handled anything, negotiated with them, etc? I also would not personally hitch my wagon to that guy for any argument. That being said, I have researched any differences at all in his contempt charge. Both a person going 2 mph over and a person street racing are speeding. Doesn't mean they should be charged the same (call back disclaimer to my not that I haven't researched this and know whether it is the case, just see people comparing things like this a lot when they claim a two tier justice system, when really, they just committed different levels of the act)

Can you give me more details in how J6 people have been wrongly charged? And saying no rioters from 2020 are jailed is just a wild claim to me. Absolutely people when to jail. Secondly, again, the president doesn't control local law enforcement across the country.

I am fine with your last paragraph and how I would hope someone would come in and handle things, at least as far as temperature/language/etc. Though I wouldn't want them to do much more than maybe encourage forgiveness or something. Because again, they don't control local or state law enforcement.

I'm not hitching my wagon to Bannon. I hitch my wagon to a uniform standard of justice that is blind. We have seen unequal justice in this country so often throughout our history. It's never a good thing and it never will be.

There were over 700 people charged with federal crimes after J6. Some have been charged with sedition which is insane even if it's some crackpot militia idiots. The only death was a rioter. People say there are other deaths but that's not true at all. It's called an insurrection and it wasn't. What it ended up being is a huge gift to Democrats which they have and continue to exploit in every way possible.

As for 2020 riots, maybe you don't remember but the current VP of the United States was offering to bail out people who were arrested in the riots. There was no condemnation and people were actually murdered in those riots. One doesn't excuse the other. Both were utterly disgraceful and criminal acts.

As to your first point, one of the prosecutors was Michael Colangelo who was a former Sr. Justice Department official. He was part of the prosecution of Trump in multiple cases. That was never something that should be OK. The prosecution of a former president should be above board in all ways to prevent something like that from being politicized. It should also be an open and shut case based on entirely legitimate charges. This just wasn't that. Biden should have encouraged all to take the high road. It would have helped him in the election and it would have helped the country overall.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I'm not hitching my wagon to Bannon. I hitch my wagon to a uniform standard of justice that is blind. We have seen unequal justice in this country so often throughout our history. It's never a good thing and it never will be.

There were over 700 people charged with federal crimes after J6. Some have been charged with sedition which is insane even if it's some crackpot militia idiots. The only death was a rioter. People say there are other deaths but that's not true at all. It's called an insurrection and it wasn't. What it ended up being is a huge gift to Democrats which they have and continue to exploit in every way possible.

As for 2020 riots, maybe you don't remember but the current VP of the United States was offering to bail out people who were arrested in the riots. There was no condemnation and people were actually murdered in those riots. One doesn't excuse the other. Both were utterly disgraceful and criminal acts.

As to your first point, one of the prosecutors was Michael Colangelo who was a former Sr. Justice Department official. He was part of the prosecution of Trump in multiple cases. That was never something that should be OK. The prosecution of a former president should be above board in all ways to prevent something like that from being politicized. It should also be an open and shut case based on entirely legitimate charges. This just wasn't that. Biden should have encouraged all to take the high road. It would have helped him in the election and it would have helped the country overall.

With Bannon, I mainly just wanted some details from his vs others prosecution. Because just because they can charge others, doesn't mean others have handled things the same way. Maybe they have and he truly is just a victim. I struggle to believe it because of who he is, his brash attitude, and the fact he likely will make more money, become more of a hero, etc because of this. But I am open to being wrong on his contempt charge, truly.

On J6, the people with a crowd breaking through barricades/doors etc and entering congress knew what they were doing. Hard for me to feel sorry for them, and not something I would expect my government to go lenient on. On either side of the aisle.

For 2020, there are plenty of examples of violent rioters etc being arrested, charged, and in jail, so I fail to see how your original statement of "No rioters from the Summer of 2020 are in jail" is at all accurate. Sounds a lot like what you were chiding the democrats for on the immunity ruling. That is basically my entire point. I will also ask do you really think if you search, you aren't going to find anything condemning violence from the 2020 riots? I just don't get it. You seem like a smart guy. You may not think they went far enough, or you think their support of protestors or whatever was too much, but I know you know they condemned violence. So I don't get why the declarative statement with no wiggle room, etc. I also know you're smart enough to be able to distinguish between protests and riots. One can and often does lead to the other, but not always, and not everyone arrested at a protest is causing destruction, etc. I know that in one of the big clips of Kamala, she was discussing the protests and movement for like 5 minutes, then said they are going to stop, they're going to move forward, etc. And people ran with that, like she was encouraging people to destroy businesses. Could she have herself added a disclaimer that violence isn't the answer right then? Yes, I would've liked her to as well. But no one in their right mind is genuinely thinking a politician is saying please go bust up a target or shop window. Ok, rant over.

For your last point, I don't fully disagree, but am generally fine with the president distancing himself completely from any prosecution of anyone seen as a political rival. That being said, I agree the NY trial shouldn't have happened, even if I think he is technically guilty and undoubtedly sleezy.

 

[anon_gwg7wjjhm2lka]

@leetp

Feel free to send me a message if I don’t respond. We will be traveling for most of the next two months.

I also discussed this with my neighbor last night, who ran the NYC office of one of the top 5 largest law firms. He is absolutely shocked by the ruling and can’t fathom how 6 justices came to that conclusion.

 

[Willence]

With Bannon, I mainly just wanted some details from his vs others prosecution. Because just because they can charge others, doesn't mean others have handled things the same way. Maybe they have and he truly is just a victim. I struggle to believe it because of who he is, his brash attitude, and the fact he likely will make more money, become more of a hero, etc because of this. But I am open to being wrong on his contempt charge, truly.

On J6, the people with a crowd breaking through barricades/doors etc and entering congress knew what they were doing. Hard for me to feel sorry for them, and not something I would expect my government to go lenient on. On either side of the aisle.

For 2020, there are plenty of examples of violent rioters etc being arrested, charged, and in jail, so I fail to see how your original statement of "No rioters from the Summer of 2020 are in jail" is at all accurate. Sounds a lot like what you were chiding the democrats for on the immunity ruling. That is basically my entire point. I will also ask do you really think if you search, you aren't going to find anything condemning violence from the 2020 riots? I just don't get it. You seem like a smart guy. You may not think they went far enough, or you think their support of protestors or whatever was too much, but I know you know they condemned violence. So I don't get why the declarative statement with no wiggle room, etc. I also know you're smart enough to be able to distinguish between protests and riots. One can and often does lead to the other, but not always, and not everyone arrested at a protest is causing destruction, etc. I know that in one of the big clips of Kamala, she was discussing the protests and movement for like 5 minutes, then said they are going to stop, they're going to move forward, etc. And people ran with that, like she was encouraging people to destroy businesses. Could she have herself added a disclaimer that violence isn't the answer right then? Yes, I would've liked her to as well. But no one in their right mind is genuinely thinking a politician is saying please go bust up a target or shop window. Ok, rant over.

For your last point, I don't fully disagree, but am generally fine with the president distancing himself completely from any prosecution of anyone seen as a political rival. That being said, I agree the NY trial shouldn't have happened, even if I think he is technically guilty and undoubtedly sleezy.

Harris encouraged people to give to a fund to bail out protesters who were arrested.

For context, this tweet was on 6/1/2020. This is AFTER the precinct was burned to the ground and looting and arson was taking place. Do you see any disclaimers about responsible behavior here?

Holder was held in contempt of Congress for this refusal to produce documents related to the Fast and Furious investigation. This was an ATF operation that went horribly wrong and there was an overt attempt to cover it up. Holder was up to his neck in this and should have provided everything Congress asks. He was the AG then and accountable to Congress if subpoenaed.

Bannon was a private citizen who was held in contempt for refusing to appear before Congress and provide documents requested by the J6 committee which was a rigged committee from the start given how it was formed. Something that has never happened before.

 

[dbjork6317]

Prove me wrong. How am I mischaracterizing the decision, specifically.

It said the president cannot be held responsible for anything done in an “official” capacity. For example, telling his VP not to certifiy the election.

Thank god pence has more honor than you do.

This is another problem with the ruling. It says the President cannot be prosecuted for “official actions” but it isn’t saying that those actions are actually legal, meaning that if the President gives an illegal order and someone follows it, that person can still be prosecuted for it….. maybe.

This ruling just creates so many challenges to even understanding what is and isn’t the President immune from and whether that immunity extends to people under the President’s direction.

They’ve created a legal circumstance for which there are no precedents. It will take decades before we have a firm basis for understanding what an official action is and isn’t. And who gets to ultimately make the decisions? The Supreme Court does. This and chevron ruling have given the courts an extreme amount of power.

In 2016 many of us were very concerned that a Trump Presidency would create potentially existential challenges to our institutions and rule of law, and this is it. It has happened.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Harris encouraged people to give to a fund to bail out protesters who were arrested.

For context, this tweet was on 6/1/2020. This is AFTER the precinct was burned to the ground and looting and arson was taking place. Do you see any disclaimers about responsible behavior here?

Holder was held in contempt of Congress for this refusal to produce documents related to the Fast and Furious investigation. This was an ATF operation that went horribly wrong and there was an overt attempt to cover it up. Holder was up to his neck in this and should have provided everything Congress asks. He was the AG then and accountable to Congress if subpoenaed.

Bannon was a private citizen who was held in contempt for refusing to appear before Congress and provide documents requested by the J6 committee which was a rigged committee from the start given how it was formed. Something that has never happened before.

I literally said I wish she had added a disclaimer when she did the clip, and sure that tweet falls in the same category. But she also says "protestors" not rioters. I am even fine with someone saying "it was irresponsible not to include a disclaimer with the violence that was frequently happening along with the protests". But thats not what you said originally. You said no one was in jail. You said bail out rioters. You're doing what you're accusing the democrats of doing now. Want to stand by your inflaming, go ahead. Or you could just say "you're right, language matters, but I still believe their actions were irresponsible given the violence we were seeing". Just like I think the actions or lack of actions by DJT around J6 were extremely irresponsible.

 

[TigerRagRob]

With Bannon, I mainly just wanted some details from his vs others prosecution. Because just because they can charge others, doesn't mean others have handled things the same way. Maybe they have and he truly is just a victim. I struggle to believe it because of who he is, his brash attitude, and the fact he likely will make more money, become more of a hero, etc because of this. But I am open to being wrong on his contempt charge, truly.

On J6, the people with a crowd breaking through barricades/doors etc and entering congress knew what they were doing. Hard for me to feel sorry for them, and not something I would expect my government to go lenient on. On either side of the aisle.

For 2020, there are plenty of examples of violent rioters etc being arrested, charged, and in jail, so I fail to see how your original statement of "No rioters from the Summer of 2020 are in jail" is at all accurate. Sounds a lot like what you were chiding the democrats for on the immunity ruling. That is basically my entire point. I will also ask do you really think if you search, you aren't going to find anything condemning violence from the 2020 riots? I just don't get it. You seem like a smart guy. You may not think they went far enough, or you think their support of protestors or whatever was too much, but I know you know they condemned violence. So I don't get why the declarative statement with no wiggle room, etc. I also know you're smart enough to be able to distinguish between protests and riots. One can and often does lead to the other, but not always, and not everyone arrested at a protest is causing destruction, etc. I know that in one of the big clips of Kamala, she was discussing the protests and movement for like 5 minutes, then said they are going to stop, they're going to move forward, etc. And people ran with that, like she was encouraging people to destroy businesses. Could she have herself added a disclaimer that violence isn't the answer right then? Yes, I would've liked her to as well. But no one in their right mind is genuinely thinking a politician is saying please go bust up a target or shop window. Ok, rant over.

For your last point, I don't fully disagree, but am generally fine with the president distancing himself completely from any prosecution of anyone seen as a political rival. That being said, I agree the NY trial shouldn't have happened, even if I think he is technically guilty and undoubtedly sleezy.

As did the crowds of leftist that do it all the time....The double standard is what pisses people off....

 

[UrHuckleberry]

As did the crowds of leftist that do it all the time....The double standard is what pisses people off....

What were you replying to specifically? And I agree both sides do a lot of things.

 

[TigerRagRob]

This is another problem with the ruling. It says the President cannot be prosecuted for “official actions” but it isn’t saying that those actions are actually legal, meaning that if the President gives an illegal order and someone follows it, that person can still be prosecuted for it….. maybe.

This ruling just creates so many challenges to even understanding what is and isn’t the President immune from and whether that immunity extends to people under the President’s direction.

They’ve created a legal circumstance for which there are no precedents. It will take decades before we have a firm basis for understanding what an official action is and isn’t. And who gets to ultimately make the decisions? The Supreme Court does. This and chevron ruling have given the courts an extreme amount of power.

In 2016 many of us were very concerned that a Trump Presidency would create potentially existential challenges to our institutions and rule of law, and this is it. It has happened.

There are two steps that must be followed. 1, they must be impeached by the congress and removed from office, 2 then you can go after them...

 

[dbjork6317]

There are two steps that must be followed. 1, they must be impeached by the congress and removed from office, 2 then you can go after them...

I understand what the process is. I’d say an issue with this is that the impeachment process is highly, highly politicized as we’ve now seen several times from both parties. I kind of can’t imagine what a President would have to do to actually get both parties to support impeachment. Feels like Nixon would have been removed from office but I don’t think either party would support impeachment now if their President didn’t exact same things.

The criminal legal process is far less political and has many more systemic barriers in place to ensure as much objectivity as possible. It should be harder to get a President convicted than it is to get them impeached, but due to the politicization of the impeachment process, the opposite has actually proven to be true.

The President does need immunity in certain instances, but to just throw out blanket immunity for any action that can be vaguely deemed as “official” is dangerous and opens up doors that will present problems for the country far beyond Trump or Biden.

 

[iceheart08]

Lol. Totally unhinged.

But, I'll endulge. I haven't kept talking about biden in the debate. There is nothing to talk about. We all saw what happened. Now the radical left is pushing for him to step aside. Nothing really to say other than his family should be ashamed. They really should and deep down I think you agree.

And to your point about people coming across the border. I'm not sure if you are joking or just that clueless. We've had a major issue at the border the last several years. It's either incompetence or intentional but clearly the "biden" administration is finally acknowledging it.

Trump is not establishment. That's why he is popular. People like Bush, Biden and others are the problem. They have enriched themselves as public servants. The people that surround them have as well.

Regardless of what you think, tens of millions of Americans are happy today because there are checks and balances in our country. One political party should not be allowed to persecute their opponent. It's been non-stop going after the orange man since 2016. Today, the radical left were dealt a major blow.

Trump doesn't believe in checks and balances.

He's explicitly said he's going to prosecute his political opponents and a whole bunch of people on this board are explicitly voting for him in the hopes that he exacts "revenge" on his political opponents.

 

[iceheart08]

There are two steps that must be followed. 1, they must be impeached by the congress and removed from office, 2 then you can go after them...

Well. No.

An official act that results in an impeachment could still be immune from prosecution as a crime.

The fact that a president is impeached for some doesn't make that thing an unofficial act.

 

[Willence]

Trump doesn't believe in checks and balances.

He's explicitly said he's going to prosecute his political opponents and a whole bunch of people on this board are explicitly voting for him in the hopes that he exacts "revenge" on his political opponents.

That's hyperbolic. He did not explicitly say that at all. As per usual with Trump, he's all over the place with things he says.

 

[iceheart08]

That's hyperbolic. He did not explicitly say that at all. As per usual with Trump, he's all over the place with things he says.

 

[Willence]

View embedded media

Exactly. That is not explicitly saying he will do that. The humorous part is that's exactly what Democrats have done everywhere they can. Which takes us back to the first law of the left: it's only legitimate if we agree with it.