SockStilkings said:

---

Here is Biden's announcement.

So your post is false information.

Biden suggests Trump will 'not take power' again if he runs in 2024 | The Hill https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3728174-biden-suggests-trump-will-not-take-power-again-if-he-runs-in-2024/amp/

---

ArcticPenguin said:

---

SockStilkings said:

---

Here is Biden's announcement.

So your post is false information.

Biden suggests Trump will 'not take power' again if he runs in 2024 | The Hill https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3728174-biden-suggests-trump-will-not-take-power-again-if-he-runs-in-2024/amp/

---

No, your post is. He did not say anything close to what you are saying he did, nor did he ask the DOJ to do anything. You made that up.

---

Quote:

---

Educate yourself on the matter

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Let's be honest, on a jury I'd be hard pressed to find bill guilty for shooting her in the face in cold blood. Just give me a flimsy excuse and I'll take it from there

---

etxag02 said:

---

Don't worry. You're in good company here where people don't believe anything they don't want to believe.

---

Quote:

---

The White House counsel's office met with a top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before he brought charges against former President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents raising serious concerns about coordinated legal efforts aimed at President Biden's likely opponent in 2024.

Jay Bratt, who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, shortly after it was formed, took a meeting in the White House on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel's office, White House visitor logs show.

They were joined in the 10 a.m. meeting by Danielle Ray, an FBI agent in the Washington field office.

---

Quote:

---

Bratt, 63, also met with Saba at the White House in November 2021, when Trump was mired in negotiations with the National Archives, who were demanding the return of presidential records from his Mar-a-Lago estate before a formal investigation had not yet been opened.

Saba, who is not an attorney, left the White House in May to attend law school.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The White House counsel's office met with a top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before he brought charges against former President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents raising serious concerns about coordinated legal efforts aimed at President Biden's likely opponent in 2024.

Jay Bratt, who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, shortly after it was formed, took a meeting in the White House on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel's office, White House visitor logs show.

They were joined in the 10 a.m. meeting by Danielle Ray, an FBI agent in the Washington field office.

---

Quote:

---

Bratt, 63, also met with Saba at the White House in November 2021, when Trump was mired in negotiations with the National Archives, who were demanding the return of presidential records from his Mar-a-Lago estate before a formal investigation had not yet been opened.

Saba, who is not an attorney, left the White House in May to attend law school.

---

How do you have a Deputy Chief of Staff for the WH Counsel's Office who is not a lawyer?

LINK

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The White House counsel's office met with a top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before he brought charges against former President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents raising serious concerns about coordinated legal efforts aimed at President Biden's likely opponent in 2024.

Jay Bratt, who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, shortly after it was formed, took a meeting in the White House on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel's office, White House visitor logs show.

They were joined in the 10 a.m. meeting by Danielle Ray, an FBI agent in the Washington field office.

---

Quote:

---

Bratt, 63, also met with Saba at the White House in November 2021, when Trump was mired in negotiations with the National Archives, who were demanding the return of presidential records from his Mar-a-Lago estate before a formal investigation had not yet been opened.

Saba, who is not an attorney, left the White House in May to attend law school.

---

How do you have a Deputy Chief of Staff for the WH Counsel's Office who is not a lawyer?

LINK

---

aggiehawg said:

---

ArcticPenguin said:

---

SockStilkings said:

---

Here is Biden's announcement.

So your post is false information.

Biden suggests Trump will 'not take power' again if he runs in 2024 | The Hill https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3728174-biden-suggests-trump-will-not-take-power-again-if-he-runs-in-2024/amp/

---

No, your post is. He did not say anything close to what you are saying he did, nor did he ask the DOJ to do anything. You made that up.

---

Problem is that Jack' Smith's top deputies are on visitor logs having meetings with WH Counsel's staff before the indictments started falling. Now you tell me why lawyers on Smith's Special Counsel team were having meetings with Biden's White House Counsel's office?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

So how much do you think WH Counsels are paid?

And why would Bratt go to the WH to meet with her?

---

SockStilkings said:

---

That's a funny response to let everyone know you are either unable to or afraid to discuss.

I gave you examples back, rationale for my position, and asked you to provide anything to contradict.

Your response is to falsely accuse me of "trolling" simply because I don't bow to terrestrial masters, even if the think because they wasted time in law school they deserve a bow.

Engage or keep me ignored. But please do not keep misleading people with bad information on this case and the Constitution.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

SockStilkings said:

---

That's a funny response to let everyone know you are either unable to or afraid to discuss.

I gave you examples back, rationale for my position, and asked you to provide anything to contradict.

Your response is to falsely accuse me of "trolling" simply because I don't bow to terrestrial masters, even if the think because they wasted time in law school they deserve a bow.

Engage or keep me ignored. But please do not keep misleading people with bad information on this case and the Constitution.

---

He's a lawyer explaining the law to you. It's clear you don't know the law.

You should stop misleading people with bad information because it's REALLY bad...

---

SockStilkings said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

SockStilkings said:

---

That's a funny response to let everyone know you are either unable to or afraid to discuss.

I gave you examples back, rationale for my position, and asked you to provide anything to contradict.

Your response is to falsely accuse me of "trolling" simply because I don't bow to terrestrial masters, even if the think because they wasted time in law school they deserve a bow.

Engage or keep me ignored. But please do not keep misleading people with bad information on this case and the Constitution.

---

He's a lawyer explaining the law to you. It's clear you don't know the law.

You should stop misleading people with bad information because it's REALLY bad...

---

Stay in your lane hombre.

If he wants to argue the law, then any lawyer worth their salt can do it.

It's clearly he does NOT know the law… as the law comes from our Constitution which said lawyer seems to not either be familiar with or disregards.

I asked them to debate their position and they say muh troll muh ignore.

I have mislead NO ONE. Did you miss the part where I said not all will agree with my take? Others do not support it, but say hey Sock Stilkings, that's a different take, let's see how it plays out.

It's your insecurities that lead you to rely on people who "know the law" but don't let you question it. They are no smarter than you.

---

Quote:

---

under your scenario, on the morning of january 20, 2000, Bill could have shot Hillary in the head and gotten off scot-free (put aside the clear defense of "justification"). that just does not make any sense.

Makes perfect sense. If Bill woke-up that morning and discovered HIllary was a spy and took her out before she could spill the info to the Rooskies, he would be well within his exec powers to eliminate her. We eliminate threats all the time based on the President's decision. Who are you to question whether the POTUS was legit in his decision? And question, is there or is there not a process to hold a POTUS accountable and what is it called?

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

If he shot Hillary, Bill would quickly be charged by the local authority for murder and a court would decide on Bill's motion if he had immunity. For which he almost certainly would not. Taking the life of an American citizen is not a duty of the President

Read Nixon v Fitzgerald. I think it's pretty clear that immunity has limits, especially criminally

---

Quote:

---

Here, respondent argues that petitioner Nixon would have acted outside the outer perimeter of his duties by ordering the discharge of an employee who was lawfully entitled to retain his job in the absence of "such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.'" Brief for Respondent 39, citing 5 U.S.C. 7512(a). Because Congress has granted this legislative protection, respondent argues, no federal official could, within the outer perimeter of his duties of office, cause Fitzgerald to be dismissed without satisfying this standard in prescribed statutory proceedings.


This construction would subject the President to trial on virtually every allegation that an action was unlawful, or was taken for a forbidden purpose. Adoption of this construction thus would deprive absolute immunity of its intended effect.

Page 457 U. S. 757
It clearly is within the President's constitutional and statutory authority to prescribe the manner in which the Secretary will conduct the business of the Air Force. See 10 U.S.C. 8012(b). Because this mandate of office must include the authority to prescribe reorganizations and reductions in force, we conclude that petitioner's alleged wrongful acts lay well within the outer perimeter of his authority.

V
A rule of absolute immunity for the President will not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against misconduct on the part of the Chief Executive. [Footnote 38] There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment. [Footnote 39] In addition, there are formal and informal checks on Presidential action that do not apply with equal force to other executive officials.

The President is subjected to constant scrutiny by the press. Vigilant oversight by Congress also may serve to deter Presidential abuses of office, as well as to make credible the threat of impeachment. [Footnote 40] Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature.

Page 457 U. S. 758
The existence of alternative remedies and deterrents establishes that absolute immunity will not place the President "above the law." [Footnote 41] For the President, as for judges and prosecutors, absolute immunity merely precludes a particular private remedy for alleged misconduct in order to advance compelling public ends.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

If he shot Hillary, Bill would quickly be charged by the local authority for murder and a court would decide on Bill's motion if he had immunity. For which he almost certainly would not. Taking the life of an American citizen is not a duty nor within the constitutional or statutory authority of the President.

Read Nixon v Fitzgerald. I think it's pretty clear that immunity has limits, especially criminally

---

Quote:

---

It clearly is within the President's constitutional and statutory authority to prescribe the manner in which the Secretary will conduct the business of the Air Force. See 10 U.S.C. 8012(b). Because this mandate of office must include the authority to prescribe reorganizations and reductions in force, we conclude that petitioner's alleged wrongful acts lay well within the outer perimeter of his authority.

---

Quote:

---

The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims. Moreover, a President, like Members of Congress, judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides -- all having absolute immunity -- are not immune for acts outside official duties.

---

ArcticPenguin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

If he shot Hillary, Bill would quickly be charged by the local authority for murder and a court would decide on Bill's motion if he had immunity. For which he almost certainly would not. Taking the life of an American citizen is not a duty nor within the constitutional or statutory authority of the President.

Read Nixon v Fitzgerald. I think it's pretty clear that immunity has limits, especially criminally

---

And especially when you are charged with trying to overthrow the US Government

---

fka ftc said:

---

He was a spy and she was caught on the phone giving secrets to Putin.

He has the right to that claim. And it's not up to a DC judge to decide whether claim is valid.

---