Thanks for agreeing to read and summarize the motion for us! lol
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
Trump Jan 6 sealed indictment delivered
132,701 Views |
1457 Replies |
Last: 14 days ago by will25u
but what if a marxist regime is trying to prevent their most popular political opponent from running by imprisoning him? does the case law and what courts are "supposed to give weight to" change?BMX Bandit said:
i think its a very good argument because its such a broad protection. and the case law is that courts are supposed to give great weight to the executive on determining how far that outer perimeter goes. and while not limitless, it does go pretty far
BMX Bandit said:
i think its a very good argument because its such a broad protection. and the case law is that courts are supposed to give great weight to the executive on determining how far that outer perimeter goes. and while not limitless, it does go pretty far
I don't think the motion as written moves the needle much beyond Trump's previous attempts to argue he's immune as to this conduct, which have so far been unsuccessful.
This motion is still thin on providing any authority for the President having an official role in the electoral college process. Trump's capacious position on the extent of the Take Care Clause brings up serious separation of power concerns in my view.
I'm not sure when Blassingame or Thompson opinions will come out of the DC Circuit but those will put this to bed one way or the other at the circuit level until SCOTUS takes on one or more of these cases. This motion reads the same as in those cases. The only addition here is they're also claiming a President can't be prosecuted unless previously impeached and convicted by Congress.
"As this Court has not ruled on the scope of immunity available to a President of the United States, we granted certiorari to decide this important issue." Nixon v. Fitzgerald, SCOTUS in 1982.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) October 6, 2023
Nixon v. Fitzgerald determined the scope of Presidential Immunity from a case for…
I raised this issue yesterday at the end of a Spaces yesterday.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) October 6, 2023
If former Pres. Trump is subject to criminal prosecution for acts taken while in office....
There is no statute of limitations on murder.
In 2009, former Pres. Obama ordered a drone strike on a United States…
It's weird. I could have sworn there was a poster who was saying this would be Trump's defense from day 1 on this crap and a bunch of supposed attorneys told that very smart but non attorney guy they had no idea what they were talking about.
A subsequent administration cannot arbitrarily drum up charges for "crimes" committed by a POTUS for the time they were POTUS. First, there has to be a determination that POTUS was NOT operating within the duties / responsibilities of the Executive Branch, which is very, very broad.
A low level or even a high level judge is NOT empowered to make that determination. One could argue the SCOTUS would be the correct ones to decide, but I still think this SCOTUS punts to Congress and tell them to make the determination most appropriately through the impeachment process.
Else, you end up with the stupidness of the scenario in the second tweet above. And you also no longer have a functioning government, at least not according to our US Constitution.
A subsequent administration cannot arbitrarily drum up charges for "crimes" committed by a POTUS for the time they were POTUS. First, there has to be a determination that POTUS was NOT operating within the duties / responsibilities of the Executive Branch, which is very, very broad.
A low level or even a high level judge is NOT empowered to make that determination. One could argue the SCOTUS would be the correct ones to decide, but I still think this SCOTUS punts to Congress and tell them to make the determination most appropriately through the impeachment process.
Else, you end up with the stupidness of the scenario in the second tweet above. And you also no longer have a functioning government, at least not according to our US Constitution.
The Government filed its response to Trump's motion to dismiss the case due to immunity.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/109/united-states-v-trump/
I'm still reading through it but here's the intro:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/109/united-states-v-trump/
I'm still reading through it but here's the intro:
Quote:
Defendant Donald J. Trump moves to dismiss the indictment, asking the Court to afford him absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for what he expansively claims was official conduct during his presidency. ECF No. 74 ("Mot."). That novel approach to immunity would contravene the fundamental principle that "[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law." United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882). The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens. None of the sources the defendant points to in his motion the Constitution's text and structure, history and tradition, or Supreme Court precedent supports the absolute immunity he asks the Court to create for him.
When do they start with October 18 protesters?
The world needs mean tweets
My Pronouns Ultra and MAGA
Trump 2024
My Pronouns Ultra and MAGA
Trump 2024
Then which branch does? Legislative? Judiciary? Are not all agencies charged with monitoring federal elections contained in the Executive Branch? He's the head of the Executive Branch as a sitting POTUS at the time.Quote:
This motion is still thin on providing any authority for the President having an official role in the electoral college process.
The Legislature, per Article II, Section 1 of the Constutition
So Smith's response is the whole Nancy Pelosi / Adam Schiff / Schumer chant of "No one is above the law" nonsense? That is flippin funny.
Noe one other than POTUS is above the law. POTUS is not either, except through the process of impeachment, which determines he committed a crime in office, which can then be prosecuted by the DOJ after his removal from office.
Why is that such a hard concept?
If you do not follow that logic and process, then POTUS becomes subservient to their own DOJ. That just does not work.
Noe one other than POTUS is above the law. POTUS is not either, except through the process of impeachment, which determines he committed a crime in office, which can then be prosecuted by the DOJ after his removal from office.
Why is that such a hard concept?
If you do not follow that logic and process, then POTUS becomes subservient to their own DOJ. That just does not work.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
Article II? Might want to check that out, hoss.TXAggie2011 said:
The Legislature, per Article II, Section 1 of the Constutition
Yes, Article II. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/aggiehawg said:Article II? Might want to check that out, hoss.TXAggie2011 said:
The Legislature, per Article II, Section 1 of the Constutition
(And yes, the 12th Amendment)
Just read the intro again. I think the libs really have never read the US Constitution nor studied any sort of history, other than to put into ChatGPT requests to make up reasons Orange Man goes to jail.
How in the **** is POTUS supposed to do their job if they are subject to every single law of the land? How? Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, laws can be challenged, laws can be interpreted differently by different courts, laws are added, deleted and changed constantly.
How does he suppose POTUS ensures his department filed the proper paperwork with the FAA for flights of AF1? Those are federal laws.
What they suggest is moronic as well. The President orders murder many many times. Is it up to the DOJ to determine if the drone strike was justified?
Makes no sense to go that route. You can argue a court would decide. Other than SCOTUS, you are still under the Executive and are empowering lower levels of the Executive to overrule POTUS.
Crazy.
How in the **** is POTUS supposed to do their job if they are subject to every single law of the land? How? Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, laws can be challenged, laws can be interpreted differently by different courts, laws are added, deleted and changed constantly.
How does he suppose POTUS ensures his department filed the proper paperwork with the FAA for flights of AF1? Those are federal laws.
What they suggest is moronic as well. The President orders murder many many times. Is it up to the DOJ to determine if the drone strike was justified?
Makes no sense to go that route. You can argue a court would decide. Other than SCOTUS, you are still under the Executive and are empowering lower levels of the Executive to overrule POTUS.
Crazy.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
It's long been the DOJ OLC's opinion that ""Nevertheless" [in the impeachment clause] indicates that the Framers intended the Clause to signify only that prior conviction in the Senate would not constitute a bar to subsequent prosecution, not that prosecution of a person subject to impeachment could occur only after conviction in the Senate." https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm I'm willing to bet that interpretation about impeachment will win on up through the Supreme Court.fka ftc said:
Noe one other than POTUS is above the law. POTUS is not either, except through the process of impeachment, which determines he committed a crime in office, which can then be prosecuted by the DOJ after his removal from office.
Why is that such a hard concept?
If you do not follow that logic and process, then POTUS becomes subservient to their own DOJ. That just does not work.
And if you're the former POTUS, its not longer "your DOJ", by the way.
Well, as long as the DOJ OLC has an opinion on their power over POTUS then I guess its settled.TXAggie2011 said:It's long been the DOJ OLC's opinion that ""Nevertheless" [in the impeachment clause] indicates that the Framers intended the Clause to signify only that prior conviction in the Senate would not constitute a bar to subsequent prosecution, not that prosecution of a person subject to impeachment could occur only after conviction in the Senate." https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm I'm willing to bet that interpretation about impeachment will win on up through the Supreme Court.fka ftc said:
Noe one other than POTUS is above the law. POTUS is not either, except through the process of impeachment, which determines he committed a crime in office, which can then be prosecuted by the DOJ after his removal from office.
Why is that such a hard concept?
If you do not follow that logic and process, then POTUS becomes subservient to their own DOJ. That just does not work.
And if you're the former POTUS, its not longer "your DOJ", by the way.
I will take your bet on SCOTUS agreeing.
Also, regarding actions Trump took whilst POTUS, he WAS the executive when these alleged atrocities occurred. So the current DOJ has to abide by the same standards as if Trump was the current POTUS.
To not do so sets up an endless cycle of prosecuting former POTUS's willy nilly by the DOJ and evidently by folks name Fani in Atlanta that all seem to think they possess powers greater than POTUS. Kind of humorous but certainly not practical and not how the Country was setup.
Keep trying, think you almost "got him" this time.
Also, do they teach having your own theories in law school or is it simply regurgitation citing court cases taught to you by biased, opinionated profs who see the law in a certain way, but not in a holistic way?
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
Another viewpoint on strategy and her sweet deal.
Powell Plea Tightens Screws On Trump, Election-Denier Attys
[url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1735011/print?section=employment][/url]
Law360 (October 19, 2023, 7:28 PM EDT) -- The plea deal that Donald Trump's former lawyer Sidney Powell reached Thursday with Georgia prosecutors signifies a pivotal moment in the state's sweeping election interference case, one that will likely spur more defendants to turn against the ex-president and ripple into a related federal case in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump's former lawyer Sidney Powell, seen in 2020, has pled guilty to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Powell, who is among several unindicted alleged co-conspirators in the D.C. election interference case against Trump, pled guilty in Atlanta to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties.
Georgia prosecutors say Powell schemed to try to overturn Trump's loss in the state's 2020 presidential election by, for instance, seeking to interfere with a local election director's duties and tamper with voting ballots, data and equipment.
"Trump's team should be very worried," former New York prosecutor Roger Stavis, co-head of Mintz & Gold's white collar defense and investigations practice, told Law360. "This is taking a person from inside the election conspiracy and having them cooperate for the first time."
A spokesperson for Trump's legal team did not respond to a request for comment.
As part of her plea deal, Powell has agreed to testify against her co-defendants and faces six years of probation and a $6,000 fine. Initially, prosecutors charged Powell with seven felony counts.
"She got a great deal for herself," said ex-federal prosecutor Kevin O'Brien, a white collar partner at Ford O'Brien Landy LLP. "It was very smart, and other defendants in the case are going to take note of that. You're going to see some rush to the exits. Maybe not at first, but it will happen."
Former Connecticut U.S. Attorney Stanley Twardy Jr., now of counsel at Day Pitney LLP, added, "As a prosecutor, it's always important to break the ice and get somebody to come onboard your team as a witness. And oftentimes, what one sees is when the ice breaks there are others who fall in."
Powell is the second of 19 initial defendants in the Georgia case to plead guilty. Peach State bail bondsman Scott Hall pled guilty last month to five misdemeanors.
But Powell is the biggest catch so far for Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, who is leveraging the state's powerful anti-racketeering law to prosecute Trump and his remaining 16 co-defendants.
"This vindicates Willis' strategy, which is often criticized. I've criticized it for being an unwieldy case," O'Brien noted. "Well, we're now down to 17 defendants. And that will get pared down substantially between now and the trial date early next year. You'll only have the true believers left to try alongside Trump."
Powell cut her plea deal just before jury selection was set to begin in her trial Friday alongside lawyer and co-defendant Kenneth Chesebro, who is likely under intense pressure to flip on Trump.
"Misery usually loves company. But now Chesebro is going to be sitting there all by himself," Stavis said. "Reality is starting to set in, and this guy is going to see the jury panel file into the courtroom, and he's looking at going to prison. So this creates a major incentive for him to cooperate as well."
Meanwhile, Powell's plea in Georgia indicates that she is already cooperating or will soon seek to cooperate with special counsel Jack Smith in the federal election interference case against Trump in D.C., according to experts. She's not been charged in that case, but it's a distinct possibility as she's among Trump's alleged co-conspirators.
Julia Jayne, a white collar defense lawyer at Jayne Law Group PC and former California state prosecutor, said Powell could potentially "testify in exchange for immunity."
"It would not make sense to cooperate in one prosecution but not in another, overlapping prosecution," Jayne added.
Powell's plea also represents another bad turn of events for beleaguered former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who is a co-defendant in the Georgia case and has publicly stated that he's being crushed beneath the weight of his massive legal bills. Powell and Giuliani worked together to push false conspiracy theories about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
"Maybe much more than Trump, Giuliani is impacted by what Powell could say," O'Brien said.
Powell turning on Trump also could tighten the screws on Giuliani and motivate him to chase a plea deal, although prosecutors might not see much value in him as a witness at this point in light of his many public statements about the case and erratic behavior, such as the infamous Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference debacle.
In July, Giuliani conceded in D.C. federal court that he'd made "defamatory per se" statements when he accused two Georgia poll workers of committing ballot fraud to rig the 2020 election for Joe Biden. He's also been suspended from practicing law in New York for allegedly making false statements to courts and others while representing Trump.
"He has too much overwhelming baggage," Stavis said. "I don't know that cooperation is necessarily an option for him."
Powell Plea Tightens Screws On Trump, Election-Denier Attys - Law360
Powell Plea Tightens Screws On Trump, Election-Denier Attys
[url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1735011/print?section=employment][/url]
Law360 (October 19, 2023, 7:28 PM EDT) -- The plea deal that Donald Trump's former lawyer Sidney Powell reached Thursday with Georgia prosecutors signifies a pivotal moment in the state's sweeping election interference case, one that will likely spur more defendants to turn against the ex-president and ripple into a related federal case in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump's former lawyer Sidney Powell, seen in 2020, has pled guilty to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)Powell, who is among several unindicted alleged co-conspirators in the D.C. election interference case against Trump, pled guilty in Atlanta to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties.
Georgia prosecutors say Powell schemed to try to overturn Trump's loss in the state's 2020 presidential election by, for instance, seeking to interfere with a local election director's duties and tamper with voting ballots, data and equipment.
"Trump's team should be very worried," former New York prosecutor Roger Stavis, co-head of Mintz & Gold's white collar defense and investigations practice, told Law360. "This is taking a person from inside the election conspiracy and having them cooperate for the first time."
A spokesperson for Trump's legal team did not respond to a request for comment.
As part of her plea deal, Powell has agreed to testify against her co-defendants and faces six years of probation and a $6,000 fine. Initially, prosecutors charged Powell with seven felony counts.
"She got a great deal for herself," said ex-federal prosecutor Kevin O'Brien, a white collar partner at Ford O'Brien Landy LLP. "It was very smart, and other defendants in the case are going to take note of that. You're going to see some rush to the exits. Maybe not at first, but it will happen."
Former Connecticut U.S. Attorney Stanley Twardy Jr., now of counsel at Day Pitney LLP, added, "As a prosecutor, it's always important to break the ice and get somebody to come onboard your team as a witness. And oftentimes, what one sees is when the ice breaks there are others who fall in."
Powell is the second of 19 initial defendants in the Georgia case to plead guilty. Peach State bail bondsman Scott Hall pled guilty last month to five misdemeanors.
But Powell is the biggest catch so far for Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, who is leveraging the state's powerful anti-racketeering law to prosecute Trump and his remaining 16 co-defendants.
"This vindicates Willis' strategy, which is often criticized. I've criticized it for being an unwieldy case," O'Brien noted. "Well, we're now down to 17 defendants. And that will get pared down substantially between now and the trial date early next year. You'll only have the true believers left to try alongside Trump."
Powell cut her plea deal just before jury selection was set to begin in her trial Friday alongside lawyer and co-defendant Kenneth Chesebro, who is likely under intense pressure to flip on Trump.
"Misery usually loves company. But now Chesebro is going to be sitting there all by himself," Stavis said. "Reality is starting to set in, and this guy is going to see the jury panel file into the courtroom, and he's looking at going to prison. So this creates a major incentive for him to cooperate as well."
Meanwhile, Powell's plea in Georgia indicates that she is already cooperating or will soon seek to cooperate with special counsel Jack Smith in the federal election interference case against Trump in D.C., according to experts. She's not been charged in that case, but it's a distinct possibility as she's among Trump's alleged co-conspirators.
Julia Jayne, a white collar defense lawyer at Jayne Law Group PC and former California state prosecutor, said Powell could potentially "testify in exchange for immunity."
"It would not make sense to cooperate in one prosecution but not in another, overlapping prosecution," Jayne added.
Powell's plea also represents another bad turn of events for beleaguered former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who is a co-defendant in the Georgia case and has publicly stated that he's being crushed beneath the weight of his massive legal bills. Powell and Giuliani worked together to push false conspiracy theories about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
"Maybe much more than Trump, Giuliani is impacted by what Powell could say," O'Brien said.
Powell turning on Trump also could tighten the screws on Giuliani and motivate him to chase a plea deal, although prosecutors might not see much value in him as a witness at this point in light of his many public statements about the case and erratic behavior, such as the infamous Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference debacle.
In July, Giuliani conceded in D.C. federal court that he'd made "defamatory per se" statements when he accused two Georgia poll workers of committing ballot fraud to rig the 2020 election for Joe Biden. He's also been suspended from practicing law in New York for allegedly making false statements to courts and others while representing Trump.
"He has too much overwhelming baggage," Stavis said. "I don't know that cooperation is necessarily an option for him."
Powell Plea Tightens Screws On Trump, Election-Denier Attys - Law360
Very unbiased article there and thanks for summarizing.
That is nothing more than an MSM hit piece designed to further the narrative that the walls are closing in on Trump. Other than "witness took plea deal and agreed to answer questions" there is nothing in her plea deal and the circumstances around it that indicate something new has been developed to get Trump.
And to call Sidney Powell an "insider" in this alleged conspiracy is pretty laughable. Trump went full scorched earth after the election and not only was it unwise and unpalatable, it brought nut jobs and fringe folks a bit too close for what a POTUS should be around.
But NO indication Sydney has "flipped" or that she has damaging information or that she intends to "sing like a canary". In fact, quite the opposite as indicated in the previous articles / tweets.
That is nothing more than an MSM hit piece designed to further the narrative that the walls are closing in on Trump. Other than "witness took plea deal and agreed to answer questions" there is nothing in her plea deal and the circumstances around it that indicate something new has been developed to get Trump.
And to call Sidney Powell an "insider" in this alleged conspiracy is pretty laughable. Trump went full scorched earth after the election and not only was it unwise and unpalatable, it brought nut jobs and fringe folks a bit too close for what a POTUS should be around.
But NO indication Sydney has "flipped" or that she has damaging information or that she intends to "sing like a canary". In fact, quite the opposite as indicated in the previous articles / tweets.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
The plea is in the GA case, not this one.
I don't believe Powell has any "smoking gun" she can give Fani. She may give support to what other witnesses say or other evidence, but I just don't think she has anything to significantly move the needle.
That said, she already "Sang like a canary" when she gave her proffer to the DA office before her plea hearing. I think history has shown that if there was some huge evidence Sydney Powell had to give it would have been leaked to the press!
I'm Gipper
I don't believe Powell has any "smoking gun" she can give Fani. She may give support to what other witnesses say or other evidence, but I just don't think she has anything to significantly move the needle.
That said, she already "Sang like a canary" when she gave her proffer to the DA office before her plea hearing. I think history has shown that if there was some huge evidence Sydney Powell had to give it would have been leaked to the press!
I'm Gipper
Seems to me full on Fascists like Willis, Smith, Bragg and James only read any law or the Constitution through the lens of how it can be used to get Trump. Everything they're charging him for requires a novel application of law, resulting in indictments for actions for which nobody has ever been indicted before.fka ftc said:
Just read the intro again. I think the libs really have never read the US Constitution nor studied any sort of history, other than to put into ChatGPT requests to make up reasons Orange Man goes to jail.
How in the **** is POTUS supposed to do their job if they are subject to every single law of the land? How? Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, laws can be challenged, laws can be interpreted differently by different courts, laws are added, deleted and changed constantly.
How does he suppose POTUS ensures his department filed the proper paperwork with the FAA for flights of AF1? Those are federal laws.
What they suggest is moronic as well. The President orders murder many many times. Is it up to the DOJ to determine if the drone strike was justified?
Makes no sense to go that route. You can argue a court would decide. Other than SCOTUS, you are still under the Executive and are empowering lower levels of the Executive to overrule POTUS.
Crazy.
And then there are Fascists on this site and social media who cheer the Fascists doing this.
Amen, and Awomen.
The Constitution is supposed to be taken through the lens of the men who wrote it at the time they wrote it, not reinterpreted to be well the concept is X and now it applies as Y given how things have changed."
That's bull***** And if people do not like it, our Founding Fathers provided a very clear protocol to change things. And we have done so when the substantial majority of Americans have supported it.
The Constitution is supposed to be taken through the lens of the men who wrote it at the time they wrote it, not reinterpreted to be well the concept is X and now it applies as Y given how things have changed."
That's bull***** And if people do not like it, our Founding Fathers provided a very clear protocol to change things. And we have done so when the substantial majority of Americans have supported it.
Do it do it do itwill25u said:I raised this issue yesterday at the end of a Spaces yesterday.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) October 6, 2023
If former Pres. Trump is subject to criminal prosecution for acts taken while in office....
There is no statute of limitations on murder.
In 2009, former Pres. Obama ordered a drone strike on a United States…
Holy **** do it
I'm not remotely joking, I voted for him twice and would have again, and I would be thrilled to see him indicted for murdering an American via drone strike and/or the whole surveillance state thing. I literally can't even imagine living in a world where presidents have that kind of accountability and these sorts of crimes aren't part and parcel with the job, but holy hell I want to. Bubba and Dubya, you guys come on down too.
Actual Talking Thermos said:Do it do it do itwill25u said:I raised this issue yesterday at the end of a Spaces yesterday.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) October 6, 2023
If former Pres. Trump is subject to criminal prosecution for acts taken while in office....
There is no statute of limitations on murder.
In 2009, former Pres. Obama ordered a drone strike on a United States…
Holy **** do it
I'm not remotely joking, I voted for him twice and would have again, and I would be thrilled to see him indicted for murdering an American via drone strike and/or the whole surveillance state thing. I literally can't even imagine living in a world where presidents have that kind of accountability and these sorts of crimes aren't part and parcel with the job, but holy hell I want to. Bubba and Dubya, you guys come on down too.
Seems great. We should put the powers of a country into the hands of low level judges and DAs like Leticia and Fani. I mean, what could go wrong?
Hell, we should make the night time fries manager from McDs the head of FDA, make the mall cop head of homeland security, make the badge make at xyz company the head of the FBI and make your church treasurer the Secretary of Treasury.
Makes total since.
But I will still wait on the talking wine bottle chiller before I can make a final assessment.
I normally love people who are super chill and constantly full of wine, but that ***** is insufferable.fka ftc said:
But I will still wait on the talking wine bottle chiller before I can make a final assessment.
I will give you some props for a clever response.
In return, at least try to be honest with the board.
I would here you out on this but just saying arrest every other president for potential "crimes" they committed whilst president and ignoring all mitigating factors is simply not being honest.
Be honest.
In return, at least try to be honest with the board.
I would here you out on this but just saying arrest every other president for potential "crimes" they committed whilst president and ignoring all mitigating factors is simply not being honest.
Be honest.
Still a shot this thing may be televised!
I'm Gipper
Judge Chutkan wants Trump's opinion about whether his DC trial should be televised. pic.twitter.com/esFUL6xDGK
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 27, 2023
I'm Gipper
BREAKING: Judge Chutkan has denied Donald Trump’s motion to stay her gag order and lifted the temporary hold she placed on it. Details TK.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 29, 2023
Look for DC Circuit Court (the appeals court) to issue their own stay on this.
I'm Gipper
Novel applications of the law require novel approaches of defense it seems.TXAggie2011 said:
The Government filed its response to Trump's motion to dismiss the case due to immunity.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/109/united-states-v-trump/
I'm still reading through it but here's the intro:Quote:
Defendant Donald J. Trump moves to dismiss the indictment, asking the Court to afford him absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for what he expansively claims was official conduct during his presidency. ECF No. 74 ("Mot."). That novel approach to immunity would contravene the fundamental principle that "[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law." United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882). The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens. None of the sources the defendant points to in his motion the Constitution's text and structure, history and tradition, or Supreme Court precedent supports the absolute immunity he asks the Court to create for him.
Where is the Legislature mentioned in Article II?TXAggie2011 said:
The Legislature, per Article II, Section 1 of the Constutition
Im Gipper said:BREAKING: Judge Chutkan has denied Donald Trump’s motion to stay her gag order and lifted the temporary hold she placed on it. Details TK.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 29, 2023
Look for DC Circuit Court (the appeals court) to issue their own stay on this.
Nobody takes their ball and goes home more than liberals and sips, both are the same.
Ag with kids said:Where is the Legislature mentioned in Article II?TXAggie2011 said:
The Legislature, per Article II, Section 1 of the Constutition
Quote:
Clause 3 Electoral College Count
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Clause 4 Electoral Votes
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States
Interesting analysis. Can you point to which parts of that part of the Constitution the former POTUS allegedly subverted in this grand RICO (suave) scheme, and in particular, what allows a local DA in Fulton County to subvert the authority of the sitting POTUS in conducting and directing the official duties of his office.
Just point to the parts of the Constitution that allow for this. And also provide maybe some case examples of how a sitting or former POTUS has been prosecuted by local DAs for performance of the job whilst POTUS.
Absent case examples, why not go through an example of how a POTUS can be prosecuted / persecuted by a local DA for low level "crimes" they 'think' were committed whilst POTUS was in office and what part of the Constitution gives a low level judge the explicit authority to determine what POTUS's official duties are and are not.
Look forward to your analysis or any other legal beagles to chime in.
Just point to the parts of the Constitution that allow for this. And also provide maybe some case examples of how a sitting or former POTUS has been prosecuted by local DAs for performance of the job whilst POTUS.
Absent case examples, why not go through an example of how a POTUS can be prosecuted / persecuted by a local DA for low level "crimes" they 'think' were committed whilst POTUS was in office and what part of the Constitution gives a low level judge the explicit authority to determine what POTUS's official duties are and are not.
Look forward to your analysis or any other legal beagles to chime in.
NEW - Trump files motion requesting his forthcoming trial for alleged election subversion be broadcast live to the American people.
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) November 11, 2023
Popcorn gif