Justice Kavanaugh asks DOJ Lawyer if Barack Obama should be prosecuted over his use of drone strikes against civilians

[Sean Renaud]

Yes. All correct. But once we go there, which President will act with authority?

His every waking minute would be spent on doing things that would not give the other party the ability to act once they had the power. Even if innocent. It could still be a power wielded every election cycle against the incumbent.

All of them hopefully. I mean the last four years have proven conservatives to be petty children but until very recently I would have trusted them. We all knew Bush at the very least got us into an illegal war and that's if you assume he didn't personally condone torture at some point. Obama's answer to would we pursue? We look forward, not back. We aren't pursing Trump, as we should, for assassinating an Iranian General.

I get the idea of we're both gentlemen and you don't fuck me I won't fuck you is a foreign concept to you. As I've noticed from my conservative friends if I don't have a gun to your head you don't respect me. Which is bullshit but it is what it is. You just need to grow the fuck up.

 

[HisArpy]

There is no text in the Constitution that immunizes the President. Just a point for the textualists on SCOTUS. There is text giving limited immunity to Congress. If the framers intended for the President to have immunity they certainly knew how to include such language. There is no precedent because no previous President has been indicted for any crimes before, during, or after his term. Except #45. He has been sued over or indicted for crimes before, during, and after. Quite an anomaly. But we had never before elected a promiscuously corrupt business man to such a high office. Go figure!

There's no judicial immunity in the Constitution either. Or immunity for DC cops and city officials either. None for the DOJ. Or the FBI.

The problem here is that you don't understand how things work. You're probably one of those people who thinks that you can do whatever the hell you want without consequences but those who advocate for limits are bound. Yet somehow in all of that you fail to understand that we have precedent establishing constitutional principles which have no specific constitutional language supporting them. For example, there are no "Exigent Circumstances" in the 4th Amendment yet they exist. As another example some argue that abortion is in the Constitution yet those words aren't in there.

Presidential immunity is in the same category. It exists because the courts deemed that the concept exists as a matter of course and scope. Just like the Judicial immunity they granted to themselves.

Somehow I doubt you'll get very far telling SCOTUS that they were wrong when they did that. I suspect the same result will occur if you tell them there's no Presidential immunity in the language of the Constitution.

 

[HisArpy]

And yet they fucked in the trial schedule take an appeal for ABSOLUTE immunity and ‘rump will only face punishment for UNOFFICIAL and PERSONAL acts. No one had tried to indict any President for official acts

Fuck SCrOTUS

Blue Tidal Wave.. fix a bunch of shit !

Justices numbers to equal districts!

I find this post to be illustrative of the problems we face in society.

This seems to advance my theory that there are those who advocate a position and then lose their minds when the rest of society doesn't follow along with their whackjob ideas.

Which ought to tell these nutballs that their ideas are where the problem is and it's not the rest of us.

 

[ll74]

I find this post to be illustrative of the problems we face in society.

This seems to advance my theory that there are those who advocate a position and then lose their minds when the rest of society doesn't follow along with their whackjob ideas.

Which ought to tell these nutballs that their ideas are where the problem is and it's not the rest of us.

The threads in this forum reflect who loses their mind on the regular. Some people even go as far as creating multiple usernames because of this need.

 

[HisArpy]

Because if Trump would eliminate his political rivals you would be totally okay with it. And then, come up with some bullshit legal argument about how it was in no way, shape or form a crime for Trump to have his rivals assasinated. Then, if the Supreme Court or Congress does step in and say, Trump is going too far for having his political rivals assassinated, you would claim he is being "Persecuted by the Liberal Congress in a judicial witch hunt." or some such bullshit.

You see, mr. Wizzard, we know how your tiny little mind works.

You don't know shit from shinola about much of anything.

For instance it doesn't seem to make it through the titanium density of your skull that I stand for the law. Not public sentiment or anything else, I stand for the law. Sometimes I even stand for the law when it conflicts with my personal desires and beliefs and I have NEVER done or said otherwise on this forum.

Another instance of the virginity of your rationality is where you've been REPEATEDLY TOLD that I have only 1 lit account yet you insist that I have dozens, maybe hundreds, despite you not being able to prove a single byte of your claims.

So you don't know much of anything. You're a loudmouth without a clue.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Tax evasion is a crime.

So when Trump undervalued his NYC pad he commuted a crime. Got it.

 

[icanhelp1]

So when Trump undervalued his NYC pad he commuted a crime. Got it.

How do you commute a crime?

 

[Rightguide]

You don't know shit from shinola about much of anything.

For instance it doesn't seem to make it through the titanium density of your skull that I stand for the law. Not public sentiment or anything else, I stand for the law. Sometimes I even stand for the law when it conflicts with my personal desires and beliefs and I have NEVER done or said otherwise on this forum.

Another instance of the virginity of your rationality is where you've been REPEATEDLY TOLD that I have only 1 lit account yet you insist that I have dozens, maybe hundreds, despite you not being able to prove a single byte of your claims.

So you don't know much of anything. You're a loudmouth without a clue.

He's another hallucinating idiot. He sees an alt around every thread.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You don't know shit from shinola about much of anything.

For instance it doesn't seem to make it through the titanium density of your skull that I stand for the law. Not public sentiment or anything else, I stand for the law. Sometimes I even stand for the law when it conflicts with my personal desires and beliefs and I have NEVER done or said otherwise on this forum.

Another instance of the virginity of your rationality is where you've been REPEATEDLY TOLD that I have only 1 lit account yet you insist that I have dozens, maybe hundreds, despite you not being able to prove a single byte of your claims.

So you don't know much of anything. You're a loudmouth without a clue.

Most of this thread is you making it perfectly clear that you only give a shit about the law if it helps you. At least I'm honest and would change a fuck ton of laws given half a chance.

 

[desecration]

What would stunning and brave Christine Blasey-Ford do?

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes. All correct. But once we go there, which President will act with authority?

His every waking minute would be spent on doing things that would not give the other party the ability to act once they had the power. Even if innocent. It could still be a power wielded every election cycle against the incumbent.

That issue was brought up by justice Alito.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-su...s-presented-presidential-immunity-2024-04-25/

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked Sauer whether "the very robust form of immunity" he was requesting was really necessary to protect "the proper functioning of the presidency" - or if something short of absolute immunity would suffice.
But Alito also picked up on Sauer's concerns. Alito said that if an incumbent president who loses a hotly contested re-election bid, as Trump did in 2020, knows he may be "criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent - will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

What would stunning and brave Christine Blasey-Ford do?

Consulting with her beach friends perhaps

 

[desecration]

Consulting with her beach friends perhaps

I think she'd be fun to drink with.

 

[Lazaran]

I didn’t say they’re not cognizant of the election calendar. I said they don’t give a shit about the election calendar.

BabyBoobs is lying and gaslighting…again.



Everybody knows that the hyper partisan and corrupt right wing "justices" on the SCOTUS refused to honor Jack Smith’s request for a decision on presidential immunity MONTHS AGO, and sent it back to the lower court knowing full well that it would likely delay the trial of the corrupt orange traitor until after the election.



The hyper partisan and corrupt right wing "judge”, Aileen Cannon is helping the corrupt orange traitor’s delay game in the trial as well.



The corrupt orange traitor is enjoying the top tier of the "two tier" justice system that the RWCJ constantly whines about., thanks to hyper partisan and corrupt right wing "justices".



Hope that ^ helps.



BabyBoobs

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

How do you commute a crime?

Sorry, committed.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What would stunning and brave Christine Blasey-Ford do?

I don't know. I just wish liberals were actually smart enough to have her confess to her counselor years in advance on the off chance that he was going to be on the Supreme Court. This was specifically to prevent him from ruling on Roe v Wade and if a president could be held responsible for various crimes. Batman doesn't plan that far in advance. If I honestly thought someone that smart was out there my first thought when I woke up and my last thought before I went to sleep would be making absolutely certain that I never pissed these people off. I mean they've clearly already set a gas leak in my office, have two snipers on my sister and have ruined my credit.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

BabyBoobs is lying and gaslighting…again.



Everybody knows that the hyper partisan and corrupt right wing "justices" on the SCOTUS refused to honor Jack Smith’s request for a decision on presidential immunity MONTHS AGO, and sent it back to the lower court knowing full well that it would likely delay the trial of the corrupt orange traitor until after the election.



The hyper partisan and corrupt right wing "judge”, Aileen Cannon is helping the corrupt orange traitor’s delay game in the trial as well.



The corrupt orange traitor is enjoying the top tier of the "two tier" justice system that the RWCJ constantly whines about., thanks to hyper partisan and corrupt right wing "justices".



Hope that ^ helps.



BabyBoobs

Rough day for Jack the Hack. Thoughts and prayers.

 

[icanhelp1]

Sorry, committed.

Wasn’t trying to be difficult, you can commute a sentence, wasn’t sure where you were going with it.

 

[PaxNurgle]

You don't know shit from shinola about much of anything.

For instance it doesn't seem to make it through the titanium density of your skull that I stand for the law. Not public sentiment or anything else, I stand for the law. Sometimes I even stand for the law when it conflicts with my personal desires and beliefs and I have NEVER done or said otherwise on this forum.

Another instance of the virginity of your rationality is where you've been REPEATEDLY TOLD that I have only 1 lit account yet you insist that I have dozens, maybe hundreds, despite you not being able to prove a single byte of your claims.

So you don't know much of anything. You're a loudmouth without a clue.

First of all, ICanhelp1, Or mr. Wizzard, or whatever the heck...

You clearly do NOT stand for the law if you seem to think that Donald Trump ought to be above it, and that any attempts to enforce the law against a lawbreaker with whom you share your own fucked-up and dubious values amounts to a "Partisan Judicial Witch Hunt." You clearly do NOT stand for the law, unless it is wielded by an authoritarian with no acccountability to the Constitution or common civilized society, who can do what he pleases. If you stood for the law, then you would be hoping that justice would be served against those who would flout it. Even if you agree with their dubious social and political views.

And second of all, STOP SAYING YOU HAVE ONLY ONE LIT ACCOUNT.
You do not. Just fucking stop with that bullshit.
Just ADMIT what we all know. At least, admit that you are Wizzard526 and Icanhelp1. Maybe then we will gain a tiny ounce of respect for you. But you childishly insist that "I have only 1 lit account" and we all know it's bullshit. If you have only 1 lit account, then the user who currently calls himself "Censurat" has never, ever, ever had any screen names before that one. (he has at least 85 by my count.)

 

[Sean Renaud]

Hisarpy might have multiple accounts but I'm 90% sure he's not Icanhelp. The writing style is too different and not a lot of people can really hide their writing styles. I can do it relatively well but even I'd get tripped up sooner or later.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Why is it the Left always says conservatives are the violent ones when it's the Left that constantly talks about killing a President?

trump wasn't really a president, if we're being honest.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That issue was brought up by justice Alito.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-su...s-presented-presidential-immunity-2024-04-25/

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked Sauer whether "the very robust form of immunity" he was requesting was really necessary to protect "the proper functioning of the presidency" - or if something short of absolute immunity would suffice.
But Alito also picked up on Sauer's concerns. Alito said that if an incumbent president who loses a hotly contested re-election bid, as Trump did in 2020, knows he may be "criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent - will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"

Why would this be a realistic concern?

 

[PaxNurgle]

Well, here's the thing. The only one who "Hotly Contested" the re-election bid was Trump himself, despite clearly and obviously losing the election bid, and it wasn't as if it was even close.

He had no legitimate grounds to contest the election, and never did. He lost- despite his claims otherwise (and yes, he knew he had lost.)

And when he "hotly contested" it, he clearly and obviously crossed the line, without any respect to due process, or the peaceful transition of power which is so crucial for a healthy and functioning democracy to survive. Basically, he tried to stage a coup and overturn the election results. This is NOT how a democracy works; there are Constitutional checks and balances and there should be accountability.

People make the mistake in believing that Trump is being prosecuted by a "Bitter Political Opponent." This is patently and categorically untrue. He is, in fact, being prosecuted by a neutral, non-partisan court whose main interest is in upholding the law and the Constitution- AS IT SHOULD. In fact, it is Alito who is being partisan, and a bitter political opponent of TRUMP'S opponent, when he, or any justice for that matter, thinks that a former president should be above the law simply because he's "Conservative."

 

[Sean Renaud]

While I agree with you Pax. Lets humor the core of this argument and flip it. In November Biden loses by a mere 11k it whatever is the absolutely bare minimum you could pull this by. I know it would require a lot of those 3 vote Red states to flip around. But Trump wins by the narrowest margin possible. We know for a fact that Russians and Chinese were flooding not only social media but the October surprise was complete bullshit but it was too late to do anything about it. The Constitution doesn't have a mechanism for "oops we got it wrong. It simply does not. As long as there were no fake electors or anything like that it would still be legal. Even then I don't know if there would be an actual legal answer.

What the fuck has Biden done that a vengeful Trump could go after him for or logically would have. If I recall properly the Obama droning civillians was more accurate he was bombing a legit target and like his daughter happened to be there. Tragic yes but at some point we have to have enough faith in each other that you (all people not named me) would not come after me for anything that you would have likely made the same call or could at least justify making the same call.

In a way that is even what pardons are REALLY for. Torture is illegal, and should always be illegal. If you are in the ticking time bomb scenario the right liked to cook up in the 2000's then you should trust that at the end end of the day. When your Jack Bauer acting ass stops an attack that would have killed the president or some delegation that the president will see the value in your judgement and pardon you. That is the chance you take when you make that call. Its fine to use it to fix injustices also but I would say its an injustice to punish someone who made a tough call they will have to live with BUT it saved lives. IF we can't count on each other to be at least that human with each other we're fucked.

 

[HisArpy]

First of all, ICanhelp1, Or mr. Wizzard, or whatever the heck...

You clearly do NOT stand for the law if you seem to think that Donald Trump ought to be above it, and that any attempts to enforce the law against a lawbreaker with whom you share your own fucked-up and dubious values amounts to a "Partisan Judicial Witch Hunt." You clearly do NOT stand for the law, unless it is wielded by an authoritarian with no acccountability to the Constitution or common civilized society, who can do what he pleases. If you stood for the law, then you would be hoping that justice would be served against those who would flout it. Even if you agree with their dubious social and political views.

And second of all, STOP SAYING YOU HAVE ONLY ONE LIT ACCOUNT.
You do not. Just fucking stop with that bullshit.
Just ADMIT what we all know. At least, admit that you are Wizzard526 and Icanhelp1. Maybe then we will gain a tiny ounce of respect for you. But you childishly insist that "I have only 1 lit account" and we all know it's bullshit. If you have only 1 lit account, then the user who currently calls himself "Censurat" has never, ever, ever had any screen names before that one. (he has at least 85 by my count.)

Oh FFS. Give it a rest moron, no one fucking cares what your mental breakdown looks like.