happney65:


But the constitution was clear on the transfer of power which Trump told his supporters to go and "Stop the steal" Isn't it? Did they not? Did Trump not try to stop it?

If Pence had been killed that night by the mob,do you think the peaceful transfer of power would happen?

Now,that didn't happen,but with this Judgement,any baga can decide to stay in power. And we know who will want to stay in power citing "official ACTS"

May the universe spare our lives

Spewing left-wing conspiracy theories and talking points.

All these has been debunked including the fine people hoax and drink bleach nonsense.

Give it up dude

ijebosb:


It was an example.
I think you are having a hard time grasping the concept of immunity, or official acts or presidential core powers.
If they are immune, they can be impeached but not prosecuted by ANYONE, no matter who asks.

Your example was a bad example.

If a president is impeached, it is because their act is considered to be "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4", which is illegal and not an official act, so they can be prosecuted, is what you miss.

budaatum:


Sorry, but this is not true.

The president does not decide what official acts are. The Constitution of the United States of America does, and it clearly states when a president shall leave office.

Let them continue to trade in unreasonable things

Yes Trump can classify fvcking Stormy as an official act and court will agree with him

Any other ridiculous take is welcome

budaatum:


Sorry, but this is not true.

The president does not decide what official acts are. The Constitution of the United States of America does, and it clearly states when a president shall leave office.

Since the rule was made today

I expect Trump to declare himself president tomorrow and Biden to announce he has won the November election since that's what they claim the scotus said

raumdeuter:


Since the rule was made today

I expect Trump to declare himself president tomorrow and Biden to announce he has won the November election since that's what they claim the scotus said

I hate dump so much I can't write his name right, so I've written to Biden to use his official powers to just cancel the November election and declare his second term starts now.

"We just have to remember who the hell we are. We are the United States of America. There is nothing — nothing, nothing — beyond our capacity — nothing — when we do it together. And we plan on doing that. You’re allowing me to do that".

President Joe Biden.

happney65:


But the constitution was clear on the transfer of power which Trump told his supporters to go and "Stop the steal" Isn't it? Did they not? Did Trump not try to stop it?

If Pence had been killed that night by the mob,do you think the peaceful transfer of power would happen?

Now,that didn't happen,but with this Judgement,any baga can decide to stay in power. And we know who will want to stay in power citing "official ACTS"

May the universe spare our lives

And at the end of the say who was sitting in the white house on January 22 2021?

tell me what you expect the judment to have said that will make you happy?

1. All acts of the president are protected under immunity

or

2. All act of the president are NOT protectd under immunity

budaatum:


This ruling has not placed any president above the law! It has just placed a president's official acts above the law. But you seem to think a president ordering the murder of their opponents by the military is an official act for some reason, and I do not agree with your understanding.

Is this so hard to comprehend? Is it really that hard?

raumdeuter:


Since the rule was made today

I expect Trump to declare himself president tomorrow and Biden to announce he has won the November election since that's what they claim the scotus said

Not what they are saying since he is not holding the office at the moment.

budaatum:


Stop right there! Lol!

Where does his "perfuming a Constitutional defined power, driving" include "kill someone"?

Dude please, you live in America, and you should know that even if a president is not charged in court for killing someone because of the shirt they wear, Congress may decide to impeach that president and ask for their prosecution. And even if Congress don't, you still have the jury of We The People who may decide to find that president guilty and punish all those Congress members for not performing their duty of protecting the Constitution of the Unite State of America.

Or do you think a party not winning an election for a generation would not be a deterrent or punishment enough?

Or is it that you think the voters in America wouldn't mind electing presidents who kill people for the shirts they wear?

Let me add some what if scenarios too

What if President Biden snatch someones wife
What if he eats Banga and fufu in oval office
What if he declares Nigeria the winner of the next world cup

These are the what ifs that SCOTUS told you to go sort out at the lower courts, when you cannot, bring specific cases to them

raumdeuter:


Let me add some what if scenarios too

What if President Biden snatch someones wife
What if he eats Banga and fufu in oval office
What if he declares Nigeria the winner of the next world cup

These are the what ifs that SCOTUS told you to go sort out at the lower courts, when you cannot, bring specific cases to them

All the things they say the president can get away with, there is a constitution that says otherwise

Laurene:
Spewing left-wing conspiracy theories and talking points.

All these has been debunked including the fine people hoax and drink bleach nonsense.

Give it up dude

its ridiculous and laughable how low they sink at times

Trump said Its going to be a bloobath at the border, Yaay Trump is threatening murder, So when Anyone uses Bloodbath in a statement it means mass murder e.g Pep Guardiola promises bloodbath at Old trafford stadium

Trump said if only we can inject bleach into their veins.
Yayyy Trump told people to inject bleach

Me telling them if only I can open your head and put this book
Yayyy Ramdeuter wants to use axe to split open peoples head

They must really think their supporters are stupid

These same people will be like, trumps own supreme Court ruled against him or won't take election case. Then when a ruling like this happens they remind us it is trumps supreme Court again.

happney65:


My brother,you still haven't answered this question.

If as president, you decide not to leave power and cite it as official isn't it not official and you are within your rights not to leave power because IMMUNITY covers you

A president doesnt define what is official or not. The office has rules

So can Trump say tomorrow Federal reserve Bank should move all their asset into Trump Bank account?

Since we are dealing with ridiculousness now

budaatum:


Your example was a bad example.

If a president is impeached, it is because their act is considered to be "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4", which is illegal and not an official act, so they can be prosecuted, is what you miss.

Can I be honest, you sound as if you don't have enough understanding of this topic to even post remotely intelligently on it. This post is silly. It's clear u don't understand immunity or impeachment. Impeachment is a political process. Immunity means no one can prosecute him. I can repeat this a nother 5 times and you'll continue repeating the same lie.

Do some reading on this topic because u are spreading misinformation.

ijebosb:


Can I be honest, you sound as if you don't have enough understanding of this topic to even post remotely intelligently on it. This post is silly. It's clear u don't understand immunity or impeachment. Impeachment is a political process. Immunity means no one can prosecute him. I can repeat this a nother 5 times and you'll continue repeating the same lie.

Do some reading on this topic because u are spreading misinformation.

I read.

In the United States, impeachment is a remedial rather than penal process,[14][15]: 8  intended to "effectively 'maintain constitutional government' by removing individuals unfit for office";[15]: 8  persons subject to impeachment and removal remain "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."[15]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Explain how a president is immune from the bold please.

budaatum:


I read.



Explain how a president is immune from the bold please.

Immunity supersedes everything. Once something is immune, nothing can change that. It's similar to the lawyer client privilege and doctor patient privilege. But in those cases there are exceptions. The Supreme Court decided that this immunity is almost sacosant. It has to do with the separation of powers as well. So, the Supreme Court decided that the president's ability to make bold decisions as long as it's via some official act is more important than any laws that may be broken.

As to impeachment, is is largely a political process. The congress mostly decides what constitutes high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Now a president can be inpeached for an official act because Congress just doesnt agree with. In fact it doesn't have to be even illegal per se. Once a president is impeached and removed they can be charged and convicted. Buy now the Supreme Court just bestowed immunity for official acts. So even if they are impeached and removed. As long as it's an official act they won't be prosecuted.

ijebosb:

So, the Supreme Court decided that the president's ability to make bold decisions as long as it's via some official act is more important than any laws that may be broken.

Let us assume this view above is true.

Are you asking buda to have so little faith that a line won't be drawn by We The People when the president of the United States stands immune on Fifth Avenue and shoots someone?

ijebosb:

But now the Supreme Court just bestowed immunity for official acts. So even if they are impeached and removed. As long as it's an official act they won't be prosecuted.

Just heard this on CNN too, but its not an understanding I share and its based on the sky falling, a feeling I know you share.

Dump is the first president ever in almost 250 years to have been indicted for crimes in office, and even if he wins in November and does lots more crimes, his time will be done and be over and 2 in 250 years is good innings, the like I'd bet money on. If my country Nigeria hit those sort of odds, I'd say we done good.

You said "this Supreme Court does not represent the majority", and thankfully, that majority is determined at elections by We The People voting.

If We The People want our president to be immune for ordering the National Guard to shoot people, a thing I see dump doing when we Black Lives Matter and My Body My Choice and Charleston, then that's what we'd elect. And if We The People don't want that sort of president we'd elect someone else.

Or is We The People now so maga that no one would see the emperor is naked in the United States of America?

The fear bit I do understand I daresay. If Biden had done a good debate, this judgement would have been a win I'm sure. But we now on wobbly ground come November, sadly.

Biden ended his speech with the more appropriate rally call for Liberal Democrats, as opposed to a dumptatorship.

November we decide if We The People dissent.

budaatum:


Just heard this on CNN too, but its not an understanding I share and its based on the sky falling, a feeling I know you share.

If that's not ur understanding, your understanding is wrong. At this point, you are arguing the definition of immunity or simply don't understood the ruling. It's the top line summation of the decision.

PDGguy posted a summation of the ruling.

PDPGuy:
Here's a detailed summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States:

...
2. Court's Ruling:
- The Court held that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his Presidency.

3. New Immunity Framework:
a. Core Constitutional Powers:
- The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

b. Other Official Acts:
- The President is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
- This presumptive immunity can potentially be overcome if applying a criminal prohibition would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

c. Unofficial Acts:
- There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
...
6. Evidentiary Ruling:
- The Court held that evidence of official acts for which a President is immune cannot be admitted at trial, even to prove intent or knowledge for non-immune acts.

Here is a good thread if you want to understand why your "We the People" argument falls flat.
https://x.com/Mike_Podhorzer/status/1807816938589991189

The full sentence of PDPguy post is important not just half of it

PDPGuy:
Here's a detailed summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States:

1. Background:
- This case concerns the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
- The indictment alleges that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election results through various means, including pressuring state officials and the Vice President.

2. Court's Ruling:
- The Court held that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his Presidency.

3. New Immunity Framework:
a. Core Constitutional Powers:
- The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

b. Other Official Acts:
- The President is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
- This presumptive immunity can potentially be overcome if applying a criminal prohibition would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

c. Unofficial Acts:
- There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

raumdeuter:
The full sentence of PDPguy post is important not just half of it

What in your mind do you think the full sections adds vis a vis the point I was making?

You've been consistently wrong about this since the ruling came out. Why don't you go and spend some time reading it instead of playing gotcha with someone who actually does understand it.

ijebosb:


What in your mind do you think the full sections adds vis a vis the point I was making?

You've been consistently wrong about this since the ruling came out. Why don't you go and spend some time reading it instead of playing gotcha with someone who actually does understand it.

The part in bold is the most important part of the statement which you mischievously left out

The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

Tell Justice Roberts you understand better than him

raumdeuter:


The part in bold is the most important part of the statement which you mischievously left out

The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

Tell Justice Roberts you understand better than him

Can I be honest. I don't think you understand any of this enough to even begin to discuss it. You spent the first half of the day arguing that somehow a Potus's motivitation was relevant in deciding whether an act was official. It isnt and you didnt stop making the argument until I showed you Robert's exact words from the ruling saying the opposite. Now you want to act like an expert again?

I'm still not sure what point you think u are making. I'm sure you're not sure either. But for some reason you want to interject.

I've already schooled you once today. It was Budatuums turn. I generally have patience for one schooling per person per day. You can come back tomm. if you want to get schooled again.

ijebosb:


Can I be honest. I don't think you understand any of this enough to even begin to discuss it. You spent the first half of the day arguing that somehow a Potus's motivitation was relevant in deciding whether an act was official. It isnt and you didnt stop making the argument until I showed you Robert's exact words from the ruling saying the opposite. Now you want to act like an expert again?

I'm still not sure what point you think u are making. I'm sure you're not sure either. But for some reason you want to interject.

I've already schooled you once today. It was Budatuums turn. I generally have patience for one schooling per person per day. You can come back tomm. if you want to get schooled again.

why is it that it is only you that understand?
budaatum oya enrol on this tuition-free institution. come and learn

bemeruca:


why is it that it is only you that understand?

You tell me.
Has anything I've posted on this topic been wrong? Point to it.
In relation to you, because ur an idiot.
Otherwise, ask God why he gave me that ability to quickly break down and understand concepts others like u seem to struggle with.

Ur focus should be why you have a hard time understanding not so complex things and feel the need to lie often.

ijebosb:


You tell me.
Has anything I've posted on this topic been wrong? Point to it.
In relation to you, because ur an idiot.
Otherwise, ask God why he gave me that ability to quickly break down and understand concepts others like u seem to struggle with.

Ur focus should be why you have a hard time understanding not so complex things and feel the need to lie often.

Many, like saying the president can order his boys to kill his political opponent and be immune even if the Constitution does not allow that.

Who noticed Biden looked tanned during the speech... The new orange man?

ijebosb:


If that's not ur understanding, your understanding is wrong. At this point, you are arguing the definition of immunity or simply don't understood the ruling. It's the top line summation of the decision.

PDGguy posted a summation of the ruling.

The below is the conclusion of the post you selectively quoted:

PDPGuy:

10. Implications:
- The decision significantly alters the landscape of Presidential accountability and raises complex questions about the balance of power between branches of government.
- It leaves many open questions about how to categorize Presidential actions and when immunity applies, which lower courts will now have to grapple with.

And here is a further post by the same person where Secret Service is (use of) "official duty".

PDPGuy:

The delineation between “official” and “unofficial” acts would rest with the DC District court. But as raumdeuter suggested, I would think that Judge Chutkin (of the DC District Court) would likely find that Trump, asking a Secret Service agent to assassinate a rival candidate for president, would fall under “unofficial acts”.

ijebosb:
Here is a good thread if you want to understand why your "We the People" argument falls flat.
https://x.com/Mike_Podhorzer/status/1807816938589991189

https://www.weekendreading.net/p/tipping-the-scales-the-maga-justices

The link above is from you tweet showing this goes back to Bush v Gore, and that I've been observing since the 39th. You should have seen me Tea Party. It felt like my world would end then Obama.

The United States of America is a democracy of We The People who elect those who govern, so if We The People want a shoot people kind of president that's what gets elected, and if they don't want they vote something else. It really is as simple as that in my view.

Good thing now is more eyes get to see what's being going on and get to decide if they want it.

Messy for demonrats. The racial monster they bred is eating them alive like hyenas and wild dogs feast on their prey before it's dead

Kamala Harris’s team is concerned that Democrats will install a white candidate ahead of her to replace Joe Biden, arguing that it would be “offensive” to black voters to overlook her should the president stand aside.

Donna Brazille former DNC chair who gave Hillary questions ahead of a presidential debate in 2016 also thinks the optics of replacing a blek with a white are not good.

Popcorn time .

Trump also filed a motion to dismiss Alvin Bragg case against him in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling. He argues the trial used privelleged comms to make it's case. Bragg did not release sentencing guidelines as expected yesterday.

Sham cases withering up or going up in smoke.

bemeruca:


Many, like saying the president can order his boys to kill his political opponent and be immune even if the Constitution does not allow that.

Gaslighting.