(07-01-2024, 05:50 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2024, 05:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It would be nice if "official acts" was defined or explained in the decision. The Supremes did not say if any particular thing Trump did was official or not. Hypotheticals would have been nice but weren't necessary. Trump already did all the things he did. They were already listed in the indictment. All the supremes had to do was say what was official and what was not. Could have been none of the things, could have been all of them.
It's an embarrassingly incomplete decision. If they tried this in law school they would have been held back.
They said the judge needs to decide what is or is not an official act.
Gosh too bad there are no judges on the Supreme Court. They should add some!
Biden is going to give remarks tonight at 7:45 about the SCOTUS immunity ruling. This should put Hunter's drug cooking skills to test.
I feel a sadness for Biden, not that I support him, but he is a person. Watching the debate his actions or lack of them was all too familiar. I watched first my wife then my dad go through the same thing. Both could hold it together for a limited amount of time. Then the words and thoughts just would not come to them. I do not need any doctor to tell me what is up.
This SCOTUS ruling has brought a lot of stupid people to the surface.
(07-02-2024, 09:08 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]This SCOTUS ruling has brought a lot of stupid people to the surface.
What's weird is that both Trump and his most vociferous critics seem to think the ruling makes a President immune from prosecution for anything. Which is completely false.
(07-02-2024, 10:08 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 09:08 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]This SCOTUS ruling has brought a lot of stupid people to the surface.
What's weird is that both Trump and his most vociferous critics seem to think the ruling makes a President immune from prosecution for anything. Which is completely false.
True statement. The saddest part is that lie is being promulgated by a Supreme Court justice.
(07-02-2024, 10:20 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:08 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]What's weird is that both Trump and his most vociferous critics seem to think the ruling makes a President immune from prosecution for anything. Which is completely false.
True statement. The saddest part is that lie is being promulgated by a Supreme Court justice.
If only the majority opinion had given any information to refute what the dissent said...
The Constitution explicitly lists pardons as one of the President's powers.
Taking a bribe is a criminal act.
But
If the President takes a payment in exchange for a pardon, is that not an official act? Is he not then immune from prosecution for bribery?
(07-02-2024, 10:20 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:08 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]What's weird is that both Trump and his most vociferous critics seem to think the ruling makes a President immune from prosecution for anything. Which is completely false.
True statement. The saddest part is that lie is being promulgated by a Supreme Court justice.
I remember hearing something coming out from somewhere within the SCOTUS and their myriad staffers that she might be the weakest legal mind to ever hold a seat based on behaviors and comments observed since she's been a Justice. I don't recall the exact quote or who specifically said it, but I do distinctly remember the harsh criticism apparently coming from within. I just went and tried to see if I could find it, but could not. I did find this though, which seems to jive.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39899713
(07-02-2024, 10:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:20 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]True statement. The saddest part is that lie is being promulgated by a Supreme Court justice.
If only the majority opinion had given any information to refute what the dissent said...
The Constitution explicitly lists pardons as one of the President's powers.
Taking a bribe is a criminal act.
But
If the President takes a payment in exchange for a pardon, is that not an official act? Is he not then immune from prosecution for bribery?
There will come a time when the SCOTUS is packed with 9 people who think like this justice. It won't be our lifetime or our kids lifetime, but when that time comes, America will be over.
(07-02-2024, 10:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:20 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]True statement. The saddest part is that lie is being promulgated by a Supreme Court justice.
If only the majority opinion had given any information to refute what the dissent said...
The Constitution explicitly lists pardons as one of the President's powers.
Taking a bribe is a criminal act.
But
If the President takes a payment in exchange for a pardon, is that not an official act? Is he not then immune from prosecution for bribery?
It does not shield them from illegalities. That would be illegal.
With that said, let’s hope Hunter doesn’t try to peddle daddy’s powers before puddin’ brains leaves office.
(07-02-2024, 10:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:20 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]True statement. The saddest part is that lie is being promulgated by a Supreme Court justice.
If only the majority opinion had given any information to refute what the dissent said...
The Constitution explicitly lists pardons as one of the President's powers.
Taking a bribe is a criminal act.
But
If the President takes a payment in exchange for a pardon, is that not an official act? Is he not then immune from prosecution for bribery?
Great question. I think that would be prosecutable.
But you have to protect Presidents from prosecution for official acts because otherwise, every President would be hauled into court continuously.
(07-02-2024, 10:32 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If only the majority opinion had given any information to refute what the dissent said...
The Constitution explicitly lists pardons as one of the President's powers.
Taking a bribe is a criminal act.
But
If the President takes a payment in exchange for a pardon, is that not an official act? Is he not then immune from prosecution for bribery?
There will come a time when the SCOTUS is packed with 9 people who think like this justice. It won't be our lifetime or our kids lifetime, but when that time comes, America will be over.
They made a movie about it. A soldier and a prostitute took part in some military operation that that put them each in stasis inside a capsule where they woke up hundreds of years in the future and society had been doomed by stupid people breeding at a much faster pace than smart people.
Brawndo, it's got what plants crave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAqIJZeeXEc
Water? Like out the toilet?
Great comedy movie by the way.
(07-02-2024, 10:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If only the majority opinion had given any information to refute what the dissent said...
The Constitution explicitly lists pardons as one of the President's powers.
Taking a bribe is a criminal act.
But
If the President takes a payment in exchange for a pardon, is that not an official act? Is he not then immune from prosecution for bribery?
Great question. I think that would be prosecutable.
But you have to protect Presidents from prosecution for official acts because otherwise, every President would be hauled into court continuously.
Right, taking a payment or donation for anything other than his salary would be an unofficial act.
But the pardon would be an official act.
And under this decision, because it was an official act, the pardon could not even be introduced into evidence if there was a trial over the bribe payment.
So I think we would agree that the payment would not be shielded from prosecution, but how would the prosecutor prove that it was a bribe, if the prosecutor is not allowed to introduce the pardon as a piece of evidence?
(07-02-2024, 12:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Great question. I think that would be prosecutable.
But you have to protect Presidents from prosecution for official acts because otherwise, every President would be hauled into court continuously.
Right, taking a payment or donation for anything other than his salary would be an unofficial act.
But the pardon would be an official act.
And under this decision, because it was an official act, they could not even be introduced into evidence if there was a trial over the bribe payment.
So I think we would agree that the payment would not be shielded from prosecution, but how would the prosecutor prove that it was a bribe, if the prosecutor is not allowed to introduce the pardon as a piece of evidence?
What is this, Harvard Law School? I don't know that the prosecution is not allowed to bring up the pardon as a piece of evidence. Just because he can't be prosecuted for an official act, that doesn't mean the official act can't be introduced as part of the evidence at the trial. Unless you know different...
(07-02-2024, 10:41 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:32 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]There will come a time when the SCOTUS is packed with 9 people who think like this justice. It won't be our lifetime or our kids lifetime, but when that time comes, America will be over.
They made a movie about it. A soldier and a prostitute took part in some military operation that that put them each in stasis inside a capsule where they woke up hundreds of years in the future and society had been doomed by stupid people breeding at a much faster pace than smart people.
Brawndo, it's got what plants crave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAqIJZeeXEc
Water? Like out the toilet?
Great comedy movie by the way.
I've seen that movie many times.
It's about the dumbing down of pop culture and elected officials, not Harvard educated judges.
(07-02-2024, 12:34 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 12:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Right, taking a payment or donation for anything other than his salary would be an unofficial act.
But the pardon would be an official act.
And under this decision, because it was an official act, they could not even be introduced into evidence if there was a trial over the bribe payment.
So I think we would agree that the payment would not be shielded from prosecution, but how would the prosecutor prove that it was a bribe, if the prosecutor is not allowed to introduce the pardon as a piece of evidence?
What is this, Harvard Law School? I don't know that the prosecution is not allowed to bring up the pardon as a piece of evidence. Just because he can't be prosecuted for an official act, that doesn't mean the official act can't be introduced as part of the evidence at the trial. Unless you know different...
The majority held that official acts are not only immune from prosecution, they also cannot be used as evidence of crimes. Ty Cobb was surprised along with other commentators.
(07-02-2024, 12:34 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 12:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Right, taking a payment or donation for anything other than his salary would be an unofficial act.
But the pardon would be an official act.
And under this decision, because it was an official act, they could not even be introduced into evidence if there was a trial over the bribe payment.
So I think we would agree that the payment would not be shielded from prosecution, but how would the prosecutor prove that it was a bribe, if the prosecutor is not allowed to introduce the pardon as a piece of evidence?
What is this, Harvard Law School? I don't know that the prosecution is not allowed to bring up the pardon as a piece of evidence. Just because he can't be prosecuted for an official act, that doesn't mean the official act can't be introduced as part of the evidence at the trial. Unless you know different...
![[Image: 22eal6.gif]](https://i.imgflip.com/22eal6.gif)
I heard drinking Clorox during Covid boosts your immune system so I can see why he was granted immunity.
..... 4 months away from Netflix release of Season 2 of the Bold and the Beautiful (Presidential Style)
It's hard to believe what is considered official presidential business and what is considered illegal has to be spelled out so specifically. It's pretty simple.
In the most basic terms if it benefits the country and/or the world as a whole (disposing of bin Laden for example) and it's gone through proper channels it's official presidential business. If it only benefits the president, his family, etc., (POTUS takes out his opponent or weaponizes any department against an opponent) it's illegal.
If a president makes a unilateral decision "for the good of the country" without going through proper channels it's illegal. People like to give Trump grief for the 'warp speed' Covid vaccine situation and the Covid relief checks sent out to everyone but he didn't make those decisions in a vacuum, he had to go through proper channels. The same goes for Biden's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. That didn't happen just because he said to do it.
The media, left and right, has spun up so much BS and people actually believe it all. Swallow it like it's nectar from the gods. Critical thinking has left the building.
(07-02-2024, 02:18 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]I heard drinking Clorox during Covid boosts your immune system so I can see why he was granted immunity.
..... 4 months away from Netflix release of Season 2 of the Bold and the Beautiful (Presidential Style)
Where did you hear that?
(07-02-2024, 10:33 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2024, 10:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If only the majority opinion had given any information to refute what the dissent said...
The Constitution explicitly lists pardons as one of the President's powers.
Taking a bribe is a criminal act.
But
If the President takes a payment in exchange for a pardon, is that not an official act? Is he not then immune from prosecution for bribery?
It does not shield them from illegalities. That would be illegal.
With that said, let’s hope Hunter doesn’t try to peddle daddy’s powers before puddin’ brains leaves office.
Actually I hope he does. This will show the people a clear corruption in using their power.
(07-02-2024, 02:18 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]I heard drinking Clorox during Covid boosts your immune system so I can see why he was granted immunity.
..... 4 months away from Netflix release of Season 2 of the Bold and the Beautiful (Presidential Style)
Ironically, the two happiest networks to get Trump back is CNN and MSNBC. Their rating have been in the toilet since Trump left and you know they harp on every word or every thing that he says. Seriously look it up. CNN especially their ratings fell off the map after they ran out of material for Trump these last few years. This election and Trump is probably saving their network.