Despite old Joe Biden's administration weaponizing the Justice department to try to lock their political opponent up, it has failed! They will not be able to try to lock him up again before the election.  This will put a big stop of the LEFT WING Radicals from trying to lock up their political opponent instead of beating them fair and square.  Its a good day for America, and a Good day for Democracy!

https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-tr...ty-updates

---

Sotomayor says this decision means that Biden can now order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump, and not be prosecuted. Military acts are official, of course.
Is she wrong? Why?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As far as liberal tears flowing, I present exhibit A:

Sotomayor says this decision means that Biden can now order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump, and not be prosecuted. Military acts are official, of course.
Is she wrong? Why?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Sotomayor says this decision means that Biden can now order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump, and not be prosecuted. Military acts are official, of course.
Is she wrong? Why?

Holy [BLEEP] dude. THIS is the guy you get your thoughts from???



https://twitter.com/harryjsisson/status/...BAZKg&s=19

---

Mike, your people are broken.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...GePUw&s=19

---

The liberals have a hard core dose of brainwashing. I am an independent but damn one side is so far gone there is no hope. Biden could of sat up during the debate and just Shat himself and some would still vote for him. Their Trump Derangement Syndrome is so bad they lose all common sense. Some of the most intelligent people in the world turn into babbling idiots when it comes to Trump.

---

Sotomayor says this decision means that Biden can now order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump, and not be prosecuted. Military acts are official, of course.
Is she wrong? Why?

Holy [BLEEP] dude. THIS is the guy you get your thoughts from???



https://twitter.com/harryjsisson/status/...BAZKg&s=19

It's literally in Sotomayor's dissent.  Read.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

mikesez and the other far left democrats have their latest talking point(s).  LOL.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

mikesez and the other far left democrats have their latest talking point(s).  LOL.

If Biden ordered a drone strike against Trump, could be be criminally prosecuted for that after he left office?

Not asking if the order would be carried out.
Not asking about impeachment.
This is about criminal prosecution.  Could Biden be criminally prosecuted for ordering a strike on Trump?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

mikesez and the other far left democrats have their latest talking point(s).  LOL.

If Biden ordered a drone strike against Trump, could be be criminally prosecuted for that after he left office?

Not asking if the order would be carried out.
Not asking about impeachment.
This is about criminal prosecution.  Could Biden be criminally prosecuted for ordering a strike on Trump?

I have seen this crap plastered all over Reddit.  "Biden should call seal team 6 to take out trump."

The Irony is so rich.  They say Trump is a threat to Democracy but if you listen to the crazy Liberals talking about putting Hits out on Trump and the like, it is the most anti-Democratic crap you have ever read.  I can pitcher your average lib with his crazy Blue or Green Hair shouting on the Streets about this stuff today.  #ClownWorld

---

As for liberal tears flowing... exhibit B:

mikesez and the other far left democrats have their latest talking point(s).  LOL.

If Biden ordered a drone strike against Trump, could be be criminally prosecuted for that after he left office?

Not asking if the order would be carried out.
Not asking about impeachment.
This is about criminal prosecution.  Could Biden be criminally prosecuted for ordering a strike on Trump?

The short answer is no.

Anyone sane would know that soldiers/sailors are supposed to follow lawful orders.  This would be an unlawful order that would never take place.

Now if Biden (in your fantasy world) actually attempted a strike against President Trump on his own, then yes he could and should be prosecuted.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It's not fantasy. It's not hysteria. It's a hypothetical. Doing law is supposed to be about answering hypotheticals, even crazy ones.

It's OK that you don't want to do it and don't understand it I guess. The Supreme Court majority didn't want to consider them either. They remanded.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

mikesez and the other far left democrats have their latest talking point(s).  LOL.

If Biden ordered a drone strike against Trump, could be be criminally prosecuted for that after he left office?

Not asking if the order would be carried out.
Not asking about impeachment.
This is about criminal prosecution.  Could Biden be criminally prosecuted for ordering a strike on Trump?

I think what the Supreme Court said was that a President cannot be prosecuted for doing things that are part of his official Presidential duties.  So the question would be, is a drone strike on Trump an official Presidential duty, or something done for his personal benefit?  I think Biden could be prosecuted on that basis.  Because a drone strike on a political rival is not an official Presidential duty.  

That would really be a slam dunk case.

---

https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/...8a70Q&s=19

---

If Biden ordered a drone strike against Trump, could be be criminally prosecuted for that after he left office?

Not asking if the order would be carried out.
Not asking about impeachment.
This is about criminal prosecution.  Could Biden be criminally prosecuted for ordering a strike on Trump?

I think what the Supreme Court said was that a President cannot be prosecuted for doing things that are part of his official Presidential duties.  So the question would be, is a drone strike on Trump an official Presidential duty, or something done for his personal benefit?  I think Biden could be prosecuted on that basis.  Because a drone strike on a political rival is not an official Presidential duty.  

That would really be a slam dunk case.

What if Biden called for a mob to hang Kamala Harris for some reason?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think what the Supreme Court said was that a President cannot be prosecuted for doing things that are part of his official Presidential duties.  So the question would be, is a drone strike on Trump an official Presidential duty, or something done for his personal benefit?  I think Biden could be prosecuted on that basis.  Because a drone strike on a political rival is not an official Presidential duty.  

That would really be a slam dunk case.

What if Biden called for a mob to hang Kamala Harris for some reason?

Same answer.  I see where you're going, and it's a valid point, and it's why I don't think there should be so much angst about this ruling.  Trump can still be prosecuted for acts which are not part of his official duties as President.  AND, Biden cannot ask Seal Team 6 to take out Trump, either.

Of course, there's as yet no evidence Trump asked a mob to hang Mike Pence.  He's largely responsible for what happened on January 6, but he never asked anyone to hang Mike Pence that I can recall.

---

I think what the Supreme Court said was that a President cannot be prosecuted for doing things that are part of his official Presidential duties.  So the question would be, is a drone strike on Trump an official Presidential duty, or something done for his personal benefit?  I think Biden could be prosecuted on that basis.  Because a drone strike on a political rival is not an official Presidential duty.  

That would really be a slam dunk case.

What if Biden called for a mob to hang Kamala Harris for some reason?

Your mask is coming off bro.

---

What if Biden called for a mob to hang Kamala Harris for some reason?

Same answer.  I see where you're going, and it's a valid point, and it's why I don't think there should be so much angst about this ruling.  Trump can still be prosecuted for acts which are not part of his official duties as President.  AND, Biden cannot ask Seal Team 6 to take out Trump, either.

Of course, there's as yet no evidence Trump asked a mob to hang Mike Pence.  He's largely responsible for what happened on January 6, but he never asked anyone to hang Mike Pence that I can recall.

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What if Biden called for a mob to hang Kamala Harris for some reason?

Your mask is coming off bro.

He'll summon The Dark Mother Nature to bring justice to Trump, for all jackass kind lolol

---

Same answer.  I see where you're going, and it's a valid point, and it's why I don't think there should be so much angst about this ruling.  Trump can still be prosecuted for acts which are not part of his official duties as President.  AND, Biden cannot ask Seal Team 6 to take out Trump, either.

Of course, there's as yet no evidence Trump asked a mob to hang Mike Pence.  He's largely responsible for what happened on January 6, but he never asked anyone to hang Mike Pence that I can recall.

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.

---