Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Califan007 The Constipated

Members
  • Posts

    42,835
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    181

Everything posted by Califan007 The Constipated

  1. Recent summary: Alito: gives a lengthy list of worst-case scenarios if the president does not have absolute immunity. Lawyer arguing against that: says our judicial system has layers upon layers upon layers to keep those worst-case scenarios at bay that have worked for centuries. Sotomayer: says that if all those worst-case scenarios were to actually happen, it won't be due to presidents not having absolute immunity, but rather due to actions taken and legal decisions made that weaken our democracy that is the foundation of our judicial system.
  2. Alito, arguing why absolute immunity could be necessary, said among other things that if an ex-POTUS can be taken to court, "...during the trial, the former president might not be able to engage in activities he wants to..." 😐
  3. Justice Jackson throwing down logic... J: "So for private acts, no immunity. For official acts, there's immunity. So the line drawing problem we're having with the hypotheticals is being necessitated by that assumption. If official acts didn't get absolute immunity, we wouldn't have to worry about drawing the line. So we're assuming official acts get immunity. Why is it that POTUS would not be required to follow the law when he's performing his official act? We know POTUS has the best lawyers in the world, and when he's making a decision he can consult with them to know if its illegal. So how can we say a POTUS can just do any official act and be immune? What is it about POTUS as opposed to other people with consequential jobs - what about POTUS means he doesn't have to follow the law where other officials do?" Sauer: "Well Fitzgerald..." J: "That was civil. Private civil liability. We can see how POTUS is different. But about criminal liability, how does POTUS stand in any different position to follow the law if everyone else has to?" Sauer: "All the checks: public oversight, impeachment, congressional oversight..." J: "I'm not sure that's much of a backstop. You're worried about POTUS being chilled. I'm worried about the opposite effect. Knowing there'd be no penalty for committing crime, what would stop turning the oval office into the seat of crime in the country? If the potential for criminal liability were taken off the table, wouldn't that embolden future presidents to commit crimes? Once we say "no criminal liability", I'm worried we have a worse problem than any "chill".
  4. Yikes...yikes...and yikes lol... I mean, when it comes to Christianity, politics, and mixing the two he's right. Especially about Trump and his classless bible shilling. But still...yikes.
  5. Cohen being sly lol..."Unlike SOME people--ahem--I have great respect for the judge and will voluntarily gag myself."
  6. And they're back. Not sure what's happening, though lol...not seeing much tweeting outside of the DA saying they won't pursue any further questioning about Bannon, at least not at the moment, due to the objections raised by Trump's attorneys.
  7. I don't think that's the point... I think what they are doing is strongly establishing Trump's apparatus for dealing with issues that hurt his campaign and that Cohen was an important and vital part of that apparatus. It disintegrates the argument that Trump simply paid Cohen for legal services, and sets the foundation for all the claims the prosecution made in their opening arguments. It also helps set up Cohen's testimony as being truthful, and for someone like him corroboration of the evidence he provides is absolutely vital.
×
×
  • Create New...