Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air). Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor sends immunity case back to the lower court. Aileen Cannon (R-Florida) dismisses classified docs case

[China]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

How long till Eileen Cannon rules that making off with classified documents is an official act?  

 

That would actually be good, because his crimes in that case occurred after he was no longer president, so by definition can't be official acts.  That would get her appealed and likely removed from the case, so I hope she does that.

[Jumbo]

I wish upon a star that every judge connected to the federalist society.....oops, phones ringing. 😁 

[Larry]

I'm also revising my wish. 

 

I want Dark Brandon to order Seal Team Six to assassinate Donald Trump, and every Supreme Court Justice who signed this ruling.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

32 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Does it really matter. If the lower courts rule against Trump, Trump will as appeal to Supremes and they will agree that everything Trump is charged with, is an official act and he’s immune.

If they do that. On the other hand they specifically said he was not immune from unofficial acts.

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

We know for certain that ordering the VP to violate the Constitution is not an official act.

[TradeTheBeal!]

How many waterboards will it take for Ginni Thomas to spill the beans?

[China]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If they do that. On the other hand they specifically said he was not immune from unofficial acts.

 

I was unaware that crimes could be official acts.  That must be part of the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

[Jumbo]

Most immediate, it def adds months to outcomes in the "jan 6" and "documents" trials. I think the conservatives on scotus and cannon have carefully, yet still  obviously, tried to be "judicial activists" in stalling trump trials.

 

That alone condemns and invalidates them in my eyes. I hold zero respect for them as judges.  Not that I can do much other than follow a pledge I'm making.

 

I will continue to identify as an independent because it's how I've been since my first vote. An I still have voted, even since Trump and maga,  for the occasional goper or Indy at various levels of government inc as high as state reps, though not Senate fir quite awhile. I was seriously considering McCain until Palin, though I liked a fair amount of stuff about this new Obama guy, who did end up with my vote. And I'm sure glad I did vote for him for my own self assessment as a voter.

 

Since Trump, I increasingly find the conservative/GOP/maga segment to effectively be one terribly diseased and toxic demographic, and I will not vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my days, and I will increase my activism even more.

 

Everyone who's not maga, please get out there and work, do social media too, but please get out there. We're all needed.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

15 minutes ago, China said:

 

I was unaware that crimes could be official acts.  That must be part of the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

 

 

well, on this my head is way below the weeds, but they didn’t say crimes were official acts, did they? Just that official act could not be prosecuted.

I was picturing a scenario where criminal acts are not official acts, de facto. But it seems like how you are interpreting it is if president  instructs his general to commit a war crime he is immune from prosecution?

[Jumbo]

28 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

How many waterboards will it take for Ginni Thomas to spill the beans?

 

One if I do it. I skip the water and focus on the board. I just use a 2x4 applied with a great amount of anatomical knowledge. Water preservation! 

[MrSilverMaC]

The nsa just needs to label maga as a terrorist organization and anyone professing their creed as an enemy combatant.

 

I mean, they’ve already attacked the capital.

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

6 minutes ago, MrSilverMaC said:

The nsa just needs to label maga as a terrorist organization and anyone professing their creed as an enemy combatant.

 

I mean, they’ve already attacked the capital.

 

Only problem is they would have to label the entire GOP like that, since the party has adopted all of Trump's lies as fact. And I don't see that happening.

Edited July 1 by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

[EmirOfShmo]

I hope we start to hear crimes (and the evidence) that he committed during an "offical act". 

[HOF44]

1 hour ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

We know for certain that ordering the VP to violate the Constitution is not an official act.

An official act will be whatever the Supreme Court tells us it is.  With Rep look for broad latitude. With Dems ain’t hardly anything an official act. 

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

2 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

An official act will be whatever the Supreme Court tells us it is.  With Rep look for broad latitude. With Dems ain’t hardly anything an official act. 

 

True, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say if a POTUS doesn't agree with the results of an election that's it's perfectly fine to send goons to storm the Capitol.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

[Jumbo]

2 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

An official act will be whatever the Supreme Court tells us it is.  With Rep look for broad latitude. With Dems ain’t hardly anything an official act. 

 

 

 Very hard not be cynical and expect just that.

 

When it comes to the thoughts, words, and deeds emanating from the right wing of the middle finger these days, I'm not really sure the word  "cynical" has much of a role.

[EmirOfShmo]

 

'Disaster': Legal analyst cites 'big deal' buried on page 18 of Roberts' pro-Trump ruling

 

Speaking with MSNBC host Katy Tur, Lisa Rubin held up a copy of the ruling and bluntly stated, "I want to put my voice in with Andrew [Rosenberg's] choir here and say this is much more of a disaster than it might seem based on the rules that are being carved out here."

"For two reasons: one, at oral argument John Sauer, for former president Donald Trump, acknowledged that the fraudulent election scheme was what he would describe as private conduct," she began.

"Despite that concession, in the majority opinion they are saying that still lives for another day to determine whether or not that's private. That's conduct that Chief Justice Roberts expressly describes among the buckets of stuff that Judge [Tanya] Chutkan still has to weigh; whether it's private or official, indicating that they think it might be official."

"The second thing, and Katy, this is a big deal, it's on page 18," she added. "There's a big paragraph in terms of the guidelines for Judge Chutkan in determining what's official and what's unofficial. And they say, the majority, 'In divining official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president's motives.' This was a huge issue at oral argument: Chief Justice Roberts asking John Sauer 'what about bribery?'"

"Let's say former president Trump or a president appointing somebody to an ambassadorship gets a whole bunch of money for that, are you saying we can't consider the bribery but we can consider the acceptance of the money?" she elaborated.

"That's nonsensical. Despite that, they're carving a rule that says the motive can't be considered. If you appoint somebody, it doesn't matter whether you're doing that for your own private gain."

"How can that be? How can they write an opinion that says that?" host Tur pressed.

"I want to be clear with what we're seeing here," Rubin replied. "I want to go back to [former solicitor general] Neil Katyal's comments — this is not so much an opinion as it is a broad edict meant to serve a particular moment, even while they say they are writing a rule for the ages."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-immunity-2668654338/

 

 

 

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

4 minutes ago, EmirOfShmo said:

 

'Disaster': Legal analyst cites 'big deal' buried on page 18 of Roberts' pro-Trump ruling

 

Speaking with MSNBC host Katy Tur, Lisa Rubin held up a copy of the ruling and bluntly stated, "I want to put my voice in with Andrew [Rosenberg's] choir here and say this is much more of a disaster than it might seem based on the rules that are being carved out here."

"For two reasons: one, at oral argument John Sauer, for former president Donald Trump, acknowledged that the fraudulent election scheme was what he would describe as private conduct," she began.

"Despite that concession, in the majority opinion they are saying that still lives for another day to determine whether or not that's private. That's conduct that Chief Justice Roberts expressly describes among the buckets of stuff that Judge [Tanya] Chutkan still has to weigh; whether it's private or official, indicating that they think it might be official."

"The second thing, and Katy, this is a big deal, it's on page 18," she added. "There's a big paragraph in terms of the guidelines for Judge Chutkan in determining what's official and what's unofficial. And they say, the majority, 'In divining official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president's motives.' This was a huge issue at oral argument: Chief Justice Roberts asking John Sauer 'what about bribery?'"

"Let's say former president Trump or a president appointing somebody to an ambassadorship gets a whole bunch of money for that, are you saying we can't consider the bribery but we can consider the acceptance of the money?" she elaborated.

"That's nonsensical. Despite that, they're carving a rule that says the motive can't be considered. If you appoint somebody, it doesn't matter whether you're doing that for your own private gain."

"How can that be? How can they write an opinion that says that?" host Tur pressed.

"I want to be clear with what we're seeing here," Rubin replied. "I want to go back to [former solicitor general] Neil Katyal's comments — this is not so much an opinion as it is a broad edict meant to serve a particular moment, even while they say they are writing a rule for the ages."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-immunity-2668654338/

 

 

 

 

Who watches the watchmen? I wonder if this rises to the level of a legal error, but of course no one can 'review' what the SC decides.

[China]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

2 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Does Johnson really believe his own lies? Or does he think the GOP can control Trump??

[Fergasun]

Let's walk through this.  A president, could ask Seal Team 6 to assasinate anyone, direct his AG to file swift crimnal charges, and then pardon everyone involved and grant clemency, etc.. 

 

NOT A CRIME!! DEFENDING THE NATION IS AN OFFICIAL ACT. 

 

Obviously there's no question about the self-pardon.  About him shutting down the Special Counsel now.

[Cooked Crack]

Paying off a pornstar? That's an official act

[Renegade7]

SCOTUS isn't jus horrible for what they are allowing, it's even worse when stuff that obviously shouldn't happen can be dileberated on 1st before its stopped if it's already started.

 

Trump would take the kids in cages thing over the top and SCOTUS would debate on Constitutional protections for Non-Citizens while people would be dying during netherworld heat waves we getting more of lately.

 

If Biden can constitutionally assassinate Trump to stay in power via an Official Act we are far more f'd as a country then that is funny.