Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Macanudo said:

You realize this is just a picture of trump cut out of paper and glued on a toothpick, right?  There's not a lot of craftsmanship or artistic ability involved.

Honestly it would be great if there was a viral movement for more people to do this... trumpy turds all over the country with one picture after another ending up rolling through FB, Instagram, Xitter, Threads, etc.  Wouldn't it be glorious if Trump's mystique was brought down by trumpy turds?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, texasdago said:

Honestly it would be great if there was a viral movement for more people to do this... trumpy turds all over the country with one picture after another ending up rolling through FB, Instagram, Xitter, Threads, etc.  Wouldn't it be glorious if Trump's mystique was brought down by trumpy turds?

Imagine if it embedded deep enough into our collective conscious that dog piles became known as trumps. Hey watch out for that trump!  You gonna pick up that trump?  My dog needs to make a trump. 

that, friends, is a legacy. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
51 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Imagine if it embedded deep enough into our collective conscious that dog piles became known as trumps. Hey watch out for that trump!  You gonna pick up that trump?  My dog needs to make a trump. 

that, friends, is a legacy. 

Man, we can all dream

Posted

CNN - Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

The extraordinary request is an attempt by Smith to keep the trial – currently scheduled for early March – on track. Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted

If they grant Trump immunity, the turnout may be historic.   So there is that side angle. Either shut down the bs defense or substantially increase the likelihood he won’t be reelected. 

Posted
17 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m pretty proud that I taught about half a dozen older relatives to stop typing in all caps.

Around 2005.

Old people and Mexican women. Had a Mexican stalkerette following me from town to town down there, her arrival preceded by all-caps emails. My Canadian buddy who was on track to have dated all Mexican women told me that was a thing they did. All caps, like a telegram.

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Macanudo said:

You realize this is just a picture of trump cut out of paper and glued on a toothpick, right?  There's not a lot of craftsmanship or artistic ability involved.

SHUT UP. SHUT. UP.

To the other gentleman, yes, yes our finely crafted Trump-poo art-installations are available commercially to discerning customers of the necessary means. Simply DM us with your credit card info and your required amount. Thank you for supporting the arts.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

If they grant Trump immunity, the turnout may be historic.   So there is that side angle. Either shut down the bs defense or substantially increase the likelihood he won’t be reelected. 

If one is immune from prosecution while President, wouldn't that make the President a dictator?

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

If one is immune from prosecution while President, wouldn't that make the President a dictator?

I assume that Ginny Thomas’s  husband would say he’s not a dictator because the House can impeach him and the Senate can remove him. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

So, Smith is forcing them to decide on presidential immunity, WHILE BIDEN IS PRESIDENT? 

Pretty strong move, in my opinion.  Obviously, there's the chance this SCOTUS will go rogue, but it would be unexpected at the least.  Such a ruling would certainly extend to full immunity in office, which is more arguable, for all the reasons (Mueller, cough cough) we've discussed ad nauseum.

Posted

"Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin."

Dumb this down for me. Why would he be immune or constitutionally protected from prosecution? 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Dumb this down for me. Why would he be immune or constitutionally protected from prosecution? 

IMG_3036.jpeg.e7a09f3018bb8d33ffae7593eb332069.jpeg

President Obama’s election interference witch hunt??? That issue is what Donny’s lawyers currently maintain.  ‘Cause want it to be true, and Orange Man pay for them say that.  Really, what other defenses does he have? 

  • Haha 3
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Pretty strong move, in my opinion.  Obviously, there's the chance this SCOTUS will go rogue, but it would be unexpected at the least.  Such a ruling would certainly extend to full immunity in office, which is more arguable, for all the reasons (Mueller, cough cough) we've discussed ad nauseum.

The one thing is, as noted upthread, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is very good with this political/constitutional stuff and usually refines whatever the district court decides, as it recently refined Mehta's decision on civil immunity in Blassingame.  And that can insulate the decision from further review and/or fine tuning and/or reversal at Scotus.

Going straight from Chutkan to Scotus leaves them a blanker slate to write on, and possibly what could be considered a more partisan opinion of the court below.

It is faster, though. And I think Smith is relatively confident that not even this Supreme Court is going to find blanket immunity.

Posted

If there were a ruling that a sitting president is immune from prosecution for crimes, would that not also mean by necessity that any crime committed on the direct order of the president comes with the same immunity?

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

"Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin."

Dumb this down for me. Why would he be immune or constitutionally protected from prosecution? 

The President is immune from criminal prosecution while in office, regardless of when the acts occurred.  This has never been decided, but has been official DOJ policy for more than 50 years.  It will never be tested.

A President is immune from civil liability for acts occurring in office that are within the "outer perimeter of their presidential duties"

What level of immunity from criminal prosecution a former President enjoys post-presidency is an open question.

The reason for granting a president, or any governmental official various types of immunity (most of them have it), is that government would grind to a screeching halt if every decision could be challenged by a personal lawsuit or prosecution against the decision-maker.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Red Five said:

"Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin."

Dumb this down for me. Why would he be immune or constitutionally protected from prosecution? 

 

You are asking us to dumb it down to MAGA-dumb level. That is asking a lot. I'm not sure anybody on here is capable of doing that.

 

 

Posted
37 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Any guesses here ?

i think they protect him 

I actually think this one will go the other way.  We'll see.  I wouldn't put more than lunch money on it, for sure.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I actually think this one will go the other way.  We'll see.  I wouldn't put more than lunch money on it, for sure.

Agreed.

Although this Court seems to be a by-product of Dominionism and related concepts that are antithetical to democracy and pro-autocracy, the Court doesn't seem to have much taste for insulating Trump from himself, or the executive more broadly.  Of course, accreting power to the executive is bound to decrease their own.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.

Although this Court seems to be a by-product of Dominionism and related concepts that are antithetical to democracy and pro-autocracy, the Court doesn't seem to have much taste for insulating Trump from himself, or the executive more broadly.  Of course, accreting power to the executive is bound to decrease their own.

I’d like to hear some of your thoughts on what possible repercussions would be. You are far more knowledgeable than I could ever hope to be in matters related to this stuff so please share some more thoughts about this.

Posted
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.

Although this Court seems to be a by-product of Dominionism and related concepts that are antithetical to democracy and pro-autocracy, the Court doesn't seem to have much taste for insulating Trump from himself, or the executive more broadly.  Of course, accreting power to the executive is bound to decrease their own.

I appreciate you openly discussing these topics. It helps me better understand what is happening. Thanks Twice!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

I’d like to hear some of your thoughts on what possible repercussions would be. You are far more knowledgeable than I could ever hope to be in matters related to this stuff so please share some more thoughts about this.

Well, over the history of the country, we haven't had to decide an issue like this because, heretofore, presidents have been mostly law-abiding.

So, if the country were to somehow stick to something like the course of the last 250 years, the repercussions would be limited to Trump escaping criminal liability, if it were to be decided that he has immunity of some sort from criminal prosecution.

Of course, if another lawless asshole were to be elected, s/he'd be more free to do crimes in office without fear of repercussion outside of political considerations.  Again, if there is some degree of immunity for actions in office.

On the other hand, if the president is found to have little or no immunity, that won't change much except perhaps to slightly constrain executive decisionmaking.

We've had decisions like this before, mostly post-Nixon, resuming a bit with Clinton.  Because the country has stayed the course for the last 50 years, these types of decisions are not significant on a daily or even decennial basis.  But they are pretty fundamental to the operation of the country.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

I appreciate you openly discussing these topics. It helps me better understand what is happening. Thanks Twice!

you only need to thank him once

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 6
Posted

If they go with Trump, it would seem that Biden would also be given some extraordinary powers. But then again it wouldn’t surprise me if scotus sides with Trump, they find a way to ensure that another president doesn’t get the same protection.

  • Like 1
Posted
If they go with Trump, it would seem that Biden would also be given some extraordinary powers. But then again it wouldn’t surprise me if scotus sides with Trump, they find a way to ensure that another president doesn’t get the same protection.

Bingo. It will be a special ruling with super limited reading that only applies to presidents named, oh, I dunno, “Trump.” Never doubt how off the rails Alito and Thomas can go, and who they’ll take with them.
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Bingo. It will be a special ruling with super limited reading that only applies to presidents named, oh, I dunno, “Trump.” Never doubt how off the rails Alito and Thomas can go, and who they’ll take with them.

Why do you even say stupid shit like this?  I mean, you're a lawyer, and that certainly doesn't give you special insight that the rest of us lack, it just gives you the education to know that what you are saying is utter bullshit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Why do you even say stupid shit like this?  I mean, you're a lawyer, and that certainly doesn't give you special insight that the rest of us lack, it just gives you the education to know that what you are saying is utter bullshit.

Hyperbole to make the point. Those two will write shit that you never would have imagined even 10 years ago.
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


Hyperbole to make the point. Those two will write shit that you never would have imagined even 10 years ago.

OK, but your hyperbole blunts the edge of your ledge talking points.  I mean, I assume you actually want to get through to people.  Maybe you just want to clutch your pearls out loud.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Bingo. It will be a special ruling with super limited reading that only applies to presidents named, oh, I dunno, “Trump.” Never doubt how off the rails Alito and Thomas can go, and who they’ll take with them.

 

they already have a plan worked up, I have no doubt

Posted
3 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

If the supremes go against him, i think there is a pretty good chance he abolishes them when he wins.

Or he just tweets “TRUMP HATING JUDGES RUINING OUR COUNTRY. PEOPLE WILL RISE UP AND DESTROY COURTS”

and one is them is attacked. 

and the GOP still votes him in primary because they’re all pieces of shit 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
40 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Or he just tweets “TRUMP HATING JUDGES RUINING OUR COUNTRY. PEOPLE WILL RISE UP AND DESTROY COURTS”

and one is them is attacked. 

and the GOP still votes him in primary because they’re all pieces of shit 

This.  Except he doesn't tweet, he truths.  And only his idiot cult members are a part of that.  



×
×
  • Create New...