US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, The Shredder, ActualCracker and 120 others
Click to expand...
Not my post but a comment on the decision by FBJ_WoodChipper on the Patriots Win site that points out some stuff :
__________________________________________________________________

FBJ_WoodChipper 128 points2 hours ago

SCOTUS also says lower courts are a sham
Moreover, Roberts continues, "the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis" and "did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial" -- and it wasn't briefed before the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
But later in the opinion, the court does weigh in on some aspects. "Trump is ... absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
Click to expand...

NO WONDER demofags really hate Justice Thomas:
Justice Thomas writes a concurring opinion in which he questions the validity of Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel. "If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone authorized to do so by the American people."
Click to expand...

Sotomayor BTFO
From the Sotomayor dissent, which is joined by both Kagan and Jackson: Today's ruling "reshapes the institution of the Presidency" and "makes a mockery of the principle . . . that no man is above the law." The decision "gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."
Click to expand...

Can't wait till this sold out bitch is replaced by a patriot
Sotomayor does not use "respectfully" with "dissent" here or at the end of her dissent, which concludes: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
Click to expand...
Jumanji Jackson also omits "respectfully" from her separate dissent.
Click to expand...

These dems on Scotus are such a disgrace
Jack Smith BTFO even more
The court also notes in a footnote that the district court "if necessary" should consider whether two of the charges brought by Jack Smith against Trump in Washington, involving the obstruction of an official proceeding, can go forward in light of the court's ruling last week in Fischer v. United States, narrowing the scope of that law.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, invisibult plus+, Zaryiu2 and 14 others
Useful_Mistake said:
I'm having an odd suspicion that they aren't aware what an "official act" is
Click to expand...
All the lefties I know are creaming their jeans over the idea of screaming "THIS IS AN OFFICIAL ACT!" as they shoot, run over, stab, or otherwise kill their political enemies consequence free.

Basically they think they now have Jimbo's hunting loophole from South Park. Just yell it before opening fire.
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Winner
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Haloperidol, invisibult plus+ and 20 others
Useful_Mistake said:
Florida and Texas passed laws to regulate Big Tech based on different legal theories. The 11th Circuit stopped the implementation of the Florida Law while the lawsuit was underway, and 5th Circuit approved the Texas law while the case was underway. Supreme Court reversed both decisions, finding that neither court did their job properly. Both courts will now have to make a new ruling in light of the instructions provided by the Supreme Court
Click to expand...
Thank you friend I very much appreciate it :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Birdbonks, Vecr, World Famous Quasi Payer and 3 others
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Haloperidol, invisibult plus+, Yamma Damma and 21 others
  • Like
Reactions: Yamma Damma, The Howlers of Mars, Birdbonks and 10 others
JackoVerde said:
now this makes biden, obama and bush unprosecutable as well, but i guess you take what you can get.
biden might be prosecuted for acts as vice president which is possible.
Click to expand...
Biden has committed a multitude of criminal acts going back to his days as a Senator. And just because he, as President, may be immune from prosecution, doesn't protect his boy Hunter or his brother James from prosecution for doing his dirty work

Basically, Trump can still get him
namelesstacotruck said:
Merchan can still jail him.
Click to expand...
Useful_Mistake said:
To the extent of the finance case, I don't think those would be official acts, and so this wouldn't matter
Click to expand...
Uh, no actually. Because in NY case they never bothered to examine what was and what wasn't an official act, and because they argued that Trump paid the money to protect his Presidency, Trump could potentially get part of it, if not the whole thing, thrown out on a technicality
Harvey Danger said:
Trump is going to lose people just for the felony conviction alone. There's a significant chunk of his older, apolitical supporters who didn't vote for Hilary in 2016 because she was a criminal, and won't vote for him now because he's officially a criminal.
Click to expand...
If this were true it would be reflected in the polling. We've known for over a year now that Trump is going to be politically prosecuted so the idea that he might be convicted is baked into the cake, and Trump's poll numbers have surged if anything. What this indicates is clear - the people do not view this as a legitimate prosecution. It is not like the Hillary situation where Hillary Clinton was accused of committing actual crimes, the Trump voters polled obviously view these as trumped up (pun intended) charges
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, invisibult plus+, Zaryiu2 and 12 others
Dr J said:
Uh, no actually. Because in NY case they never bothered to examine what was and what wasn't an official act, and because they argued that Trump paid the money to protect his Presidency, Trump could potentially get part of it, if not the whole thing, thrown out on a technicality
Click to expand...
He paid while he was campaigning for his 2016 presidency. There's no way that qualifies as an official act. Had he done so in his 2020 cycle, that could plausibly be a different story
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Birdbonks, Irene and 22 others and 5 others
Harvey Danger said:
Trump is going to lose people just for the felony conviction alone. There's a significant chunk of his older, apolitical supporters who didn't vote for Hilary in 2016 because she was a criminal, and won't vote for him now because he's officially a criminal. I know how stupid that sounds to the politically aware, the outraged partisans, and other people closely following the trials; but there's a reason network and cable news still survive, and it's because of these people who react and vote on such headlines.

Point being, Trump isn't starting with 2020 numbers, he's already taking a drop as well. Biden dementia worriers have to drop support in equal numbers just to hit the same baseline, before we bring in the margin of fraud (which the GOP still hasn't done enough to fight). And they have to be equally distributed in battleground states to matter; he could lose a third of his California or New York voters and still win such states.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking retarded?
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: St.Davis, Zaryiu2, Yamma Damma and 28 others
Useful_Mistake said:
He paid while he was campaigning for his 2016 presidency. There's no way that qualifies as an official act. Had he done so in his 2020 cycle, that could plausibly be a different story
Click to expand...
Here's the thiiiiiiiing, in Cohens perjured testimony, contradicting what he said prior, he claims Trump did pay him back and on this repayment rests the entire case. He claims Trump paid him back some time after the payment in October 2016. Meaning the payment would be when Trump was President.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Yamma Damma, pwnest injun and 18 others
Dr J said:
No, the receipts date from 2017, when he was in office. That was part of their defence, he couldn't have possibly authorised those payments because he wasn't CEO of the Trump Organisation at the time, he'd given up his post to assume office.
Click to expand...
Gehenna said:
Here's the thiiiiiiiing, in Cohens perjured testimony, contradicting what he said prior, he claims Trump did pay him back and on this repayment rests the entire case. He claims Trump paid him back some time after the payment in October 2016. Meaning the payment would be when Trump was President.
Click to expand...
But I'm still unsure as to how that would be an official act.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Yamma Damma, Historical Strelkov, HackerX and 1 other person
Useful_Mistake said:
But I'm still unsure as to how that would be an official act.
Click to expand...
The point is that Merchan never made that determination that it was not. The SCOTUS decision lays out that you basically -have- to address the question in order to charge the president. Hence why the original post on this topic was noting it would be Trump getting out on a technicality.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Yamma Damma, John.Doe, Historical Strelkov and 12 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back