DescentBB

If woody thinks this recent SCOTUS decision is great for Trump and America, just remember it now applies to ALL presidents, no matter which party they belong to. What SCOTUS gave to Trump, they also gave to Biden, and every future president. Time will tell if this country continues as a democracy, or turns into an autocracy. Pandora's Box has been opened and we may not like what happens.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/just ... osecution/

Wtf... we're just a banana republic with this SCOTUS...

Now, the president can do what he wants, as long as it's an official act. Who defines that? The fact he's in office as president? What laws do apply to him? Technically, Nixon would've gotten off with this decision. Now as it stands, anything Trump said or did as president was an official act, so nothing can be presented as evidence in any court of law. He's immune. This particularly affects the election interference case against him, because much of the shenanigans and phone requests he did occurred while he was president. So who determines what's"official", even if it's criminal? Welcome to the Banana Republic of the United States. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves and this comes just days before the 4th of July. Not much to celebrate now.

I just want to go on record for the future Ministry of Love/Truth:

All hail President Trump, president for life and God Emperor and Last President of the United States. Only president we'll ever need again and may he live forever.

The First and foremost "official duty" of the POTUS is to uphold the constitution, therefore an attempted coup cannot be considered an "official act".

Tunnelcat wrote:Now, the president can do what he wants, as long as it's an official act. Who defines that?

The Supreme Court, of course, has reserved this judgement solely for themselves.

Spidey wrote:The First and foremost "official duty" of the POTUS is to uphold the constitution, therefore an attempted coup cannot be considered an "official act".

Trump telling Pence to stop the constitutionally mandated certification of the election results was an official act, says this court. Not only is the act itself not prosecutable, it also can't be used as evidence in support of prosecutions for other "unofficial" criminal acts.

And you got that straight from the official transcripts of the hearing?

Trump, the court held, has total immunity for official acts as president related to his core constitutional duties. That includes the communications he had with Department of Justice officials about allegations of election fraud. And so, that portion of the indictment against Trump is effectively dead.

Beyond that, the six justices said there is a presumption of immunity for any other official acts. In practical terms, that means prosecutors will have to work much harder to bring a case against Trump.

The court added, however, that presidents do not have immunity for non-official actions.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion, went on to apply this standard specifically to the former president – guidance that could be particularly damaging to the prosecution in the election interference case.

Trump’s attempts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence not to certify Joe Biden’s election victory – a key part of Jack Smith’s case – is the kind of official action subject to that higher standard of legal review.

The former president’s comments on 6 January 2021, which are alleged to have incited the Capitol attack, are also likely to be deemed official actions.

The chief justice also said “testimony or private records of the president or his advisers” are not admissible in court. This greatly limits the kinds of evidence prosecutors can introduce to support their case, even in instances involving non-official actions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c903q4yq4deo

Nice try but that is not an official hearing transcript.

That is a few quotes, with god only knows what context, and a bunch of ospinions.

...Ok.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_e2pg.pdf

Spidey, an "official act" isn't a term rooted in the Constitution or Federal law. That term was created by SCOTUS in the Nixon vs. Fitzgerald case during Watergate. So what that means is that it's ultimately up to SCOTUS and the courts to determine what is and is not an official act. How murky is that? In fact, yesterday's decision pretty much says that what Nixon did was an official act that should have no repercussions. So Ford wouldn't have had to pardon him, nor would he have had to resign. So that means that any partisan court or ultimately SCOTUS can determine the "officialness" of any action taken by any president. Right now, SCOTUS is seen as very partisan by over half of Americans. Both Thomas and Alito should've recused themselves in this specific case since they've shown themselves as biased in favor of Trump, but they didn't. They have no ethics or rules to follow themselves either. That's scary, because there's no parent in the room.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we ... nity-fight

I have to ask you Spidey, was Trump performing an official act when he riled up his enraged supporters during that rally and told them to go to the Capitol, where they broke in, destroyed property, called for hanging Mike Pense and assaulted police officers? Was it an official act to stand in the White House dining room watching all that unfold and doing nothing to stop it for hours? Was he performing an official act when he called Georgia election officials and pushed them to find him more votes? Was it an official act to ask Mike Pence to not certify the election? Would it have been an official act for Pence if he hadn't? Was taking classified documents home and tossing them into unsecured rooms and closets AND refusing to return them when asked to by the Government Archives an official act? How about the fake republican elector scheme? Technically, under the Constitution, none of these actions are defined as "official". I'd call all of that personal acts, but that's just me with some common sense. Now, that line has been further blurred as to what's official and what's not AND it's up to the courts to determine that. Is what Nixon did an official act when he sent in his plumbers to burgle the offices of the DNC, or even ask the CIA and FBI to spy on the DNC as well, or was it a personal act? It certainly wasn't for the good of the country or upholding the Constitution.

We all know how slow the wheels of SCOTUS turn, so in the meantime, whatever nefarious acts are taken by ANY president, will from now on be testing the waters of what's considered an official act or personal act, up to and including either jailing or assassinating a political rival. Trump has already publicly stated his desires along those lines and he's just enough of a egotist and nutbag to stretch that definition. This is not hyperbole, it's reality, because no one can point to the Constitution as guidance to define an official act. In all the years of this country's existence, no president has had most of their decision making questioned enough to interfere with his official duties, until Nixon and Trump. Justice John Roberts is full of crap in his assent. This was not a decision good for our country at all and right before the 4th of July.

Thanks for that Vander, I'll have a look see.

"I have to ask you Spidey, was Trump performing an official act when he riled up his enraged supporters during that rally and told them to go to the Capitol, where they broke in, destroyed property, called for hanging Mike Pense and assaulted police officers?"

IMHO...no, because "duty" becomes before "acts" and therefore any "acts" must be constrained to "duty".

Too many questions...I think my answer above pretty much gives a pretty good idea of my position.

Anything that makes it harder to hold accountable people in high positions in power is bad. This ruling is indefensible.

This opinion is apparently likely to thwart Trump's hush money guilty verdict, because some of the evidence presented was from his time in office, "official acts" now considered inadmissible. I'm being driven crazy.

Maybe not. Trump's dirty laundry may be revealed in all it's orange glory in September, before the election, because of SCOTUS's decision.

Christ, people watch that ★■◆●?

This is the other side:

President of the Heritage Foundation wrote:we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be

Welcome to King Trump's America. If you're white, Christian and conservative, the implementation of Project 2025 won't bother you. In fact, you'll cheer it on you bunch of hateful, deluded, racist, neofascist, nationalistic bastards.







Project 2025 for dummies.

Trump getting voted in again is the end of the world.

CDN_Merlin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 2:18 pmTrump getting voted in again is the end of the world.

It really does feel like that in a real sense. It's not just that Trump is an obviously terrible person, but he's surrounded by some of the most selfish people imaginable. The world really is on the cusp of falling apart now that everyone has abandoned any effort to mitigate climate change, and climate related problems are going to drive the world into a major conflict sooner than later. I want leaders who understand the world from a global perspective and who want this a better place, not parasites who only want to enrich themselves.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:06 pm Now, the president can do what he wants, as long as it's an official act. Who defines that? The fact he's in office as president? What laws do apply to him? Technically, Nixon would've gotten off with this decision. Now as it stands, anything Trump said or did as president was an official act, so nothing can be presented as evidence in any court of law. He's immune. This particularly affects the election interference case against him, because much of the shenanigans and phone requests he did occurred while he was president. So who determines what's"official", even if it's criminal? Welcome to the Banana Republic of the United States. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves and this comes just days before the 4th of July. Not much to celebrate now.

An official act like a discussion between leaders of countries? Like what the impeachment trials did to President Trump because he had a discussion with the President of Ukraine? You can thank the Dems for things like this that led to the Supremes to codifying the law what before was simply understood. If you can't recognize the difference between official and unofficial, perhaps you should to the deffinition of porn...I know it when I see it.

It hinged on one question. Was Trump's motives and intent for the foreign call in our national interests, or personal gain? Was that call going to be used to investigate a political rival and undermine the integrity of the 2020 U.S. elections? Yes or no? The impeachment investigation was for finding that out, and obviously, they did. If you think that was improper, welcome to the U.S., where the president is king and can do anything he wants with his authority, even for personal gain and things not in our national interests. That sure sounds like a king to me. Remember now, the SCOTUS decision applies to all presidents, no matter their party affiliation.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... al-229341/

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:46 am It hinged on one question. Was Trump's motives and intent for the foreign call in our national interests, or personal gain? Was that call going to be used to investigate a political rival and undermine the integrity of the 2020 U.S. elections? Yes or no? The impeachment investigation was for finding that out, and obviously, they did. If you think that was improper, welcome to the U.S., where the president is king and can do anything he wants with his authority, even for personal gain and things not in our national interests. That sure sounds like a king to me. Remember now, the SCOTUS decision applies to all presidents, no matter their party affiliation.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... al-229341/

Like wise was it proper for a president to send his vp to a foreign country to intimidate them by the threat of withholding aid if they didn't fire a prosecutor for investigating his son? Sure sounds kinglike to me. Trump only continued to ask about this when he was running against Biden for the 2020 race. You expect me to believe Biden and his weaponized DOJ wouldn't have done the same? After all, Hunters laptop was painted as dis-information during the same race only to find out now that it was true.

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine ... 81445.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 991434002/

Daria Kaleniuk, the co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kyiv, Ukraine, credited Biden, the International Monetary Fund — which threatened to delay $40 billion in aid for similar reasons — and others with the prosecutor's removal.

Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."

After Shokin left the Prosecutor General's Office, Jan Tombinski, the ambassador from the European Union to Ukraine, called it "an opportunity to make a fresh start."

"I hope," Tombinski said, "that the new Prosecutor General will ensure that the Office of the Prosecutor General becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust."

Make no mistake, most Ukrainians, and not just Biden, wanted that corrupt Russian stooge Shokin gone after their little freedom revolution. The International Monetary Fund wanted him gone too. Shokin was actively interfering with political corruption investigations within Ukraine, so he was ousted to clean house. So far, Ukraine's new prosecutor hasn't found any wrongdoing with Hunter and Burisma. And yet, you defend a corrupt Ukrainian pro-Russian politician that nobody in that country wanted around. Anything from any of his investigations would've been tainted by his Russian handlers and not usable as factual evidence. More Russia love woody?

So republicans still haven't got any proof about the whole Burisma/Hunter affair. All they've gotten Hunter on is a lowly gun charge. I see no more charges forthwith unless they can produce factual evidence. The LAPTOP has been a bust so far. IMO, Hunter is a scumbag, so I'd love to see him go to prison forever. I also see no evidence that Biden was using this $1 billion dollar leverage to go after his political opponents during an election cycle like Trump appears to have been doing. The question of personal gain just isn't there. Give me proof, and not Giuliani bull★■◆● fairy tails and I'll change my mind.

I also don't see Trump being prosecuted for all the nepotism during his term, mainly placing all his kids in important political positions they weren't qualified for, or for remaining in control of his empire, we all know his kids weren't running squat because Trump is a control freak, and enriching himself through special foreign dealings.

Uh oh.

New idea for Biden, courtesy of SCOTUS. Go for it Joe. Toss Trump in jail for fomenting an insurrection. All you have to do is call it "official business". SCOTUS just gave you the power. USE IT!

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 1:19 pm All they've gotten Hunter on is a lowly gun charge. I see no more charges forthwith unless they can produce factual evidence.

Lowly gun charge? "Lying on Form 4473 is a felony punishable by up to ten year’s imprisonment." Does that sound "lowly"? As to other charges, Hunter also has a IRS case this fall. But don't despair Hunter lovers, Daddy "Big Guy" Biden will pardon him before he leaves office...if he remembers.

See, that's the difference, woodchip.

You think Biden will pull a trump, because deep down you want him to be like trump.

Every accusation is a confession with you fascists.

But guess what, it's not going to happen. You're going to be denied what you want.

woodchip, do you know how many people are prosecuted for lying on background check form 4473? The reality is, very few. The ONLY reason Hunter got nailed was because of politics and revenge from assholes with nothing better to do in your party. If he hadn't been the president's son, he'd have gotten off scot free because NO ONE would've even looked into it. However, if he'd shot someone dead in a drug induced rage, of course the drug use would've been caught. By then, the fact he lied on that form is moot. A murder has already been commited.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 288699002/

https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenew ... chase-form

woodchip wrote:Lowly gun charge? "Lying on Form 4473 is a felony punishable by up to ten year’s imprisonment." Does that sound "lowly"? As to other charges, Hunter also has a IRS case this fall.

Ok woodchip, You've convinced me. I won't be voting for Hunter Biden.

King Trump child rapist and molester. Your savior woodchip. Never lecture to me about the sexual perversions of older men who should know better ever again.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:33 am King Trump child rapist and molester. Your savior woodchip. Never lecture to me about the sexual perversions of older men who should know better ever again.

Biden took showers with his daughter as attested by her and you want me to believe your cheap fake?

woodchip, this information is a new July 1st document release by the Florida judge in the Epstein case. The fact that Trump's name even appears on Epstein's call logs is damning enough. Not including the fact that Epstein and his girls flew on Trump's plane and visited Trump's casino. NO ONE with money got on this bastard's call list unless they wanted to bang underage girls and that includes Trump. Keep right on sticking your head up The Orange Turd's ass in supplication like a good thrall.