Shocker From Top Conservative Judge: Trump Likely To Skate Completely
Shocker From Top Conservative Judge: Trump Likely To Skate Completely
J. Michael Luttig sees two potential outcomes from Thursday’s Supreme Court arguments. Both are grim for our democracy.
Most of the analysis of the Justices’ arguments on Thursday that I’ve read suggests that complete immunity is highly unlikely. To his point about the trial getting delayed and Trump getting elected, that’s a real possibility.
He can still become president with a criminal conviction. He just can’t vote in the election. Isn’t our system swell?
The rationale for this actually makes some sense. You wouldn't want an incumbent to be able to remove an opponent by railroading them into a minor felony conviction. With the way Trump ran things, if all it took was a minor felony to make sure Biden was ineligible, he absolutely would have pressured the DOJ to find something.
They won't come down on the side of presidential immunity because it would basically be saying "Biden senpai please assassinate me uwu"
Just close your eyes and imagine Clarence Thomas saying this. He's winking and throwing up a peace sign with one foot kicked up in the air. It makes no sense and he will never do this.
There has to be a middle ground..if charging Presidents for things they did while in office is going to be allowed, this will in no doubt open a can of worms. I can see Republicans going after Obama for things...
I mean if he broke the law and there is enough evidence to get a conviction amongst a jury of his peers then, like, yeah, go for it. I don’t want any president or any citizen to be able to claim immunity just because they held political office for some period of time. Like if you can’t lead the country legally then don’t lead it? Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time or some platitude.
It's not just "what he did in office".
HE TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE MOTHER FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO CLING TO POWER. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GOD DAMNED HEAD.
I'm sorry, but I am so tired of this argument. He commit fucking treason. That is literally what happened. We are all pretending like it is some nebulous thing, and it isn't. He is the textbook definition of a fucking traitor.
Ok Alito
I can see Republicans going after Obama for things...
Please list these “things” and the laws they are in violation of.
One of the justices should have asked "If we decide in favor of immunity, couldn't Biden claim in order to protect the rule of law he could kill us and replace us with justices who would actually uphold the law and the Constitution?"
They did by asking about political rivals.
You have to consider what people actually will do.
They can make this decision knowing that the Dems won't commit the domestic-genocide they're committed to enabling,
knowing that it is the nonwhites & left who're going to be getting the genociding.
Political-motivation works that kind of way.
That is why I want a "political-motivation-ectomy" for civilization.
Political-motivation is cancerous.
Issue-diagrams are objective, & capable of cracking even urban-planning problems.
but who is going to force objectivity/practicality against ideology's-highjacking?
The dems won't, the left won't, the libertarians can't even understand civil-infrastructure, the "conservatives" ( privilege-conservatives aren't the only category of people who "conserve", as conservationists conserve, but are called non-conservatives.. damned newspeak bullshit )
Those judges know what they're doing.
Legislating from the bench is only okay when conservatives (read: fascists) do it.
I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. It's been the plan since the insurrection failed. They need to nail down R support with an iron fist single they'll never get the popular vote again.
Pretty radical, would dig it to see his fat ass do a kick flip. Would almost excuse his fascism, racism, and treason.
That's rad! Shocker is such a cool name too!
I wonder if he is found guilty, can other Presidents be charged with past crimes? I mean, I get the anger from Lefty Lemmy, but, there has to be a middle ground. A President simply can't be charged for something just because one side thinks he's guilty. If that's the case, I can see Republicans going after Obama for crimes he committed while POTUS...
Name one president who has been charged with a crime more serious than a speeding ticket.
Now,
Name another US president that staged a fucking insurrection because he lost the fucking election.
While we wait for those answers, do you really think your bronzed-idol trump is actually being falsely accused?
Now now, Trump isn't NECESSARILY being charged with just that.
He also removed confidential documents from the White House without them being properly redacted, potentially sold or gave those documents to other parties (or at least allowed them to see the documents), AND may have conspired to silence stories about him in an illegal manner prior to the 2016 election, AND may have also conspired to submit false documentation regarding the 2020 election results to several states AND may have also attempted to force the Georgia Secretary of State to falsify their results.
Unfortunately, I have little hope of any of these coming to fruition as convictions - Cannon is all but conceding the documents trial to Trump via extensions, delays, and simply attempting to drop the trial entirely, Georgia's prosecution forgot it was improper to fuck each other during a case, and New York can't help but keep giving them more time.
A President simply can’t be charged for something just because one side thinks he’s guilty.
He'a being charged because he committed a crime. Republicans could retaliate in kind and charge Obama, but it wouldn't work because Obama didn't commit a crime. Simple as.
Hopefully, if someone commits a crime they should be charged, and novel trials may improve justice by setting precedent through transparent jury trial instead of closed doors scotus. If you charge someone without sufficient evidence you should be open to a countersuit. Based on oral arguments it sounds like they are defining where 'in the line of duty' ends and 'actions of some guy who also has a job as president' begins. Asking for 11,780 votes pretty obviously falls outside of the bounds of the job and it shouldn't take months to rule on that.