King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Vote for Manchin please
SCOTUS Ruling on Trump Presidential Immunity
7,232 Views |
179 Replies |
Last: 7 hrs ago by TinFoilHatPreacherBear
No question. It is amazing when the text of the Constitution means something and when it means nothing. How is that the right to an abortion is nothing if the founders did not delineate it in writing but presidential immunity can be extracted from thin air?Aliceinbubbleland said:
King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Warnings are at the discretion of the officer and have nothing to do with the fact the driver slowed down for the stop. Sounds like possession isn't the crime but the person who is in possession. Trump was a legal driver pulled over for 1 mph over the limit. Swat team response. Biden was underage and uninsured and driving 50pmh over the limit. No ticket...Frank Galvin said:I guess you nver got a warning for speeding.Wangchung said:If the ability and willingness to return said documents negates the law being broken by being possessed then there is no law against possession, only a law against uncooperative behavior.Frank Galvin said:No, he should not have taken them in the first place. But no harm, no foul is a something prosecutors go by. More to the point it would not have even gotten to a prosecutor in the first place because the agency would havegotten what it wanted.Wangchung said:So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.FLBear5630 said:If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.Wangchung said:No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.FLBear5630 said:Sort of the same thing...Wangchung said:We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?Frank Galvin said:Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.Wangchung said:Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...Frank Galvin said:The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.FLBear5630 said:If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.
Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...
Trump practically begged for this case to be brought and then his MAGites get uspet that the case was brought. Snowflakes enough to build a snowman.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Yes you are exactly right. The guy who recognizes what he did was wrong and immmediately makes it right gets off. The guy who says screw all of you I am too important for the law to apply to me...well he also gets off because he appointed a bunch of syncophants to the federal bench who will do his bidding.Wangchung said:Warnings are at the discretion of the officer and have nothing to do with the fact the driver slowed down for the stop. Sounds like possession isn't the crime but the person who is in possession.Frank Galvin said:I guess you nver got a warning for speeding.Wangchung said:If the ability and willingness to return said documents negates the law being broken by being possessed then there is no law against possession, only a law against uncooperative behavior.Frank Galvin said:No, he should not have taken them in the first place. But no harm, no foul is a something prosecutors go by. More to the point it would not have even gotten to a prosecutor in the first place because the agency would havegotten what it wanted.Wangchung said:So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.FLBear5630 said:If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.Wangchung said:No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.FLBear5630 said:Sort of the same thing...Wangchung said:We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?Frank Galvin said:Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.Wangchung said:Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...Frank Galvin said:The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.FLBear5630 said:If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.
Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...
Trump practically begged for this case to be brought and then his MAGites get uspet that the case was brought. Snowflakes enough to build a snowman.
But the guy who was driving illegally, human trafficking and speeding much more egregiously got off with a warm hug while the guy who legally had the right to drive was dragged from his vehicle, hog tied and thrown in the trunk of the squad car. Because the police work for the same people the guy who wasn't supposed to be on the road at all also works for. You remind me of an old saying. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."Frank Galvin said:Yes you are exactly right. The guy who recognizes what he did was wrong and immmediately makes it right gets off. The guy who says screw all of you I am too important for the law to apply to me...well he also gets off because he appointed a bunch of syncophants to the federal bench who will do his bidding.Wangchung said:Warnings are at the discretion of the officer and have nothing to do with the fact the driver slowed down for the stop. Sounds like possession isn't the crime but the person who is in possession.Frank Galvin said:I guess you nver got a warning for speeding.Wangchung said:If the ability and willingness to return said documents negates the law being broken by being possessed then there is no law against possession, only a law against uncooperative behavior.Frank Galvin said:No, he should not have taken them in the first place. But no harm, no foul is a something prosecutors go by. More to the point it would not have even gotten to a prosecutor in the first place because the agency would havegotten what it wanted.Wangchung said:So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.FLBear5630 said:If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.Wangchung said:No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.FLBear5630 said:Sort of the same thing...Wangchung said:We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?Frank Galvin said:Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.Wangchung said:Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...Frank Galvin said:The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.FLBear5630 said:If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.
Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...
Trump practically begged for this case to be brought and then his MAGites get uspet that the case was brought. Snowflakes enough to build a snowman.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Mitch McConnell, Feb. 2021: “Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one”
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 1, 2024
pic.twitter.com/tMnkCcPL3t
Thin air? It stems from the separation of powers.Frank Galvin said:No question. It is amazing when the text of the Constitution means something and when it means nothing. How is that the right to an abortion is nothing if the founders did not delineate it in writing but presidential immunity can be extracted from thin air?Aliceinbubbleland said:
King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Abortion came from the "right to privacy" which is nowhere to be found.
bat merde loca.............boognish_bear said:
- el KKM
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Wangchung said:If the ability and willingness to return said documents negates the law being broken by being possessed then there is no law against possession, only a law against uncooperative behavior.Frank Galvin said:No, he should not have taken them in the first place. But no harm, no foul is a something prosecutors go by. More to the point it would not have even gotten to a prosecutor in the first place because the agency would havegotten what it wanted.Wangchung said:So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.FLBear5630 said:If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.Wangchung said:No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.FLBear5630 said:Sort of the same thing...Wangchung said:We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?Frank Galvin said:Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.Wangchung said:Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...Frank Galvin said:The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.FLBear5630 said:If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.
Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...
…whic involve questions about the nature and limits of Presidential powers, which are inherently civil not criminal issues.
The outrage here is using espionage statute to criminalize the case rather than using civil litigation to get a court order on status of docs in question.
whiterock said:
Clinton Sock Drawer case said that the determination of personal vs official is an exclusive, unreviewable power of POTUS.
Docs case likely done…..
Hahhhahaha. Yep. Dems can't remember past yesterday. Like Biden and all the people that have died as a result of his voters. Seven figures.
Sad for those dead people and their families.
Pretty sure she posts on this forum under about 5 different handles.boognish_bear said:
Wangchung said:Warnings are at the discretion of the officer and have nothing to do with the fact the driver slowed down for the stop. Sounds like possession isn't the crime but the person who is in possession. Trump was a legal driver pulled over for 1 mph over the limit. Swat team response. Biden was underage and uninsured and driving 50pmh over the limit. No ticket...Frank Galvin said:I guess you nver got a warning for speeding.Wangchung said:If the ability and willingness to return said documents negates the law being broken by being possessed then there is no law against possession, only a law against uncooperative behavior.Frank Galvin said:No, he should not have taken them in the first place. But no harm, no foul is a something prosecutors go by. More to the point it would not have even gotten to a prosecutor in the first place because the agency would havegotten what it wanted.Wangchung said:So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.FLBear5630 said:If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.Wangchung said:No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.FLBear5630 said:Sort of the same thing...Wangchung said:We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?Frank Galvin said:Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.Wangchung said:Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...Frank Galvin said:The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.FLBear5630 said:If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.
Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...
Trump practically begged for this case to be brought and then his MAGites get uspet that the case was brought. Snowflakes enough to build a snowman.
Pretty sure it was Biden's daughter who was underage per her testimony to her diary
Frank Galvin said:The case was likely done when it got assigned to a complete partisan hack who is completely in the bag for Trump.whiterock said:
Clinton Sock Drawer case said that the determination of personal vs official is an exclusive, unreviewable power of POTUS.
Docs case likely done…..
In a world where the rule of law is a thing, however, the sock case has zero to do with the documents case. Trump was not charged with keeping presidential material, he was chargesd with keeping classified material. Two completely different statutes. There is no world in which the stuff Trump had was his personal material like the taped conversations between Clinton and an author were arguabley Clinton's personal things.
Just goes to show that where DJT is concerned his supporters will throw all logic out the window,
And yet likely believes Biden more honest than trump
If you are breathing you are more honest than Trump. MAGites have no clue how bad they have been scammed.Of course, I am not sure Joe is breathing.Fre3dombear said:Frank Galvin said:The case was likely done when it got assigned to a complete partisan hack who is completely in the bag for Trump.whiterock said:
Clinton Sock Drawer case said that the determination of personal vs official is an exclusive, unreviewable power of POTUS.
Docs case likely done…..
In a world where the rule of law is a thing, however, the sock case has zero to do with the documents case. Trump was not charged with keeping presidential material, he was chargesd with keeping classified material. Two completely different statutes. There is no world in which the stuff Trump had was his personal material like the taped conversations between Clinton and an author were arguabley Clinton's personal things.
Just goes to show that where DJT is concerned his supporters will throw all logic out the window,
And yet likely believes Biden more honest than trump
The Founders established the separation of powers by carefully describing the rights and responsibilites of each branch. They nowhere described a right of immunity for the executive or even came close. John Roberts,mister "balls and strikes" made it up. So there is no more "separation of power-the Executive has it all.GrowlTowel said:Thin air? It stems from the separation of powers.Frank Galvin said:No question. It is amazing when the text of the Constitution means something and when it means nothing. How is that the right to an abortion is nothing if the founders did not delineate it in writing but presidential immunity can be extracted from thin air?Aliceinbubbleland said:
King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Abortion came from the "right to privacy" which is nowhere to be found.
I guarantee you that if this decision had come down to protect Barack Obama from prosecution, the people who are now MAGites would have melted down.
Frank Galvin said:If you are breathing you are more honest than Trump. MAGites have no clue how bad they have been scammed.Fre3dombear said:Frank Galvin said:The case was likely done when it got assigned to a complete partisan hack who is completely in the bag for Trump.whiterock said:
Clinton Sock Drawer case said that the determination of personal vs official is an exclusive, unreviewable power of POTUS.
Docs case likely done…..
In a world where the rule of law is a thing, however, the sock case has zero to do with the documents case. Trump was not charged with keeping presidential material, he was chargesd with keeping classified material. Two completely different statutes. There is no world in which the stuff Trump had was his personal material like the taped conversations between Clinton and an author were arguabley Clinton's personal things.
Just goes to show that where DJT is concerned his supporters will throw all logic out the window,
And yet likely believes Biden more honest than trump
No doubt we're all most likely More honest than trump but most are not like illogical, emoting aoc types here that walk around like they just took their blue pill screeching "trumps a liar trumps a liar!" While worshiping under the drippy brown diaper of Crooked lying Slack jaw Joe aka president ooopy pants and obamas hand picked homey
Frank Galvin said:The Founders established the separation of powers by carefully describing the rights and responsibilites of each branch. They nowhere described a right of immunity for the executive or even came close. John Roberts,mister "balls and strikes" made it up. So there is no more "separation of power-the Executive has it all.GrowlTowel said:Thin air? It stems from the separation of powers.Frank Galvin said:No question. It is amazing when the text of the Constitution means something and when it means nothing. How is that the right to an abortion is nothing if the founders did not delineate it in writing but presidential immunity can be extracted from thin air?Aliceinbubbleland said:
King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Abortion came from the "right to privacy" which is nowhere to be found.
I guarantee you that if this decision had come down to protect Barack Obama from prosecution, the people who are now MAGites would have melted down.
So John Roberts makes up stuff to pass Uber expensive Obamacare destroying health insurance and y'all fappin over what you perceive is Roberts making up stuff for doc immunity when you have seen even the doctored evidence for anPR op etc and Biden never built a thing in his life has docs in his "mansion" but that's a ok
Amazing stuff
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006:
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024
“There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” pic.twitter.com/Zpx2CQhgFn
Actually, no that's not like.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
That's like me going into KFC and frying up some chicken because I use too work there.
You're analogy would mean Trump, out of office, would go back to the White House and take the documents.
I think we all know why this case was pursued. Justice was not the objective, but Political Damage.Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:This is part of the problem. The Archives have always known that former Presidents took various documents with them, and until now it's always been handled quietly when the Archives wanted them for some reason. In this case, some clerk at the Archives saw a chance to blow the matter out of proportion, and of course Trump wanted to play the same game.Wangchung said:So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.FLBear5630 said:If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.Wangchung said:No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.FLBear5630 said:Sort of the same thing...Wangchung said:We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?Frank Galvin said:Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.Wangchung said:Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...Frank Galvin said:The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.FLBear5630 said:If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.
Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...
The relevant statutes have always been squishy in the details.
So, you think this is all because a clerk got their panties in a wad?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I thought that congress was the check and balance for the executive branch and not some random federal prosecutor.Frank Galvin said:No question. It is amazing when the text of the Constitution means something and when it means nothing. How is that the right to an abortion is nothing if the founders did not delineate it in writing but presidential immunity can be extracted from thin air?Aliceinbubbleland said:
King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Whiskey Pete said:Actually, no that's not like.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
That's like me going into KFC and frying up some chicken because I use too work there.
You're analogy would mean Trump, out of office, would go back to the White House and take the documents.
No. It means Trump, out of office, believes he has the authority to declassify documents. (Authority to do the job he used to have)
Oldbear83 said:I think we all know why this case was pursued. Justice was not the objective, but Political Damage.Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:This is part of the problem. The Archives have always known that former Presidents took various documents with them, and until now it's always been handled quietly when the Archives wanted them for some reason. In this case, some clerk at the Archives saw a chance to blow the matter out of proportion, and of course Trump wanted to play the same game.Wangchung said:So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.FLBear5630 said:If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.Wangchung said:No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.FLBear5630 said:Sort of the same thing...Wangchung said:We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?Frank Galvin said:Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.Wangchung said:Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...Frank Galvin said:The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.FLBear5630 said:If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.
Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...
The relevant statutes have always been squishy in the details.
So, you think this is all because a clerk got their panties in a wad?
Do you believe the pictures of the documents at Mara Lago are fake?
Presidential immunity doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Powers have to be enumerated, explicit, expressed and delegated by article 2.
Powers have to be enumerated, explicit, expressed and delegated by article 2.
And the people that are screaming at SCOTUS or MAGites today would've supported the decision.Frank Galvin said:The Founders established the separation of powers by carefully describing the rights and responsibilites of each branch. They nowhere described a right of immunity for the executive or even came close. John Roberts,mister "balls and strikes" made it up. So there is no more "separation of power-the Executive has it all.GrowlTowel said:Thin air? It stems from the separation of powers.Frank Galvin said:No question. It is amazing when the text of the Constitution means something and when it means nothing. How is that the right to an abortion is nothing if the founders did not delineate it in writing but presidential immunity can be extracted from thin air?Aliceinbubbleland said:
King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Abortion came from the "right to privacy" which is nowhere to be found.
I guarantee you that if this decision had come down to protect Barack Obama from prosecution, the people who are now MAGites would have melted down.
Excuse me counselor, but you are not addressing the great unwashed from your ivory tower.Frank Galvin said:The Founders established the separation of powers by carefully describing the rights and responsibilites of each branch. They nowhere described a right of immunity for the executive or even came close. John Roberts,mister "balls and strikes" made it up. So there is no more "separation of power-the Executive has it all.GrowlTowel said:Thin air? It stems from the separation of powers.Frank Galvin said:No question. It is amazing when the text of the Constitution means something and when it means nothing. How is that the right to an abortion is nothing if the founders did not delineate it in writing but presidential immunity can be extracted from thin air?Aliceinbubbleland said:
King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Abortion came from the "right to privacy" which is nowhere to be found.
I guarantee you that if this decision had come down to protect Barack Obama from prosecution, the people who are now MAGites would have melted down.
If you really want a constitutional law discussion about immunity, I am happy to oblige.
Today's decision reveals the rank hypocrisy and partisanship of this rogue, activist, corrupt SCOTUS.
They claim to be "originalists" and "textualists." But this decision shows they're willing to ditch both to save Trump.
For a stark contrast, read the appeals court denial of Trump's immunity claim. It's full of history, tradition, and the like.
And the almighty imperial SCOTUS totally ignored it.
Today, we said "goodbye" to an American ideal: No one is above the law.
They claim to be "originalists" and "textualists." But this decision shows they're willing to ditch both to save Trump.
For a stark contrast, read the appeals court denial of Trump's immunity claim. It's full of history, tradition, and the like.
And the almighty imperial SCOTUS totally ignored it.
Today, we said "goodbye" to an American ideal: No one is above the law.
Actually, it does. The decision says that if the President says it's an official act and he does it through his officers, he's immune.Doc Holliday said:
Presidential immunity doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Powers have to be enumerated, explicit, expressed and delegated by article 2.
Sotomayor put it succinctly in her passionate and pointed dissent:
Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
So, there you go.
We already know that the cover pages were added by FBI agents, and arranged as a photo op. For all we know, the actual documents were the ones delivered by GSA employees with no participation by Trump or his staff.Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:I think we all know why this case was pursued. Justice was not the objective, but Political Damage.Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:This is part of the problem. The Archives have always known that former Presidents took various documents with them, and until now it's always been handled quietly when the Archives wanted them for some reason. In this case, some clerk at the Archives saw a chance to blow the matter out of proportion, and of course Trump wanted to play the same game.Wangchung said:So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.FLBear5630 said:If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.Wangchung said:No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.FLBear5630 said:Sort of the same thing...Wangchung said:We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?Frank Galvin said:Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.Wangchung said:Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...Frank Galvin said:The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.FLBear5630 said:If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!Mitch Blood Green said:
I'm not sure this ruling says anything.
President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)
Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.
I assume college grads can read and comprehend.
One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.
Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...
The relevant statutes have always been squishy in the details.
So, you think this is all because a clerk got their panties in a wad?
Do you believe the pictures of the documents at Mara Lago are fake?
The facts, of course, are your nemesis in this matter.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
More lies told at his confirmation hearing.boognish_bear said:Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006:
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024
“There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” pic.twitter.com/Zpx2CQhgFn
Well put.Frank Galvin said:The Founders established the separation of powers by carefully describing the rights and responsibilites of each branch. They nowhere described a right of immunity for the executive or even came close. John Roberts,mister "balls and strikes" made it up. So there is no more "separation of power-the Executive has it all.GrowlTowel said:Thin air? It stems from the separation of powers.Frank Galvin said:No question. It is amazing when the text of the Constitution means something and when it means nothing. How is that the right to an abortion is nothing if the founders did not delineate it in writing but presidential immunity can be extracted from thin air?Aliceinbubbleland said:
King Trump is comin for ya this time.
Abortion came from the "right to privacy" which is nowhere to be found.
I guarantee you that if this decision had come down to protect Barack Obama from prosecution, the people who are now MAGites would have melted down.
No it doesn't.C. Jordan said:Actually, it does. The decision says that if the President says it's an official act and he does it through his officers, he's immune.Doc Holliday said:
Presidential immunity doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Powers have to be enumerated, explicit, expressed and delegated by article 2.
Sotomayor put it succinctly in her passionate and pointed dissent:
Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
So, there you go.
Official acts are enumerated, explicit, expressed and delegated by article 2, any acts outside of that aren't official. Assassinating a political rival is not an enumerated power under article 2 therefore it would not be official.
Stop being hysterical.
C. Jordan said:Actually, it does. The decision says that if the President says it's an official act and he does it through his officers, he's immune.Doc Holliday said:
Presidential immunity doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Powers have to be enumerated, explicit, expressed and delegated by article 2.
Sotomayor put it succinctly in her passionate and pointed dissent:
Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
So, there you go.
