Guy Get Pulled Over For Staying at the "Stop sign" too longg (youtube.com)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.
SCOTUS Ruling on Trump Presidential Immunity
6,028 Views |
155 Replies |
Last: 5 hrs ago by FLBear5630
The biggest favor Dems could do for the Republican Party and American people would be to make it impossible for Trump to be the Republican nominee for president.
While keeping Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee.
Hope these SC rulings somehow facilitate such a reality.
While keeping Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee.
Hope these SC rulings somehow facilitate such a reality.
I am a bit confused why the big deal over this decision, did anyone expect anything different?Whiskey Pete said: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.
If part of your official duties, immunity
If not, no immunity...
Sort of basic. Same with Docs, if not classified when it left the White House, personal. If Classified, official NARA docs. Done.
These are not big jumps of logic.
Nobody is stopping you.GrowlTowel said: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.
The founders could have granted the executive immunity but they did not. The founders had just finished a war to free themselves from a king yet John Roberts thinks they were in a hurry to make the new executive infalible. He is dead wrong both as a supposed textualist and as a supposed historian.
This is not my original thinking-it comes from Alexander Hamilton-the leading proponent of a forceful central government through a singular chief executive-in Federalist 70. Hamilton contrasted the fact the need for the King of England to operate with a council of advisors with the Constitution's design of a sole executive. The reason for the difference: The King was sacred and therefore inherently not responsible for his conduct while the President was personaly responsible. Today's decision says Hamilton was wrong-there is no personal responsibility for the President. Most of the founders did not want to go anywhere near as far as Hamilton in granting presidential powers. To suggest that they would make him unaccountable is just ridiciulous.
The exact quote from Federalist 70:
In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred. Nothing, therefore, can be wiser in that kingdom, than to annex to the king a constitutional council, who may be responsible to the nation for the advice they give. Without this, there would be no responsibility whatever in the executive department an idea inadmissible in a free government. But even there the king is not bound by the resolutions of his council, though they are answerable for the advice they give. He is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office, and may observe or disregard the counsel given to him at his sole discretion.
But in a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office the reason which in the British Constitution dictates the propriety of a council, not only ceases to apply, but turns against the institution. In the monarchy of Great Britain, it furnishes a substitute for the prohibited responsibility of the chief magistrate, which serves in some degree as a hostage to the national justice for his good behavior. In the American republic, it would serve to destroy, or would greatly diminish, the intended and necessary responsibility of the Chief Magistrate himself.
The deal is much more than that. First, look at it from the traditional concept of common law sovereign immunity. A cop shoots a small child for distracting the cop while he is trying to make sure other children cross the street. We give soveriegn immunity for cops if they are doing their offical duty and have no reasonable expectation that a particular action violates the rigths of another. In the instance I described the cop obviously fails the second part of the test. What the decision says is that for the President, there is no second part of the test. If it is an offical duty he or she can do whatever they want.FLBear5630 said:I am a bit confused why the big deal over this decision, did anyone expect anything different?Whiskey Pete said: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.
If part of your official duties, immunity
If not, no immunity...
Sort of basic. Same with Docs, if not classified when it left the White House, personal. If Classified, official NARA docs. Done.
These are not big jumps of logic.
Second, the opinion basically instructs the Court in deciding what an orrical duty is they have to beleive the President-if he or she says it is an offical duty it almost certainly is.
Third, the decision says that if the alleged crime is not an offical duty you can try the ex-President but you cannot use anything from his offical duties to explain it. Meaning a prosecutor cannot give important motive of corroboratng evidence.
Fourth, there is no textual or statutory support for this.
Fifth, none of this had happened yet. The Supreme Court prides itself on deciding whether an error has been made in an actual case or controversy. Here, however, they fell all over themselves to offer an opinion on a case that had not been tried.
It is a travesty.
By now there is absolutely no chance Trump will not be the Republican nominee.
It appears the Democrats have concluded they must lock in Biden as their nominee.
It appears the Democrats have concluded they must lock in Biden as their nominee.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Frank Galvin said:Nobody is stopping you.GrowlTowel said: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.
The founders could have granted the executive immunity but they did not. The founders had just finished a war to free themselves from a king yet John Roberts thinks they were in a hurry to make the new executive infalible. He is dead wrong both as a supposed textualist and as a supposed historian.
This is not my original thinking-it comes from Alexander Hamilton-the leading proponent of a forceful central government through a singular chief executive-in Federalist 70. Hamilton contrasted the fact the need for the King of England to operate with a council of advisors with the Constitution's design of a sole executive. The reason for the difference: The King was sacred and therefore inherently not responsible for his conduct while the President was personaly responsible. Today's decision says Hamilton was wrong-there is no personal responsibility for the President. Most of the founders did not want to go anywhere near as far as Hamilton in granting presidential powers. To suggest that they would make him unaccountable is just ridiciulous.
The exact quote from Federalist 70:
In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred. Nothing, therefore, can be wiser in that kingdom, than to annex to the king a constitutional council, who may be responsible to the nation for the advice they give. Without this, there would be no responsibility whatever in the executive department an idea inadmissible in a free government. But even there the king is not bound by the resolutions of his council, though they are answerable for the advice they give. He is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office, and may observe or disregard the counsel given to him at his sole discretion.
But in a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office the reason which in the British Constitution dictates the propriety of a council, not only ceases to apply, but turns against the institution. In the monarchy of Great Britain, it furnishes a substitute for the prohibited responsibility of the chief magistrate, which serves in some degree as a hostage to the national justice for his good behavior. In the American republic, it would serve to destroy, or would greatly diminish, the intended and necessary responsibility of the Chief Magistrate himself.
Agreed
+ 1
FLBear5630 said:I am a bit confused why the big deal over this decision, did anyone expect anything different?Whiskey Pete said: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.
If part of your official duties, immunity
If not, no immunity...
Sort of basic. Same with Docs, if not classified when it left the White House, personal. If Classified, official NARA docs. Done.
These are not big jumps of logic.
My understanding that there is an assumption of official duty and prosecutors have to prove it was unofficial.
We don't. Now where that goes, yet.
Oldbear83 said:
By now there is absolutely no chance Trump will not be the Republican nominee.
It appears the Democrats have concluded they must lock in Biden as their nominee.
Would be shocked if the Dems don't remove Biden.
Although a mugshot of Trump in an orange prison jumpsuit would certainly help Jill's aspirations.
Update:
— Jordan Fabian (@Jordanfabian) July 1, 2024
The President will deliver remarks on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. These remarks in the Cross Hall will be covered by the in-house pool.
EDT
7:45 PM THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling
The Democrats have been looking at replacing Joe since the Spring, but the polling for anyone else has shown no advantage in doing so.KaiBear said:Oldbear83 said:
By now there is absolutely no chance Trump will not be the Republican nominee.
It appears the Democrats have concluded they must lock in Biden as their nominee.
Would be shocked if the Dems don't remove Biden.
Although a mugshot of Trump in an orange prison jumpsuit would certainly help Jill's aspirations.
Also, FEC rules prevent moving the money set up for Joe's campaign to another nominee, making it very expensive for a replacement to get started now.
That doesn't even touch the fact that damage done last Thursday was to a lot more than the Biden campaign. They need to sell the idea that the debate damage was not so bad in order to keep several bases money coming in, and that means keeping Joe in the race.
They've run him from the basement before, they will do it again.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
But will he take questions from the press for 30 minutes or so? Usually no press conferences for President Biden which is a shame. Debates are Hollywood. Live questions and answers remove doubts as to ones competence.boognish_bear said:Update:
— Jordan Fabian (@Jordanfabian) July 1, 2024
The President will deliver remarks on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. These remarks in the Cross Hall will be covered by the in-house pool.
EDT
7:45 PM THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling
Vote for Manchin please
After just over four minutes of pre-written remarks (read directly from his giant teleprompter), Biden shuffles away WITHOUT taking any questions pic.twitter.com/6fPVkqBT5D
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 1, 2024
Nope. POTUS is the grand poohbah of classified information, the controlling legal authority on such questions, not reviewable. Same for questions about personal vs official documents.FLBear5630 said:That is not what the Sock Drawer Case said!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…..
Clinton was about tapes he did with a Historian that Judicial Watch wanted. The case was whether a PRIVATE entity can have the archivist challenge that position. Trumps was about US National Security documents he possessed, and NARA should have had. These are not the same thing. If Trump wants his pants that were in the box marked as personal than the socks drawer case may apply!
Classified documents can't be personal.
Directly from the case: "...the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: '[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President's disposal decision...."
Plaintiff asserted tapes contained classified information. Judge ruled it was irrelevant, because the determination about what was personal vs official was a unreviewable power of POTUS. And, more to the point, the question was argued in CIVIL court, which is how the Trump documents case should have been handled.
Again, the outrage was to bypass the obvious civil questions at hand and proceed directly to criminal prosecution. The civil issues would then become affirmative defense questions in a criminal trial, rather than jsut a civil trial itself (which Dems thought would benefit them politically). You have to let loose of the faulty premise that the classification questions radically changes the situation. It doesn't.
As it turned out, it hurt the Dems a lot more than helped them. The American people do not like authoritarian bullies, as Democrats have become.
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.
Giving them back voluntarily should be an element of sentencing, not the offense itself.
against all of them? Or just the ones you dont like..boognish_bear said:
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
BRONZE BRANDON
Hahahahahahaha…They bronzed him pic.twitter.com/BHyI4FKw1O
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) July 1, 2024
He’s doing it, no less, from the White House during prime time and with a blatantly campaign-focused message.
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) July 2, 2024
Kingly.
whiterock said:Nope. POTUS is the grand poohbah of classified information, the controlling legal authority on such questions, not reviewable. Same for questions about personal vs official documents.FLBear5630 said:That is not what the Sock Drawer Case said!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…..
Clinton was about tapes he did with a Historian that Judicial Watch wanted. The case was whether a PRIVATE entity can have the archivist challenge that position. Trumps was about US National Security documents he possessed, and NARA should have had. These are not the same thing. If Trump wants his pants that were in the box marked as personal than the socks drawer case may apply!
Classified documents can't be personal.
Directly from the case: "...the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: '[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President's disposal decision...."
Plaintiff asserted tapes contained classified information. Judge ruled it was irrelevant, because the determination about what was personal vs official was a unreviewable power of POTUS. And, more to the point, the question was argued in CIVIL court, which is how the Trump documents case should have been handled.
Again, the outrage was to bypass the obvious civil questions at hand and proceed directly to criminal prosecution. The civil issues would then become affirmative defense questions in a criminal trial, rather than jsut a civil trial itself (which Dems thought would benefit them politically). You have to let loose of the faulty premise that the classification questions radically changes the situation. It doesn't.
As it turned out, it hurt the Dems a lot more than helped them. The American people do not like authoritarian bullies, as Democrats have become.
So the solution is to give the most powerful man in the world care blanche to do what he wishes?
You are 100% wrong about this dispute hurting Democrats. People will hate this decision. If the Democrats had an energetic candidate he or she would shove this opinion up Trump's arse.
while against the law, doing from white house.. he has immunity as this was an official act as POTUSCobretti said:He’s doing it, no less, from the White House during prime time and with a blatantly campaign-focused message.
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) July 2, 2024
Kingly.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
This is what is so discusting about President Biden. Absolutely inexcusable to not answer to the press.Cobretti said:After just over four minutes of pre-written remarks (read directly from his giant teleprompter), Biden shuffles away WITHOUT taking any questions pic.twitter.com/6fPVkqBT5D
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 1, 2024
Vote for Manchin please
Trump held more press conferences in his first week compared to Bidens whole time as POTUSAliceinbubbleland said:This is what is so discusting about President Biden. Absolutely inexcusable to not answer to the press.Cobretti said:After just over four minutes of pre-written remarks (read directly from his giant teleprompter), Biden shuffles away WITHOUT taking any questions pic.twitter.com/6fPVkqBT5D
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 1, 2024
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
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.
Possession for a brief second is a crime for the rest of us, so you are correct. Obviously any President would be given grace and time to return documents, but also obviously there has to be a limit. Subjective, yes totally.
It's a crime for a senator and vice president, too, no matter how quickly he gives them back.Porteroso said: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.
Possession for a brief second is a crime for the rest of us, so you are correct. Obviously any President would be given grace and time to return documents, but also obviously there has to be a limit. Subjective, yes totally.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung said:It's a crime for a senator and vice president, too, no matter how quickly he gives them back.Porteroso said: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 bathroombit?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.
Not so much.
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.
Possession for a brief second is a crime for the rest of us, so you are correct. Obviously any President would be given grace and time to return documents, but also obviously there has to be a limit. Subjective, yes totally.
You'll get no argument from me.
Today's decision was more nuanced than a lot of people seem to recognize.
The primary decision, that Trump enjoys some but not absolute immunity for the actions in question, is based on the (frankly) common sense reasoning that a President needs to be able to act freely when he finds it necessary to do so in his capacity as President and moreover that it is not the power of the Congress to decide whether an action by the President is official or not.
The idea that 'Democracy is in danger' because Biden is unable to assault Trump with barrages of lawfare, is absurd to the extreme.
The primary decision, that Trump enjoys some but not absolute immunity for the actions in question, is based on the (frankly) common sense reasoning that a President needs to be able to act freely when he finds it necessary to do so in his capacity as President and moreover that it is not the power of the Congress to decide whether an action by the President is official or not.
The idea that 'Democracy is in danger' because Biden is unable to assault Trump with barrages of lawfare, is absurd to the extreme.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Cobretti said:After just over four minutes of pre-written remarks (read directly from his giant teleprompter), Biden shuffles away WITHOUT taking any questions pic.twitter.com/6fPVkqBT5D
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 1, 2024
Every day I'm shufflin
Monday shuffle
Tuesday shuffle
Wednesday shuffle
Thursday FLOP
Friday shuffle
Saturday shuffle
Sunday shuffle
4th and Inches said:Trump held more press conferences in his first week compared to Bidens whole time as POTUSAliceinbubbleland said:This is what is so discusting about President Biden. Absolutely inexcusable to not answer to the press.Cobretti said:After just over four minutes of pre-written remarks (read directly from his giant teleprompter), Biden shuffles away WITHOUT taking any questions pic.twitter.com/6fPVkqBT5D
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 1, 2024
This is true
What's outrageously enjoyable about this is the "democratic" process produced an outcome of a *******ized attempt by the dmeocrats to take Down their hated opponent that on one hand they could beat from the basement yet seem to Step on their collective peen repeatedly in "taking down da trump" and they are losing their **** and talking impeaching justices and suggesting this is some how a "conservative court, it's not) and even if it was. So dafuque what?
Elections have consequences and democracy and stuff
So many fools
Still digital / mail in voting. Biden or whatever other old white guy they now run by 8,000,000
Enjoy being broke
Elections have consequences and democracy and stuff
So many fools
Still digital / mail in voting. Biden or whatever other old white guy they now run by 8,000,000
Enjoy being broke
FLBear5630 said:I am a bit confused why the big deal over this decision, did anyone expect anything different?Whiskey Pete said: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.
If part of your official duties, immunity
If not, no immunity...
Sort of basic. Same with Docs, if not classified when it left the White House, personal. If Classified, official NARA docs. Done.
These are not big jumps of logic.
It's not a big deal at all and a president while presiding over official duties, I kinda thought they already had a form of immunity.
But politicians know the average person gets their talking points from an emotionally driven perspective and are exploiting the decision to make it look like Trump has been handed some sort of "super immunity" which he hasn't.
True, but that doesn't change the Trump situation. I am sure if Trump wins, Biden and company will have the full weight of DOJ investigating them...Wangchung said:It's a crime for a senator and vice president, too, no matter how quickly he gives them back.Porteroso said: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.
Possession for a brief second is a crime for the rest of us, so you are correct. Obviously any President would be given grace and time to return documents, but also obviously there has to be a limit. Subjective, yes totally.
Sadly, the President is NOT immune from dementia.
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) July 2, 2024
Cobretti said:Sadly, the President is NOT immune from dementia.
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) July 2, 2024
To the detriment of every American.
Unserious response.Frank Galvin said:whiterock said:Nope. POTUS is the grand poohbah of classified information, the controlling legal authority on such questions, not reviewable. Same for questions about personal vs official documents.FLBear5630 said:That is not what the Sock Drawer Case said!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…..
Clinton was about tapes he did with a Historian that Judicial Watch wanted. The case was whether a PRIVATE entity can have the archivist challenge that position. Trumps was about US National Security documents he possessed, and NARA should have had. These are not the same thing. If Trump wants his pants that were in the box marked as personal than the socks drawer case may apply!
Classified documents can't be personal.
Directly from the case: "...the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: '[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President's disposal decision...."
Plaintiff asserted tapes contained classified information. Judge ruled it was irrelevant, because the determination about what was personal vs official was a unreviewable power of POTUS. And, more to the point, the question was argued in CIVIL court, which is how the Trump documents case should have been handled.
Again, the outrage was to bypass the obvious civil questions at hand and proceed directly to criminal prosecution. The civil issues would then become affirmative defense questions in a criminal trial, rather than jsut a civil trial itself (which Dems thought would benefit them politically). You have to let loose of the faulty premise that the classification questions radically changes the situation. It doesn't.
As it turned out, it hurt the Dems a lot more than helped them. The American people do not like authoritarian bullies, as Democrats have become.
So the solution is to give the most powerful man in the world care blanche to do what he wishes?
You are 100% wrong about this dispute hurting Democrats. People will hate this decision. If the Democrats had an energetic candidate he or she would shove this opinion up Trump's arse.
The American people are already saying, by super-majority numbers, that they see the prosecutions of Trump as blatantly political. Dems could have avoided that by doing what every other admin, of both parties, has done when there is a dispute over the limits of Presidential power - file a civil lawsuit in federal court to obtain a court order for compliance. By choosing to prosecute Trump as a criminal under the Espionage Act, they have thrown out centuries of tradition.
Facts are facts, no matter how hard one works not to see them (as FL earnestly refuses to do on this particular case). The President IS the originating authority on classified information. All classification powers are vested in that office. Every single classified document is created, controlled, used, declassified under Executive Orders written by him. There is no higher power to which he must answer on those questions. If he decides in a meeting with (another head of state, diplomat, businessman, even you) that it is in the national interest to reveal classified information, he has absolute power to do so. The only "check" on that power is impeachment or the ballot box. IF he were to reveal such information that resulted in the destruction of our Pacific Fleet, then either Congress or the people would vote him out. Every other officer, of any rank, in the USG or military must abide by controls on classified information. When POTUS deviates from those rules, it is deemed a change in the rules for that specific time and place. A LOT of years of precedent on that. You cannot write up a POTUS for a "security violation" (the inside baseball phrase to describe non-compliant handling of classified information.)
It really is that simple. No one else in the USA can stick a classified document in their pocket and take it home to read without violating law. But the POTUS can. It is his prerogative to dispose of classified documents as he sees fit. Fact. I once held power to originate classified documents, and did so the thousands (20 or so a day for 10 years), so I know a bit about the subject.
In that context a prosecution is outlandish. They chose to prosecute a man who had the power to do what he did rather than seek a civil court order to return the documents. Why is that? Most obvious answer is, they perceived political benefits to doing so. Less obvious but pertinent? Perhaps they knew the civil route would likely fail as well. A POTUS, you see, has unreviewable powers over determinations on what is private and what is official, to include classified information, and there is a recent federal district court ruling upholding that principle.
Why should they not.FLBear5630 said:True, but that doesn't change the Trump situation. I am sure if Trump wins, Biden and company will have the full weight of DOJ investigating them...Wangchung said:It's a crime for a senator and vice president, too, no matter how quickly he gives them back.Porteroso said: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.
Possession for a brief second is a crime for the rest of us, so you are correct. Obviously any President would be given grace and time to return documents, but also obviously there has to be a limit. Subjective, yes totally.
How do we prevent this from happening again if there are no perp walks?
It's not like we're going to have to contrive law to find law breaking, either. These guys are waaaay out beyond the pale.
Deterrence.
Public officials should have an ever-present fear of consequences of violations of law or procedure.
I did. I knew my career was over if I got arrested and sent home PNG. I also knew my career would be over if something I did ended up on the front page of the WAPO, or caused a Division Chief to get an ass-chewing from a Congressional committee. Man, I walked the line. I mean, I didn't put a shadow on the line.
And then we watch this fudge show going on with all the Trump prosecutions....Russiagate. It's incredible how far gone the system is.