Supreme Court rules President is immune for “official acts”

[thegeneral 2,914]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I am not sure if anyone wanted to use the legal system to take down Obama, that tactic is relatively recent in use.

But I do recall some legal minds discussing it, but as I recall it was just sort of left alone. Not much came of it.  But if they were to dilute immunity, perhaps they could go after him? Not sure about that.

A prez working in the way Don did to toss out the election results is also a recent tactic. You people would be shitting your pants if Obama had lost to Romney then pulled this.

[shorepatrol 1,870]

7 minutes ago, Fnord said:

 

What if Trump had every prosecutor that has brought a case against him arrested on day 1?

Bro you need to unplug from whatever you're plugged into if you  believe that even a little bit, you're focking insane 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

so if there is an Al Qaeda hiding in Canada we should drone strike them? And if it kills civilians, thats A-OK?

 

Civilian deaths are not a-ok.  Even your boy trump killed civilians via drone strikes, but you don't want to talk about that.

[jerryskids 6,573]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

Your guy got beat fairly at the polls four years ago, you're still butthurt, and you're chastising ME about this? MAGAMOOKS gonna mook.

 

On this point, I've been wanting to say, not necessarily to you specifically but in general, since I have some time now:  

I have some systems engineering experience, and there is a saying in that field:  a system does what it's designed to do.  It's kinda like software, which does exactly what you tell it to do... except that often, what you tell it to do (program it) is not what you intended.  Hence bugs.  It's not a perfect analogy, but my 2020 analogy was that the "system" was designed to enable a lot of fraud which was undetectable.  Numerous states shotgunned paper ballots to registered voters in a manner they had never done before, nor vetted, nor tested.  And states provided numerous unmonitored drop boxes to receive them.

Whenever I hear about challenges about recounts being upheld, I want to club a baby seal or two.  The question was never about counting ballots IMO, it was about garbage in, garbage out.  Challenges to voting machines, counts, etc. were just diving catches.

This is not to say that it absolutely happened, because as I just described, the system was not designed to answer that question.  But as a systems engineer, when I hear people say "most secure election ever!", I laugh, because that's statistically impossible.

And when the MSM comes up with a label like "election denier!," parroted by the Left to brow beat those who dare oppose the party line... well, I suspect their motivation. 

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,241]

5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Civilian deaths are not a-ok.  Even your boy trump killed civilians via drone strikes, but you don't want to talk about that.

I am 100% ok with ALL PRESIDENTS being tried for Murder of Civilians.  ALL

of course I am the most Anti-War anti-interventionist here

 

[RLLD 4,143]

7 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

A prez working in the way Don did to toss out the election results is also a recent tactic. You people would be shitting your pants if Obama had lost to Romney then pulled this.

Your suggestion as to what Trump did is your perception, and if that is how you feel about it, all good....does not mean that I have to concur with you.

I think Smith could have perhaps had a more productive route, had he considered prosecuting the others....but I think not doing so hurts him.  He had to rush, because his intent is to affect the election. Had he not rushed I suspect the SCOTUS may have perhaps ruled differently.

[thegeneral 2,914]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

On this point, I've been wanting to say, not necessarily to you specifically but in general, since I have some time now:  

I have some systems engineering experience, and there is a saying in that field:  a system does what it's designed to do.  It's kinda like software, which does exactly what you tell it to do... except that often, what you tell it to do (program it) is not what you intended.  Hence bugs.  It's not a perfect analogy, but my 2020 analogy was that the "system" was designed to enable a lot of fraud which was undetectable.  Numerous states shotgunned paper ballots to registered voters in a manner they had never done before, nor vetted, nor tested.  And states provided numerous unmonitored drop boxes to receive them.

Whenever I hear about challenges about recounts being upheld, I want to club a baby seal or two.  The question was never about counting ballots IMO, it was about garbage in, garbage out.  Challenges to voting machines, counts, etc. were just diving catches.

This is not to say that it absolutely happened, because as I just described, the system was not designed to answer that question.  But as a systems engineer, when I hear people say "most secure election ever!", I laugh, because that's statistically impossible.

And when the MSM comes up with a label like "election denier!," parroted by the Left to brow beat those who dare oppose the party line... well, I suspect their motivation. 

 

What is the preferred term for a person who says Trump won the election in 2020? That he won, GA, WI, PA, AZ, etc?

[Fnord 2,051]

1 minute ago, shorepatrol said:

Bro you need to unplug from whatever you're plugged into if you  believe that even a little bit, you're focking insane 

That's not an answer. 

Do I think he'd actually do exactly that? No. It's just a simple example of things that have been hinted at.

What he has been very clear about and he's not hiding is his plan to fire tens of thousands of federal employees and replace them with loyalists. Or consolidation of federal power under the executive branch, which includes DOJ, Treasury, Homeland Security, DOD, State, among others. Or about "being your retribution."

Sure is hard to know when he's actually telling the truth.

[thegeneral 2,914]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Your suggestion as to what Trump did is your perception, and if that is how you feel about it, all good....does not mean that I have to concur with you.

I think Smith could have perhaps had a more productive route, had he considered prosecuting the others....but I think not doing so hurts him.  He had to rush, because his intent is to affect the election. Had he not rushed I suspect the SCOTUS may have perhaps ruled differently.

What is your “perception” about a Prez after he has been told it’s illegal asking his VP to not certify the election.

Asking DoJ to just say the election was corrupt and that he and Congress would do the rest.

How is one to perceive that?

[Sean Mooney 1,938]

44 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Oh I remember this. Never knew the alt right wanted to try Obama for murder for a drone strike.  I guess you feel the same about the tens of thousands of dead in Gaza?

FWIW- and I'm sure @RaiderHaters Revenge and @RLLD know this as well:

There was a lot of stuff written about it at the time and there was discussion of it. There was also a book written by H Jefferson Powell (a Duke Law Professor, served in the DOJ under Clinton) and Phillip Bobbit (Columbia Law Professor and senior lecturer at University of Texas Law) that looked at drone wars and this incident specifically in a chapter of said book. They analyzed the constitutionality of the drone strike and found that the killing was lawful but the reasoning for it was spotty. To paraphrase quoting them- from the abstract of the book-

Quote

"because Congress had authorized military action against al-Qaeda but not total war, contrary to the executive, the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) was the only available source of domestic-law authority; the killing, however, was within the scope of the AUMF. The administration overlooked Supreme Court precedent showing that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not apply to the military use of deadly force under the AUMF. If the Fifth Amendment had applied as the administration assumed, the killing of al-Awlaki would have been a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

A few weeks after that there was another drone strike that killed the man's 16 year old son. The Yemen bombings were a black mark (no pun intended) on the administration and it was criticized and mocked by even like late night shows for how cavalier the Obama admin was about it all. There was then a raid that the Obama administration was back and forth on but ultimately did not carry out in 2017 leaving it up to the incoming Trump administration. Trump chose to carry out the raid with Navy Seal Team 6 and they killed the 8 year old daughter and sister of the citizens. Thye passed it off in the same way as the Obama administration- "collateral damage". It is also important to remember Trump in 2016 said he was going to target terroist's families as well as the terrorists. 

 

There is a really good book and movie about some of this stuff called Dirty Wars written by Jeremy Scahill that looks at the concept of dirty wars and spends significant time on the killing of the father in the initial drone strike, and the killing of the son. 

[jerryskids 6,573]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

What is the preferred term for a person who says Trump won the election in 2020? That he won, GA, WI, PA, AZ, etc?

Why is a term needed?  

And what about the rest, or meat, of my post?

[RLLD 4,143]

7 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

What is your “perception” about a Prez after he has been told it’s illegal asking his VP to not certify the election.

Asking DoJ to just say the election was corrupt and that he and Congress would do the rest.

How is one to perceive that?

I get it, I really do, you think he was trying to somehow "steal" the election, again...all good, I leave that to you....I do not concur.

Now, back to Smith, he rushed and that impacted his success, but he had to rush because the goal was to affect the election. I doubt he gives up on that pursuit, he just needs to regroup, maybe find something else to throw in the mix, see if it sticks. 

[shorepatrol 1,870]

11 minutes ago, Fnord said:

That's not an answer. 

Do I think he'd actually do exactly that? No. It's just a simple example of things that have been hinted at.

What he has been very clear about and he's not hiding is his plan to fire tens of thousands of federal employees and replace them with loyalists. Or consolidation of federal power under the executive branch, which includes DOJ, Treasury, Homeland Security, DOD, State, among others. Or about "being your retribution."

Sure is hard to know when he's actually telling the truth.

You're are batsh!t deep in hate for the guy, you're insane 

[jerryskids 6,573]

Hey @The Real timschochet, can we get a title change on this thread?  The president is not immune for "official acts," there is a presumption of immunity for "official acts," and the prosecution has the burden of proof to contest that.  Basically, the American way.  TIA.  

[thegeneral 2,914]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Why is a term needed?  

And what about the rest, or meat, of my post?

I mean election denier seems to fit for this. 

For the rest the election is over, Biden won. All the various arguments were made and they shot them all down. The rest is academic.

As for voting by mail, we have done it in my state for a long time. Works amazing. We can send everyone the blueprint.

[thegeneral 2,914]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I get it, I really do, you think he was trying to somehow "steal" the election, again...all good, I leave that to you....I do not concur.

Now, back to Smith, he rushed and that impacted his success, but he had to rush because the goal was to affect the election. I doubt he gives up on that pursuit, he just needs to regroup, maybe find something else to throw in the mix, see if it sticks. 

How should I perceive the two acts by Prez Trump that I called out. How do you perceive them?

[jerryskids 6,573]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

I mean election denier seems to fit for this. 

For the rest the election is over, Biden won. All the various arguments were made and they shot them all down. The rest is academic.

As for voting by mail, we have done it in my state for a long time. Works amazing. We can send everyone the blueprint.

Sending your blueprint should help swimmingly for 2020.

I'm not saying we need to continue to challenge 2020.  I'm just saying I laugh at people who say... what you just said.  "Various arguments" were "shot down" because the system didn't provide a mechanism to challenge them.  It was the design of the system.   

[zsasz 361]

29 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

On this point, I've been wanting to say, not necessarily to you specifically but in general, since I have some time now:  

I have some systems engineering experience, and there is a saying in that field:  a system does what it's designed to do.  It's kinda like software, which does exactly what you tell it to do... except that often, what you tell it to do (program it) is not what you intended.  Hence bugs.  It's not a perfect analogy, but my 2020 analogy was that the "system" was designed to enable a lot of fraud which was undetectable.  Numerous states shotgunned paper ballots to registered voters in a manner they had never done before, nor vetted, nor tested.  And states provided numerous unmonitored drop boxes to receive them.

Whenever I hear about challenges about recounts being upheld, I want to club a baby seal or two.  The question was never about counting ballots IMO, it was about garbage in, garbage out.  Challenges to voting machines, counts, etc. were just diving catches.

This is not to say that it absolutely happened, because as I just described, the system was not designed to answer that question.  But as a systems engineer, when I hear people say "most secure election ever!", I laugh, because that's statistically impossible.

And when the MSM comes up with a label like "election denier!," parroted by the Left to brow beat those who dare oppose the party line... well, I suspect their motivation. 

 

Clown comments right here..... "I'll say everything BUT I believe that the election was stolen".

 

[Sean Mooney 1,938]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sending your blueprint should help swimmingly for 2020.

I'm not saying we need to continue to challenge 2020.  I'm just saying I laugh at people who say... what you just said.  "Various arguments" were "shot down" because the system didn't provide a mechanism to challenge them.  It was the design of the system.   

They tried multiple ways to go after the 2020 election. All the things either got outright turned away or they got told- there is no evidence here. 

So either there is nothing there, or the lawyers were stunningly unprepared, or a little of both. But you want to settle on "the system didn't allow it."?

[thegeneral 2,914]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sending your blueprint should help swimmingly for 2020.

I'm not saying we need to continue to challenge 2020.  I'm just saying I laugh at people who say... what you just said.  "Various arguments" were "shot down" because the system didn't provide a mechanism to challenge them.  It was the design of the system.   

Wasn’t your state the one who sent in the Ninjas who analyzed ever ballot by hand,

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,241]

25 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

FWIW- and I'm sure @RaiderHaters Revenge and @RLLD know this as well:

There was a lot of stuff written about it at the time and there was discussion of it. There was also a book written by H Jefferson Powell (a Duke Law Professor, served in the DOJ under Clinton) and Phillip Bobbit (Columbia Law Professor and senior lecturer at University of Texas Law) that looked at drone wars and this incident specifically in a chapter of said book. They analyzed the constitutionality of the drone strike and found that the killing was lawful but the reasoning for it was spotty. To paraphrase quoting them- from the abstract of the book-

A few weeks after that there was another drone strike that killed the man's 16 year old son. The Yemen bombings were a black mark (no pun intended) on the administration and it was criticized and mocked by even like late night shows for how cavalier the Obama admin was about it all. There was then a raid that the Obama administration was back and forth on but ultimately did not carry out in 2017 leaving it up to the incoming Trump administration. Trump chose to carry out the raid with Navy Seal Team 6 and they killed the 8 year old daughter and sister of the citizens. Thye passed it off in the same way as the Obama administration- "collateral damage". It is also important to remember Trump in 2016 said he was going to target terroist's families as well as the terrorists. 

 

There is a really good book and movie about some of this stuff called Dirty Wars written by Jeremy Scahill that looks at the concept of dirty wars and spends significant time on the killing of the father in the initial drone strike, and the killing of the son. 

I knew the information about both situations, however not the book, thanks!

 

[RLLD 4,143]

16 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

How should I perceive the two acts by Prez Trump that I called out. How do you perceive them?

Trump is a buffoon, always saying things that people love to interpret in a negative way, because they simply dislike him....hence the "very fine people" nonsense etc.

He usually says something that could be interpreted negatively, and if you dislike him you perhaps will interpret in that manner.

I also dislike him as a person, but rather than be lazy about it, I stick to the issue that he is a doosh....but that does not matter.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,839]

33 minutes ago, Fnord said:

That's not an answer. 

Do I think he'd actually do exactly that? No. It's just a simple example of things that have been hinted at.

What he has been very clear about and he's not hiding is his plan to fire tens of thousands of federal employees and replace them with loyalists. Or consolidation of federal power under the executive branch, which includes DOJ, Treasury, Homeland Security, DOD, State, among others. Or about "being your retribution."

Sure is hard to know when he's actually telling the truth.

"It's terrible that Trump is going to replace all the liberal loyalists with conservative loyalists!  HE'S STACKING THE GOVERNMENT!! UNFAIR!!!!"

[thegeneral 2,914]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Trump is a buffoon, always saying things that people love to interpret in a negative way, because they simply dislike him....hence the "very fine people" nonsense etc.

He usually says something that could be interpreted negatively, and if you dislike him you perhaps will interpret in that manner.

I also dislike him as a person, but rather than be lazy about it, I stick to the issue that he is a doosh....but that does not matter.

Hey Mike you need to not certify the election results.

Hey DoJ I know you said that there’s no case but just say it is corrupt and me and Congress will do the rest.

I’d say that is a tad more than oh geez he’s just a silly buffoon. 

[Sean Mooney 1,938]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I knew the information about both situations, however not the book, thanks!

 

Scahill (writer of the second book I mentioned) is a really good writer and reporter for Democracy Now! which is pretty fair but can lean a little too progressive at times. But the program operates as a bit of a watchdog of sorts for American foreign policy. The cool thing about it to me is it doesn't accept advertisers or government funding. 

The first book I wrote about is excellent. 

To the longer post I wrote- it's fair to say the past two Presidents had very questionable drone strikes and attacks. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,241]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

Scahill is a really good writer and reporter for Democracy Now! which is pretty fair but can lean a little too progressive at times. But the program operates as a bit of a watchdog of sorts for American foreign policy. The cool thing about it to me is it doesn't accept advertisers or government funding. 

To the longer post I wrote- it's fair to say the past two Presidents had very questionable drone strikes and attacks. 

and fwiw, I am completely against war, intervention all that, but I also think the presidents should be immune in those situations

to be fair drone strikes didnt exist prior to the last 2, they would just sacrifice our men for their wars

 

[RLLD 4,143]

9 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Hey Mike you need to not certify the election results.

Hey DoJ I know you said that there’s no case but just say it is corrupt and me and Congress will do the rest.

I’d say that is a tad more than oh geez he’s just a silly buffoon. 

I get it, you see it how you see it, and that's fine. 

[seafoam1 2,803]

biden came out and lied about this decision by the court. He said that the decision makes presidents immune to all prosecution to all things. It makes the president a king.

These focking liberals are sick. aoc says she will draw up papers to impeach. 

Liberals are so atupid. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,241]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

biden came out and lied about this decision by the court. He said that the decision makes presidents immune to all prosecution to all things. It makes the president a king.

These focking liberals are sick. aoc says she will draw up papers to impeach. 

Liberals are so atupid. 

Biden is such an idiot, he should appoint himself king then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thegeneral 2,914]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I get it, you see it how you see it, and that's fine. 

FFS. Its not how I see it, it’s what occurred

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

55 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

What is the preferred term for a person who says Trump won the election in 2020? That he won, GA, WI, PA, AZ, etc?

A “patriot”

[seafoam1 2,803]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Biden is such an idiot, he should appoint himself king then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's simply tiring. The unending liberal fight to cancel all things Trump. 100% of their efforts over the past decade has been dedicated to jail a strong political opponent.

This goes for the liberal voters too. The whole lot of them. 

Trump is the most vetted human in the history of man. 

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

28 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

They tried multiple ways to go after the 2020 election. All the things either got outright turned away or they got told- there is no evidence here. 

So either there is nothing there, or the lawyers were stunningly unprepared, or a little of both. But you want to settle on "the system didn't allow it."?

Yep. If you’re going to make the allegation, you have to prove it.

They never came even remotely close to proving anything.

Jerry knows that but he just can’t quite let it go either. I’m not sure why except that his orange master won’t let him

[Hardcore troubadour 14,947]

Obama had a kill list. No judge, no jury. He made the call. Liberals were/ are ok with it. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Obama had a kill list. No judge, no jury. He made the call. Liberals were/ are ok with it. 

What exactly is your stupid point here?

If Obama murdered a US citizen as you say, well I don’t know why we’re talking about it now a decade later, but still, he should’ve been held to account for it.

Today’s ruling basically guarantees he never would be nor any other president that ever does anything similar.

So it seems you’re arguing against yourself

[Jose M 125]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/IlhanMN/status/1807834678847853055

The Supreme Court can no longer be trusted to uphold the Constitution.

If Donald Trump is reelected, this convicted felon, rapist, and twice-impeached former President will be able to do whatever the hell he wants.

It’s a scary day for American democracy.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Hardcore troubadour 14,947]

7 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What exactly is your stupid point here?

If Obama murdered a US citizen as you say, well I don’t know why we’re talking about it now a decade later, but still, he should’ve been held to account for it.

Today’s ruling basically guarantees he never would be nor any other president that ever does anything similar.

So it seems you’re arguing against yourself

The point is liberals such as yourself only care about holding anyone on the other side accountable, especially the fantasy version of Trump you have conjured up in your head. Obama clearly broke the law, and there was no call to hold him accountable. 

[Jose M 125]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[IGotWorms 4,057]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The point is liberals such as yourself only care about holding anyone on the other side accountable, especially the fantasy version of Trump you have conjured up in your head. Obama clearly broke the law, and there was no call to hold him accountable. 

Your whataboutism is focking retarded

[seafoam1 2,803]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Your whataboutism is focking retarded

You are kinda making a fool of yourself. Just sayin...