Well, the court has officially empowered President Biden to have Trump assassinated without repercussion, which would put an end to his dangerous dreams of fascism once and for all.
Lawfare: US v. Trump, Trump wins!
- Thread starter Gallipoli
- Start date
Murdering political opponents is not within the executive powers outlined in the Constitution. Using the justice department to try and silence a political opponent isnt either. Don't be a dope.
In his confirmation hearing, Roberts specifically said NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT, now he writes the opinion that the President is at least partially above the law.
Now that is funny. If that is the solution to get rid of Trump, go for it. But for heaven's sake, don't make a martyr of Trump.
Biden better win, because the Vice President has no immunity. Joe Biden will be prosecuted if he loses.
The NY felony case is now up for review. Trump's legal team has filed motions to brief the 34 convictions in Stormy Daniel's matter. Was that a core function of the Presidency, was it an official act or was it a private unofficial act? The business records at issue were recorded during Trump’s first term in office.
So there are 3 buckets for Presidential acts, core functions full immunity, official acts presumptive immunity, and unofficial private acts (no immunity). Below are the four criminal cases pending.
Jack Smith electors- official act, presumptive immunity
Documents case- core function, complete immunity
Stormy Daniels- official act (maybe)- presumptive immunity
Fani Willis case- official act- presumptive immunity.
By the way, the Supreme Court destroyed part of the Jack Smith case last week, when it threw out half of Trump's indictments, because of a bogus legal theory.
This country does not like prosecutions for political purposes.
Jack Smith electors- official act, presumptive immunity
Documents case- core function, complete immunity
Stormy Daniels- official act (maybe)- presumptive immunity
Fani Willis case- official act- presumptive immunity.
By the way, the Supreme Court destroyed part of the Jack Smith case last week, when it threw out half of Trump's indictments, because of a bogus legal theory.
This country does not like prosecutions for political purposes.
So if you are right that it is an official act for a President to interfere with appointment of state electors is correct. All Biden has to do is refuse the electors of states he loses as improperly appointed/elected until the state submits a favorable panel. And if they refuse Biden continues as President because the election is not complete, or he refuses sufficient panels his opponent does not receive the required number of electoral votes, and thus cannot win.
Trump’s own attorney told the Supreme Court in April that he would be protected if he did this while president because it would be an official act! I’m not the dope here.
Who's the dope? Read the opinion. All the President has to to do is consult with his justice department or get White House counsel approval and anything he does while in office can be an "official" act. Do you think pressuring Pence to try to overturn the 2020 election was an official act? Because he consulted with his Department of Justice the Supreme Court says it was. What a joke. And if Trump wins the election in the fall, he will certainly become the billionaire he has always aspired to be, since he could take bribes for appointments and pardons and have immunity since these are "official" acts.
If you think paying off a porn star to silence her so she doesn't go public prior to the election and possibly prevent Trump from winning the election is an official act of the President (because some of the reimbursement checks to Cohen were written during Trump's presidency) you need to have your head examined. Of course, 6 members of the US Supreme Court, who have no ethical guidelines whatsoever, would probably agree with you, especially Thomas, whose wife was a part of "Stop the Steal", and Alito, who flew the US flag upside down at his residence as a protest to the election "steal".
"At his confirmation hearing in 2005, now–Chief Justice John Roberts said: “I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.”
In his 2006 confirmation hearings, Samuel Alito said: “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.”
And in 2018, Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate: “No one’s above the law in the United States, that’s a foundational principle…. We’re all equal before the law…. The foundation of our Constitution was that…the presidency would not be a monarchy…. [T]he president is not above the law, no one is above the law.”
The above is a quote from Heather Cox Richardson's piece from last night. Just proves these 3 justices, like Trump, are liars.
I’m not so sure about that. But I am hearing rumors that the next debate will be at 10 paces…
The NY Stormy Daniels case will be delayed for several weeks. trump. Alvin Bragg has agreed to the delay. Trump contends there was evidence presented at trial that would have been excluded under US v. Trump.
Bill Barr, there's a bastion of integrity. He was Trump's puppet and remains a member of the Trump cult.
Trump was not president at the time of the original crime all the convictions stem from. Once again, Trump is FOS.
And Bill Barr might have been the worst attorney general in the country's history. He's another fat POS, just like his tole model.
Lawfare, so-called, practiced by the Democrats and wedded to the 'politics of personal destruction' has a longer history than the last two years. One need only look at the career of Jack Smith, an American Inquisitor, whose prosecution of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell was overturned by SCOTUS in an 8-0 decision with a rebuke that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.” Note also the prosecutions of Ted Stevens of Alaska and Tom Delay of Texas, both overturned. The fascist Dems have been at this for a while and have upped the game going after Trump.
You may recall that Jack Smith was appointed to handle the prosecution of Donald Trump's attempts to "overthrow the government" and to prosecute the documents case. Jack Smith was illegally appointed to be Special Counsel, according to the concurrence written by Justice Thomas in the US v. Trump case.
There’s good news and bad news for special counsel Jack Smith. The good news is that he may not have to confront the thorny issues stemming from the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. The bad news is that the good news may put him out of a job. That result would follow from a finding either that there is no legal authority for the creation of the office of special counsel, that he wasn’t appointed in compliance with the Constitution, or some combination of the two.....
Jack Smith Isn’t a Special Counsel ‘by Law’
Federal prosecutors must be duly appointed and confirmed by the Senate. He fails both tests.
There’s good news and bad news for special counsel Jack Smith. The good news is that he may not have to confront the thorny issues stemming from the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. The bad news is that the good news may put him out of a job. That result would follow from a finding either that there is no legal authority for the creation of the office of special counsel, that he wasn’t appointed in compliance with the Constitution, or some combination of the two.....
Last edited:
The article points out that Jack Smith has failed the test of being a good lawyer.
"Isn’t this merely the sort of crabbed legalism that nonlawyers find infuriating and that should not be part of a discussion of momentous matters like the prosecution of Mr. Trump?
No, for reasons best articulated by Robert Jackson, who was attorney general before FDR appointed him to the Supreme
In a 1940 address to a conference of U.S. attorneys, he described the immense and unchecked power that federal prosecutors have to investigate people, to interview their friends and relatives, to authorize their arrest and secure their prosecution.
He noted that the appointment of U.S. attorneys “from the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential appointment, requiring confirmation of the Senate. . . . You are thus required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.”
Jack Smith hasn’t passed that test, and with his record of having lost cases both at trial and on appeal because of his overreaching approach to criminal law, likely wouldn’t. At a minimum, these prosecutions should be handled by a duly appointed and confirmed U.S. attorney who has.
"Isn’t this merely the sort of crabbed legalism that nonlawyers find infuriating and that should not be part of a discussion of momentous matters like the prosecution of Mr. Trump?
No, for reasons best articulated by Robert Jackson, who was attorney general before FDR appointed him to the Supreme
In a 1940 address to a conference of U.S. attorneys, he described the immense and unchecked power that federal prosecutors have to investigate people, to interview their friends and relatives, to authorize their arrest and secure their prosecution.
He noted that the appointment of U.S. attorneys “from the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential appointment, requiring confirmation of the Senate. . . . You are thus required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.”
Jack Smith hasn’t passed that test, and with his record of having lost cases both at trial and on appeal because of his overreaching approach to criminal law, likely wouldn’t. At a minimum, these prosecutions should be handled by a duly appointed and confirmed U.S. attorney who has.
The Judge in Florida has dismissed the case against President Trump for his handling of classified documents. Jack Smith is 0-2 against Donald Trump. He over-reached. That is why they brought him on board- to prosecute these cases with flimsy criminal grounds.
www.foxnews.com
Judge dismisses Trump's Florida classified documents case
A judge in Florida has dismissed the case against former President Trump's handling of classified documents, with Trump telling Fox News he is 'thrilled' with the ruling.
Well SCOTUS says when the President breaks the law we should just ignore it. Still believe that is an incorrect read of the law.
This certainly will be appealed, and she once again she will be overruled. She is spectacularly incompetent and an embarrassment as a Federal judge.The Judge in Florida has dismissed the case against President Trump for his handling of classified documents. Jack Smith is 0-2 against Donald Trump. He over-reached. That is why they brought him on board- to prosecute these cases with flimsy criminal grounds.
Judge dismisses Trump's Florida classified documents case
A judge in Florida has dismissed the case against former President Trump's handling of classified documents, with Trump telling Fox News he is 'thrilled' with the ruling.
So Smith was illegally appointed and Congress never authorized the funds to pay him.... Welcome to the doctrine of original intent and strict construction. Judge Cannon's ruling is line with the Supreme Court's long term position.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida said federal law didn’t authorize Smith to conduct the prosecution. No legal authority “gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith,” the judge wrote in the 93-page ruling....
In addition to finding Smith’s appointment invalid, Cannon’s Monday decision also said Congress never authorized the appropriation of money for the expenses of Smith’s office.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida said federal law didn’t authorize Smith to conduct the prosecution. No legal authority “gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith,” the judge wrote in the 93-page ruling....
In addition to finding Smith’s appointment invalid, Cannon’s Monday decision also said Congress never authorized the appropriation of money for the expenses of Smith’s office.
Last edited:
So, if Smith was improperly paid and he spent the money, doesn't he have to pay it back? I suggest that he does.
Any time you are overpaid by the Federal Government, you are personally responsible for refunding that money. Jack Smith just opened himself up a to a False Claims Act violation.
It happens all the time in health care and government contracting.
Welcome to the real world, Jack Smith.
Any time you are overpaid by the Federal Government, you are personally responsible for refunding that money. Jack Smith just opened himself up a to a False Claims Act violation.
It happens all the time in health care and government contracting.
Welcome to the real world, Jack Smith.
Unless I'm missing something, Trump puppet Judge Cannon just gave Hunter Biden a get out of jail free card. David Weiss, the US attorney handpicked by Trump and Barr to prosecute the alleged crimes of Hunter Biden, requested and received a Special Counsel designation by AG Garland. Under Judge Cannon's ruling, Weiss is not authorized to conduct the prosecution and I doubt that Congress has authorized the appropriation of money for the expenses Weiss incurred as Special Counsel in his prosecution.
Neither Trump nor Hunter Biden should get off on this ruling, if either or both committed crimes they should be prosecuted and not get off on a technicality. Hopefully this ruling will be overruled on appeal.
And I guess under Gally's law, Weiss would have to pay back money he spent as Special Counsel to the federal government.
We have something called the Constitution in this country. If the Constitution does not allow for a non-officer of the Government to be appointed as a prosecutor, then he should not be appointed. It is simple.
Jack Smith has spent more than $30 million trying to get Trump. Jack Smith didn't even have the authority to prosecute someone. The Justice department can not just on a whim spend money that was not allocated to it. This applies to anyone.
Last edited:
Good to know you are a constitutional law expert, or at least you think you are.
You concern is noted. The rule of Judge Cannon should only apply to Trump and not Hunter. Hunter deserves to be prosecuted regardless of who is prosecuting him.
So says a tin-pan judge whose legal acumen has been consistently overruled throughout this trial. I suspect it will be again.
Nice pick of Vance by the POS. Republicans tried to hang Fatso's last midwestern veep with an "e" on the end of his name.
Vance is another poser like Rubio, Cruz and the rest who know the level of scum that Trump is, said so aloud a few years ago, then decided it would benefit their careers more to kiss the ring instead. Spineless and worthless, all of them.
Well, in Vance's case, Trump himself said it was something other than the ring that got kissed. VP slots seemingly come at a premium.
Vance is the most radical of the 3 finalists for Trump's VP so its no surprise he was chosen. He wants a nationwide abortion ban (no exceptions for rape or incest), has said women who have been abused should not get a divorce, is still claiming the 2020 election was stolen, wants the January 6 participants, who stormed the Capitol and injured police officers, to be pardoned, wants zero funding or help for Ukraine, and says he would have done what Mike Pence did not do by refusing to certify the election results. Certainly he has pledged his total loyalty to Trump and will do whatever Trump wants him to do, unlike Pence, who had the courage to defy Trump when he tried to overturn the 2020 election.
Yeah, right. I hope you are joking but hard to tell with you. Certainly a lie on a firearm application and failure to file a tax return is more serious than trying to overthrow our government, and taking top secret documents, refusing to return them when demanded to do so, then lying that all documents had been returned when they had not. At least the documents were in a safe place, at his country club/residence.
