The Liberal DC Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects Trump's Claims of Presidential Immunity

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump cannot shake off his charges for an alleged effort to subvert the 2020 election by claiming presidential immunity.
Trump, who is facing four criminal indictments, has argued that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office unless they are first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found unanimously that Trump cannot invoke presidential immunity against the four-count indictment alleging he conspired to overturn the 2020 election.
"We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes. ... Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count," the appeals court panel said in the 57-page ruling Tuesday.
The decision is a notable blow against Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 election, who is accused on four criminal counts of attempting to subvert the 2020 election. While the judges were not asked to find Trump liable for the alleged crimes, they made clear the seriousness of his charges if he were convicted.
"Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government," the court said, adding Trump's stances "would collapse our system of separated powers" by placing him outside the scope of the three branches of government.
"We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the court said.
The District of Columbia Circuit told Trump he has until Monday to appeal the decision, including with a request to pause his trial proceedings. If he does, the criminal trial that is before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the first to rule against his immunity claims, will not resume until after his appeal reaches a final resolution.

What Trump would like is for the Supreme Court to take this appeal. If they agree to hear the issue, that would almost certainly push the trial off well past the election.

But they do have to agree to hear it for that to happen. For a case to be entertained by the Supreme Court, four justices have to agree to grant certiorari. I don't really know what that means but my head cannon is "certified that a Constitutional issue is at play which the Supreme Court must resolve."

If four justices do not agree to hear the case -- if the Court "denies cert" -- then the DC Circuit Court of Appeals' word is the operative ruling, and the trial can be scheduled before the election.

I would not count on the Supreme Court granting cert. They may, but they may not. Amy Coney Barrett is basically a Roberts liberal, and Kavanaugh is also weak.

I would hope that the Supreme Court considers this case important enough to hear, even if only to put a check on the Deep State's obvious headlong rush to interfere in the 2024 election.

But Roberts will always vote to uphold Regime authority, Barrett seems to be his puppet, and Kavanaugh also seems to really want to be liked by the liberal Permanent Government of DC.

Update: TheJamesMadison says I'm all wet about Kavanaugh:

I'm getting the sense that Kavanaugh is much more...antagonistic to the administrative state than we were led to believe.
In the Raimondo oral arguments, he was apparently the primary antagonistic voice, even moreso than Gorsuch who's been trying to create an anti-Chevron coalition since he showed up on the SCOTUS bench.

He could be right.

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
Reading the DC Appeals Court decision. Lots of comments later but right now I'm headed for a cross-country flight so time is limited.
Initial impression:
"We beg you, Justices of the Supreme Court, please take this nightmare off our hands."
This thing is written in a way that begs for SCOTUS review.
10:44 AM * Feb 6, 2024

I don't know how an appeals court writes an opinion that "begs" the Supreme Court to review them, but, there's his opinion.

Thanks to Martini Farmer.

Posted by: Disinformation Expert Ace at 01:14 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Howdy Ace

Posted by: Doof at February 06, 2024 01:16 PM (XIF9h)

2 Great - now we can prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen via drone.

Posted by: The ARC of History! at February 06, 2024 01:16 PM (YAtuc)

3 Oof

Posted by: Blutarski at February 06, 2024 01:16 PM (Fwuhb)

4 Nood duties performed

Posted by: Doof at February 06, 2024 01:17 PM (XIF9h)

5 Glad to hear your shelves are standing strong, straight, and proud, Ace!

Posted by: Duncanthrax at February 06, 2024 01:17 PM (PbswM)

6 Looks like the Trump pardons himself route seems most likely.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 06, 2024 01:17 PM (3aLWR)

7 1st?

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at February 06, 2024 01:18 PM (lPeS+)

8 So when are they going after Bribe'm?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:18 PM (H0X/Q)

9 7th-ish

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at February 06, 2024 01:18 PM (lPeS+)

10 head cannon

BZZZT! "headcanon"

I will allow "head-canon" if you adopt a whimsical, Victorian-era persona, my good man.

Posted by: Lance McCormick, pedant at February 06, 2024 01:18 PM (l8gTz)

11 Nood duties performed
Posted by: Doof

You're so thoughtful!

Posted by: AZ deplorable moron at February 06, 2024 01:18 PM (YOmit)

12 I would hope that the Supreme Court considers this case important enough to hear, even if only to put a check on the Deep State's obvious headlong rush to interfere in the 2024 election.

But Roberts will always vote to uphold Regime authority, Barrett seems to be his puppet, and Kavanaugh also seems to really want to be liked by the liberal Permanent Government of DC.

=======

I'm getting the sense that Kavanaugh is much more...antagonistic to the administrative state than we were led to believe.

In the Raimondo oral arguments, he was apparently the primary antagonistic voice, even moreso than Gorsuch who's been trying to create an anti-Chevron coalition since he showed up on the SCOTUS bench.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finishing up the Best Pictures at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (GBKbO)

13 now we can prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen via drone.

It just shows how corrupt the American legal system has gotten - with a fair legal system, ex-Presidents would be shaking in their boots at the prospect of being prosecuted for their actions while in office.

But everyone knows that this is directed solely at Trump - no other ex-President will be held accountable.

Posted by: The ARC of History! at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (YAtuc)

14 >>5 Glad to hear your shelves are standing strong, straight, and proud, Ace!

They soar like cappuccino-stained eagles of freedom.

Posted by: ace at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (KRtlO)

15 So precedent is set.

But our side will never use the weapons the Dems give us.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (3aLWR)

16 Let's fucking GO!!!!!

Posted by: Haley at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (yGgPe)

17 I mean, if Trump is a "thug" and a "dictator", wouldn't he just have deese judges whacked? He'd be doing us all favor, and it would be remembered.

Posted by: Paulie Walnuts at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (Zz86T)

18 Nood duties performed
Posted by: Doof

You're so thoughtful!
Posted by: AZ deplorable moron at February 06, 2024 01:18 PM (YOmit)

There's no nood like a Doof-nood!

Posted by: Doof at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (XIF9h)

19 I had authentic certiorari in at this little cafe in Naples. They used a little too much garlic in the sauce, but other than that it was fine.

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (9yWhg)

20 no standing

moot

Posted by: Supreme Court at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (AR07F)

21 I had thought that the days of the liberal SCOTUS were over. I think not now.

Posted by: vic at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (A5THL)

22 A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C

I think I see the problem...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (ynpvh)

23 14 >>5 Glad to hear your shelves are standing strong, straight, and proud, Ace!

They soar like cappuccino-stained eagles of freedom.
Posted by: ace at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (KRtlO)

======

Did you throw your shelves out the window?!

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finishing up the Best Pictures at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (GBKbO)

24 The charges against Trump are obviously bullshit, but the concept that a president has full immunity for anything he does in office unless he’s impeached seems like a stretch to me.

So, if Joe Biden is on video taking a bribe from the Chinese government, he is completely immune from the law because he’s president at the time he took the bribe?

Posted by: Benchmark at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (e57TB)

25 They soar like cappuccino-stained eagles of freedom.
Posted by: ace

Such imagery, it's almost like poetry!

Posted by: AZ deplorable moron at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (YOmit)

26 I'm not clear how they can say Trump is now just Citizen Trump, but the event they are indicting him for happened when he was president. What is the point if they just have to wait till he is out of office, then anything he did as POTUS can be a criminal offense?

My guess is SCOTUS will reverse the ruling, but no idea on odds of that.

Posted by: illiniwek at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (Cus5s)

27 My level of trust SCOTUS does the right thing

___|__________

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:21 PM (eYF7X)

28 Trump’s scotus picks were worse than Bush’s on a percentage basis. Bush was 50%, Trump was 33%.

Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 01:21 PM (YofvK)

29 You mean the DC Court that would have sole discretion over everything regarding immigration if Congress were to pass their shitstain of an immigration bill or a different DC court?

Posted by: huerfano at February 06, 2024 01:21 PM (Q4KYm)

30 Barrett seems to be his puppet

I wouldn't mind having her as my puppet. Or being her puppet.

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at February 06, 2024 01:21 PM (9yWhg)

31 Kavanaugh is also weak

Except when he's holding women down with one hand and holding a ice cold brew in the other.

Posted by: Bert Kaverner Likes Rape, Beer, and Rape at February 06, 2024 01:21 PM (UMHqX)

32 no standing

moot
Posted by: Supreme Court

It's a tax!

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (9yWhg)

33 22 A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C

I think I see the problem...
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:20 PM (ynpvh)

I read that post wrong. That was not a AOTUS rulihg.

Posted by: vic at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (A5THL)

34 Indicting past Presidents of the other party is a classic Banana Republic move.

Posted by: Tom Servo at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (i9ffA)

35 So, if Joe Biden is on video taking a bribe from the Chinese government, he is completely immune from the law because he’s president at the time he took the bribe?
Posted by: Benchmark

Basically, yes. It is congress' duty to convict. And the house is investigating and should wrap up preliminaries by Nov 1, 2924.

Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (r0XlB)

36 It just shows how corrupt the American legal system has gotten - with a fair legal system, ex-Presidents would be shaking in their boots at the prospect of being prosecuted for their actions while in office.

But everyone knows that this is directed solely at Trump - no other ex-President will be held accountable.
Posted by: The ARC of History!

Yep. All the ex-presidents should be shitting their pants but are not. Except for the peanut farmer. He shits himself, but not over this issue.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (R4t5M)

37 That DC Circuit opinion . . . wow. Might as well have been written by the DNC. It's not so much a legal opinion as it is a litany of leftwing, TDS talking points. It's a DNC press release all but dripping with TDS. Wow. Just wow.

Posted by: Elric Blade at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (iFTx/)

38 if Joe Biden is on video taking a bribe from the Chinese government, he is completely immune from the law because he’s president at the time he took the bribe?
Posted by: Benchmark

Depends on the price of tea in China.

Posted by: AZ deplorable moron at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (YOmit)

39 no standing

moot
Posted by: Supreme Court

Still say Texas should have declared war on Pennsylvania after the election and you abdicated your constitutional responsibilities.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (H0X/Q)

40 27 My level of trust SCOTUS does the right thing

___|__________

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:21 PM (eYF7X)

Not sure what that means as the end points are not defined.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (ynpvh)

41
Nudities >> Nood duties

Posted by: stu-mick-o-sucks at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (w9Wax)

42 28 Trump’s scotus picks were worse than Bush’s on a percentage basis. Bush was 50%, Trump was 33%.

Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 01:21 PM (YofvK)

All that means is Bushie didn't get to pick a 3rd.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:23 PM (ynpvh)

43 "Not great for Trump"

which also means:

"Trump's Nomination not great for America."

But it's okay. He's the master of 4-dimensional chess. He's a stable genius.

Just one more election where an entire movement will realize--too late--that they were all the inside, receptacle-end of Trump's personal ego-condom.

Posted by: Marleysghost at February 06, 2024 01:23 PM (uxXx0)

44 Yep. All the ex-presidents should be shitting their pants but are not. Except for the peanut farmer. He shits himself, but not over this issue.
Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory

Along with the currently shitting president.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:23 PM (H0X/Q)

45 Trump has not been punched in the face and had his nose broken by Jack Smith. Therefore he has suffered no direct harm by this prosecution.

Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at February 06, 2024 01:23 PM (r0XlB)

46 I would hope that the Supreme Court considers this case important enough to hear, even if only to put a check on the Deep State's obvious headlong rush to interfere in the 2024 election.

Hope is not enough.
Plan ahead.
Buy ammo.
Know your neighbors.
Have a backup plan.

Posted by: Diogenes at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (W/lyH)

47 I've never denied Certs. I know they exist, and furthermore, I accept them when offered, which is surprisingly often.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (MvF+J)

48 I don't at all disagree with this analysis, but the striking irony is that this is THE ultimate constitutional issue. That the odds are good the USSC would not even grant cert to make that determination tells you what you need to know about how close to collapse the Banana Empire is. That we even have to speculate tells us the courts do not deserve respect let alone compliance with their orders.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (KSNKu)

49 Nudities >> Nood duties
Posted by: stu-mick-o-sucks

Hey, big boy. I'm right here.

Posted by: Trigglypuff at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (9yWhg)

50 35 So, if Joe Biden is on video taking a bribe from the Chinese government, he is completely immune from the law because he’s president at the time he took the bribe?
Posted by: Benchmark

Basically, yes. It is congress' duty to convict. And the house is investigating and should wrap up preliminaries by Nov 1, 2924.
Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (r0XlB)

Does congress have the powers on imprison the president? All they can do is throw him out of office right? So in that scenario, Biden would be kicked out of office but would not face any criminal charges.

Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (YofvK)

51 I think this particular argument is detrimental whichever way it goes.

Nixon's "it's not illegal when the President does it" went over like a lead balloon and yes I get it he was actually saying something else yadda yadda yadda I get it.

It is a very nuanced argument that the President has certain immunity for governmental action. And I think they do - I mean I do believe it is illegal for a president to extrajudicially kill someone, while at the same time believing that Presidents should sometimes extrajudicially kill people.

In the Get Trump era this decision is going to be used to Get Trump, and even though the precedent will be set, it won't be used to jail Obama or any other President as Trump warns, which will make him look like he's actually legitimately targeted.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (xhfG9)

52 Earlier today on X:

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
Reading the DC Appeals Court decision. Lots of comments later but right now I’m headed for a cross-country flight so time is limited.

Initial impression:

“We beg you, Justices of the Supreme Court, please take this nightmare off our hands.”

This thing is written in a way that begs for SCOTUS review.
10:44 AM · Feb 6, 2024

Posted by: Martini Farmer at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (Q4IgG)

53 Gosh, I guess we all should just vote for Nikki, now.

Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (r0XlB)

54 43...
Just one more election where an entire movement will realize--too late--that they were all the inside, receptacle-end of Trump's personal ego-condom.

Posted by: Marleysghost at February 06, 2024 01:23 PM (uxXx0)

So voting for the other guy or not voting at all?

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (ynpvh)

55 I like big dicks and I cannot lie.

Posted by: Amy Cornhole Barrett at February 06, 2024 01:25 PM (woPEM)

56 2024 and decisions like this will determine if the Republic is dead (as I maintain) or merely gravely wounded.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, anti-Marxist, buy ammo and keep your rifle by your side at February 06, 2024 01:25 PM (xcxpd)

57 Remember, when Bill Clinton was selling pardons in his last days of office?

I’m not sure I even want the Supreme Court to give a blank check reading of this they are above the law at all times while in office.

The charges against Trump are complete nonsense, but that doesn’t mean we create some new special right for presidents.

Posted by: Benchmark at February 06, 2024 01:25 PM (e57TB)

58 Not sure what that means as the end points are not defined.

.50 <

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:25 PM (eYF7X)

59 2 Great - now we can prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen via drone.

+1000 Prosecuting Obama for murder should be a priority if Trump is re-elected.

While I am happy that the guy he killed is dead, it sets an awful precedent.

Posted by: CThillary, dead but dreaming at February 06, 2024 01:25 PM (zSyrn)

60 49 Nudities >> Nood duties
Posted by: stu-mick-o-sucks

Hey, big boy. I'm right here.

Posted by: Trigglypuff at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (9yWhg)

Guaranteed to roll you over. Like a boulder. In an Indiana Jones' movie.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:25 PM (ynpvh)

61 Nudities >> Nood duties
Posted by: stu-mick-o-sucks

Hey, big boy. I'm right here.
Posted by: Trigglypuff

*sobs

Posted by: The Ottoman at February 06, 2024 01:26 PM (w9Wax)

62 Does congress have the powers on imprison the president? All they can do is throw him out of office right? So in that scenario, Biden would be kicked out of office but would not face any criminal charges.
Posted by: Montec

Senate conviction removes from office and can probably also include a criminal referral to DOJ at that time.

Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at February 06, 2024 01:26 PM (r0XlB)

63 Does congress have the powers on imprison the president? All they can do is throw him out of office right? So in that scenario, Biden would be kicked out of office but would not face any criminal charges.
Posted by: Montec

Unless sentenced to hang for treason...

Posted by: AZ deplorable moron at February 06, 2024 01:26 PM (YOmit)

64 And I do like Supertramp's 'Goodbye Stranger'....though it has sad memories for me...but I don't much like live performances. Prefer the album version.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, anti-Marxist, buy ammo and keep your rifle by your side at February 06, 2024 01:26 PM (xcxpd)

65 50
...
Does congress have the powers on imprison the president? All they can do is throw him out of office right? So in that scenario, Biden would be kicked out of office but would not face any criminal charges.

Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (YofvK)

Yup, since Merrick won't go after him for any of the crimes (given they are in the federal jurisdiction).

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:26 PM (ynpvh)

66 Just one more election where an entire movement will realize--too late--that they were all the inside, receptacle-end of Trump's personal ego-condom.

Posted by: Marleysghost at February 06, 2024 01:23 PM (uxXx0)

So voting for the other guy or not voting at all?
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia)

Mommy will make sure his ballot goes out in the mail.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at February 06, 2024 01:27 PM (R4t5M)

67 But this was the 3-judge panel, right?

And he can request the whole?

Let's not forget that Gestapo Garland was on the DC Circuit.

Where he voted that the judge acting as prosecutor of Flnn was Constitutional under the "Orange Man Bad" clause of their constitution.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice - Personality Commentator at February 06, 2024 01:27 PM (cSaKW)

68 Great - now we can prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen via drone.
While I am happy that the guy he killed is dead, it sets an awful precedent.
Posted by: CThillary

The chef was killed by a drone?

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at February 06, 2024 01:27 PM (9yWhg)

69 50 35 So, if Joe Biden is on video taking a bribe from the Chinese government, he is completely immune from the law because he’s president at the time he took the bribe?
Posted by: Benchmark

Basically, yes. It is congress' duty to convict. And the house is investigating and should wrap up preliminaries by Nov 1, 2924.
Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at February 06, 2024 01:22 PM (r0XlB)

Does congress have the powers on imprison the president? All they can do is throw him out of office right? So in that scenario, Biden would be kicked out of office but would not face any criminal charges.
Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (YofvK)
____________

Trump's immunity claim is more subtle than that. He's not saying he's immune from any and all criminal charges up to and including murder. He's saying he's immune from criminal charges for conduct that falls within the scope of or is related to his executive powers and duties, which include ensuring fair elections.

Posted by: Elric Blade at February 06, 2024 01:28 PM (iFTx/)

70 DC should NOT have a District/Circuit Court

Full Stop.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 01:28 PM (mJHFD)

71 56 2024 and decisions like this will determine if the Republic is dead (as I maintain) or merely gravely wounded.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, anti-Marxist, buy ammo and keep your rifle by your side at February 06, 2024 01:25 PM (xcxpd)

One of the Dumbledore movies (pre Harry Potter) has the bad guy kill a critter, then reanimate it's corpse as his puppet.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:28 PM (ynpvh)

72 Weren’t a lot of Hunter Biden’s deals done while Joe was Vice President?

Does the protection extend to the VP also, that Joe would be fully immune?

Posted by: Benchmark at February 06, 2024 01:28 PM (e57TB)

73 So, the court has already decided that Trump is guilty. They contend that Trump is guilty of things that his opponents ACTUALLY DID and Trump did not do (outside of the wackos' fevered imagination). And Trump's efforts to "remain in power" were .... peacefully leaving the White House on January 20.

Is that about right?

The left sure has a hang up when people don't affirm their delusions strongly enough. We see this all over the place, including the recent tranny malarkey.

Posted by: Emmie at February 06, 2024 01:28 PM (Sf2cq)

74 Kegstand and phoney ferret, aren't going to stand up to much pressure. They may have had good intentions at one point, but I don't think they planned on being Supreme Court justices in a narcostate

Posted by: NeverTrump Corp. at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (fRhCV)

75 I keep thinking there's something basically wrong in our judicial and legislative processes where so much hangs in the balance waiting for nine people to voice their opinions.

Posted by: Dr. Pork Chops & Bacons at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (BdMk6)

76 48 I don't at all disagree with this analysis, but the striking irony is that this is THE ultimate constitutional issue. That the odds are good the USSC would not even grant cert to make that determination tells you what you need to know about how close to collapse the Banana Empire is. That we even have to speculate tells us the courts do not deserve respect let alone compliance with their orders.
Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (KSNKu)

Yeah, this mess just screams constitutional crisis which is what SCOTUS was supposed to prevent. Kind of dovetails with the discussion at the end of the last thread about how many governors were asleep at the wheel at the moment of truth...we will soon see how another institution handles that test.

Posted by: CppThis at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (PZvjL)

77 >>He's saying he's immune from criminal charges for conduct that falls within the scope of or is related to his executive powers and duties

And he is correct.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (mJHFD)

78 I mean I get it - defense in depth. I did not do something illegal. And if I did, well, I am immune anyway.

This is something best left unadjudicated, but the hardon to Get Trump knows no bounds.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (xhfG9)

79 68 Great - now we can prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen via drone.
While I am happy that the guy he killed is dead, it sets an awful precedent.
Posted by: CThillary

The chef was killed by a drone?

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at February 06, 2024 01:27 PM (9yWhg)

up his ass.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (ynpvh)

80 Deleted for being stupid...even stupider than usual! [CBD]

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (eYF7X)

81 One of the Dumbledore movies (pre Harry Potter) has the bad guy kill a critter, then reanimate it's corpse as his puppet.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:28 PM (ynpvh)

Seems to be an apt metaphor for the United States of America

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, anti-Marxist, buy ammo and keep your rifle by your side at February 06, 2024 01:30 PM (xcxpd)

82 The courts wouldn’t hear cases filed by States regard to the election or rule on obvious violations of State constitutions regard to election procedures. These were the avenues attempted to question the election.

Because they refused to address it the only other option was to raise the issue with the voters , where at least 60 million who were possibly disenfranchised. This is not close to being criminal. The Democrats are all over the place doing it in 2016. Where are their trials.

Al Gore did it in 2000 but the courts rightly got involved to make a determination , right or wrong, that allowed for the losing candidate to make decision whether he would comply.

Trump had no court decision to ignore to make it criminal.

Posted by: Ivory Black at February 06, 2024 01:31 PM (MNhXM)

83 At this point, you need to wear a tinfoil hat to think there won't be tanks on the streets of DC.

Posted by: Not trying to be mean but... at February 06, 2024 01:31 PM (yGgPe)

84 I think there is a distinction here.

The President is claiming he is immune for acts taken as president which are (at least to a degree) part of his duties and responsibilities as President. Further, that securing the transfer of power, the oversight of the process, etc. are part of his responsibilities.

The Left is trying to claim he could kill people in the street and I don't think anyone is arguing that the President can do that. Only that as President his actions which are necessary for his office can only be judged through impeachment.

Posted by: PFC Obvious at February 06, 2024 01:31 PM (uqjbl)

85 77 >>He's saying he's immune from criminal charges for conduct that falls within the scope of or is related to his executive powers and duties

And he is correct.
Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (mJHFD)
_____

He's definitely correct. Or else we end up with exactly what this witch-hunt is: a politically motivated witch-hunt to punish a political rival and deter him (and others like him) from voicing politically opposing opinions.

Posted by: Elric Blade at February 06, 2024 01:31 PM (iFTx/)

86 Trump's best picks ever--really TREMENDOUS--will not vote to take this up.

Posted by: The Real ADL at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (Eqssc)

87
77 >>He's saying he's immune from criminal charges for conduct that falls within the scope of or is related to his executive powers and duties

And he is correct.
Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (mJHFD)

Not according to this second set of laws right here.

*points at second set of laws*

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (3aLWR)

88 Nice to know courts are comfortable making such rulings. It's almost as if the judges have been assured this is a weapon which applies only to one person.

Posted by: Blake - semi lurker at large at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (tT6L1)

89 ...seriousness of his charges...

Oh, it's the seriousness of the charges. Well, that's different then.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (zhLdt)

90 Weren’t a lot of Hunter Biden’s deals done while Joe was Vice President?

Does the protection extend to the VP also, that Joe would be fully immune?
Posted by: Benchmark

A lot happened while Trump was president. When Bribe'm had no protection. Where's the arrests?
Crackhead didn't stop being a crackhead.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (6GRih)

91 Here's something I like about Trump's ego: he will be very proud of himself indeed for everything he does to make life better for Americans.

I can live with that.

Posted by: Emmie at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (Sf2cq)

92 Trump's immunity claim is more subtle than that. He's not saying he's immune from any and all criminal charges up to and including murder. He's saying he's immune from criminal charges for conduct that falls within the scope of or is related to his executive powers and duties, which include ensuring fair elections.
Posted by: Elric Blade at February 06, 2024 01:28 PM (iFTx/)

Thus the question from the judge about sending Seal Team 6 to kill an opponent.

Yes that was a spoiler meant to create a soundbite, but it also was meant to Socratically define a boundary.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (xhfG9)

93 I had to look it up. Wikipedia sez: "Mackerel snapper was once a sectarian slur for Catholics, originating in the United States in the 1850s.[1] It referred to the Catholic discipline of Friday abstinence from red meat and poultry, for which fish was substituted."

This was not my first guess, by a mile.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (MvF+J)

94 89 ...seriousness of his charges...

Oh, it's the seriousness of the charges. Well, that's different then.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 01:32 PM (zhLdt)

The courts move at ludicrous speed, not serious speed.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:33 PM (ynpvh)

95 Whether immunity, or attorney/client confidentiality, or security in one's papers, or property rights, or business practices, there are three standards of legal interpretation:
1. The interpretation used for the Party and its rulers (extremely lenient)
2. The interpretation used for the rubes and outsiders (generally punitive)
3. The interpretation used for Donald Trump (entirely punitive without exception)

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:33 PM (yjAVs)

96 >>The Left is trying to claim he could kill people in the street and I don't think anyone is arguing that the President can do that. Only that as President his actions which are necessary for his office can only be judged through impeachment.

Which is fine as an exercise in where we draw the line:

Still.
He'd need to be impeached, convicted and removed.

ONLY then, could he be criminally charged.

That's how I read the text.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 01:33 PM (mJHFD)

97 He's not saying he's immune from any and all criminal charges up to and including murder. He's saying he's immune from criminal charges for conduct that falls within the scope of or is related to his executive powers and duties, which include ensuring fair elections.
===
Wait wut??? You're saying the DC circuit judges are misrepresenting Trumps arguments?!!? It's as if you are suggesting the legal process is disingenuous and subverted by end justify the means factotums.

Posted by: NeverTrump Corp. at February 06, 2024 01:33 PM (fRhCV)

98 The Left is trying to claim he could kill people in the street and I don't think anyone is arguing that the President can do that.

Obama droned one.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:33 PM (6GRih)

99 "We beg you, Justices of the Supreme Court, please take this nightmare off our hands."
----
Isn't passing the buck on up to a "higher authority" a bit of a tradition among lower courts?

Without reading the ruling, I'm guessing it's based on tortured pretzel-logic that only a true legal scholar could understand. And it most likely means the opposite of what a layperson would interpret it to say.

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at February 06, 2024 01:34 PM (7fElN)

100 All the lefty media is hyping up the ridiculous hypothetical that "could Trump order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?"

Yes, you dumb asses. Our president orders the deaths of innocents all the F'ing time.
And the Constitution well protects against actual abuse--if it was wrong, he'll be impeached, removed, tried and convicted.

But it is unconstitutional to criminally charge him without impeachment because--as is now clear-- the opposition party will abuse the criminal law to settle political disputes.
Which is why he is fully immune from all acts while in office.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice - Personality Commentator at February 06, 2024 01:34 PM (cSaKW)

101 I don't know how an appeals court writes an opinion that "begs" the Supreme Court to review them, but, there's his opinion.
++++
"We're making a vague and arguable ruling about something very important so that it will be taken off our hands while holding the savages at bay. Ball's in your court if you want to give it another look, but we're washing our hands of it."

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:34 PM (yjAVs)

102 What is on the court schedule for Thursday ?

Posted by: anon at February 06, 2024 01:34 PM (RqMDa)

103 Jail jail jail soon!!! Blah for you!!!!!

Posted by: Sid at February 06, 2024 01:34 PM (SkTxS)

104 Not according to this second set of laws right here.

*points at second set of laws*
Posted by: AlaBAMA

Subject to change. On short notice.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at February 06, 2024 01:34 PM (R4t5M)

105 Lunch today was a nice piece of medium-rare sirloin steak and some tomato juice.

Mmm mmm good.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:35 PM (yjAVs)

106 Solomon ain't got nothing on the DC Circuit.

Clearly, Presidents are immune from prosecution for "official duties and decisions", because, if not, we get Imperial rule. And J6 comes before J20 on the calendar, when El Fako nominally took over.

So the Court tried to draw a distinction between official actions and the J6 rally. How they did that I have no idea, except to say it (like the Colorado Supreme Court decision) is obviously a political judgement from the court, and not legal.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at February 06, 2024 01:35 PM (uOZap)

107 100
...
But it is unconstitutional to criminally charge him without impeachment because--as is now clear-- the opposition party will abuse the criminal law to settle political disputes.
Which is why he is fully immune from all acts while in office.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice - Personality Commentator at February 06, 2024 01:34 PM (cSaKW)

See Monica? No problem...Now where's my cigar?

Posted by: BJ Bill Clinton at February 06, 2024 01:35 PM (ynpvh)

108 TRUMP HAS TOO MUCH DRAMA!!!

Posted by: Moron Robbie - The RNC is the NRA of the GOP at February 06, 2024 01:35 PM (AIJ3L)

109 >>Not according to this second set of laws right here.

*points at second set of laws*

The Calvinball Doctrine has NEVER been Tested!

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 01:35 PM (mJHFD)

110 Zactly !!! Turtle and the GOP Senate caved on the border bill because the ruling class decided it is time to confront the uprisings and jail Trump.. Gird Thy Loins. sniff sniff yep shit coming down the pike brothers and sisters..

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 01:35 PM (wW1qL)

111 The Left is trying to claim he could kill people in the street and I don't think anyone is arguing that the President can do that. Only that as President his actions which are necessary for his office can only be judged through impeachment.
Posted by: PFC Obvious at February 06, 2024 01:31 PM (uqjbl)

What was Trump's attorney's response - did he unequivocally say that no immunity doesn't apply here? What he answered was that only after impeachment and conviction could a President be criminally iindicted.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:36 PM (xhfG9)

112 The Calvinball Doctrine has NEVER been Tested!
Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 01:35 PM (mJHFD)
++++
LOL. It's tested all time.

It almost always survives. The Party loves Calvinball, since they control the field of play.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:36 PM (yjAVs)

113 > 'Devout' Mackerel Snapper.

Clarence Thomas is a devout Catholic, and he's a national treasure.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 01:36 PM (V1QHJ)

114 105 I'm opting for bagged salad. Debagged before consumption this time.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (MvF+J)

115 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?

Posted by: ... at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (oNgxs)

116 Deleted for being stupid...even stupider than usual! [CBD]

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (eYF7X)
~~~~~

Go to hell.

Posted by: IrishEi at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (PPLn4)

117 I usually don’t blame or give credit for GOP President’s SC picks including Trump. They don’t know these people personally and probably have no feel for their past resume except what is told to them.

Ironically the only two President’s that were deeply involved are the Bush’s . Bush Sr would not abandon Clarence Thomas and Bush Jr personally knew Miers. Very fortunate her replacement nominee is one of the best SC justices. He gets no credit for that.

Posted by: Ivory Black at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (MNhXM)

118 >"Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power

---

was he armed
did he take hostages
did he seize territory or buildings or forts
did he threaten violence
did he commit violence

NO
he questioned the results of an election, which I guess is against the law now, 1st Amendment notwithstanding

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (geLO8)

119 I'm opting for bagged salad. Debagged before consumption this time.
Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (MvF+J)
++++
Solid plan. Leaving the wrapper on is not recommended!

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (yjAVs)

120 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?
Posted by: ...

LBJ?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (6GRih)

121 Deleted for being stupid...even stupider than usual! [CBD]

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:29 PM (eYF7X)
~~~~~

Go to hell.

Posted by: IrishEi at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (PPLn4)

Does he get to Pass Go and collect $200, or is it a straight trip?

Posted by: BJ Bill Clinton at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (ynpvh)

122 Read this at Legalinsurrection.com, while nothing makes my eyes glaze over faster than reading law, seems they still ate trying to convict Trump for a supposed action WHILE he was President or after which makes anyone a criminal for questioning their crimes

Posted by: Skip at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (fwDg9)

123 115 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?
Posted by: ... at February 06, 2024 01:37 PM (oNgxs)

Uh....Henry II?

Posted by: Zombie Robbo the Llama Butcher at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (T+Iwg)

124 Trump’s scotus picks were worse than Bush’s on a percentage basis. Bush was 50%, Trump was 33%.
Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 01:21 PM (YofvK)

Dobbs. Bruen. I'm sure others could chime in a add some.

We're not going to get everything all at once. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (zhLdt)

125 Obama may not like losing Presidential immunity.

The power hungry Marxists seem to ignore the possibility of unintended consequences.

They are fools rushing in, weaving a wicked web in order to open a Pandora's box, they are subject to being hoist by their own petard.

Posted by: Minuteman at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (LaNzR)

126 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?
Posted by: ...

Henry II?

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (9yWhg)

127 "Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power

---

was he armed
did he take hostages
did he seize territory or buildings or forts
did he threaten violence
did he commit violence

NO
he questioned the results of an election, which I guess is against the law now, 1st Amendment notwithstanding
Posted by: Don Black

ARREST AL GORE!!!!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (6GRih)

128 76 48 I don't at all disagree with this analysis, but the striking irony is that this is THE ultimate constitutional issue. That the odds are good the USSC would not even grant cert to make that determination tells you what you need to know about how close to collapse the Banana Empire is. That we even have to speculate tells us the courts do not deserve respect let alone compliance with their orders.
Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (KSNKu)

Yeah, this mess just screams constitutional crisis which is what SCOTUS was supposed to prevent. Kind of dovetails with the discussion at the end of the last thread about how many governors were asleep at the wheel at the moment of truth...we will soon see how another institution handles that test.
Posted by: CppThis
-----------
Scotus has already failed the test in 2020 due to cowardice by Roberts and his cohorts and there is really no way back here.

Essentially, there are no institutions in DC that are not corrupt and self serving nowadays. Sort of like the French or Russian aristocracy before revolutions. Ditto for England prior to its civil war.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (ysVwb)

129 119 Can you post your next vixen pic with her eating a steak?

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:39 PM (MvF+J)

130 Obama droned one.

Actually two - whatshisterroristface then his son in a separate murder.

Posted by: CThillary, dead but dreaming at February 06, 2024 01:39 PM (zSyrn)

131 120 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?
Posted by: ...

LBJ?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (6GRih)

Willie Brown, when Kumala walked into the room?

Posted by: BJ Bill Clinton at February 06, 2024 01:39 PM (ynpvh)

132 Does he get to Pass Go and collect $200, or is it a straight trip?
Posted by: BJ Bill Clinton at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (ynpvh)
~~~~~

That comment was one of the most bigoted I have ever seen allowed on AoS.

Posted by: IrishEi at February 06, 2024 01:39 PM (PPLn4)

133 You expected anything different ace?

Really?

Posted by: Gonzotx at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (BJatY)

134 Obama may not like losing Presidential immunity.

The power hungry Marxists seem to ignore the possibility of unintended consequences.

They are fools rushing in, weaving a wicked web in order to open a Pandora's box, they are subject to being hoist by their own petard.
Posted by: Minuteman

How? Our side won't lift a finger to go after a dem.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (6GRih)

135 They are fools rushing in, weaving a wicked web in order to open a Pandora's box, they are subject to being hoist by their own petard.
Posted by: Minuteman at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (LaNzR)

Hedging their bets. Nobody is doing much of anything to stop them.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (R4t5M)

136 > Yes, you dumb asses. Our president orders the deaths of innocents all the F'ing time.

So Biden can order Trump's assassination? I don't think you've thought this one through.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (V1QHJ)

137 Scotus has already failed the test in 2020 due to cowardice by Roberts and his cohorts and there is really no way back here. ...
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (ysVwb)
++++
You plucked the thought directly out of my brain.

The Court declined to handle THE Constitutional Issue last time one came up. Adjudication between the several states - its freaking *job* as defined - mandated the Court's involvement. It declined, and it showed what it was.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (yjAVs)

138 Damn sock! Off Sock!

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (ynpvh)

139 Democrats impeached him over these exact issues, and he was NOT CONVICTED.

Trying him now in a court of law is an attempt to overrule the Senate.

Fuck Off, is the right answer.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (uOZap)

140 Left is trying to claim he could kill people in the street and I don't think anyone is arguing that the President can do that. Only that as President his actions which are necessary for his office can only be judged through impeachment.
Posted by: PFC Obvious at February 06, 2024 01:31 PM (uqjbl)

The court’s very flawed reductio ad Absurdum argument.

Posted by: Ivory Black at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (MNhXM)

141 Posted by: Marleysghost at February 06, 2024 01:23 PM (uxXx0)

Well, if it spares members of a different movement from having to learn that their golden persyn was either a fake or would be treated in exactly the same fashion, so be it.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 01:41 PM (zhLdt)

142 How? Our side won't lift a finger to go after a dem.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (6GRih)

Aye. This is the rub.

The whole "you won't like the new rules" thing only works if you make THEM live by the new rules, too.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:41 PM (xhfG9)

143 Ace,

That version of "Goodbye Stranger" you put on the sidebar is...um...pretty lousy compared to the studio version.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 06, 2024 01:41 PM (gSZYf)

144 Not according to this second set of laws right here.

*points at second set of laws*
---
That's just a puff of smoke wafting from a pile of ashes...

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at February 06, 2024 01:41 PM (7fElN)

145 Meanwhile, "Republicans" are voting not to impeach Mayorkas.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at February 06, 2024 01:41 PM (uOZap)

146 96 >>The Left is trying to claim he could kill people in the street and I don't think anyone is arguing that the President can do that. Only that as President his actions which are necessary for his office can only be judged through impeachment.

Which is fine as an exercise in where we draw the line:

Still.
He'd need to be impeached, convicted and removed.

ONLY then, could he be criminally charged.

That's how I read the text.
Posted by: garrett
-----
We are in a post constitutional world but the Dems at the time agreed with your position regarding Nixon. He was named as an unindicted co-conspirator for a reason.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (ysVwb)

147 136 > Yes, you dumb asses. Our president orders the deaths of innocents all the F'ing time.

So Biden can order Trump's assassination? I don't think you've thought this one through.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (V1QHJ)

Oh he could order it, but it would be within the rights of those receiving illegal orders to ignore it. Merrick would never proscecute him, even if, by miracle, he was impeached and then removed from office by the Senate.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (ynpvh)

148 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?

Masturbatin' Pete?

Posted by: Don't Help Him at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (UMHqX)

149 134 How? Our side won't lift a finger to go after a dem.
Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (6GRih)

Theirs will. And nobody eats their own like the collectivist left does. Just ax Leon Trotsky how that works...

Posted by: CppThis at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (PZvjL)

150 Obama may not like losing Presidential immunity.

The power hungry Marxists seem to ignore the possibility of unintended consequences. ...
Posted by: Minuteman at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (LaNzR)
++++
Because there aren't any. Not like this.

Obama will not lose presidential immunity. Neither will Bush. Neither will Clinton. Nor Biden. Nor the next guy. Zero risk whatsoever of that happening. Even if a deplorable in the government tried it (unlikely), the courts will rule that it's different this time.

The unintended consequences will all hit the scene at once the same way they always do under a tyrannical single-party system: through collapse or revolution.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (yjAVs)

151 If the SC doesn't take up the case, it will become a regular feature to arrest presidents once they leave office, at least the ones that don't toe the democrat line.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (lTGtQ)

152 Ok it was a noble gesture. Making rules to follow the law and calling it God's Army. How quaint...
The olive branch has been pissed on!!!!

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (wW1qL)

153 I don't at all disagree with this analysis, but the striking irony is that this is THE ultimate constitutional issue. That the odds are good the USSC would not even grant cert to make that determination tells you what you need to know about how close to collapse the Banana Empire is. That we even have to speculate tells us the courts do not deserve respect let alone compliance with their orders.
Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (KSNKu)

TX v PA answered all those questions.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 01:43 PM (zhLdt)

154 What he answered was that only after impeachment and conviction could a President be criminally iindicted.---- for actions that relate to his office as president. He can't rob banks either. He could send seal team six to kill an opponent it that opponent had taken up arms against the US on the battlefield. There are limits.

Posted by: NeverTrump Corp. at February 06, 2024 01:43 PM (fRhCV)

155 >>Scotus has already failed the test in 2020 due to cowardice by Roberts and his cohorts and there is really no way back here. ...
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:38 PM (ysVwb)

This. Like I posted earlier, I have little to no faith the Supreme Court will do the right thing.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:43 PM (eYF7X)

156 Afternoon.

OT

Deadline: Disney Activist Investor Blackwells Floats Idea Of Splitting Up Company As It Officially Launches Proxy Fight, Nominates Three To Board

http://tinyurl.com/3dfhxwrf

Posted by: Robert at February 06, 2024 01:43 PM (QN5K1)

157 Unless I'm wrong, Smith didn't charge Trump with Insurrection

Posted by: It's me donna at February 06, 2024 01:43 PM (Akjoo)

158 "You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?"

Lepers sounds like a safe bet.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:43 PM (MvF+J)

159 Does congress have the powers on imprison the president? All they can do is throw him out of office right? So in that scenario, Biden would be kicked out of office but would not face any criminal charges.
Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 01:24 PM (YofvK)

I believe that Trump's argument is that having been removed from office removes immunity.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 01:44 PM (zhLdt)

160 Can't anybody here play this game?

Tit for tat.

We need tats for our tits.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:44 PM (xhfG9)

161 the SC doesn't take up the case, it will become a regular feature to arrest presidents once they leave office, at least the ones that don't toe the democrat line.
===
Would be pretty hard for a president to ever. Contest an election...if not uniparty.

Posted by: NeverTrump Corp. at February 06, 2024 01:44 PM (fRhCV)

162 That comment was one of the most bigoted I have ever seen allowed on AoS.
Posted by: IrishEi

Yes, and by a regular, too. That surprised me.

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at February 06, 2024 01:44 PM (9yWhg)

163 If the SC doesn't take up the case, it will become a regular feature to arrest presidents once they leave office, at least the ones that don't toe the democrat line.
Posted by: Thomas Paine at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (lTGtQ)
---
"We don't have a problem with this!"

Posted by: Democrat Party at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (7fElN)

164 160 Can't anybody here play this game?

Tit for tat.

We need tats for our tits.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:44 PM (xhfG9)

I think tats are ugly. I prefer the natural look of skin.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (ynpvh)

165 Looking at the three "Judges" I'm not surprised

Posted by: It's me donna at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (Akjoo)

166 145 Meanwhile, "Republicans" are voting not to impeach Mayorkas.
Posted by: Huck Follywood

You have got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (eYF7X)

167 How? Our side won't lift a finger to go after a dem.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (6GRih)

We don't even have a side.

Posted by: ... at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (oNgxs)

168 Theirs will. And nobody eats their own like the collectivist left does. Just ax Leon Trotsky how that works...
Posted by: CppThis at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (PZvjL)
++++
And ask Lenin about the other side of it.

Once the Party has no external enemies, they will play Calvinball against each other. But the faction in command will not see those tactics used against them.

Right now, to extend your analogy, the Kalorama faction is Lenin and the Clinton faction is Trotsky. They're not going after each other with knives drawn yet, because there are still extra-Party enemies to be dealt with. Once those enemies are handled, they will go after each other. And the double standard will still be there, and the weak faction may lament that - but the strong faction will find conditions to be their liking and just business as usual.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (yjAVs)

169 That DC Circuit opinion . . . wow. Might as well have been written by the DNC. It's not so much a legal opinion as it is a litany of leftwing, TDS talking points. It's a DNC press release all but dripping with TDS. Wow. Just wow.
Posted by: Elric Blade

That was my first thought, too. Apparently, from reading the thread so far, you and I are the only ones to see that.

Ace, are you gonna go OFF at how unprofessional, acidic, and downright horrible that writing is, or nah?

Posted by: Taq, Rickrolled by Jesus at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (/QIWP)

170 Her card read, "Have Tits with Tats, Will Travel"

Posted by: International Brotherhood of Hobos and Associated Hermits at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (dzZCL)

171 The Court declined to handle THE Constitutional Issue last time one came up. Adjudication between the several states - its freaking *job* as defined - mandated the Court's involvement. It declined, and it showed what it was.
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!)

That is why judges must always employ the facts at hand rather than 'precedent', 'judicial restraint', or 'judicial activism'. For the most part, justiciability of cases refers to run of the mill cases--not to resolving issues of national importance.

Scotus ducked the hard question of what to do when states don't follow election laws to the benefit of one particular party. So, they bear the responsibility of everything that flowed from the coup that Biden's junta instigated.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:46 PM (ysVwb)

172 I saw Tatted up Tits open for Megadeth in '89 at the Hollywood Bowl.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 06, 2024 01:46 PM (3aLWR)

173 Here is what is happening Thursday - isn't this related to this decision ?
The justices will hear oral argument on Thursday in former President Donald Trump’s case against Colorado voters who argue that he is disqualified from appearing on the state’s ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol.

Posted by: anon at February 06, 2024 01:46 PM (RqMDa)

174 I think tats are ugly. I prefer the natural look of skin.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia)

Agreed.

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at February 06, 2024 01:47 PM (9yWhg)

175 158 "You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?"

Lepers sounds like a safe bet.
Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:43 PM (MvF+J)

Oh, yeah? Here I was minding my own business when this officious busy-body came along and cured me! Now I'm right out of a job!!

Posted by: Monty Python's Ex-Leper at February 06, 2024 01:47 PM (T+Iwg)

176 > Oh he could order it, but it would be within the rights of those receiving illegal orders to ignore it. Merrick would never proscecute him, even if, by miracle, he was impeached and then removed from office by the Senate.

So the only protection against POTUS assassinating political rivals is the honor of those who might be ordered to do so and the possibility of impeachment after the fact?

Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 01:47 PM (V1QHJ)

177 What this decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals means is that liberal DC prosecutors can file charges against former presidents in DC federal courts conducted by activist DC judges, with juries packed with DC liberals - for ANY actions made or alleged by the accused former president(s) during his/her terms of office.

With such an overthrow of representative government with the blessing of the judiciary branch, who needs elections?

Posted by: mrp at February 06, 2024 01:47 PM (rj6Yv)

178 Weren't Trump's lawyers asked "could Trump use the military to kill his political rival, and be covered by presidential immunity?"

and as I recall, they said "yes he would be covered".

or something like that.

Posted by: illiniwek at February 06, 2024 01:47 PM (Cus5s)

179 Trump’s scotus picks were worse than Bush’s on a percentage basis. Bush was 50%, Trump was 33%.

Bush gave us Roberts

That alone gives him a 1,000,000 negative

Posted by: Gonzotx at February 06, 2024 01:47 PM (MwHgU)

180 There's no nood like a Doof-nood!
Posted by: Doof at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (XIF9h)

Close enough:
http://tinyurl.com/bdd5nuad

(Nothing personal, Mr. Doof. Just jogged a memory, and seeing it again made me smile.)

Posted by: Lady Who Always Has a Burning Question at February 06, 2024 01:47 PM (JCLJi)

181 The legal-related comments here are awesome. Thanks!

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:47 PM (MvF+J)

182 Ace, are you gonna go OFF at how unprofessional, acidic, and downright horrible that writing is, or nah?
Posted by: Taq, Rickrolled by Jesus at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (/QIWP)

It's worse than bad shelving?

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (3aLWR)

183 Scotus ducked the hard question of what to do when states don't follow election laws to the benefit of one particular party. So, they bear the responsibility of everything that flowed from the coup that Biden's junta instigated.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:46 PM (ysVwb)
---
It seems like CJ Roberts is pretty good at ducking his responsibility. If he wasn't capable of making tough decisions based on the Constitution (regardless of the personal feelings of himself or the parties involved) then he should never have taken the job.

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (7fElN)

184 So, if Joe Biden is on video taking a bribe from the Chinese government, he is completely immune from the law because he’s president at the time he took the bribe?
----
Yes.
Or we have bullshit like, "the Russians stayed at the hotel the President owned-- the payment for the room was a bribe!!"

You know, like exactly what happened already.

The President--including Biden--has to be immune from all criminal prosecution for acts while President or every political dispute will be resolved by criminal filings.

And if there was a clearly criminal act, there will be more than enough votes to convict in the Senate.
So it's a very, very stupid and extremely dishonest to whine, "but then the President can get away with crimes!"
By the same fucking people that tell us the criminal law is a tool of white supremacy used illegally against blacks.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice - Personality Commentator at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (cSaKW)

185 "We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the court said.

'WE' cannot accept... ie.. based on personal belief, not the law as written, the Constitution, or precedent.

This is right up there with 'the Constitution is not a suicide pact' so we can just ignore it.

Stick a fork in it folks. Republic is over.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (xaFKb)

186 Yes, you dumb asses. Our president orders the deaths of innocents all the F'ing time
==
Not American citizens on American soil. He can't do that because of due process etc. He can kill American citizens abroad, under certain circumstances.

Posted by: NeverTrump Corp. at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (fRhCV)

187 This blonde in her underwear agrees with jim (in Kalifornia) :
https://is.gd/VAOHBM

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (yjAVs)

188 -----
We are in a post constitutional world but the Dems at the time agreed with your position regarding Nixon. He was named as an unindicted co-conspirator for a reason.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:42 PM (ysVwb

And why he was pre-pardoned by Ford.

Posted by: Ivory Black at February 06, 2024 01:49 PM (MNhXM)

189 If a president is impeached and removed from office, he is still fair game

impeachment and removal does not confer immunity or pardon

unless I'm wrong™

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 01:49 PM (geLO8)

190 Note, in Calif a Judge declared that background checks for buying gun ammo was UnConstitutional... but can remain in place anyway.

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 01:49 PM (xaFKb)

191 The decision sounds like it was written by a committee of DU commenters.

Posted by: Taq, Rickrolled by Jesus at February 06, 2024 01:49 PM (/QIWP)

192 183 Scotus ducked the hard question of what to do when states don't follow election laws to the benefit of one particular party. So, they bear the responsibility of everything that flowed from the coup that Biden's junta instigated.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:46 PM (ysVwb)
---
It seems like CJ Roberts is pretty good at ducking his responsibility. If he wasn't capable of making tough decisions based on the Constitution (regardless of the personal feelings of himself or the parties involved) then he should never have taken the job.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (7fElN

I don't believe Robert's to be incapable. I believe him to be corrupted.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 06, 2024 01:50 PM (3aLWR)

193 Ace/CBD or any coblogger

Clean up in aisle 80 please

Posted by: Huck Follywood at February 06, 2024 01:50 PM (uOZap)

194 https://is.gd/VAOHBM No steak. Not softcore.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:50 PM (MvF+J)

195 190 Note, in Calif a Judge declared that background checks for buying gun ammo was UnConstitutional... but can remain in place anyway.

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 01:49 PM (xaFKb)

It's not unConstitutional unConstitutional.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:50 PM (xhfG9)

196 The congress ran an impeachment on Trump AFTER he was out of office, so the precedent is set.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at February 06, 2024 01:50 PM (lTGtQ)

197 Art I Sec 3

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 01:51 PM (geLO8)

198 187 This blonde in her underwear agrees with jim (in Kalifornia) :
https://is.gd/VAOHBM
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (yjAVs)

Superb craftsmanship on those doors.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 06, 2024 01:51 PM (3aLWR)

199 The lawfare against Trump leading up to election day will get dirtier and more constant with each passing week.

BUT, in our wildest nightmares can we imagine what's coming (lawfare and riots) if the election results indicate a Trump win.

That's when we'll see tanks on the streets of DC.

Posted by: Dr. Pork Chops & Bacons at February 06, 2024 01:51 PM (BdMk6)

200 Weren't Trump's lawyers asked "could Trump use the military to kill his political rival, and be covered by presidential immunity?"

and as I recall, they said "yes he would be covered".

He could be covered if it was related to his power as commander and chief, if for example his opponent was a general in the confederate army. Right? It's not that hard.

Posted by: NeverTrump Corp. at February 06, 2024 01:51 PM (fRhCV)

201 Didn’t Obama and Holder provide guns to the cartels that ended up being involved in killing a border patrol and DoJ agent?

Murder has no statute of limitations.

Posted by: DanMan at February 06, 2024 01:51 PM (8uzBS)

202 Mayorkas is being investigated for High Crimes and Misdemeanors

H.Res.582 - Impeaching Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The max penalty for which is death No?

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 01:51 PM (wW1qL)

203 169 That DC Circuit opinion . . . wow. Might as well have been written by the DNC. It's not so much a legal opinion as it is a litany of leftwing, TDS talking points. It's a DNC press release all but dripping with TDS. Wow. Just wow.
Posted by: Elric Blade

That was my first thought, too. Apparently, from reading the thread so far, you and I are the only ones to see that.

Ace, are you gonna go OFF at how unprofessional, acidic, and downright horrible that writing is, or nah?
Posted by: Taq
--------
We are now past the rule of law and what matters is whether the left actually has the power to make their coup stick.

I've pretty much given up on legal commentary simply because Calvinball rulings make a mockery of jurisprudence, precedent, and respect for the court for acting to protect rights. That is why Roberts cowardice or idiocy trying to maintain a 'non political' stance by shunting off and ignoring these cases using justiciability is a failed strategy.

Pretty much true of the Bruen decision for example. Both California and NY purposefully are thumbing their nose at Scotus. The proper response is GVR--not even an opinion.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (ysVwb)

204 >The congress ran an impeachment on Trump AFTER he was out of office, so the precedent is set.

Posted by: Thomas Paine

and the CJOTUS declined to participate, noting that it was not a constitutional process

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (geLO8)

205 "Superb craftsmanship on those doors."

Not crazy about that statue, though. If I had a hammer ...

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (MvF+J)

206 201 Didn’t Obama and Holder provide guns to the cartels that ended up being involved in killing a border patrol and DoJ agent?

Murder has no statute of limitations.
Posted by: DanMan
---------
They don't ever anticipate losing power in the future.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (ysVwb)

207 Art I Sec 3

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Posted by: Don Black

Note the word convicted in there.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at February 06, 2024 01:53 PM (lTGtQ)

208 https://is.gd/VAOHBM
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (yjAVs)

*Says a little prayer of thanksgiving*

Yum!

Posted by: Robert at February 06, 2024 01:53 PM (zk2lX)

209 >>187 This blonde in her underwear agrees with jim (in Kalifornia) :
https://is.gd/VAOHBM
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!)

She looks like she would shame a man of less than adequate stature.
Very fit. Would.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at February 06, 2024 01:53 PM (eYF7X)

210 Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (yjAVs)

That stage has passed and the Stalinists have prevailed. This is the mopping up stage similar to the First Great Terror.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 01:53 PM (KSNKu)

211 ... I've pretty much given up on legal commentary simply because Calvinball rulings make a mockery of jurisprudence, precedent, and respect for the court for acting to protect rights. That is why Roberts cowardice or idiocy trying to maintain a 'non political' stance by shunting off and ignoring these cases using justiciability is a failed strategy. ...
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (ysVwb)
++++
That is pure poetry.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:53 PM (yjAVs)

212 We are now past the rule of law and what matters is whether the left actually has the power to make their coup stick.

....

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (ysVwb)

^^This

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:53 PM (xhfG9)

213 @92

>>Yes that was a spoiler meant to create a soundbite, but it also was meant to Socratically define a boundary.

Ironically, that may be foreshadowing what the Junta plans to do if they can't fix their Trump problem with normal methods.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (DWvGN)

214 So, are they going to rely on precedent or create a new and improved precedent ?

Posted by: runner at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (V13WU)

215 We need tats for our tits.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:44 PM (xhfG9)

I think tats are ugly. I prefer the natural look of skin.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (ynpvh)

Yup, like painting graffiti on the Venus de Milo.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (xaFKb)

216 202 Mayorkas is being investigated for High Crimes and Misdemeanors

H.Res.582 - Impeaching Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The max penalty for which is death No?
Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 01:51 PM (wW1qL)

======

The House isn't going to pass impeachment articles on the floor. The vote will fail because at least a dozen GOPers will side with Mayorkas.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finishing up the Best Pictures at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (GBKbO)

217 203
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (ysVwb)

In states that do this, their legislatures that pass these unconstitutional laws, the governors that sign it, all should be held to account, be kicked out of office, all their possessions taken away, and left in stocks for the people to throw rotten food at them.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (ynpvh)

218 Democrats want the Executive Branch to be a creature of the Legislative Branch, especially the House of Representatives.

Threat of impeachment will ALWAYS BE THE HARNESS A PRESIDENT WEARS.

Figure all you morons know it. The Courts know it but won't say it.

Posted by: torabora at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (bkWIA)

219 That stage has passed and the Stalinists have prevailed. This is the mopping up stage similar to the First Great Terror.
Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 01:53 PM (KSNKu)
++++
We're in a transition period. There are still external enemies to be dealt with, but the Party has enough overall control that the factions are flexing their muscles. The defeat of the external enemies seems to be being treated as a fait accompli. They still have to finish the job, but they have little doubt as to its outcome.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (yjAVs)

220 That stage has passed and the Stalinists have prevailed. This is the mopping up stage similar to the First Great Terror.

really depends on what state you live in honestly

it's like that in PA

but from what I hear, not so much in FL

Posted by: BlackOrchid, I meant to say at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (AcWfM)

221 >Note the word convicted in there.

Posted by: Thomas Paine

note comment #189

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (geLO8)

222 Jennifer Crumbley guilty on all four counts of involuntary manslaughter, for the school shooting her son committed. Father's separate trial yet to come.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:55 PM (MvF+J)

223 I think tats are ugly. I prefer the natural look of skin.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (ynpvh)

Fist bump.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 01:55 PM (zhLdt)

224 The House isn't going to pass impeachment articles on the floor. The vote will fail because at least a dozen GOPers will side with Mayorkas.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finishing up the Best Pictures at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (GBKbO)

Like I said, only takes 1.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:55 PM (xhfG9)

225 They don't ever anticipate losing power in the future.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (ysVwb)

It is what makes them dangerous. Conversely, if they ever did see the handwriting on the wall, they would take out everything and everyone with them, which we saw briefly with the nuclear flexing with Putin. The people who run the Banana Empire are spectacularly insane and demonic.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 01:55 PM (KSNKu)

226 >Threat of impeachment will ALWAYS BE THE HARNESS A PRESIDENT WEARS.

all presidents will be routinely impeached from now on

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 01:55 PM (geLO8)

227 "Scotus ducked the hard question of what to do when states don't follow election laws to the benefit of one particular party. So, they bear the responsibility of everything that flowed from the coup that Biden's junta instigated."

I went berserk at the time. I wasn't ready to believe that everything in DC was corrupt.

But now it's pretty obvious.

Posted by: pawn at February 06, 2024 01:55 PM (QB+5g)

228 And why did they go with immunity argument in the first place ? after Nixon v Fitzgerald and US v Nixon ?

Posted by: runner at February 06, 2024 01:55 PM (V13WU)

229 222 Jennifer Crumbley guilty on all four counts of involuntary manslaughter, for the school shooting her son committed. Father's separate trial yet to come.

that's terrible

Posted by: BlackOrchid, I meant to say at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (AcWfM)

230 Why wouldn't every president from now on issue himself a blanket pardon for any potential crimes he might have committed in office on his last day?

Posted by: Scout at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (+pqbt)

231 215 We need tats for our tits.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:44 PM (xhfG9)

I think tats are ugly. I prefer the natural look of skin.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (ynpvh)

Yup, like painting graffiti on the Venus de Milo.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (xaFKb)

She wouldn't be able to wrap her arms around that.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (ynpvh)

232 all presidents will be routinely impeached from now on
Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 01:55 PM (geLO

Biden won't

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (xhfG9)

233 The SCOTUS will take this so they can rule in favor of making Biden and Barky immune to prosecution for their treasonous bribe taking.

Posted by: Madamemayhem (uppity wench) at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (cRrcX)

234 political disagreements have been criminalized

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (geLO8)

235 This blonde in her underwear agrees with jim (in Kalifornia) :
https://is.gd/VAOHBM
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (yjAVs)

Gorgeous. All of her. Kudos Mr. Mannix

Posted by: Dr. Pork Chops & Bacons at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (BdMk6)

236 Several people are right here. Let me offer a more structural argument. Unlike common law, which belongs to the states, all federal law is the creation of Congress. The Constitution creates a dilemma with respect to the prosecution of the President. Trump's lawyers are arguing, in effect, that 34 Senators can decide to exempt the President from the application of a law created by Congress. If 34 Senators say a SEAL Team assassination is OK, that is what the Constitution requires.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (XGJnQ)

237 All of the Left’s opinion writings lack logic, proper cause and effect and is written exactly how you would expect some trying to explain an opinion they had already made prior to hearing the opposing arguments. Working backwards always sounds amateurish.

Posted by: Ivory Black at February 06, 2024 01:57 PM (MNhXM)

238 They still have to finish the job, but they have little doubt as to its outcome.
==
It's YOLO time!!!!!!

Posted by: Honey Biden at February 06, 2024 01:57 PM (fRhCV)

239 14...They soar like cappuccino-stained eagles of freedom.
Posted by: ace at February 06, 2024 01:19 PM (KRtlO)

Come for the political discussions, stay for the poetry.

Posted by: Question Authority bumper sticker at February 06, 2024 01:57 PM (Rbu5d)

240 This blonde in her underwear agrees with jim (in Kalifornia) :
https://is.gd/VAOHBM
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:48 PM (yjAVs)

Dark nipples
and very much my type

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, anti-Marxist, buy ammo and keep your rifle by your side at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (xcxpd)

241 Suprise! Russians know exact what's going on here in the US.

Russians React to Tucker Carlson Visiting Moscow
http://tinyurl.com/23u7y3vr

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (wW1qL)

242 >I think tats are ugly. I prefer the natural look of skin.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (ynpvh)

There is a certain allure of a tramp stamp though.

Posted by: Heavy Meta at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (NgqoH)

243 "and as I recall, they said "yes he would be covered".

He could be covered if it was related to his power as commander and chief, if for example his opponent was a general in the confederate army. Right?"

Well I get that argument. But I was surprised by their answer at the time. Maybe he has to be impeached first? And hopefully we are not electing murderers ... came close with Hilda, but now we have old Joe the decrepit.

Posted by: illiniwek at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (Cus5s)

244 230 Why wouldn't every president from now on issue himself a blanket pardon for any potential crimes he might have committed in office on his last day?
Posted by: Scout at February 06, 2024 01:56 PM (+pqbt)

B/c that only pardons federal crimes.

States and localities would still have free reign...and then use that pardon excuse as a reason to investigate your whole life.

Posted by: Nova Local at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (exHjb)

245 If you remember Chucky read the SCoTUS the riot act for defining the Deep State

Posted by: Skip at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (fwDg9)

246 229 I binge-watched the whole case for some reason. The defense attorney is pretty.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (MvF+J)

247 242 >I think tats are ugly. I prefer the natural look of skin.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:45 PM (ynpvh)

There is a certain allure of a tramp stamp though.

Posted by: Heavy Meta at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (NgqoH)

Open 24/7?

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (ynpvh)

248 What's the rationale for convicting the parents for a school shooting? Guns unlocked or somesuch?

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (yjAVs)

249 They still have to finish the job, but they have little doubt as to its outcome.
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (yjAVs)

Nor do I have doubt although I think that has been settled. But if there are any embers still flickering, they will be extinguished by November.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (KSNKu)

250 > Jennifer Crumbley guilty on all four counts of involuntary manslaughter, for the school shooting her son committed.

I don't know all the facts. I just read about it. So she knew her kid was depressed, drew a picture of a gun, and she had a gun in the home the kid could access.

That's it? That's enough to land you in prison for over a decade? Unless I'm missing some very compelling evidence, this is some serious bullshit.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (V1QHJ)

251 Sooo... using this ruling, we can now Prosecute Biden for millions of charges of Aiding and Abetting Illegal Aliens.

Oh, and if even ONE illegal kills a Citizen, accessory to murder, because of the legal precedent of someone dying during a Felony, makes you liable for that death.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (xaFKb)

252 The people who run the Banana Empire are spectacularly insane and demonic.
===
It gets really bad before it gets better.

Posted by: The Book at February 06, 2024 02:00 PM (fRhCV)

253 Democrats want the Executive Branch to be a creature of the Legislative Branch, especially the House of Representatives.

Threat of impeachment will ALWAYS BE THE HARNESS A PRESIDENT WEARS.

Figure all you morons know it. The Courts know it but won't say it.
Posted by: torabora at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (bkWIA

Think Imperial Rome - The Emperor, the Senate, the Praetorian Guard, and the Mob of Rome.

Posted by: mrp at February 06, 2024 02:00 PM (rj6Yv)

254 So, for example, if a president tried to assassinate an ex-president...

As long as that ex-president is not in DC (where federal law is the only law), the locality where the crime was committed could pursue 1st degree murder charges, no matter what a pardon or a Senate said...

Posted by: Nova Local at February 06, 2024 02:00 PM (exHjb)

255 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?

This is the most bigoted thing ever on the AOSHq.

Posted by: Bethany Hamilton at February 06, 2024 02:00 PM (w9Wax)

256 Hmmm... and as President no longer has immunity, is he now subject to STATE law as well? If his orders contravene State Law.... like is happening in Texas right now?

Can of Worms Status: Open

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 02:01 PM (xaFKb)

257 >Suprise! Russians know exact what's going on here in the US.
---

other than their acquiescence to living under despotism, I bet the rank and file Russian people are not so different from us

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 02:01 PM (geLO8)

258 254 So, for example, if a president tried to assassinate an ex-president...

As long as that ex-president is not in DC (where federal law is the only law), the locality where the crime was committed could pursue 1st degree murder charges, no matter what a pardon or a Senate said...

Posted by: Nova Local at February 06, 2024 02:00 PM (exHjb)

But the Gov of that state COULD pardon him.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:01 PM (ynpvh)

259 I've never seen a tattoo that positively enhanced the wearer's appearance. I don't understand why people get them. But then, I don't understand why people do any of the stuff they do.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 02:01 PM (MvF+J)

260 Abdication writ large.

Article III

Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 02:01 PM (H0X/Q)

261 Damn sock! Off Sock!
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 01:40 PM (ynpvh)

She might have agreed with Jim, but she evidently took off much more than her sock.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 06, 2024 02:01 PM (Ki//m)

262 Oh, and if even ONE illegal kills a Citizen, accessory to murder, because of the legal precedent of someone dying during a Felony, makes you liable for that death.
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (xaFKb)

There literally is nothing to stop Paxton or any other SAG from indicting Mayorkas for felony murder even now.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 06, 2024 02:02 PM (KSNKu)

263 So Biden can order Trump's assassination? I don't think you've thought this one through.
---
I have.
And yes he can.

You're getting trapped in the horror without realizing the evil it holds back is worse.

Which is worse:
1)A President ordering the assassination of a rival?
2)Or a political party, wholly in complete control of the judge and jury, having the unrestricted power to criminally charge any opposition President--even a sitting President--at any time?

Think carefully.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice - Personality Commentator at February 06, 2024 02:02 PM (cSaKW)

264 258 254 So, for example, if a president tried to assassinate an ex-president...

As long as that ex-president is not in DC (where federal law is the only law), the locality where the crime was committed could pursue 1st degree murder charges, no matter what a pardon or a Senate said...

Posted by: Nova Local at February 06, 2024 02:00 PM (exHjb)

But the Gov of that state COULD pardon him.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:01 PM (ynpvh)

Depending on the state (b/c al states have different pardon structures), that is true.

And now you know why Trump lives in FL now...

Posted by: Nova Local at February 06, 2024 02:02 PM (exHjb)

265 259 I've never seen a tattoo that positively enhanced the wearer's appearance. I don't understand why people get them. But then, I don't understand why people do any of the stuff they do.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 02:01 PM (MvF+J)

I've seen some tats that were a memorial to a lost love one. I can (sort of) understand that. Others are just...well, I think of butterfly tats on a young woman becoming bat tats when she's older...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:02 PM (ynpvh)

266 I don't know all the facts. I just read about it. So she knew her kid was depressed, drew a picture of a gun, and she had a gun in the home the kid could access.

That's it? That's enough to land you in prison for over a decade? Unless I'm missing some very compelling evidence, this is some serious bullshit.
Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (V1QHJ)

Yes, you are responsible for what your child does, unless they are trying to whack off their tits or Pee Pee, then you have no say in it.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 02:02 PM (xaFKb)

267 don't know all the facts. I just read about it. So she knew her kid was depressed, drew a picture of a gun, and she had a gun in the home the kid could access.
===
They called her to come pick up the kid. She said she couldn't leave work. At the time she said that she was in a parking lot with a fireman she was secretly banging. So, it bad facts make bad law all the time.

Posted by: Seriously at February 06, 2024 02:02 PM (fRhCV)

268 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?

Posted by: Bethany Hamilton at February 06, 2024 02:00 PM (w9Wax)

Henry II?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 06, 2024 02:02 PM (gSZYf)

269 Sooo... using this ruling, we can now Prosecute Biden for millions of charges of Aiding and Abetting Illegal Aliens.

Oh, and if even ONE illegal kills a Citizen, accessory to murder, because of the legal precedent of someone dying during a Felony, makes you liable for that death.
Posted by: Romeo13

Like I said that's why scotus will take this and rule in Trump favor. So no one can prosecute Biden or Barky for their criminal actions.

Posted by: Madamemayhem (uppity wench) at February 06, 2024 02:03 PM (cRrcX)

270 al = all (my typing still sucks today)...

Posted by: Nova Local at February 06, 2024 02:03 PM (exHjb)

271 Somebody tell Ace that Fani and Sweetdick are back in the news today and I'm jonesing for some Ballad of Fani and Sweetdick content.

Posted by: Big E at February 06, 2024 02:03 PM (AK7iE)

272 So Joe had a nasty little presser where he blamed Trump for everything ? Sorry I missed it... Not...

Posted by: It's me donna at February 06, 2024 02:03 PM (Akjoo)

273
The House isn't going to pass impeachment articles on the floor. The vote will fail because at least a dozen GOPers will side with Mayorkas.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finishing up the Best Pictures at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (GBKbO

I'm just aware of the wording of the indictment. When was the last time 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors was even mentioned in a formal congressional proceeding? The Rosenbergs?

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 02:04 PM (wW1qL)

274 The proper response is GVR--not even an opinion.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (ysVwb)

GVR - care to define that for us non-lawyers?

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 02:05 PM (zhLdt)

275 272 So Joe had a nasty little presser where he blamed Trump for everything ? Sorry I missed it... Not...
Posted by: It's me donna at February 06, 2024 02:03 PM (Akjoo)

Well, better than getting the leader of France wrong, and not realizing the leader he said he met in 2021 was dead for 25 years by then...

Biden needed to switch the dementia worsening story again...

Posted by: Nova Local at February 06, 2024 02:05 PM (exHjb)

276 270 al = all (my typing still sucks today)...

Posted by: Nova Local at February 06, 2024 02:03 PM (exHjb)

Me most days. My fingers sometimes don't want to type what my brain tells them to type. Most frustrating is when a completely different word comes off the fingers. Grrr!

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:05 PM (ynpvh)

277 The court's statement certainly reads as if Trump's guilt has been predetermined, despite the use of the word "allegedly."

Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government

He made no such effort. The entire premise is BS.

Posted by: Halfhand at February 06, 2024 02:05 PM (E+7x4)

278 Which is worse:
1)A President ordering the assassination of a rival?
2)Or a political party, wholly in complete control of the judge and jury, having the unrestricted power to criminally charge any opposition President--even a sitting President--at any time?

Think carefully.

So because #2 is bad and currently happening, that makes #1 allowable? I don't understand your point.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 02:05 PM (V1QHJ)

279 >>This blonde in her underwear agrees with jim (in Kalifornia) :
https://is.gd/VAOHBM

She doesn't look blonde.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 02:06 PM (mJHFD)

280 274 The proper response is GVR--not even an opinion.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 01:52 PM (ysVwb)

GVR - care to define that for us non-lawyers?

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 02:05 PM (zhLdt)

Grant, Vacate, Remand. I would gander.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:06 PM (ynpvh)

281 Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government

He made no such effort. The entire premise is BS.
Posted by: Halfhand at February 06, 2024 02:05 PM (E+7x4)

Asking Congress to do its Constitutionally appointed duty, is clearly insurrection!

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 02:06 PM (xaFKb)

282 Crumbley Mom found Guilty, BTW.

Michigan covering itself in retard.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 02:06 PM (mJHFD)

283 Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government

Remain in power ? So I guess he's in the WH right now ?

Posted by: It's me donna at February 06, 2024 02:06 PM (Akjoo)

284 The House isn't going to pass impeachment articles on the floor. The vote will fail because at least a dozen GOPers will side with Mayorkas.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finishing up the Best Pictures at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (GBKbO)

Assuming any of the dozen aren't planning on retiring, take the vote anyway to get them on record.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 02:06 PM (zhLdt)

285 embrace the the power of "and"

Posted by: poconohound at February 06, 2024 02:07 PM (rAqKq)

286 Trump, who is facing four criminal indictments, has argued that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office unless they are first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
---
What's the alternative? Every jurisdiction that has a theory that the President committed a crime can hold a grand jury?

Fucking nuts.

This is NOT Constitutional. The President has plenary powers and DISCRETION to adjudicate the laws as *he* sees fit. The guards against this are the checks and balances.

The know-it-all branch finds another way to capture another portion of our government.

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:07 PM (krQz2)

287 I thought the overwhelming opinion here was that only 'ettes can do noods.

Posted by: Eeyore at February 06, 2024 02:07 PM (1bNHn)

288 268 You know who else begged for a problem to be taken off his hands?

Posted by: Bethany Hamilton at February 06, 2024 02:00 PM (w9Wax)

Henry II?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 06, 2024 02:02 PM (gSZYf)

Golf clap.

Posted by: blaster at February 06, 2024 02:07 PM (xhfG9)

289 So Joe had a nasty little presser where he blamed Trump for everything ?

-------------

Unexpectedly!

Posted by: ShainS -- The Demoralization Will Continue Until Morale Improves at February 06, 2024 02:07 PM (atICx)

290 250 > Jennifer Crumbley guilty on all four counts of involuntary manslaughter, for the school shooting her son committed.

I don't know all the facts. I just read about it. So she knew her kid was depressed, drew a picture of a gun, and she had a gun in the home the kid could access.

That's it? That's enough to land you in prison for over a decade? Unless I'm missing some very compelling evidence, this is some serious bullshit.
Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (V1QHJ)

She also slept around and kept house poorly.

Off with her head!

Posted by: Robert at February 06, 2024 02:07 PM (/bcsH)

291 289 So Joe had a nasty little presser where he blamed Trump for everything ?

-------------

Unexpectedly!

Posted by: ShainS -- The Demoralization Will Continue Until Morale Improves at February 06, 2024 02:07 PM (atICx)

Trump shit my pants!--Joey

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:08 PM (ynpvh)

292 @Madamemayhem, there was a time when the DOJ tried to protect the institution of the Presidency. If those were still the rules, Biden would be intervening to protect Trump from prosecution. That Biden is on the other side shows us how much Trump has destroyed them.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 06, 2024 02:08 PM (XGJnQ)

293 278 Which is worse:
1)A President ordering the assassination of a rival?
2)Or a political party, wholly in complete control of the judge and jury, having the unrestricted power to criminally charge any opposition President--even a sitting President--at any time?

Think carefully.

So because #2 is bad and currently happening, that makes #1 allowable? I don't understand your point.
Posted by: bonhomme at February 06, 2024 02:05 PM (V1QHJ)

Simpler, the President who gave the order would be immune, those who carried out the order, would not.

Its the 'carrying out an illegal order' conundrum.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 06, 2024 02:08 PM (xaFKb)

294 Trump got 5 % of the vote in DC n the last election. Not a one of those DC Circuit judges were among that 5 %.

John "Epstein" Roberts' incredibly naive claim there are "no Republican or Democrat judges" aside, Trump will never get a fair hearing on anything at all in DC.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at February 06, 2024 02:08 PM (ZR01O)

295 And, those are really nice doors.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 02:09 PM (mJHFD)

296 294 Trump got 5 % of the vote in DC n the last election. Not a one of those DC Circuit judges were among that 5 %.

John "Epstein" Roberts' incredibly naive claim there are "no Republican or Democrat judges" aside, Trump will never get a fair hearing on anything at all in DC.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at February 06, 2024 02:08 PM (ZR01O)

Maybe he's right; there are the Commies and Socialists, and the non-commies.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:09 PM (ynpvh)

297 The House isn't going to pass impeachment articles on the floor. The vote will fail because at least a dozen GOPers will side with Mayorkas.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finishing up the Best Pictures at February 06, 2024 01:54 PM (GBKbO)
---
Exactly. If Impeachment is broken as a process blame DC!

And if you're telling us that the Power of the Purse is broken (because that's "holding hostage" apparently) and Impeachment is broken--and Oh, by the way, we're going to let judges regularly review the actions of the President....

Then you're telling us we NEED an insurrection because YOU broke government.

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:09 PM (krQz2)

298 There are blondes known and blondes unknown and in between are the doors...

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, anti-Marxist, buy ammo and keep your rifle by your side at February 06, 2024 02:09 PM (xcxpd)

299 >And, those are really nice doors.

Posted by: garrett

I know right
reclaimed wood

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 02:09 PM (geLO8)

300 Michigan covering itself in retard.
----------------
I have noticed watching The Incredible Dr. Pol show that Michigan has an abundance of big bottomed girls living there. Quite remarkable.

Posted by: Pudinhead at February 06, 2024 02:09 PM (Hpgos)

301 In a nutshell, the Crumbley jury was instructed they could find involuntary manslaughter, either by failure of duty, or by gross negligence. I myself do believe the prosecution proved negligence. I watched the whole thing; I could write a big post about it, but I'd want to get paid for it.

Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 02:10 PM (MvF+J)

302 SCOTUS will take the case. They will affirm the Appeals Court ruling but with a bunch of chin music that make it seem the decision was theirs and that they stood up for democracy and the rule of law. Basically stealing some glory for themselves. The conservatives on the court still want to help Trump, so they will take their sweet time, giving him the delay he loves. Win-win

any sensible person, with these ongoing legal problems, would not put themselves out as being qualified to hold the most powerful job in the US. Presidential candidates are given a thorough physical to prove that they are healthy enough to do the job. Trump's legal woes have AT LEAST as much affect on his suitability for office as his physical health.

The Supreme Court has rejected every one of Trump's Cert requests...no reason to expect a change now.

The court's opinion seems to be written to facilitate denial of cert by higher courts. My quick scan noted language citing precedent that “final ruling is unreviewable”.

Posted by: Intercepted DU Transmissions brought by the Intrepid AoS Liaison at February 06, 2024 02:10 PM (3oExq)

303 "and as President no longer has immunity, is he now subject to STATE law as well? If his orders contravene State Law.... like is happening in Texas right now?"

Texas is just claiming their right to defend themselves from the invasion, not looking to convict Biden. Biden has broken the constitutional requirement to defend the states from invasion ... which gives Texas the right to defend.

But (barring impeachment/conviction) Biden is not subject to criminal prosecution (the But Trump exception does not apply). imo, at this point ... heh

Posted by: illiniwek at February 06, 2024 02:11 PM (Cus5s)

304 There is a certain allure of a tramp stamp though.
Posted by: Heavy Meta at February 06, 2024 01:58 PM (NgqoH)

You can get the same from a t-shirt which says "I make poor decisions".

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 02:11 PM (zhLdt)

305 >>I myself do believe the prosecution proved negligence.

They needed to find Gross Negligence for the ACT.

Not a general finding of Negligence.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 02:11 PM (mJHFD)

306 There are the blondes we know are blondes, and the blondes we know are not blondes- and we know that there are also blondes we don't know, and there are the blondes that we don't know we don't know

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 02:11 PM (geLO8)

307 I have noticed watching The Incredible Dr. Pol show that Michigan has an abundance of big bottomed girls living there. Quite remarkable.
Posted by: Pudinhead

Western NY is chock-full of Trigglypuffs.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at February 06, 2024 02:11 PM (R4t5M)

308 Didn't crumbley buy the weird ass kid the gun used in the shooting and basically wanted him out of her hair so she could get her drink, drugs and dick on in peace?

Posted by: nckate at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (ZGGD+)

309 I don't think the office of president carries as much weight as it used to. It's a figurehead position now. The nominal leader of one side of the party or the other is installed. So, as we've seen with Trump, and now with *biden, the administrative state, the deep state, whatever you want to call it pretty much does what it wants regardless.

As for the constitution; it's invoked when it suits the state.

All the rest is graft and corruption. No "republic." No democracy either. Just crimes. Period.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (Q4IgG)

310 Oh, yeah, and the new attempt to make the DC District Court some sort of special court of its own in the >50% Ukraine Bill erroneously called "The Immigration Bill"

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (krQz2)

311 307 I have noticed watching The Incredible Dr. Pol show that Michigan has an abundance of big bottomed girls living there. Quite remarkable.
Posted by: Pudinhead

Western NY is chock-full of Trigglypuffs.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at February 06, 2024 02:11 PM (R4t5M)

How many herds?

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (ynpvh)

312 I could write a big post about it, but I'd want to get paid for it.
Posted by: gp Sets In Motion Various Apparatuses at February 06, 2024 02:10 PM (MvF+J)

I believe pays about 100 pesos per word.

Posted by: Robert at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (/bcsH)

313 The executive branch was designed to install a King with limited but extensive powers... especially re foreign powers...and a remedy in removal.

The Court allowed the boil to fester when it refused to force the House to Declare War and allowed the State to prosecute wars under a 'police action's style template.

Then lots of other abuse was forthcoming.

Posted by: torabora at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (bkWIA)

314 SC will hear the case.

Posted by: Big Star at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (Modkf)

315 >>Didn't crumbley buy the weird ass kid the gun used in the shooting and basically wanted him out of her hair so she could get her drink, drugs and dick on in peace?

That would be the script the Prosecution wanted to sell. Yes.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 02:13 PM (mJHFD)

316 311 307 I have noticed watching The Incredible Dr. Pol show that Michigan has an abundance of big bottomed girls living there. Quite remarkable.
Posted by: Pudinhead

Western NY is chock-full of Trigglypuffs.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at February 06, 2024 02:11 PM (R4t5M)

How many herds?

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (ynpvh)

Imagine a spherical cow...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:13 PM (ynpvh)

317 A narrow ruling that applies to Trump only?

I assume it's OK for Biden Junta to target its political enemies for hits by the SEALS, but why bother when you have FBI SWAT teams stacked and racked and prosecutors willing to toss them into a gulag run by by your sadistic Bureu of Prisons.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at February 06, 2024 02:13 PM (YT7cG)

318 There is no allure to a tramp stamp. She can't see the damn thing. It's only something for the latest dude to take her like a bitch in heat to look at, like newspapers posted in front of a urinal you can read while you piss.

Posted by: jsg at February 06, 2024 02:13 PM (j0Uz8)

319 Kav has spent and will spend a lot of effort to help people who called him a serial rapist.

I don’t get it. And never will.

Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 02:13 PM (YofvK)

320 I have noticed watching The Incredible Dr. Pol show that Michigan has an abundance of big bottomed girls living there. Quite remarkable.
Posted by: Pudinhead

God, how far we've fallen as a nation and society. Those...those are barnyard animals you're seeing. I know, it's tough to distinguish them from the modern role models of femininity like Lizzo and Stacy Abrams.

Posted by: Iowa Farm Guy at February 06, 2024 02:13 PM (3oExq)

321 306 There are the blondes we know are blondes, and the blondes we know are not blondes- and we know that there are also blondes we don't know, and there are the blondes that we don't know we don't know
Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 02:11 PM (geLO

*starts drawing a chart*

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, anti-Marxist, buy ammo and keep your rifle by your side at February 06, 2024 02:13 PM (xcxpd)

322 What's the rationale for convicting the parents for a school shooting? Guns unlocked or somesuch?
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (yjAVs)

Haven't paid close attention but I read somewhere that she admitted that she and her husband had "gifted" the gun to the kid. Don't know if that's true or not.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 02:14 PM (zhLdt)

323 I have noticed watching The Incredible Dr. Pol show that Michigan has an abundance of big bottomed girls living there. Quite remarkable.
Posted by: Pudinhead

Prime breeding stock.

And the dairy cows too.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 06, 2024 02:14 PM (6GRih)

324 So because #2 is bad and currently happening, that makes #1 allowable? I don't understand your point.
---
What's the check and balance against each?

For the first, it's pretty obvious the public outrage will lead to Senate conviction, removal and then criminal charges. For now.

For the second, what do We the People have as a check and balance against a New York City judge and jury for charges against a sitting Republican President? None.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice - Personality Commentator at February 06, 2024 02:14 PM (cSaKW)

325 I don't think the office of president carries as much weight as it used to. It's a figurehead position now. The nominal leader of one side of the party or the other is installed.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at February 06, 2024 02:12 PM (Q4IgG)
---
That's what I'm saying. That's not constitutional.

That is a judge-amended model.

And the power of know-it-all judges needs to be seriously limited. Before they take over everything. This is how the Expert Class got its nose under the tent.

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:14 PM (krQz2)

326 How many herds?
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia)

Countless. Those landwhale scooters at WalMart are never at full charge.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at February 06, 2024 02:14 PM (R4t5M)

327 This is going to the Supremes.
Heh, Trump gets elected then pardons himself and throws Diaper Joe and Degenerate Hunter in general population. Then publishes Epstein’s client list in full!! Yeah Baby!!

Posted by: The Man from Athens at February 06, 2024 02:14 PM (OdaX4)

328 how long before "big-bottomed" girls are taxed?

Posted by: poconohound at February 06, 2024 02:15 PM (rAqKq)

329 @Romeo13, Trump's lawyer actually answered that question. No, the President is not immune from federal criminal law, but there is an additional hurdle to charging him, which is that Congress needs to determine that he be impeached and removed first. Congress made the law and Congress decides whether he can be prosecuted for violating it.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 06, 2024 02:15 PM (XGJnQ)

330 @Madamemayhem, there was a time when the DOJ tried to protect the institution of the Presidency. If those were still the rules, Biden would be intervening to protect Trump from prosecution. That Biden is on the other side shows us how much Trump has destroyed them.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 06, 2024 02:08 PM (XGJnQ)

Then again maybe they protected the institution only when the institution held one of their own...

Posted by: ... at February 06, 2024 02:15 PM (oNgxs)

331 To my knowledge, there is no charge that Trump tried to "violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count."

They made that up out of whole cloth because Trump had the temerity to say that a dodgy election was dodgy and we should get that crap sorted out before anointing a winner.

WTF is wrong with these people? They live in some sort of anti-reality bubble where whatever they fantasize about is real, while whatever is real is a conspiracy theory or criminal offense.

Posted by: Thatch at February 06, 2024 02:15 PM (Pwo03)

332 Hat tip to Martini Farmer.

Posted by: torabora at February 06, 2024 02:15 PM (bkWIA)

333 >> *starts drawing a chart*

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards

can I see it when you're done

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 02:15 PM (geLO8)

334
Amended:
---
Q: What have you given us?

A: A republic, if you can stop judges from commandeering all the power.

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:15 PM (krQz2)

335 I look forward to the coming civil war, there are many enemies of America in America that need to be round up and shot.

Posted by: TC at February 06, 2024 02:16 PM (FjlUt)

336 Grant certiorari
Vacate lower court ruling
Remand to the lower court to get it right

Basically implying the lower court gets an F because they are a dunce that totally flunked the law part so much that the lower court opinion is not worthy of Scotus commentary how to fix it and that lower court has to redo it correctly this time.

Used quite a bit to reverse segregation era court decisions against Scotus precedent.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 02:16 PM (ysVwb)

337 325
...
And the power of know-it-all judges needs to be seriously limited. Before they take over everything. This is how the Expert Class got its nose under the tent.

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:14 PM (krQz2)

That's not the body part the Expert Class is using on us...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:16 PM (ynpvh)

338 King Charles III has incurred cancer. Who would be his successor ? Would it be one of Dianna's sons?

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 02:16 PM (wW1qL)

339 287 I thought the overwhelming opinion here was that only 'ettes can do noods.

Posted by: Eeyore at February 06, 2024 02:07 PM

Is identifying as an 'ette for one comment allowable, or in that way lies Marxist madness?

Posted by: Pillage Idiot at February 06, 2024 02:16 PM (HlyYF)

340 WTF is wrong with these people? They live in some sort of anti-reality bubble where whatever they fantasize about is real, while whatever is real is a conspiracy theory or criminal offense.
Posted by: Thatch
--------
Happens when the only principles governing their own behavior derive from themselves. Do as thy wilt is the whole of the law to them.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 02:17 PM (ysVwb)

341 how long before "big-bottomed" girls are taxed?
Posted by: poconohound at February 06, 2024 02:15 PM (rAqKq)
++++
Never.

The tax be implemented under the umbrella of "fighting climate change" and will take the form of "nutrition tax" or somesuch as a carbon offset. If you consume more than X calories per day on average, or exceed Y% of total calories from non-local sources, you will be taxed to offset the carbon. This will, in essence, act as a fatness tax.

But it won't apply to most women, because to apply it evenly would be to support patriarchal notions of beauty and feed into the desires of the Male Gaze.

It also won't apply to minorities, because white supremacy is bad and who are you to question their cultural choices and standards?

So the tax, when it comes (and it will), will apply only to white and Asian men.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 02:17 PM (yjAVs)

342 Hmmm...maybe Kavanaugh has had a change of heart. Up until the Raimondo case he'd generally been more than willing to defer to the expertise of the agencies. I'd long noted that he was sold to us as an "original intent" kind of justice, but that his original intent mostly only went back to the various agencies enabling documents, rather than to the Constitution itself.

Maybe he's had a change of heart. With this gang, it's hard to know.

Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (TOe+Q)

343 >WTF is wrong with these people? They live in some sort of anti-reality bubble where whatever they fantasize about is real, while whatever is real is a conspiracy theory or criminal offense.

Posted by: Thatch
---

they saw a chance to make a legal mountain out of a molehill, and have been beating Trump over the head with it ever since

'Roth... he played this one beautifully.'

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (geLO8)

344 338 King Charles III has incurred cancer. Who would be his successor ? Would it be one of Dianna's sons?
Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It!

Eldest--Prince William is the king in waiting. After that, his first born is next.

No real way for Harry to get the throne now.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (ysVwb)

345 >>WTF is wrong with these people? They live in some sort of anti-reality bubble where whatever they fantasize about is real, while whatever is real is a conspiracy theory or criminal offense.

Academia is not sufficient preparation for Reality.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (mJHFD)

346 King Charles III has incurred cancer. Who would be his successor ? Would it be one of Dianna's sons?

—

The line of succession doesn’t change based on how he dies. William is the heir apparent just like he was before.

Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (YofvK)

347 338 King Charles III has incurred cancer. Who would be his successor ? Would it be one of Dianna's sons?

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 02:16 PM (wW1qL)

You would think. Unless you uses one of Camilla's tampons.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (ynpvh)

348 Michigan covering itself in retard.

Posted by: garrett at February 06, 2024 02:06 PM (mJHFD)
---
Thanks.

We're getting a lot of practice lately.

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (krQz2)

349 mixed metaphor

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (geLO8)

350 King Charles III has incurred cancer. Who would be his successor ? Would it be one of Dianna's sons?

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 02:16 PM (wW1qL)

------------

Yes, the oldest: William.

It was disappointing that Queen Elizabeth didn't bypass Charles.

Posted by: ShainS -- The Demoralization Will Continue Until Morale Improves at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (atICx)

351 Update from Shipwreckedcrew. He's also on record saying none of the big cases against Trump will even be heard before the election so his batting average is pretty good.

@Shipwreckedcrew

You read it here first:

At least 4 SCOTUS justices will not allow the final word on the “public policy” considerations of allowing a POTUS to be criminally prosecuted after leaving office to rest with the words of two Appellate Judges each with only 18 months on the Court, and the Judge older than any of the 9 SCOTUS Justices - when none would put their name on the opinion.

Take that to the bank.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 06, 2024 02:19 PM (LkLld)

352 King Charles III has incurred cancer.
---
Rectal cancer from head to toe.

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:19 PM (krQz2)

353 At this rate we're going to wind up on the road to Californy in a refugee camp jacking to the hand drawn porn PC like South Park.. heh heh

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 02:19 PM (wW1qL)

354 No real way for Harry to get the throne now.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (ysVwb)

—-

Can you say weird accident in the middle of the night with no witnesses?

Posted by: Montec at February 06, 2024 02:19 PM (YofvK)

355 Nood

Posted by: Formerly Virginian at February 06, 2024 02:19 PM (JMAcK)

356 King Charles III has incurred cancer. Who would be his successor ? Would it be one of Dianna's sons?

His son William. He'll be William V I believe.

Unless Meg Markle starts stacking bodies, it would take a lot to get it back to Harry

Posted by: brak at February 06, 2024 02:20 PM (AR07F)

357 >It was disappointing that Queen Elizabeth didn't bypass Charles.

Posted by: ShainS --

she couldn't if she wanted to
lines of succession are carved in stone

Posted by: Don Black at February 06, 2024 02:20 PM (geLO8)

358 When are the house GOPe going to impeach the DC circuit judges for this decision. You want Calvinball, this is how you play Calvinball. But, GOPe doesn't play Calvinball, at least not against the establishment, only the base.

Posted by: Beartooth at February 06, 2024 02:20 PM (5FnZt)

359 No real way for Harry to get the throne now.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (ysVwb)

Unless William’s whole family is driving through a tunnel in the same vehicle…

Posted by: DoublySymmetric at February 06, 2024 02:21 PM (9mfKN)

360 It was disappointing that Queen Elizabeth didn't bypass Charles.

Posted by: ShainS
---
Ostomy bag?

Posted by: Axeman at February 06, 2024 02:21 PM (krQz2)

361 Can you say weird accident in the middle of the night with no witnesses?
Posted by: Montec
--------
Funny Alec Guiness movie about getting a title.

Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 02:22 PM (ysVwb)

362 Trump-haters, keeping hope alive!

Maybe the Biden DOJ and our utterly corrupt legal system can yet save you!

Posted by: tsj017 at February 06, 2024 02:22 PM (ZiGm9)

363 King Charles III has incurred cancer. Who would be his successor ? Would it be one of Dianna's sons?
Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It!

Eldest--Prince William is the king in waiting. After that, his first born is next.

No real way for Harry to get the throne now.
Posted by: whig at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (ysVwb)

Well.....unless the British royalty decides to go back to the old ways of ending dynasties.

Posted by: Dr. Pork Chops & Bacons at February 06, 2024 02:22 PM (BdMk6)

364 So the tax, when it comes (and it will), will apply only to white and Asian men.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 02:17 PM (yjAVs)

------------

There will be exceptions made for non-binaries and trannies.

Posted by: ShainS -- The Demoralization Will Continue Until Morale Improves at February 06, 2024 02:23 PM (atICx)

365 Well.....unless the British royalty decides to go back to the old ways of ending dynasties.

Posted by: Dr. Pork Chops & Bacons at February 06, 2024 02:22 PM (BdMk6)

------------

Heh. That was my first thought ...

Posted by: ShainS -- The Demoralization Will Continue Until Morale Improves at February 06, 2024 02:24 PM (atICx)

366
Yes, the oldest: William.

It was disappointing that Queen Elizabeth didn't bypass Charles.
Posted by: ShainS -- The Demoralization Will Continue Until Morale Improves at February 06, 2024 02:18 PM (atICx)

I haven't read much about William. The Monarchy could use a good old fashioned Light Bearer...

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 02:24 PM (wW1qL)

367 What's the rationale for convicting the parents for a school shooting? Guns unlocked or somesuch?
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at February 06, 2024 01:59 PM (yjAVs)

Haven't paid close attention but I read somewhere that she admitted that she and her husband had "gifted" the gun to the kid. Don't know if that's true or not.
Posted by: I used to have a different nic at February 06, 2024 02:14 PM
****
It's the same thing housing a feral animal as a public menace...if it's foreseeable then you are responsible.

So same should go for the Federal Government knowingly admitting feral dangerous illegals into the interior. The government agents should be stripped of sovereign immunity when they do so an be held assessorys for the illegals crime.

Posted by: torabora at February 06, 2024 02:25 PM (bkWIA)

368 Heh. That was my first thought ...
Posted by: ShainS -- The Demoralization Will Continue Until Morale Improves at February 06, 2024 02:24 PM (atICx)

Al Sharpton approves...

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 02:26 PM (wW1qL)

369 Nood Biten

Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at February 06, 2024 02:27 PM (wW1qL)

370 nood amazon censor Joe

Posted by: andycanuck (2yu8s) at February 06, 2024 02:31 PM (2yu8s)

371 It's 'not great' but totally expected.

Anybody that expects anything out of the DC court but a confirmation of whatever far-left insanity they are pushing, is just delusional.

Which, by the way, is why this LUNATIC border bill demanded all future challenges go through the DC court system.

Posted by: DudeAbiding at February 06, 2024 02:46 PM (setIA)

372 I understand that many here don't like Trump, but I'm a little concerned that even at this site i read "Well it's over now for Trump."

Posted by: AnnaS at February 06, 2024 03:13 PM (qZvE8)

373 Trump's lawyer actually answered that question. No, the President is not immune from federal criminal law, but there is an additional hurdle to charging him, which is that Congress needs to determine that he be impeached and removed first. Congress made the law and Congress decides whether he can be prosecuted for violating it.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon

Solid response....
Did they mention the triggermen can be prosecuted immediately?

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at February 06, 2024 03:27 PM (YT7cG)

374 Why does the DC court have so much power? It ought to be disbanded.

Posted by: Jane at February 06, 2024 03:27 PM (EcD5Y)

375 The Constitution mandates only one court. When Trump is elected I am willing to bet a number of courts will go out of existence and the world will be a better place for this.

Posted by: Jane at February 06, 2024 03:28 PM (EcD5Y)

376 What?! How DARE those UNIPARTY JUDGES not rule that politicians are above the law and cannot be prosecuted, for any reason! Don't they know that politicians are above the peons and that the president rules by divine right?!

Posted by: The Guy Who Bitches About The "Establishment" at February 06, 2024 03:56 PM (uRA80)

377 Washington D.C. District of Crinimals. Soros Bragg and t heir ilk need to get the boot

Posted by: Tamaa the Drongo Bird at February 06, 2024 04:27 PM (wGqjj)

378 Wait, the President doesn't rule by divine right? What was DACA? Did the courts ever get around to striking that down?

Posted by: mikeybates at February 06, 2024 04:39 PM (42S0Z)

379 Kav chose to punt on 2A issues. He's a Lefty cockholster.

Posted by: insurgens ad opus at February 06, 2024 08:00 PM (FRT/w)

380 ...
"Does congress have the powers on imprison the president? All they can do is throw him out of office right? So in that scenario, Biden would be kicked out of office but would not face any criminal charges."

No. How it works is once inpeached and convicted, they are then able to be subject to regular prosecution. The impact of impeachment and conviction is to strip them of presidential immunity for the act.

Posted by: LordAzrael at February 06, 2024 08:19 PM (jqDxd)

381 What are you surprised??

DC circuit court...HELLO!!!

Posted by: Nightwatch at February 06, 2024 09:28 PM (TDvv2)

Processing 0.08, elapsed 0.0781 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0221 seconds, 390 records returned.
Page size 212 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.