Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

That must be DSL's Mom...

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's your 4th wife. The one that caught you and that hussy John Deere next door getting "intimate".

[THE_WIZARD_]

That bitch!

[Dr. Strangelove]

[THE_WIZARD_]

Figures that DSL is a Kagan fan...

[THE_WIZARD_]

Jackson has to be the dumbest USSC Justice in our history.

[THE_WIZARD_]

By the overall tone of the justices it's pretty obvious that they are going to go against Trump on this...which is no surprise. My guess is they are going to split the baby here and refer it back to the lower court in DC. But this has successfully delayed this to where its doubtful this gets to court before the election. In that way I guess Trump has won it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

By the overall tone of the justices it's pretty obvious that they are going to go against Trump on this...which is no surprise. My guess is they are going to split the baby here and refer it back to the lower court in DC. But this has successfully delayed this to where its doubtful this gets to court before the election. In that way I guess Trump has won it.

I don't think any of the nine justices are really open to Trump's claim of total and complete immunity for anything done while President. Alito had some skeptical questions. Thomas asked if Trump's position is that Jack Smith's appointment as Special Counsel was unconstitutional and the lawyer said "No". That's a theory some conservative lawyers have pitched in an attempt to make this all go away.

Some of them will be amenable to sending it back down to the district court with additional questions to resolve before trial and therefore waste enough time to make any trial impossible this year. It really depends on what Roberts and ACB want to do. From what I heard ACB sounded very hostile to Trump's position.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Complete immunity is not going to happen. I think they (the conservative faction anyway) believe there should be limited liability granted...and will remand this back to the lower court in DC...which frankly is the right thing to do. The POTUS should not be given cart blanche but there should be restraints on "lawfare" like we see now.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump has also told different courts at different times that

1) A President cannot be prosecuted for anything he does in office unless he is impeached AND convicted first by Congress. And even that is iffy.

2) But the moment a President leaves office, he cannot be held accountable by the impeachment process

if that's the case than a President can wait until his last couple weeks in office, commit all the crime he wants, and will never face consequences of any kind. If it's found out six months into the new Presidency that the last President took $10M personal bribes for pardons, Trump's saying too bad, nothing you can do about that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Heck, a President could rob the US Treasury, immediately resign, and he's beyond the law, according to Trump. Impeachment/conviction must happen before criminal prosecution and impeachment can ONLY happen to the acting President.

Obviously I don't think any Justice will go along with this but Trump's team doesn't really expect to win on merits either. Delay is the only thing they're after.

[THE_WIZARD_]

The question is basically to what degree does the POTUS have immunity wrt doing their official job description...good luck defining the specifics on that. Just keep in mind this decision is going to be about more than just this Trump case...this is for future precedent...and future presidents...so careful what you wish for here DSL...

[THE_WIZARD_]

Who is this fruitcake arguing on behalf of the government here? Is that your butt buddy DSL?

[iam416]

The question is actually a hard one if they want to grapple with it. Ordering the assassination of an Iranian general is murder. There isn't any two ways about it. But there's no one arguing that a President can't do that -- or rather, should be subject to criminal liability for doing that.

So, what they'll likely do is spell out some sort of workable standard that involves performing his official constitutional duties or something to that effect and then either (a) remand to the District Court to figure out if the acts were with his official constitutional duties (they were not); or (b) specifically hold the acts were outside whatever standard they say is appropriate.

What they can't do is articulate an standard focused on "getting DJT" that fucks over the office. We're seeing criminal prosecutors, especially in NY, essentially ignoring the law to prosecute DJT because he's DJT. That's not they way this country should work. And I suspect -- if DJT wins in November -- Ds are gonna find out exactly why.

[iam416]

Per an Axios -- AXIOS -- poll....immigration is a real winner for Ds... https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/tru...migration-poll

I don't know why the American public just can't understand that this is all the Rs fault and there's nothing The Chairman can do.