https://www.axios.com/2024/02/28/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jan-6
Supreme Court to hear Trump's absolute immunity claim in Jan. 6 case
The Supreme Court has agreed to weigh whether former President Trump is immune from prosecution — a historic case with profound implications for the court, the 2024 election and the presidency itself.
Why it matters: The court's decision to hear Trump's appeal will further delay the Justice Department's prosecution of the former president over his role in Jan. 6.
Trump's lawyers argued in a lower court that even if a hypothetical president ordered the military to assassinate a political rival, they could not be prosecuted.
@vivify saidDo you think Donald Trump even understands, let alone thought of, the legal arguments his counsel is making?
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/28/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jan-6
b]Supreme Court to hear Trump's absolute immunity claim in Jan. 6 case[/b]
The Supreme Court has agreed to weigh whether former President Trump is immune from prosecution — a historic case with profound implications for the court, the 2024 election and the presidency itself.
Why it matters: The ...[text shortened]... esident ordered the military to assassinate a political rival, they could not be prosecuted.
In any case, what the lawyer said was ""He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution," Sauer responded.
That's not exactly the same thing as "should be able to murder."
@sh76 saidHis lawyer added a condition of impeachment. Sauer basically argued that so long as Trump isn't removed by impeachment, he'd be immune from prosecution for murder.
Do you think Donald Trump even understands, let alone thought of, the legal arguments his counsel is making?
In any case, what the lawyer said was ""He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution," Sauer responded.
That's not exactly the same thing as "should be able to murder."
A mere 34 Republican Senators could shield Trump from being responsible for murder. So yes, Trump is indeed making an allowance for murder.
Whether Trump thought of it himself or not is irrelevant. He is still paying lawyers to pursue this in the Supreme Court. Given Trump admitted on live TV that he would be a "dictator for one day", it's quite possible he may have helped think up such a vile idea.
@mott-the-hoople saidBut it's not sick when Trump tries to make allowance for murder?
you are a sick person
Go fk your sister again.
@mott-the-hoople saidYes, it is sick if Obama or any other president assassinates U.S. citizens.
was it sick when obama did?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
now go suck off your man
Do you have the balls admit that Trump is a piece of trash for pursing an allowance for murder? Or are yours too tiny?
@Mott-The-Hoople
So you are ok with Trump killing that Isis general. This is about his idea he should be immune to do anything he wants including murder, he already said 'my base would still love me if I shot a man in broad daylight on 5th avenue' and that is his 'defense' at SCOTUS.
The problem with that if you had actually researched it, his own pet judge Kavanaugh wrote 20 years ago against that very thing so the only thing positive coming out of this circus is yet more delay. THAT is the point of this circus, has nothing to do with winning or losing, they KNOW they will lose, the whole point is to try to avoid trial till November at which point he hopes he wins and the goodbye trials, squashed because he is POTUS again. THAT is his strategy nothing more.
@sh76 saidNo need to pretend to know what he hasn't thought about. He did say out loud that he could go into the street and shoot someone without any consequence.
Do you think Donald Trump even understands, let alone thought of, the legal arguments his counsel is making?
In any case, what the lawyer said was ""He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution," Sauer responded.
That's not exactly the same thing as "should be able to murder."
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@vivify said"Do you have the balls admit that Trump is a piece of trash for pursing an allowance for murder?"
Yes, it is sick if Obama or any other president assassinates U.S. citizens.
Do you have the balls admit that Trump is a piece of trash for pursing an allowance for murder? Or are yours too tiny?
when has he?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@sonhouse saidso you are not ok with THE PEOPLE choosing who they want as president?
@Mott-The-Hoople
So you are ok with Trump killing that Isis general. This is about his idea he should be immune to do anything he wants including murder, he already said 'my base would still love me if I shot a man in broad daylight on 5th avenue' and that is his 'defense' at SCOTUS.
The problem with that if you had actually researched it, his own pet judge Kavanaugh wrot ...[text shortened]... wins and the goodbye trials, squashed because he is POTUS again. THAT is his strategy nothing more.
@Mott-The-Hoople
Hey assswipe, THAT is called democracy and if he wins FAIRLY he is POTUS, a disaster to the country and the world but DEMS won't pull an insurrection and fake electors to force Dems to get back in power Like your god king Trump already pulled.
Go ahead, deny it, you will be laughed out of the house.
The ONLY reason he want's to be POTUS again is to squash all his legal problems that is it in a nutshell.
@mott-the-hoople saidThat’s what the fukking court case is about: is a US president immune from any kind of prosecution.
"Do you have the balls admit that Trump is a piece of trash for pursing an allowance for murder?"
when has he?
Obviously the only answer can be: no.
Because if the supreme court rules that a president is immune from all forms of prosecution, the current president can have them rounded up and shot; alongside trump.
It’s completely ridiculous. The supreme court should not be willing to hear this.