Are you Trumpers backing your cult leader in this Supreme Court immunity case too?

[Honeyman]

Just curious how much MAGA Kool-Aid you've drunk.

[zzand]

Logic dictates that total immunity for everything is out of the question as that would mean any president could do whatever they wanted to up to and including rape, kidnapping and murder and get away with it. At most I figure some sort of limited immunity for a very narrow, specific set of circumstances. What Trump is asking is in no way, shape or form realistic. He is probably thinking the three he put on the court will side with him and at least one more.

[zzand]

From what I have been able to read and hear the justices are pulling no punches with questions. NO clear idea at this point which way this may go.

[Honeyman]

From what I have been able to read and hear the justices are pulling no punches with questions. NO clear idea at this point which way this may go.

I know which way 3 of the women are voting...

[TC Talks]

The oral arguments were quite interesting and it seems that most of Trump's indictments are clearly in the camp of personal gain rather than performing responsibilities as the President of the United States. Gorsch went so far as to acknowledge that the case being heard was not what they should be discussing but where the line exists in the future. They all acknowledged blanket immunity does not exist for a retired President.

[Honeyman]

The oral arguments were quite interesting and it seems that most of Trump's indictments are clearly in the camp of personal gain rather than performing responsibilities as the President of the United States. Gorsch went so far as to acknowledge that the case being heard was not what they should be discussing but where the line exists in the future. They all acknowledged blanket immunity does not exist for a retired President.

Alito certainly, and maybe even Kavanaugh seemed to push back.

[km1125]

The President shouldn't have unlimited immunity, but it's the job of Congress to resolve that. If he did something so egregious in office, Congress should have wherewithal to impeach him. Impeaching a President should do more than just remove him from office, it should remove the protections of the office as well. And it would take a considerable majority in the Senate to convict, but that should not be a hurdle for an egregious act (and a murder could certainly cross that threshold, as could several other felonies).

That does bring up the question of a President being subject to impeachment after he's left office. We saw in 2021 that Congress (the Senate) indeed was capable of hearing the case after the President left office, but in that case he was found not guilty.

[TC Talks]

Trump was impeached while in office.

He also was also charged with crimes after leaving office.

Will you cry witch hunt if he's impeachment for insurrection when the Democrats retake the House?

[Matt]

The oral arguments were quite interesting and it seems that most of Trump's indictments are clearly in the camp of personal gain rather than performing responsibilities as the President of the United States. Gorsch went so far as to acknowledge that the case being heard was not what they should be discussing but where the line exists in the future. They all acknowledged blanket immunity does not exist for a FIRED President.

Fixed it for accuracy.

Word on the street is that Audiophile has loosened the virginity for cars a bit. If a young lady can produce a check for $130,000 with her name on it AND swear on a bible (King James only) that he was their only one, they still qualify. The mental gymnastics that it requires to continue supporting that loser/wanna be thug are certainly interesting...

[Honeyman]

The oral arguments were quite interesting and it seems that most of Trump's indictments are clearly in the camp of personal gain rather than performing responsibilities as the President of the United States. Gorsch went so far as to acknowledge that the case being heard was not what they should be discussing but where the line exists in the future. They all acknowledged blanket immunity does not exist for a FIRED President.

Fixed it for accuracy.

Word on the street is that Audiophile has loosened the virginity for cars a bit. If a young lady can produce a check for $130,000 with her name on it AND swear on a bible (Donald Trump only) that he was their only one, they still qualify. The mental gymnastics that it requires to continue supporting that loser/wanna be thug are certainly interesting...

Fixed it for accuracy

[Matt]

Touche!

[zzand]

I think it will be something close like a 5 to 4 vote with Roberts being the deciding vote. They will give very limited immunity under a tight set of rules. Most of what Trump stands accused of will not be in those rules and they will send it back to the lower court to proceed with trial. I believe Trump asked for total immunity because he knows at least one of the things he stands accused of will bite his rather large ass

[audiophile]

The oral arguments were quite interesting and it seems that most of Trump's indictments are clearly in the camp of personal gain rather than performing responsibilities as the President of the United States. Gorsch went so far as to acknowledge that the case being heard was not what they should be discussing but where the line exists in the future. They all acknowledged blanket immunity does not exist for a FIRED President.

Fixed it for accuracy.

Word on the street is that Audiophile has loosened the virginity for cars a bit. If a young lady can produce a check for $130,000 with her name on it AND swear on a bible (King James only) that he was their only one, they still qualify. The mental gymnastics that it requires to continue supporting that loser/wanna be thug are certainly interesting...

Give me a break. Did you forget this thread too, like you forgot your obsession for Megan?
https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 24&t=44071

PS If Biden was half the moderate Democrat he was while in the Senate I might vote for him. He's 10x worse than a Jimmy Carter presidency.

[zzand]

Back on track here I am reading so many different opinions on this it will be interesting to see how they decide.

[audiophile]

I think Trumps lawyers' definition of Immunity will fail.