Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: With the recent USSC ruling…

  1. 07-01-2024, 12:54 PM #1
    FriendofBRW
    FriendofBRW is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    05-16-24
    Posts
    161

    With the recent USSC ruling…

    Judge Chutkan must act to rule on official/non-official acts.

    WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court’spresidential immunity ruling on Monday sends the federal case accusing Donald Trump of attempting to overturn his 2020 defeat back to Judge Tanya Chutkan for critical decisions that will shape the future of the historic prosecution.
    Chutkan, a judge on the U.S. District Court in Washington, will have to decide whether a pair of Supreme Court rulings requires some of the allegations against the Republican presidential candidate be tossed out.

    https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-...an-2024-07-01/
    Its going to get interesting
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. 07-01-2024, 02:06 PM #2
    Honda's Avatar
    Honda
    Honda is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,733
    From a purely legal point of view I can't say I disagree with the decision.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  3. 07-01-2024, 03:03 PM #3
    FriendofBRW
    FriendofBRW is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    05-16-24
    Posts
    161
    I agree with the ruling…for the most part. History has shown the US has a history of questionable acts by Presidents.

    Lincoln’s war on a free press.
    Internment of American Citizens in WWII.
    JFK’s secret treaty with the USSR
    Nixon’s bombing of Laos and Cambodia
    Obama’s secret intel gathering of private citizens.
    Trump’s actions
    Biden’s Federal mandates of untested vaccines..

    The Supreme Court had to rule this way.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  4. 07-01-2024, 03:47 PM #4
    Mike's Avatar
    Mike
    Mike is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    14,639
    The president should be immune from acts committed in his Constitutional official capacity, and not immune from any acts committed in his private, non-official, capacity.
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  5. 07-01-2024, 04:18 PM #5
    Honda's Avatar
    Honda
    Honda is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    The president should be immune from acts committed in his Constitutional official capacity, and not immune from any acts committed in his private, non-official, capacity.
    Which I think Mike, is basically what they ruled.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  6. 07-01-2024, 04:37 PM #6
    FriendofBRW
    FriendofBRW is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    05-16-24
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Honda View Post
    Which I think Mike, is basically what they ruled.
    That’s how I interpreted it.

    Now there’s people advocating taking out Trump and Supreme Court Justices under the “Presidential Immunity” clause

    and I was told that Rightwingers are the real threat
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  7. 07-01-2024, 05:37 PM #7
    Dave Grubb's Avatar
    Dave Grubb
    Dave Grubb is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,691
    I have no argument with the conditions they laid out, they sound perfectly reasonable to me.
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  8. 07-01-2024, 05:51 PM #8
    Sandman's Avatar
    Sandman
    Sandman is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    10-20-02
    Location
    16 miles west of the White House, Northern Virginia..
    Posts
    4,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Grubb View Post
    I have no argument with the conditions they laid out, they sound perfectly reasonable to me.
    Same here..

    And there was enough “personal business .. remember, he is 77.. a 5 or 10 year sentence could be life at this point
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  9. Yesterday, 11:41 AM #9
    FredK
    FredK is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    11-14-01
    Location
    Apache Junction, AZ
    Posts
    25,740
    Hard part would be seperating the two. I don't think heshould get it on the GA case or FLA cases though. Hard to claim that GA one asking for vote would be any but personal, same with not returning the folders when asked to do so.

    As for the Washington case let Pence walk in and say what Don wanted him to do. Should make great stuff in court though.
    Fred

    "Everyday I beat my own previous record for number of consecutive days I've
    stayed alive."

    'Take care of yourself, and each other.'
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  10. Yesterday, 11:49 AM #10
    Mike's Avatar
    Mike
    Mike is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    14,639
    The question would be whether he was in the course and scope of his Constitutional duties. If not, he has no immunity. My previous employer used that test to determine if they would cover injuries received during work hours.
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  11. Today, 03:23 AM #11
    FriendofBRW
    FriendofBRW is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    05-16-24
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by FredK View Post
    Hard part would be seperating the two. I don't think heshould get it on the GA case or FLA cases though. Hard to claim that GA one asking for vote would be any but personal, same with not returning the folders when asked to do so.
    Why? It’s completely legal to challenge elections….Asking someone to find votes is not not new. Look at what happened during the Gubernatorial vote of Washington State in 2004. Talk about shenanigans. Unless there is evidence of Trump asking alter ballots, can it not be argued Trump acted within official duities?

    As for the Washington case let Pence walk in and say what Don wanted him to do. Should make great stuff in court though.
    Yes…it would be best to have him testify under oath what Trump asked of him.

    From my knothole, VP Pence and Rep. McCarthy speak the truth
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  12. Today, 10:32 AM #12
    Sandman's Avatar
    Sandman
    Sandman is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    10-20-02
    Location
    16 miles west of the White House, Northern Virginia..
    Posts
    4,681
    The Georgia case could be personal.. SOP is not for the President to call a state Secretary of State or Attorney General or other elected official.. The President calls the governor.. boss to boss.. the Presidents Staff may contact the Secretary of Georgia staff.. but.. the direct call.. and the request made makes me think it was personal.. I don’t consider election activity as part of the constitutional job..

    Florida.. definitely personal, he was point blank asked for the documents, repeatedly.. all after his term of office..
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules