Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 111 of 111

Thread: DC circuit court rejects immunity for Trump, SCOTUS appeal is pending

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Hence why I said "we" instead of "i" and "they" instead of "you."




    What crime did she commit that she should be charged for? Trump is not charged with "making claims," whatever that means.


    Also, none of what you said has anything to do with whether or not presidents are criminally immune to prosecution (for life).

    Even if you disagree with prosecution of Trump, it doesn't follow that you should support granting all presidents immunity to prosecution forever.
    Neither Trump nor Stacy Abrams committed a crime. But Trump has been charged with one. That's my point! Contesting an election is not criminal. Trump didn't ask the SOS to find 1,700 votes. That's a lie that's been propagated by the prosecutors and the media. Also I never said I supported granting immunity to any president. You seemed to go out of your way to explain which pronouns you were using and yet you're still conflating what I'm saying. Let me be clear. Presidents have been getting away with crimes. I don't think any of them should. I'd be happy to see Obama charged with murder. But you were asking someone how this diminishes the presidency. If it means taking presidential power away that is diminishing the presidency. And that's a good thing. However this is only used selectively to punish presidents who really haven't committed any crime except going against the status quo, as I suspect is the case here, that's a bad thing. I hope that clears it up for you...but I don't think you were confused anyway, just being obtuse.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Trump will keep his immunity for the simple fact that taking it away would open up the door for his predecessors to also lose theirs.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Even if you disagree with prosecution of Trump, it doesn't follow that you should support granting all presidents immunity to prosecution forever.
    No President has immunity from prosecution. They just have to be impeached first, then convicted by the Senate. That's what it says in the Constitution.

    Otherwise, let's say we had a good President. Ron Paul became President. He would be hamstrung by random courts all over the country trying to prosecute him for BS charges like what we are seeing with Trump.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Contesting an election is not criminal.
    Good thing he's not charged with that.

    But you know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    But you were asking someone how this diminishes the presidency.
    If it means taking presidential power away that is diminishing the presidency. And that's a good thing.
    Nothing is being taken away because immunity is not a thing that the president ever had.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    No President has immunity from prosecution. They just have to be impeached first, then convicted by the Senate. That's what it says in the Constitution.
    He's not the president.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    He's not the president.
    He was on Jan 6.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    He was on Jan 6.
    He's not on May 3.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    He's not on May 3.
    That's not when the alleged "crime" occurred. That's why you can impeach a President after they have left office.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Good thing he's not charged with that.

    But you know that.

    Indirectly he is....and YOU know that. The prosecution LIED when it claimed he asked the SOS to find him votes. I've already given you the evidence to prove they lied. Quit being obtuse.

    Nothing is being taken away because immunity is not a thing that the president ever had.
    https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00013392/
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Trump will keep his immunity for the simple fact that taking it away would open up the door for his predecessors to also lose theirs.
    And that's the point I'm making that @TheCount keeps trying to ignore. But @dannno gets it. If Trump gets tried in a regular court without having been convicted in the U.S. Senate then I hope some grand jury somewhere will indict Obama from the murder of Anwar Al Awlaki. But that's not going to happen because Democrats love Obama and Republicans don't care about the murder of an alleged radical Muslim cleric.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    He's not the president.
    He was on Jan 6.
    He's not on May 3.
    That's not when the alleged "crime" occurred. That's why you can impeach a President after they have left office.
    Submitted for consideration for inclusion on "compare the United States to the Roman Republic" bingo cards:

    FTA (underline emphasis added ; all other emphasis in the original): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

    A Roman dictator was an extraordinary magistrate in the Roman Republic endowed with full authority to resolve some specific problem to which he had been assigned. He received the full powers of the state, subordinating the other magistrates, consuls included, for the specific purpose of resolving that issue, and that issue only, and then dispensing with those powers immediately.

    A dictator was still controlled and accountable during his term in office: the Senate still exercised some oversight authority and the rights of plebeian tribunes to veto his actions or of the people to appeal them were retained. The extent of a dictator's mandate strictly controlled the ends to which his powers could be directed. Dictators were also liable to prosecution after their terms completed.

    Dictators were frequently appointed from the earliest period of the Republic down to the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), but the magistracy then went into abeyance for over a century. It was later revived in a significantly modified form, first by Sulla between 82 and 79 BC and then by Julius Caesar between 49 and 44 BC, who became dictator perpetuo just before his death. This later dictatorship was used to effect wide-ranging and semi-permanent changes across Roman society. After Caesar's assassination in 44, the office was formally abolished and never revived.

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    No President has immunity from prosecution. They just have to be impeached first, then convicted by the Senate. That's what it says in the Constitution.
    The Constitution doesn't say that.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    That's not when the alleged "crime" occurred. That's why you can impeach a President after they have left office.
    Are these rules written in invisible ink between the lines of the constitution?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Indirectly he is....and YOU know that.
    Oh, an indirect charge? Will he be sentenced to indirect prison?


    Did you read it or just link it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Oh, an indirect charge? Will he be sentenced to indirect prison?
    I take it you've not read any of the Trump indictments. None of them are direct. For example the "falsifying business documents" charge is only a crime if Trump falsified the documents for the purpose of covering up another crime.

    Did you read it or just link it?
    I read it. Did you? If you did read it you know that it did not say there is no presidential immunity from prosecution regardless of whether or not there was an impeachment. It said that was "unclear." If it becomes "clear" there is no such immunity that indeed is diminishing the presidency. If it becomes "clear" that there is such an immunity then the presidency is enhanced. Either way something will happen.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 05-03-2024 at 12:47 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I read it. Did you?
    Of course he did. The letter of the thing is the source of all his silly semantic gotcha games.

    What he is not read up on is the half of a millenia of western legal tradition directly traceable back to the Magna Carta which is the source of all the implied powers and implied rights.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Are these rules written in invisible ink between the lines of the constitution?
    Determining what our Constitution means requires and adherence to not only its text, but the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to, which gives context to its text.


    In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court emphatically notes a fundamental principle concerning the meaning of our Constitution.


    ”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

    "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."



    JWK


    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
    _____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

  21. #108

    Put D.C. Court on judicial notice - lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction in Trump case

    .
    In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant of violating his/her office of public trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (Federalist 65):


    "Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

    Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .


    . . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."

    So, the question is, under what constitutional authority has the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, assumed authority to preside over a trial of former President Trump for charges alleged to have been committed while he was in office, and are essentially the same as those he has already been acquitted of by the Senate?

    Provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:

    Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

    “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

    Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:

    “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

    Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

    ”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."

    Article II; Section 2, Clause 1:

    “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.”

    Article II; Section 4:

    “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

    "The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury … "

    Considering the above stated facts and documentation, should the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia be put on “judicial notice”, that the Court is trying a case in which it lacks jurisdiction because Trump was acquitted by the Senate of essentially the same charges found in the D.C. Indictment, and not being “convicted” of those offenses is therefore not “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" as stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7?

    JWK

    Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

  22. #109
    He's not a government actor

  23. #110

    Supreme Court fiddles while our Presidency is being weakened and destroyed (Trump case)

    .
    What has become increasingly apparent in the case being discussed (USA v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. 2024), is, the very fabric of our Presidency is under attack and being made susceptible to the whims and passions of political partisan opponents by ignoring the unique due process procedure thoughtfully placed in our Constitution to deal with a President who might violate his public trust and engage in acts thought to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    As confirmed by historical evidence during the making of our constitution, and with respect to a President who might violate their public trust and cause injuries to society itself, our founders rightfully concluded the first step to be taken was for the people, through their Representatives, to accuse and charge that President of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    The next step in the unique due process procedure adopted to address charges lodged against the President by the people is to conduct a trial to determine guilt or innocence. And our wise founding fathers as a preponderance of the evidence confirms (e.g., see Federalist No 65) the United States Senate, and not our ordinary judicial system, is the proper venue to conduct such a trial.


    Hamilton convincingly argued that the Senate and not our ordinary judicial system, was the proper venue as the place to try “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

    “They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused,”

    Hamilton went on to note:

    “The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.”


    And if by chance the President was indeed found guilty of the charges complained of by the people, not only would that president then be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust but would then be “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “ within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system. (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)



    So, here we are today, with the very due process procedure agreed upon by the adoption of our Constitution being ignored, and in doing so, opening the door for our Presidency in future years to be exposed to the very uninformed and dangerous passions and prejudices of self-interested political actors feared of by our founders. Even our Supreme Court appears to have lost its spine, or has joined in on the attack on our Constitution, and is willing to be an accomplice in subverting the very intentions and beliefs under which the unique due process procedure was adopted to deal with those who violate a public trust.

    .

    JWK

    As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
    Last edited by johnwk; 05-07-2024 at 07:33 PM.

  24. #111

    The $64,000 question in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939

    .
    .

    With all the brilliant minds in the forum, perhaps someone will step forward and shed light on a question which I believe is at the heart of the case, Trump v. United States.


    On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024

    “This case concerns the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the events of January 6, 2021. Trump sought a stay of the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision affirming the district court’s rejection of Trump’s presidential immunity defenses.”
    The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

    "WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


    On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

    What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clause 7:


    ”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.”(my emphasis)

    Article I; Section 3, Clause 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

    So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?

    JWK



    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
    _____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal Allows Ballot Harvesting
    By Warlord in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2020, 05:13 PM
  2. Supreme Court rejects gun rights appeal
    By Suzanimal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-27-2017, 03:05 PM
  3. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 03-25-2017, 07:45 PM
  4. Supreme Court rejects appeal over fish pedicure ban
    By Suzanimal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-20-2015, 04:34 PM
  5. SCOTUS Rejects Judge's Appeal to Allow him to Display the Ten Commandments in Court
    By bobbyw24 in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-03-2011, 12:28 PM

Posting Permissions

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