What's new
By:
Filters

Trump indicated for election interference

Outahand said:
Don't forget his court cases over him declaring the election was fixed.....

What if he produces proof?
Click to expand...
They purged 100,000 people off the roles in Wisconsin after 2020 because they were deturmind to be improper. The state was decided by 20,000 votes. Now there Is no record of how those people voted or if they voted, but I would say that is proof they don’t know who won in that state.
 
MuntCuffin said:
Who said anything about being superior?

I posed a question earlier that wasn't answered that i will now pose to you:
Trump alleged that our elections were corrupt and unreliable.
Nothing has been done to fix those elections. All efforts have been made to squash questioning of those elections by Republicans, democrats, elected, and bureaucrats.
Why would I suddenly place faith in those elections? Why does Trump suddenly place so much faith in those same elections?
Do you believe our elections are trustworthy?

Did you know Ruby Freeman is a plaintiff in a case set to make a substantial sum of money? Rather than being a defendent facing years behind bars, despite video evidence of her pulling ballots out from under a table during a period where we were told the place where counting was taking place was flooded (which was also a lie)?


If shit is upside down, is forging ahead with business as usual the reliable way to make changes, or to get more of the same?
Click to expand...
oh i have little faith but I know my vote makes certain methods of cheating harder. It curbs the the ballot stuffing and the mass absentee ballot harvesting. massive turnouts make these methods very obvious. Not much can be done if the machines are tampered with in the back rooms, but most of the country still runs on old school scantrons. I Fully trust the little group of church ladies in my precinct, and locally I have no issue with the results. this means we can still win down ballot races and get our people into offices, and all politics start local. The big national Presidential/ Senate, and congressional races, need to be watched closely though.

Some has been done, Voter ID is the law now in some areas and it is spreading. Some states have dumped Dominion. Its small steps but there are being battles won. Not voting is giving up.

Ruby won in a kangaroo court that Guiliani didn't even try to defend. They have their headline but won't ever see a dime, The amount is double Giuliani's net worth and he will probably die before a payment is ever made. We all know it's a mess but we cannot give up.

I also believe that Covid hid a lot of the steal in 2020, and the American people are done with social distancing that caused the poll watching to be harder. They will try something similar again I'm sure but it will be much harder to sell.
 
Last edited:
Ruby won in a kangaroo court that Guiliani didn't even try to defend. They have their headline but won't ever see a dime, The amount is double Giuliani's net worth and he will probably die before a payment is ever made. We all know it's a mess but we cannot give up.



I bet Rudy never even got to show the video of them cheating in his defense.......
 
rockota said:
You keep saying trump didn’t do anything to fix the elections.

1 - what could he have done? Legally and constitutionally?

2 - he brought a bunch of lawsuits that the courts refused to hear. Does that not count?
Click to expand...
Its not that Trump hasn't done anything. I agree, by that time, what was done was done, and all dems had to do was run out the clock and instill an attention grabber to successfully shift focus off the election. Enter: the fake and gay insurrection.
I don't blame Trump for the election issues.

The problem is the issues have not been addressed, therefore we do not have reliable election. Trump himself is tertiary with the issues I have with voting.
 
americanwirenews.com

Clarence Thomas asked critical question regarding Jack Smith's legitimacy in prosecuting Trump · American Wire News

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the authority of Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Donald Trump
americanwirenews.com americanwirenews.com

Clarence Thomas asked critical question regarding Jack Smith’s legitimacy in prosecuting Trump​

April 28, 2024 | Melissa Fine

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dropped a potential bomb on Special Counsel Jack Smith on Thursday.

As BizPac Review reported, the high court was hearing arguments regarding Donald Trump’s claim that the actions he took while president are immune from prosecution.

But Thomas suggested there may be an even bigger issue at play: Did Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges against Trump in the first place?

During a nearly three-hour Supreme Court session, Thomas asked Trump attorney John Sauer, “Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of Special Counsel?”

“Sauer replied that Trump’s attorneys had not raised that concern ‘directly’ in the current Supreme Court case — in which justices are considering Trump’s arguments that presidential immunity precludes the prosecution of charges that the former president illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election,” Fox News Digital reports. “Sauer told Thomas that, ‘we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey.'”

“It points to a very important issue here because one of [the special counsel’s] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity,” Sauer said. “That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time.”


“So we agree with that position,” the attorney added. “We hadn’t raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal.”

In March, Meese and Mukasey presented a 42-page amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking whether “Jack Smith has lawful authority to undertake the ‘criminal prosecution'” of Trump.

“Although this case raises a weighty issue of presidential immunity, it also necessarily raises a preliminary question, i.e., whether Jack Smith actually has authority to prosecute this case all,” Meese and Mukasey wrote. “He does not.”

“Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices,” they explained. “But neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. He wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law—whatever one may think of former President Trump or the conduct on January 6, 2021, that Smith challenges in the underlying case.”


Fox News Digital summarizes their argument:

The crux of the problem, according to Meese, is that Smith was never confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. attorney, and no other statute allows the U.S. attorney general to name merely anyone as special counsel. Smith was acting U.S. attorney for a federal district in Tennessee in 2017, but he was never nominated to the position. He resigned from the private sector after then-President Trump nominated a different prosecutor as U.S. attorney for the middle district of Tennessee.

Meese and Mukasey argued that because the special counsel exercises broad authority to convene grand juries and make prosecutorial decisions, independent of the White House or the attorney general, he is far more powerful than any government officer who has not been confirmed by the Senate.

It’s a point Sauer and Trump’s other attorneys argued before a Florida federal court in Smith’s classified documents case against the former president.


“In a March court filing in Florida, Trump’s attorneys claimed that the special counsel’s office argues in federal court that Smith is wholly independent of the White House and Garland — contradicting Trump’s arguments that the federal charges against him are politically motivated,” Fox News Digital reports. “But at the same time, the special counsel’s attorneys insist that Smith is subordinate to the attorney general, and therefore not subject to Senate confirmation under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

Meese and Mukasey noted in their brief, “There are times when the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate, and the Constitution provides for such appointments by allowing the use of existing U.S. Attorneys who can be made Special Counsels.”

“Any number of United States Attorneys have served as a Special Counsel,” they wrote. “Those investigations were lawful.”

“But the Attorney General cannot appoint someone never confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel,” the former attorney general stated. “Smith’s appointment was thus unlawful, as are all actions flowing from it, including his prosecution of former President Trump.”
 
I think the SC doesn’t want to rule on immunity. So they are going to throw the whole case out and force the AG to appoint someone legally and start all over. Of course this would happen long after the election. I think it’s a good idea. I don’t really want an immunity ruling right now because of Biden being in power.
 
redstate.com

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity

redstate.com redstate.com

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity​

By Susie Moore | 10:50 AM on July 01, 2024

There were multiple highly-anticipated Supreme Court decisions this term, but this one is perhaps the biggest of them. The ruling could have significant implications not only for former President Donald Trump personally but the 2024 presidential election, future Oval Office occupants — and potentially, even current and past presidents.

Advertisement
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Further, former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts. However, there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, laid out the holding, one that is likely to confound those on both/all sides of the issue, at least to some degree. In sending the case back to the lower courts to determine which of the acts in question are "official" versus "unofficial." Roberts noted the import of the decision:

This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 634 (Jackson, J., concurring). Our perspective must be more farsighted, for “[t]he peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969).
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
Click to expand...
Advertisement
Though the Court declined to make the determination itself as to which acts qualify for immunity, it did offer a certain degree of guidance to the lower courts, noting:

We offer guidance on those issues below. Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations—such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.
Click to expand...
Roberts summed up the scope of the decision thusly:

As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.
Click to expand...
 
bigun said:
redstate.com

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity

redstate.com redstate.com

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity​

By Susie Moore | 10:50 AM on July 01, 2024

There were multiple highly-anticipated Supreme Court decisions this term, but this one is perhaps the biggest of them. The ruling could have significant implications not only for former President Donald Trump personally but the 2024 presidential election, future Oval Office occupants — and potentially, even current and past presidents.

Advertisement
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Further, former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts. However, there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, laid out the holding, one that is likely to confound those on both/all sides of the issue, at least to some degree. In sending the case back to the lower courts to determine which of the acts in question are "official" versus "unofficial." Roberts noted the import of the decision:


Advertisement
Though the Court declined to make the determination itself as to which acts qualify for immunity, it did offer a certain degree of guidance to the lower courts, noting:


Roberts summed up the scope of the decision thusly:
Click to expand...
It was the right ruling, although I am always disappointed when the correct ruling isn't unanimous.
 
Last edited:
Mikel said:
No one should have immunity. We should all abide by the same law.
Click to expand...
agree to a point. A president might have to order a hit on someone, say a terrorist. If a citizen did it we could be held for murder. a president should not.

I also don't want every president brought up on charges for something they did in office regardless of the party
 
Last edited:
nahmus said:
agree to a point. A president might have to order a hit on someone, say a terrorist. If a citizen did it we could be held for murder. a president should not.

I also don't want every president brought up on charges for something they did in office regardless of the party
Click to expand...
irate4x4.com

At what point does it become moral for a collective to do immoral things?

People always seem to argue for the state to do immoral things like kidnapping, theft, murder, hostage taking, etc What size group of supporters is necessary for such immoral acts to become moral; a thousand supporters, a simple majority, a massive majority of 90%?
irate4x4.com irate4x4.com
 
Mikel said:
No one should have immunity. We should all abide by the same law.
Click to expand...

The DA that prosecuted Trump has immunity. Trump can sue his office, but not him. Why should he have it and not Trump? Same for the judge in the case except I don’t even know if he can sue that office.
 
WaterH said:
The DA that prosecuted Trump has immunity. Trump can sue his office, but not him. Why should he have it and not Trump? Same for the judge in the case except I don’t even know if he can sue that office.
Click to expand...

I said no one. From the president to the postman.
 
I just find it funny that these liberal blowhards are all crying that it gives immunity from a president “poisoning political rivals”, when Hillary Clinton is the one with an actual body count.
 
animator said:
I just find it funny that these liberal blowhards are all crying that it gives immunity from a president “poisoning political rivals”, when Hillary Clinton is the one with an actual body count.
Click to expand...

shes always had immunity. none of this ever applied to her because she wasn't president
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh