DNC spent millions on lawfare against Trump

[Aglaopheme]

^So you think corrupt politicians who flout the law should avoid prosecution then. Got it.

Maybe if I robbed your house and set fire to it afterwards, I should get away with it too. As long as I hold public office, by your warped logic, you'd be okay with that.

The courts cannot even consider your motives for doing so. I think people forget that bit, and it’s a big bit.

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives

 

[Bn2f]

The courts cannot even consider your motives for doing so. I think people forget that bit, and it’s a big bit.

Lie.

 

[HisArpy]

The courts cannot even consider your motives for doing so. I think people forget that bit, and it’s a big bit.

The ironic part is that you don't bother to consider that your flawed reading of the opinion could eventually make its way into being mainstream belief despite it being untrue.

There are THREE categories:

1. Within official acts;
2. Within the penumbra of official acts;
3. Unofficial acts.

The court cannot inquire into the motives of official acts. Presumably that also includes acts under #2 as well. It does NOT include category 3.

Thus, a court is limited into inquiring if the act is falls within the first 2 categories or not. If not, it can inquire into motives. If so, it cannot.

The stupid part is that you keep insisting, despite being told numerous times how this works, that Trump and ONLY Trump is immune from everything he does. Not only is this obviously untrue on it's face but your repeated false claims about it only highlight how untrustworthy your statements are in general.

Basically you make yourself look foolish because you insist on making yourself look foolish. You could do better, and you know you could do better, but you won't because TDS.

 

[HisArpy]

Your makeup is on too heavy.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Except for the fact that I was talking about Pax.

Also, thanks for agreeing with me, the courts may not inquire as to the motives of a President that breaks the law.

 

[HisArpy]

Except for the fact that I was talking about Pax.

Also, thanks for agreeing with me, the courts may not inquire as to the motives of a President that breaks the law.

As usual you speak a half truth that makes everything you say into a lie.

 

[Chobham]

The ironic part is that you don't bother to consider that your flawed reading of the opinion could eventually make its way into being mainstream belief despite it being untrue.

There are THREE categories:

1. Within official acts;
2. Within the penumbra of official acts;
3. Unofficial acts.

The court cannot inquire into the motives of official acts. Presumably that also includes acts under #2 as well. It does NOT include category 3.

Thus, a court is limited into inquiring if the act is falls within the first 2 categories or not. If not, it can inquire into motives. If so, it cannot.

The stupid part is that you keep insisting, despite being told numerous times how this works, that Trump and ONLY Trump is immune from everything he does. Not only is this obviously untrue on it's face but your repeated false claims about it only highlight how untrustworthy your statements are in general.

Basically you make yourself look foolish because you insist on making yourself look foolish. You could do better, and you know you could do better, but you won't because TDS.

My call is that the only case that the immunity ruling is going to play a roll in is the NY "hush money" case.

The GA case is going to go away in that if the Appellate Court doesn't shit can big fat Fanny, the legislature will.

That leaves the FL and DC cases to be dealt with. Everyone is focusing on the majority opinion of the court and seemingly ignoring Thomas's concurring opinion in which he, Thomas, provides explicit, and not to thinly veiled, instructions to Judge Cannon in FL as to how to make Smith go away.............forever.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The investment isn’t paying off like they hoped.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The ironic part is that you don't bother to consider that your flawed reading of the opinion could eventually make its way into being mainstream belief despite it being untrue.

There are THREE categories:

1. Within official acts;
2. Within the penumbra of official acts;
3. Unofficial acts.

The court cannot inquire into the motives of official acts. Presumably that also includes acts under #2 as well. It does NOT include category 3.

Thus, a court is limited into inquiring if the act is falls within the first 2 categories or not. If not, it can inquire into motives. If so, it cannot.

The stupid part is that you keep insisting, despite being told numerous times how this works, that Trump and ONLY Trump is immune from everything he does. Not only is this obviously untrue on it's face but your repeated false claims about it only highlight how untrustworthy your statements are in general.

Basically you make yourself look foolish because you insist on making yourself look foolish. You could do better, and you know you could do better, but you won't because TDS.

Without knowing the motive of an action there is no way to know if its an official act or not. Where has anybody claimed this only works for Trump. I seem to see multiple posts suggesting things Biden can now do without restraint because he cannot commit crimes.

 

[HisArpy]

Without knowing the motive of an action there is no way to know if its an official act or not. Where has anybody claimed this only works for Trump. I seem to see multiple posts suggesting things Biden can now do without restraint because he cannot commit crimes.

This is crap and you know it. Or, if you don't know it, you need to learn to distinguish between crap and truth.

If the President orders a military strike it's an official act. It doesn't matter if he does it in response to provocation or if he believes all the dam towel headed camel jockeys need exterminated, it's still an official act because his motivation is irrelevant to his use of his authority and power under the Constitution. Given the source of that exclusive power and authority NO ONE can second guess his actions.

So, what you say is pure crap.

 

[HisArpy]

My call is that the only case that the immunity ruling is going to play a roll in is the NY "hush money" case.

The GA case is going to go away in that if the Appellate Court doesn't shit can big fat Fanny, the legislature will.

That leaves the FL and DC cases to be dealt with. Everyone is focusing on the majority opinion of the court and seemingly ignoring Thomas's concurring opinion in which he, Thomas, provides explicit, and not to thinly veiled, instructions to Judge Cannon in FL as to how to make Smith go away.............forever.

I think the FL and DC cases are over since they rely on Trumps acts as President. If, as President, he allowed himself to keep and possess the documents, then that's an official act and none of the charges will stick. Not even the tampering or national security ones because it's not tampering or a national security issue if he's allowed to have the docs and do whatever he wants with them.

The GA case is going to undergo weight loss surgery as many of the charges are going to be trimmed. Not all of them, but most. What will remain may not continue to fly because the basis for those will be rooted in ascribing a sinister motive behind the official acts. However, the court is going to have to allow those charges to go forward because there are other defendants and the issue will be based on allowing/disallowing evidence. Unless something is purely a matter of law, the court cannot toss the case beforehand. Instead it must allow the prosecution to make their case if they can without using the now forbidden official acts evidence. That's a fact finding thing, not a legal ruling thing.

 

[icanhelp1]

I think the FL and DC cases are over since they rely on Trumps acts as President. If, as President, he allowed himself to keep and possess the documents, then that's an official act and none of the charges will stick. Not even the tampering or national security ones because it's not tampering or a national security issue if he's allowed to have the docs and do whatever he wants with them.

The GA case is going to undergo weight loss surgery as many of the charges are going to be trimmed. Not all of them, but most. What will remain may not continue to fly because the basis for those will be rooted in ascribing a sinister motive behind the official acts. However, the court is going to have to allow those charges to go forward because there are other defendants and the issue will be based on allowing/disallowing evidence. Unless something is purely a matter of law, the court cannot toss the case beforehand. Instead it must allow the prosecution to make their case if they can without using the now forbidden official acts evidence. That's a fact finding thing, not a legal ruling thing.

Maybe Smith doesn’t have the authority to prosecute the case in Florida or DC?

 

[HisArpy]

Maybe Smith doesn’t have the authority to prosecute the case in Florida or DC?

If he doesn't his co counsel likely does since they are all DOJ. Any argument that the evidence was based on unlawful subpoenas may or may not make that fruit inadmissible since it could be said that the evidence was provided voluntarily since the Sub P's weren't valid.

The charges really hinge on whether the docs were lawfully kept or not. If they were, then trump could ask anyone to move them, keep them unsecured, deny access to them as private property, etc. The only determination for that is whether the docs were subject to an official Presidential act or not. If yes, then it's over because the reason behind that official act is off limits to prove any illegal conduct. Since Trump has already said that he declassified the docs, no one can say otherwise or even delve into whether he did or didn't use proper procedure to do it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This is crap and you know it. Or, if you don't know it, you need to learn to distinguish between crap and truth.

If the President orders a military strike it's an official act. It doesn't matter if he does it in response to provocation or if he believes all the dam towel headed camel jockeys need exterminated, it's still an official act because his motivation is irrelevant to his use of his authority and power under the Constitution. Given the source of that exclusive power and authority NO ONE can second guess his actions.

So, what you say is pure crap.

So by the logic you are attempting to use here a military strike is official I can only assume based on it going through official channels?

 

[HisArpy]

So by the logic you are attempting to use here a military strike is official I can only assume based on it going through official channels?

Cunts gonna cunt and you're cunting hard.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Cunts gonna cunt and you're cunting hard.

That's a yes or no queston. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. I'm always crystal clear especially when asked for specifics. I don't even mince words.

 

[Pad_Foot]

How much was wasted defending democracy against the 60 plus court cases that Giuliani pushed???

How much is being wasted on appeals before any decision has been made ? I never knew you could appeal in the midst of a case. I guess with enough money you get to access the sends and third tier of the law. Then? You buddies toss the Constitution to remove all fears of court interference.

Talk about election interference. Hundreds in jail for insurrection, but their leader gets to avoid that part of government. Checks and Balances? Not when you believe in a monarchy.. pushed by an oligarchy.

 

[HisArpy]

That's a yes or no queston. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. I'm always crystal clear especially when asked for specifics. I don't even mince words.

Per the decision, you cannot even ask if it's an official act because the President enjoys ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for it.

So the answer to your question is; you're a cunt.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Per the decision, you cannot even ask if it's an official act because the President enjoys ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for it.

So the answer to your question is; you're a cunt.

Which means the president is above the law. We are in agreement.

 

[Chobham]

If he doesn't his co counsel likely does since they are all DOJ. Any argument that the evidence was based on unlawful subpoenas may or may not make that fruit inadmissible since it could be said that the evidence was provided voluntarily since the Sub P's weren't valid.

The charges really hinge on whether the docs were lawfully kept or not. If they were, then trump could ask anyone to move them, keep them unsecured, deny access to them as private property, etc. The only determination for that is whether the docs were subject to an official Presidential act or not. If yes, then it's over because the reason behind that official act is off limits to prove any illegal conduct. Since Trump has already said that he declassified the docs, no one can say otherwise or even delve into whether he did or didn't use proper procedure to do it.

First of all Smith DOJ under contract, he was neither properly appointed nor confirmed. That being said, yes, the DOJ attorney for the region can pick up the case. BUT anything developed under Smiths letterhead is subject to being treated as the fruit from a poison tree. All of Smiths court filings along with the actual charges themselves go away, disappear, the new attorney will virtually have to start from scratch.

Cannon finding that Smith is persona non grata as far as the court is concerned will cause an immediate filing in the DC court, which I suspect will deny any such motion. And now we have a collision between two courts, obviously playing out in slow motion through the appellate courts and ultimately ending up back in the Supreme Court...............somewhere in 2027?

Meanwhile back in the real world Trump will have been re-elected and have fired Smith or Biden/Harris are in the white house and will have managed to kick off WWIII in which case no one will give a rats ass about Smith one way or the other.

 

[ll74]

First of all Smith DOJ under contract, he was neither properly appointed nor confirmed. That being said, yes, the DOJ attorney for the region can pick up the case. BUT anything developed under Smiths letterhead is subject to being treated as the fruit from a poison tree. All of Smiths court filings along with the actual charges themselves go away, disappear, the new attorney will virtually have to start from scratch.

Cannon finding that Smith is persona non grata as far as the court is concerned will cause an immediate filing in the DC court, which I suspect will deny any such motion. And now we have a collision between two courts, obviously playing out in slow motion through the appellate courts and ultimately ending up back in the Supreme Court...............somewhere in 2027?

Meanwhile back in the real world Trump will have been re-elected and have fired Smith or Biden/Harris are in the white house and will have managed to kick off WWIII in which case no one will give a rats ass about Smith one way or the other.

The ruling has nothing to do with Smith. (Except for Thomas making an odd concurrence which was not part of the question being asked)

Questions of Smith's appointment haven't been answered.

 

[Chobham]

The ruling has nothing to do with Smith. (Except for Thomas making an odd concurrence which was not part of the question being asked)

Questions of Smith's appointment haven't been answered.

You haven't been reading carefully..................as usual.

 

[ll74]

You haven't been reading carefully..................as usual.

Smith has the authority to continue his cases. Any assertion otherwise is not based on any court ruling.

 

[dmallord]

This is crap and you know it. Or, if you don't know it, you need to learn to distinguish between crap and truth.

If the President orders a military strike it's an official act. It doesn't matter if he does it in response to provocation or if he believes all the dam towel headed camel jockeys need exterminated, it's still an official act because his motivation is irrelevant to his use of his authority and power under the Constitution. Given the source of that exclusive power and authority NO ONE can second guess his actions.

So, what you say is pure crap.

What a statement! You know you are dealing with Donald Trump here? His mind says, "I have blanket immunity to do whatever the hell I want!"

He would not adhere to anything in the SC decision that might point to other control mechanisms. You are a fool to believe he would think rationally about some legal trappings.

The SC gave Trump a box of matches to light the dynamite he's carrying in his other hand. All he needs is someone gutsy enough, say Mike Flynn and the Proud Boys, to deliver those lit sticks to a batch of his political enemies, sit back at McDonald's or a Chic-Fil-A, and grin as the fuse burns down.

God, you are so damn dense, Arpy, thinking legalization is something Trump would understand–or obey!

 

[dmallord]

If he doesn't his co counsel likely does since they are all DOJ. Any argument that the evidence was based on unlawful subpoenas may or may not make that fruit inadmissible since it could be said that the evidence was provided voluntarily since the Sub P's weren't valid.

The charges really hinge on whether the docs were lawfully kept or not. If they were, then trump could ask anyone to move them, keep them unsecured, deny access to them as private property, etc. The only determination for that is whether the docs were subject to an official Presidential act or not. If yes, then it's over because the reason behind that official act is off limits to prove any illegal conduct. Since Trump has already said that he declassified the docs, no one can say otherwise or even delve into whether he did or didn't use proper procedure to do it.

To quote a source about this, "This is crap and you know it. Or, if you don't know it, you need to learn to distinguish between crap and truth."