The ex-Trump fixer says he was summarily jailed by Trump to silence him—and says SCOTUS declaring presidents immune would turn a second-term Trump into a dictator.
You say incorrect and grossly exaggerated bullshit- and if I so much as even try and tell you that you’re wrong-
You get to troll with impunity.
Riiiiiight…
Well, I hate to break it to you, but again- shit isn’t going to work that way. You see, there’s a thing called accountability. And you clearly have proven that you have none. So while you think you have made yourself a fun little “gotcha” moment- you’ve really only proven that you can’t hold your own.
It’s easy to talk shit when no one asks you to back it up.
Here’s what fucking Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent:
“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.” Sotomayor went on to write, “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” she wrote.
Biden can kill all his enemies and that’s the law now. As long as it is an official act, it’s constitutional.
WRONG and proof that you have no clue how any of this works.
“The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims. For example, the majority discussed how prosecutors could present evidence in a bribery case that a president “allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” The prosecution can overcome the presumption of immunity with such evidence.
Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged “private scheme with private actors” to create alternative slates of electors “cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function.” If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.
In defining official functions, the Court referenced constitutional and statutory authority. It also recognized that a president must be able to speak to the public on matters of public interest, as Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. While some of us believe that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment, the justices suggested that it was also protected as a matter of immunity.
That is a far cry from a green light for death squads. The idea that Trump could not order a slate of fake electors but could order a slew of political assassinations finds little support in the actual opinion.”
“I didn’t expect such a broad definition of absolute immunity for a president for criminal acts,” said Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional scholars. “While the court leaves many issues unresolved, it is a dramatic and stunning affirmation of broad, absolute immunity for a president.”
Berkeley political scientist Terri Bimes, a scholar in the history and operation of the U.S. presidency, called the court’s ruling “dangerous.”
“The decision seems to permit the president to use the power of the office to commit acts that are illegal, that are criminal,” Bimes said. “The fact that these actions are being taken in the name of the presidency, that they’re official acts, makes them immune from prosecution. That is really problematic.”
This term was the most significant in memory because, in Trump v. United States, [the Court] hard-wired the imperial presidency by granting what in practice is close to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to presidents who wield their power corruptly and self-servingly;
Or how about I quote the decision itself?
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.
It’s not impossible for him to be prosecuted, but the legal barrier is sky high and in most cases not practical. Acknowledge it.
🤡
Cool, so you’re an admitted troll. It’s always a good thing when the gifts wrap themselves. I no longer have to take you seriously.
Your entire argument was “no ur rong” and so I responded with as much effort as you gave me.
So to summarize-
You say incorrect and grossly exaggerated bullshit- and if I so much as even try and tell you that you’re wrong-
You get to troll with impunity.
Riiiiiight…
Well, I hate to break it to you, but again- shit isn’t going to work that way. You see, there’s a thing called accountability. And you clearly have proven that you have none. So while you think you have made yourself a fun little “gotcha” moment- you’ve really only proven that you can’t hold your own.
It’s easy to talk shit when no one asks you to back it up.
Okay, here you go.
Here’s what fucking Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent:
Biden can kill all his enemies and that’s the law now. As long as it is an official act, it’s constitutional.
WRONG and proof that you have no clue how any of this works.
“The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims. For example, the majority discussed how prosecutors could present evidence in a bribery case that a president “allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” The prosecution can overcome the presumption of immunity with such evidence.
Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged “private scheme with private actors” to create alternative slates of electors “cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function.” If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.
In defining official functions, the Court referenced constitutional and statutory authority. It also recognized that a president must be able to speak to the public on matters of public interest, as Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. While some of us believe that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment, the justices suggested that it was also protected as a matter of immunity.
That is a far cry from a green light for death squads. The idea that Trump could not order a slate of fake electors but could order a slew of political assassinations finds little support in the actual opinion.”
There’s disagreement among scholars.
It’s provenly NOT absolute immunity. Stop with the extremism. It’s dangerous. Yes, but he cannot make goon squads to go murderizing people at will.
Stop with the sensationalism. It only dilutes the water.
Okay, Berkley won’t do it for you, how about Harvard Law?
Or how about I quote the decision itself?
It’s not impossible for him to be prosecuted, but the legal barrier is sky high and in most cases not practical. Acknowledge it.