Liberal Forum

jerrab » 08 Dec 2024, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 4:52 pm

why did trump ask for immunity?

Trump did  not request 10,000 National Guard troops for J6 as you asserted, you **** LIAR!!!   The SCOTUS gave Trump immunity!!!  Stop deflecting, asshole!!!
 
 

Buffalo » 08 Dec 2024, 5:01 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 5:01 pm

Trump did  not request 10,000 National Guard troops for J6 as you asserted, you **** LIAR!!!   The SCOTUS gave Trump immunity!!!  Stop deflecting, asshole!!!

trump getting immunity did not make him not guilty. it did show that trump loaded the supreme court with his supporters and SCREWED america.

Buffalo » 08 Dec 2024, 5:01 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 5:01 pm

Trump did  not request 10,000 National Guard troops for J6 as you asserted, you **** LIAR!!!   The SCOTUS gave Trump immunity!!!  Stop deflecting, asshole!!!

after he asked for immunity.

Buffalo » 08 Dec 2024, 5:01 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 5:01 pm

Trump did  not request 10,000 National Guard troops for J6 as you asserted, you **** LIAR!!!   The SCOTUS gave Trump immunity!!!  Stop deflecting, asshole!!!

------------------------------------------
Trump v. United States addressed, whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for allegedly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.1 A federal grand jury indicted President Trump on four criminal counts: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States by overturning the election results, (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (Congress’s certification of the electoral vote); (3) obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, the certification of the electoral vote; and (4) conspiracy against the rights of persons to vote and to have their votes counted.2 President Trump asserted that the charges must be dismissed because he enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts he took as President—a category, he contended, that includes all acts alleged in the indictment.3
 

jerrab » 08 Dec 2024, 5:40 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 5:40 pm

trump getting immunity did not make him not guilty. it did show that trump loaded the supreme court with his supporters and SCREWED america.

America got screwed when braindead by-done was frauded into office!!!
 

jerrab » 08 Dec 2024, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 6:01 pm

------------------------------------------
Trump v. United States addressed, whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for allegedly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.1 A federal grand jury indicted President Trump on four criminal counts: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States by overturning the election results, (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (Congress’s certification of the electoral vote); (3) obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, the certification of the electoral vote; and (4) conspiracy against the rights of persons to vote and to have their votes counted.2 President Trump asserted that the charges must be dismissed because he enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts he took as President—a category, he contended, that includes all acts alleged in the indictment.3

Uh, DICKFACE, you DO realize that ALL of that has been DROPPED and your boy Smith told to PACK HIS **** and lawyer up too!!

Sucks when those SUPPEENIES come around and Jackyboy has to testify about how BIDEN ordered this LAWFARE **** to try to keep Trump out of office, huh??

Run, ASSHOLE because NO ONE really thinks a damn thing you post is worth reading!! I only take you off ignore long enough to CURB STOMP YOUR *** into oblivion, hoping you'll get sick of all these BEATDOWNS and LEAVE!!

*Beekeeper » 08 Dec 2024, 7:32 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 7:32 pm

Uh, DICKFACE, you DO realize that ALL of that has been DROPPED and your boy Smith told to PACK HIS **** and lawyer up too!!

Sucks when those SUPPEENIES come around and Jackyboy has to testify about how BIDEN ordered this LAWFARE **** to try to keep Trump out of office, huh??

Run, ASSHOLE because NO ONE really thinks a damn thing you post is worth reading!! I only take you off ignore long enough to CURB STOMP YOUR *** into oblivion, hoping you'll get sick of all these BEATDOWNS and LEAVE!!

trump got immunity. never proven innocent.

jerrab » 08 Dec 2024, 7:38 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 7:38 pm

trump got immunity. never proven innocent.

No, what Trump got IMMUNITY FROM was OFFICAL ACTS as PRESIDENT being used as a CUDGEL to destroy him in a PERSECUTION!!!

Something EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT HAS ALWAYS HAD, and the SCOTUS said as much in their OPINION!!

Seems you need to LEARN TO READ instead of regurgitating that **** you claim is "truth"!!

*Beekeeper » 08 Dec 2024, 7:42 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 7:42 pm

No, what Trump got IMMUNITY FROM was OFFICAL ACTS as PRESIDENT being used as a CUDGEL to destroy him in a PERSECUTION!!!

Something EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT HAS ALWAYS HAD, and the SCOTUS said as much in their OPINION!!

Seems you need to LEARN TO READ instead of regurgitating that **** you claim is "truth"!!

nixon did not have it.

*Beekeeper » 08 Dec 2024, 7:32 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 7:32 pm

Uh, DICKFACE, you DO realize that ALL of that has been DROPPED and your boy Smith told to PACK HIS **** and lawyer up too!!

Sucks when those SUPPEENIES come around and Jackyboy has to testify about how BIDEN ordered this LAWFARE **** to try to keep Trump out of office, huh??

Run, ASSHOLE because NO ONE really thinks a damn thing you post is worth reading!! I only take you off ignore long enough to CURB STOMP YOUR *** into oblivion, hoping you'll get sick of all these BEATDOWNS and LEAVE!!

---------------------------------

Sovereign immunity is a doctrine based on a common law principle borrowed from the English common law. However, Article VI of the Constitution states that the Constitution and laws made pursuant to them are the supreme law, and, as such, it should prevail over government claims of sovereign immunity.---------------------------

*Beekeeper » 08 Dec 2024, 7:42 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 7:42 pm

No, what Trump got IMMUNITY FROM was OFFICAL ACTS as PRESIDENT being used as a CUDGEL to destroy him in a PERSECUTION!!!

Something EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT HAS ALWAYS HAD, and the SCOTUS said as much in their OPINION!!

Seems you need to LEARN TO READ instead of regurgitating that **** you claim is "truth"!!

-----------------------

Presidential immunity is the concept that a sitting president of the United States has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute. The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v.-----------------------

jerrab » 02 Dec 2024, 5:44 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2024, 5:44 pm

yelling corruption is just their way to shift attention from the most corrupted person who ever lived, you know the one who said only the guilty ask for immunity and then he asks the supreme court the one he loaded with loyalists for immunity.

now that is corruption to the highest degree.

and that person is .......drumroll....... trump.

Lying cocksucker.

jerrab » 08 Dec 2024, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2024, 9:06 pm

nixon did not have it.

Uh, yes he did. And the SCOTUS said he did.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald - Wikipedia
 In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court found that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office."[5] The Court did not address the issue of immunity from criminal prosecution.[6]

 The Court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave him with unfettered power. It stated that there were formal and informal checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials.[7]

 The Court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press and noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would also serve to deter presidential abuses of office and to make the threat of impeachment credible. It determined that other incentives to avoid presidential misconduct existed, including the desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of presidential influence, and the traditional concern for his historical stature.[8]The decision was clarified by Clinton v. Jones, in which the Court held that a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency
 

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 8:17 am » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 8:17 am

Uh, yes he did. And the SCOTUS said he did.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald - Wikipedia
 In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court found that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office."[5] The Court did not address the issue of immunity from criminal prosecution.[6]

 The Court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave him with unfettered power. It stated that there were formal and informal checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials.[7]

 The Court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press and noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would also serve to deter presidential abuses of office and to make the threat of impeachment credible. It determined that other incentives to avoid presidential misconduct existed, including the desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of presidential influence, and the traditional concern for his historical stature.[8]The decision was clarified by Clinton v. Jones, in which the Court held that a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency

wrong, ford gave him a pardon
-----------------------------------------------------------------Gerald Ford knew Richard Nixon could be prosecuted for crimes he committed as president. That was simply a fact, when President Ford gave his predecessor “a full, free, and absolute pardon” 50 years ago this week.Former presidents did not enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution until July 1, 2024, when six members of the Supreme Court created that privilege in Trump v. United States.In 1974, when Nixon’s resignation seemed likely to lead to prosecution for his role in many of the crimes of Watergate, Republicans in the White House and Congress took their cue from the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 established that former presidents had criminal liability, not criminal immunity. Even after impeachment, conviction and removal, “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”Ford faced that fact squarely in his pardon proclamation: “As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States.”Nixon had a right to a fair trial, Ford said. The Constitution guarantees that to all. But Ford raised doubts about whether America would be able to give Nixon a fair trial until months, perhaps years, elapsed. That was his justification for pardoning Nixon.

https://theconversation.com/supreme-cou ... son-238664

jerrab » 09 Dec 2024, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 11:59 am

wrong, ford gave him a pardon
-----------------------------------------------------------------Gerald Ford knew Richard Nixon could be prosecuted for crimes he committed as president. That was simply a fact, when President Ford gave his predecessor “a full, free, and absolute pardon” 50 years ago this week.Former presidents did not enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution until July 1, 2024, when six members of the Supreme Court created that privilege in Trump v. United States.In 1974, when Nixon’s resignation seemed likely to lead to prosecution for his role in many of the crimes of Watergate, Republicans in the White House and Congress took their cue from the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 established that former presidents had criminal liability, not criminal immunity. Even after impeachment, conviction and removal, “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”Ford faced that fact squarely in his pardon proclamation: “As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States.”Nixon had a right to a fair trial, Ford said. The Constitution guarantees that to all. But Ford raised doubts about whether America would be able to give Nixon a fair trial until months, perhaps years, elapsed. That was his justification for pardoning Nixon.

What you FAIL to comprehend is that NIXON had no "question" to be resolved for any CRIMINAL PERSECUTION. Trump did and ASKED THE COURT to determine if the SAME IMMUNITY that they ruled Nixon had applied to CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS AS WELL.

And since the "charges" were related to a STATE PERSECUTION, it required a SCOTUS RULING of immunity on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

You really are ONE **** PIECE OF **** IDIOT of the 1000th degree. 

Trump was given NO "added" immunity that didn't ALREADY EXIST under the NIXON ruling. They only determined that the same IMMUNITY afforded Nixon applied equally to CRIMINAL CASES FOR IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL LEGAL ACTS AS PRESIDENT. 

As a NOTE IN THE RULING, any actual CRIMES COMMITTED by President while in office are not OFFICIAL ACTS, but CRIMES. MURDER is not an official act, but a CRIME. CORRUPTION is not an official act, but a CRIME and both would be held accountable in a COURT OF LAW without any immunity to prosecution since NEITHER are permitted acts under the Constitution.

The SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merit of the NY State case which precluded the filing and left THAT to the NY State courts to determine. 

You really need to SHUT THE **** UP and GO BACK INTO THAT SLIMEY HOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF, ****!!

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 12:17 pm

What you FAIL to comprehend is that NIXON had no "question" to be resolved for any CRIMINAL PERSECUTION. Trump did and ASKED THE COURT to determine if the SAME IMMUNITY that they ruled Nixon had applied to CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS AS WELL.

And since the "charges" were related to a STATE PERSECUTION, it required a SCOTUS RULING of immunity on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

You really are ONE **** PIECE OF **** IDIOT of the 1000th degree. 

Trump was given NO "added" immunity that didn't ALREADY EXIST under the NIXON ruling. They only determined that the same IMMUNITY afforded Nixon applied equally to CRIMINAL CASES FOR IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL LEGAL ACTS AS PRESIDENT. 

As a NOTE IN THE RULING, any actual CRIMES COMMITTED by President while in office are not OFFICIAL ACTS, but CRIMES. MURDER is not an official act, but a CRIME. CORRUPTION is not an official act, but a CRIME and both would be held accountable in a COURT OF LAW without any immunity to prosecution since NEITHER are permitted acts under the Constitution.

The SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merit of the NY State case which precluded the filing and left THAT to the NY State courts to determine. 

You really need to SHUT THE **** UP and GO BACK INTO THAT SLIMEY HOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF, ****!!

------------------------------Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. U.S. would have given Nixon immunity for Watergate crimes

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 12:17 pm

What you FAIL to comprehend is that NIXON had no "question" to be resolved for any CRIMINAL PERSECUTION. Trump did and ASKED THE COURT to determine if the SAME IMMUNITY that they ruled Nixon had applied to CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS AS WELL.

And since the "charges" were related to a STATE PERSECUTION, it required a SCOTUS RULING of immunity on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

You really are ONE **** PIECE OF **** IDIOT of the 1000th degree. 

Trump was given NO "added" immunity that didn't ALREADY EXIST under the NIXON ruling. They only determined that the same IMMUNITY afforded Nixon applied equally to CRIMINAL CASES FOR IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL LEGAL ACTS AS PRESIDENT. 

As a NOTE IN THE RULING, any actual CRIMES COMMITTED by President while in office are not OFFICIAL ACTS, but CRIMES. MURDER is not an official act, but a CRIME. CORRUPTION is not an official act, but a CRIME and both would be held accountable in a COURT OF LAW without any immunity to prosecution since NEITHER are permitted acts under the Constitution.

The SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merit of the NY State case which precluded the filing and left THAT to the NY State courts to determine. 

You really need to SHUT THE **** UP and GO BACK INTO THAT SLIMEY HOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF, ****!!

https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-e ... gift-nixon

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 12:17 pm

What you FAIL to comprehend is that NIXON had no "question" to be resolved for any CRIMINAL PERSECUTION. Trump did and ASKED THE COURT to determine if the SAME IMMUNITY that they ruled Nixon had applied to CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS AS WELL.

And since the "charges" were related to a STATE PERSECUTION, it required a SCOTUS RULING of immunity on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

You really are ONE **** PIECE OF **** IDIOT of the 1000th degree. 

Trump was given NO "added" immunity that didn't ALREADY EXIST under the NIXON ruling. They only determined that the same IMMUNITY afforded Nixon applied equally to CRIMINAL CASES FOR IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL LEGAL ACTS AS PRESIDENT. 

As a NOTE IN THE RULING, any actual CRIMES COMMITTED by President while in office are not OFFICIAL ACTS, but CRIMES. MURDER is not an official act, but a CRIME. CORRUPTION is not an official act, but a CRIME and both would be held accountable in a COURT OF LAW without any immunity to prosecution since NEITHER are permitted acts under the Constitution.

The SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merit of the NY State case which precluded the filing and left THAT to the NY State courts to determine. 

You really need to SHUT THE **** UP and GO BACK INTO THAT SLIMEY HOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF, ****!!

---------------------------------

UVA Expert: Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Would’ve Been a Gift to Nixon

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 12:17 pm

What you FAIL to comprehend is that NIXON had no "question" to be resolved for any CRIMINAL PERSECUTION. Trump did and ASKED THE COURT to determine if the SAME IMMUNITY that they ruled Nixon had applied to CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS AS WELL.

And since the "charges" were related to a STATE PERSECUTION, it required a SCOTUS RULING of immunity on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

You really are ONE **** PIECE OF **** IDIOT of the 1000th degree. 

Trump was given NO "added" immunity that didn't ALREADY EXIST under the NIXON ruling. They only determined that the same IMMUNITY afforded Nixon applied equally to CRIMINAL CASES FOR IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL LEGAL ACTS AS PRESIDENT. 

As a NOTE IN THE RULING, any actual CRIMES COMMITTED by President while in office are not OFFICIAL ACTS, but CRIMES. MURDER is not an official act, but a CRIME. CORRUPTION is not an official act, but a CRIME and both would be held accountable in a COURT OF LAW without any immunity to prosecution since NEITHER are permitted acts under the Constitution.

The SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merit of the NY State case which precluded the filing and left THAT to the NY State courts to determine. 

You really need to SHUT THE **** UP and GO BACK INTO THAT SLIMEY HOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF, ****!!

-----------------------------

The current Supreme Court majority unilaterally has changed this constitutional process. Under Trump v. United States, Nixon would have escaped criminal prosecution for the act of obstruction that ended his presidency.