Liberal Forum

*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, ****!!

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

Back then, according to Nixon expert Ken Hughes of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs, there was no question in the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court that a former president could be prosecuted for crimes committed when he wielded the powers of the presidency. In fact, President Gerald R. Ford conceded as much when he pardoned his former boss.But what if the new Supreme Court standard had been in place in 1974? Would the recent Trump v. United States ruling declaring that a president enjoys “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority” and “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a president’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility” have changed history?

*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, ****!!

-----------------------------------Q. If the current Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity had been decided during the Nixon administration, how would Nixon have received that news?A. Nixon would have been astonished at this judicial largesse. The ruling would have shielded Nixon from prosecution for most of his crimes, the web of wrongdoing known as Watergate. 

jerra » wrote:

31 Jan 1970, 4:07 pm

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

 

jerra » wrote:

31 Jan 1970, 4:07 pm

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

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

 

jerra » wrote:

31 Jan 1970, 4:07 pm

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

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.

 

jerra » wrote:

31 Jan 1970, 4:07 pm

*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, ****!!

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

Back then, according to Nixon expert Ken Hughes of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs, there was no question in the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court that a former president could be prosecuted for crimes committed when he wielded the powers of the presidency. In fact, President Gerald R. Ford conceded as much when he pardoned his former boss.But what if the new Supreme Court standard had been in place in 1974? Would the recent Trump v. United States ruling declaring that a president enjoys “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority” and “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a president’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility” have changed history?

ALL OPINIONS, DICKFACE, not actual COURT RULINGS!!

YOU LOSE!!!

Next.
 
 

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 1:46 pm

ALL OPINIONS, DICKFACE, not actual COURT RULINGS!!

YOU LOSE!!!

Next.

fact// ford pardoned nixon because nixon would have been found  guilty.

jerrab » 09 Dec 2024, 2:26 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 2:26 pm

fact// ford pardoned nixon because nixon would have been found  guilty.

NO one can prove that 

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 1:46 pm

ALL OPINIONS, DICKFACE, not actual COURT RULINGS!!

YOU LOSE!!!

Next.

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

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.

**** JOE BUDEN AND MOST DEMOCRATS

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 1:46 pm

ALL OPINIONS, DICKFACE, not actual COURT RULINGS!!

YOU LOSE!!!

Next.

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

During a January 9, 2024, hearing regarding Trump's 2020 election obstruction case, Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, argued before a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that Trump enjoyed absolute immunity for any crimes he may have committed as president. Judge Florence Pan asked Sauer whether immunity would cover a sitting president who orders the assassination of a political opponent. Sauer responded that prosecution could only start after a successful impeachment conviction; Pan replied that the response did not answer her question. The three judges questioned the contention that impeachment and conviction by Congress was a prerequisite for any criminal prosecution. Pan asked Sauer how a defendant who claims "blanket" immunity can also plausibly and concurrently claim immunity conditioned on the President having been "impeached and convicted" by Congress: "Once you concede that presidents can be prosecuted under some circumstances, your separation of powers argument falls away, and the issues before us are narrowed to are you correct in your interpretation of the impeachment judgment clause?"[38] On February 6, a federal appeals court dismissed Trump’s assertion of absolute immunity from criminal charges during his tenure as president.[39] On March 6, the Supreme Court set a date of April 25 for its consideration of the criminal immunity argument related to former President Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.[40][41]

Poor jerra. reaching so far

*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 1:46 pm

ALL OPINIONS, DICKFACE, not actual COURT RULINGS!!

YOU LOSE!!!

Next.

------------------------------------
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/bre ... y-decision


On July 1, 2024, a divided Court set a precedent for immunity from criminal charges made against former presidents. In Trump v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority decision said that a former president has criminal immunity for some official actions taken while in office. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity,” Roberts explained.Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanagh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority decision. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.“At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,’” Roberts noted. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” he concluded.Roberts then sent the case back to a federal district trial court to reconsider its charges against Trump and draw distinctions between his alleged official and unofficial actions. Most observers agree that any trial faced by Trump for his unofficial acts as president would not be concluded until after the November elections.
 

jerrab » 09 Dec 2024, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 2:47 pm

------------------------------------On July 1, 2024, a divided Court set a precedent for immunity from criminal charges made against former presidents. In Trump v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority decision said that a former president has criminal immunity for some official actions taken while in office. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity,” Roberts explained.Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanagh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority decision. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.“At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,’” Roberts noted. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” he concluded.Roberts then sent the case back to a federal district trial court to reconsider its charges against Trump and draw distinctions between his alleged official and unofficial actions. Most observers agree that any trial faced by Trump for his unofficial acts as president would not be concluded until after the November elections.

 

**** JOE BIDEN

*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, ****!!

nixon did not have the corrupt supreme court we have today.

jerrab » 09 Dec 2024, 3:29 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 3:29 pm

nixon did not have the corrupt supreme court we have today.

**** you jerra.... you **** libs just dont respect the rule of law.

FJB » 09 Dec 2024, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 3:43 pm

**** you jerra.... you **** libs just dont respect the rule of law.

**** you- your **** supreme court does not respect the constitution.

jerrab » 09 Dec 2024, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 3:55 pm

**** you- your **** supreme court does not respect the constitution.

Coming from a liberal asswipe like you... too **** funny. Eat **** and die **** 

*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, ****!!

----------------------------------------------------
Roberts noted. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” he concluded.Roberts then sent the case back to a federal district trial court to reconsider its charges against Trump and draw distinctions between his alleged official and unofficial actions.

FJB » 09 Dec 2024, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 3:57 pm

Coming from a liberal asswipe like you... too **** funny. Eat **** and die ****

coming from an *** wipe you it is hilarious.

jerrab » 09 Dec 2024, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 4:01 pm

coming from an *** wipe you it is hilarious.

sad these liberal justices want to legislate from the bench. Nice wonder the democrat party is dying.

*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, ****!!

Sure glad I never chose to be on your side. You really know how to throw people under a bus.