- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS Hears Case - POTUS Trump's lawyer offers no rebuttal.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:42 am
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:42 am
That is outstanding. I see 6 - 3 in favor of the status quo. Can you imagine a President having to answer to a DA? If "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" occur impeach the President. Otherwise, leave the President alone.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 11:44 am
7
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:45 am to Timeoday
What do you mean, offers no rebuttal?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:57 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
What do you mean, offers no rebuttal?
Trump's side went 1st
DOJ went 2nd
Trump's side had a chance to rebut the DOJ's argument but just said "nothing further"... apparently already feeling their case had been made... ending the proceedings
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:58 am to Timeoday
I listened to about 75% of the testimony. It sounded like the government was trying to make the distinction between the presidents private matters and official matters.
IDK which way this is headed.
IDK which way this is headed.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:58 am to rt3
Thanks.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:00 pm to Timeoday
Seems like giving a president blanket immunity would be creating a new law,
Which is not the job of the courts.
Which is not the job of the courts.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:03 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I listened to about 75% of the testimony. It sounded like the government was trying to make the distinction between the presidents private matters and official matters.
I missed most but heard enough to hear their argument was Trump was acting as a private citizen (or "office seeker") during the acts in question and not as a government official (or "office holder")
That's the whole crux of their argument
quote:
IDK which way this is headed.
LawTuber Good Lawgic watched the arguments and his immediate post-proceedings reaction was the 5 men will be for Trump... the 3 liberals will be against Trump... and ACB is a wild card that could go either way or just concur with either side
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:06 pm to rt3
quote:
LawTuber Good Lawgic watched the arguments and his immediate post-proceedings reaction was the 5 men will be for Trump... the 3 liberals will be against Trump... and ACB is a wild card that could go either way or just concur with either side
And if this happens? Does all this Federal stuff go away?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:06 pm to Hobie101
quote:
Seems like giving a president blanket immunity would be creating a new law,
First of all, it’s not blanket immunity. It’s immunity for official acts as president.
And it would follow what has been done with federal judges. And it would be limited to laws that don’t specify the president.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:07 pm to Hobie101
quote:
Seems like giving a president blanket immunity
Where did anyone suggest a President should have blanket immunity? But if a President orders the bombing that kills an innocent person, should they face murder charges?
We have a way to impeach the President if they break the law...remember Nixon
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:09 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
We have a way to impeach the President if they break the law...remember Nixon
Kav does... he talked about Ford's pardon of Nixon killing any chance Ford had at getting elected to a full term as POTUS but that ultimately it was probably the best thing he could do
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:10 pm to Hobie101
quote:
Seems like giving a president blanket immunity would be creating a new law,
Which is not the job of the courts.
The office of president requires a person to make decisions not everyone in the country should be allowed to make. This requires a level of immunity from prosecution for making those decisions.
The avenue for punishing the president is the impeachment process in Congress.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:10 pm to GumboPot
quote:
. It sounded like the government was trying to make the distinction between the presidents private matters and official matters.
Well yeah that's basically the issue.
It is very likely that there will be an immunity from criminal prosecution for official Acts. The issue is that what Trump is accused of doing is almost certainly not an official act so if they give immunity for official acts he's still in the box
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:11 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
We have a way to impeach the President if they break the law.
They can also be prosecuted. There's nothing that implies that impeachment is the only solution and the Constitution makes it pretty clear that criminal prosecution and impeachment are separate
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It is very likely that there will be an immunity from criminal prosecution for official Acts. The issue is that what Trump is accused of doing is almost certainly not an official act so if they give immunity for official acts he's still in the box
They are of course not going to decide Trump was operating in an official capacity.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:13 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
We have a way to impeach the President if they break the law...remember Nixon
I remember Clinton. I believe Nixon resigned because he did not want to drag the country through an impeachment. Slick Willie had no problem creating division and skull drug America through it.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:13 pm to Timeoday
Have we ever had a President do the dumb things Trump has done? Even Nixon put one or even two layers between himself and what he wanted done. This isn't being critical of Nixon because that was actually smart. Can you imagine Nixon himself getting on a phone call asking to "find votes" 
That's amateur hour type stuff.
That's amateur hour type stuff.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:14 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
The office of president requires a person to make decisions not everyone in the country should be allowed to make. This requires a level of immunity from prosecution for making those decisions.
I don't think anyone is disputing this.
The problem for Trump is that the behavior he's accused of for pretty much all of his criminal matters, is not within the nucleus of the decisionmaking you're referencing.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:14 pm to ronricks
quote:
Have we ever had a President do the dumb things Trump has done? Even Nixon put one or even two layers between himself and what he wanted done. This isn't being critical of Nixon because that was actually smart. Can you imagine Nixon himself getting on a phone call asking to "find votes"
That's amateur hour type stuff.
You clearly ignore our current head of state at all hours of the day.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The problem for Trump is that the behavior he's accused of for pretty much all of his criminal matters, is not within the nucleus of the decisionmaking you're referencing.
Of course it is.
Page 1 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News