Libtards heads are exploding today

[Rez Exelon]

Show me where I claimed to know much at all about it.
You cant, because I didnt.
I'm wrong alot and I DO own it.
If I dont know something about something, I shut up and listen and learn, somethin you might want to consider.
Just keep your troll comments in your pocket please.

Okay, you're right again as always --- I mean, you did recently say you made a nachos bell grande mistake.

But if others have opinions and you're coming in to the thread ragging them with sarcastic "constitutional Justis experts" (was that to mean juris or justice or what?) then that is the opposite of shutting up and listening.

In fact, it'd probably fall more AS a troll comment than shutting up and listening. Either that, or it implies that others are wrong, which would then mean that you're right all the time. As I stated.

 

[Rez Exelon]

No it can’t. This very question was answered by law prof today.
Lawyer's say treason crime is specific & already written in the constitution.

Didn't SCOTUS say there was absolute immunity for official acts? Strikes me as a good possibility that treason and other high crimes are 100% fine now as long as there's a way to say they were "official" acts. I mean, sure I don't have a JD after my name, but it seems like that logically structures that way.

 

[okcBob]

Didn't SCOTUS say there was absolute immunity for official acts? Strikes me as a good possibility that treason and other high crimes are 100% fine now as long as there's a way to say they were "official" acts. I mean, sure I don't have a JD after my name, but it seems like that logically structures that way.

They explained that treason cannot be considered an official act. “ U.S. presidents enjoy full immunity from criminal charges for their official “core constitutional” acts, “
The pres duties are defending the constitution. Since treason is already defined as a crime in the constitution, he can’t have immunity from committing treason

 

[ohms]

BREAKING: TRUMP WINS! Supreme Court Rules 6-3 on Presidential Immunity – “Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers”​

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...rt-issues-ruling-presidential-immunity-court/

He was determined Trump had immunity on one count in the DC case. 3 other charges were remanded back to Judge Chitkan, she has to determine if the charges were within his official acts or within the perimeter of his official acts. If not the charges can stand. She has to make her analysis with the assumption that the actions were within at least the outer perimeter of his official acts.

Didn't SCOTUS say there was absolute immunity for official acts? Strikes me as a good possibility that treason and other high crimes are 100% fine now as long as there's a way to say they were "official" acts. I mean, sure I don't have a JD after my name, but it seems like that logically structures that way.

SCOTUS determined there is absolute immunity for official acts and acts “within the outer perimeter” of official acts. They found immunity for 1 charge. 3 other charges were remanded back to Judge Chutkan. She has to do analysis and find whether these charges fell within official acts. If not he can be charged. Judge Chutkan has to go into analysis with the presumption that the acts were within official acts or within the outer perimeter.

 

[CHenry]

Okay, you're right again as always --- I mean, you did recently say you made a nachos bell grande mistake.

But if others have opinions and you're coming in to the thread ragging them with sarcastic "constitutional Justis experts" (was that to mean juris or justice or what?) then that is the opposite of shutting up and listening.

In fact, it'd probably fall more AS a troll comment than shutting up and listening. Either that, or it implies that others are wrong, which would then mean that you're right all the time. As I stated.

I dont know why you have a hard on for me but its getting old.
I was just interjecting some sarcasm humor into the thread (maybe lighten it up or?) as I did read some post that I questioned alot, but didnt know enough to debate it.
Happy now?
You win, no reply needed.

 

[Rez Exelon]

I dont know why you have a hard on for me but its getting old.
I was just interjecting some sarcasm humor into the thread (maybe lighten it up or?) as I did read some post that I questioned alot, but didnt know enough to debate it.
Happy now?
You win, no reply needed.

I'm always happy --- happiness comes from within, and not from OSA after all.

He was determined Trump had immunity on one count in the DC case. 3 other charges were remanded back to Judge Chitkan, she has to determine if the charges were within his official acts or within the perimeter of his official acts. If not the charges can stand. She has to make her analysis with the assumption that the actions were within at least the outer perimeter of his official acts.

SCOTUS determined there is absolute immunity for official acts and acts “within the outer perimeter” of official acts. They found immunity for 1 charge. 3 other charges were remanded back to Judge Chutkan. She has to do analysis and find whether these charges fell within official acts. If not he can be charged. Judge Chutkan has to go into analysis with the presumption that the acts were within official acts or within the outer perimeter.

Good explanation. The cynical side of me still thinks that there's plenty of devious folks out there crafting ways around those lines and how to stretch the what "the outer perimeter" means. I suppose I'd rather the standard just be that the president, like any other person, goes to jail if they break the law.

 

[CHenry]

I'm always happy --- happiness comes from within, and not from OSA after all.

Well thats good.

 

[ohms]

I'm always happy --- happiness comes from within, and not from OSA after all.


Good explanation. The cynical side of me still thinks that there's plenty of devious folks out there crafting hways around those lines and how to stretch the what "the outer perimeter" means. I suppose I'd rather the standard just be that the president, like any other person, goes to jail if they break

I'm always happy --- happiness comes from within, and not from OSA after all.


Good explanation. The cynical side of me still thinks that there's plenty of devious folks out there crafting ways around those lines and how to stretch the what "the outer perimeter" means. I suppose I'd rather the standard just be that the president, like any other person, goes to jail if they break the law.

You need to read the opinion, they answer your questions.

 

[ohms]

No it can’t. This very question was answered by law prof today.
Lawyer's say treason crime is specific & already written in the constitution.

He does not have any charges of Treason

 

[ohms]

Treason is treason

No one is charged with treason