Definitely a name brand of the shittiest of Chinese consumer grade UAV's available on Temu.
Fox News Alert ⚠️: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution
- Thread starter Archetype XLIV
- Start date
Lincoln was the liberal in that war.
We have to commit genocide to win a war?
Civilian deaths in war are not necessarily genocide. In fact, they are rarely genocide.
No but things we have done could be use by political enemies to limit a president. Oh you did this. Prosecute him.
We do take lawyers to war. We can't make rapid decision anymore. Can you imagine trying to win ww2 like that?
When CNN, MSNBC and AOC are all freaked out about the decision.... That's when I know it was the right decision.
No. I don't. Accepting bribes for a pardon is not in the Constitution nor is a president immune from being prosecuted for it.
You don't have the intellect to understand this decision. I'd tell you to read the entire thing, but I am quite sure it will be a waste of time for the same reason.
Yeah, not correct. Accepting bribes is a criminal activity and certainly not a constitutionally covered activity for the President. He also, for example, couldn’t just walk into the Senate and shoot everybody without recourse.
You’re like the group that believes overturning Roe made abortion illegal in the US.
Christ, do any of you morons actually take the time to read the decision before commenting and showing your ass?
As part of his Constitutionally protected official act of pardoning, he would have “absolute” immunity. The decision further dictates that evidence from an official act (pardoning) should be excluded from trial. In the case of a bribe, what leg does a prosecutor have to stand on if they can only show a payment being made/accepted but not link it to a pardon? You have absolutely no case, you fvcking morons.
Imagine being on a jury for a bribery case, seeing a payment being made, but not being able to consider what the payment was made for. Was it made for babysitting the payer’s children? For a personal property? For anything in the world? Nobody would know, and nobody would be able to prosecute, because evidence of the president’s official act of pardoning wouldn’t be allowed as evidence.
Even Coney Barrett admitted they (SCOTUS) got it wrong, especially with how it was worded.
Fvck me - if you morons are going to weigh in on this shit, uneducatedly, at least take the time to read and TRY to understand it.
Simple point for a simple mind: evidence associated with the official act is excluded from evidence. The pardon is an official act, thus is excluded. Without that, the prosecutor can make absolutely no link to what the payment is for, meaning bribery can’t be proved.
This isn’t fvcking rocket science. And bribery is just one of many examples of the absurdity of this ruling, all because the SCOTUS has turned to shit being loyal to politicians who nominated them.
No, you’re attempting to argue a legal concept you don’t understand. Having immunity from prosecution and the introduction of facts as evidence aren’t the same thing. If so, how would a prosecutor give a hitman immunity in exchange for him telling the jury he was order to kill someone by a particular person?
The pardon is an official act and a court wouldn’t be able to revoke the pardon, but they could certainly introduce the illegal activity tied to the immune activity.
The pardon is an official act and a court wouldn’t be able to revoke the pardon, but they could certainly introduce the illegal activity tied to the immune activity.
That is a false statement. Do you ever read, moron?
You need to lay off the AOC talking points. You're wound tight.
Relax. Pedo-Joe has done and will do far more damage to our country than any president ever has.
Trump nor his policies have ever hurt you.
Vote policy, not team.
Dumbass.
States could still bring charges...POTUS can't pardon state crimes.
This is just ugly now. It's been years since I've seen an internet group beat down on a message board. My goodness I can't even pile on at this point, I feel bad for him. Heck someone should console his fan boys cuck and confused.
Last edited:
There was a time when rifle wasn't this damned ignorant. Bicycle accident or listening to extralyingdumbass'd idiocy for too long? Either way, all kidding aside, it's kind of shocking.
One of my biggest annoyances is when I am entirely right about something and somebody far inferior to me intellectually tries correcting me on it.
We will get to the specifics of this case and overwhelmingly prove you wrong in a minute, but first, let's talk about how shitty this board has gotten. We have a number of morons on this board who bring absolutely no intelligence and try to pile on to conversations: 1988, crispy lips, wvuserg, and a handful of others constantly do it. It drags the board down. Worse, those morons NEVER respond back and argue the specifics of something. Like in this thread, after I destroy the numerically challenged banker's argument, they will scatter like cockroaches. They will have nothing to argue and bring no intelligence to the board. They are like the little kid who stands behind the grade-school bully talking shit, but then when the bully gets punched in the nose and runs to the nurse office, the dorky kids standing behind him all get scared and scatter.
Do those of you who constantly do that ever feel like an idiot when your own kind recognizes that you have no idea what you're talking about and just piggyback on them?
Now, let's get to the beatdown. First of all, you earlier referenced a justice. Unfortunately, you don't even know her name. You said "Comey Barrett." It's Coney Barrett. You're getting another political name (James Comey) confused. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to avoid the thread.
Coney Barrett, who trump appointed, concurred with the SCOTUS decision. However, she agreed with the dissenters on one point. What was that point? The EXACT thing I have argued in this thread:
Do any of you fvcking morons understand what "quid pro quo" means? It is bribery, you fvcking dolts! She is discussing the same exact thing that I am, and this is one of trump's own justices! She is talking about how she disagrees that the president's quo (the pardoning!) should be excluded from evidence!
So tell us, you fvcking numerically challenged banker, does Coney Barrett have it wrong, too?
Let's see what her agreement with the dissenters said:
Reference pages 26, 32, and I believe 40 in the SCOTUS release, you fvcking morons. I know that none of you read the 100+ page document. I've read it at least two times.
This is so bad, it's not even an analogy. Even you're bright enough to know that, so I won't waste my time explaining the differences for the stooges of the board.
So @19MU88 , @30CAT , @raleighherdfan , @i am herdman , instead of making banker look like the usual fool, why don't one of you explain how Coney Barrett has it wrong even though her dissent is the same as mine.
I'll wait until this novel's reviews come out before I consider reading it.
You read it. You simply don't know how to argue against it, because I used two justices (including one who concurred) who both agreed with my argument. Like usual, you hide behind the schoolyard bully, then when he gets punched in the face and runs away, you're stuck there looking like the moron that you are.
It's amazing, they are here arguing about something they did not bother to read. What smug arrogance.
Justice Barrett doesn't understand legal concepts? Then perhaps your dude shouldn't have nominated her. Which isn't too far-fetched of a thought, this isn't the first time she's obviously suspicious of what the core group of maniacs are up to.
You don't have the ability to take part in such anywhere. So let me throw your soft brain a soft ball:
Is Justice Barrett a liberal?
She is a moderate but conservative on abortion.
what rifle wrote was ridiculous. The ruling does not say a President can commit fraud or take bribes.
Also what you two are neglecting is we have an impeachment process for those things as well.
Of course it doesn’t say that. I didn’t make that claim you fvcking moron.
Of course, none of you morons have anything to add or refute of what I said. Anybody want to discuss how Coney Barrett argued the same exact thing that I did which you morons said I had wrong? Of course you don’t.
You fvcking morons bring nothing to the board. Go ahead, banker, come fall on the sword for all of them.
Isn't this the guy that repeated many of the hoaxes? Including recently spewing the "suckers and losers" hoax? So emotional bloviating blathering rants not based in fact add value? Who knew
Dr Jill was at ease last night. She went to bed knowing that Mush and the family will never be held accountable for all the bribes they’ve sucked up over the years.
No shit. No one is saying that.
You may want to back up to where I said I agree with the premise of the decision. But as is sometimes the case in matters of law and legislation, the devil is in the details; sometimes this is due to incompetence or neglect, sometimes it's intentional and nefarious. I'm still not sure what we have here.
Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. It is a political process.
And your team rightfully argued this at Trump's second impeargument.
Their lack of comprehension of this is astounding.
To a moron like you, likely. You're part of the crowd that thinks Liz Chaney, Mitt Romney, and Mitch McConnell are liberals.
No I just think they are corrupt.
It was a yes no question and you couldn't answer. Kind of moronic.
I'll just revisit one of your lies/inaccuracies on bribes. Baldy just told us the other day bribes are official acts and can be done by the President. So yes, some are saying that. Now, maybe after he collected himself from his triggered rant, perhaps he didn't mean it. But, yes some are saying that including the boards most prolific spammer
You would think this should be obvious. There's no party limitations on corruptibility.
