News Focus
News Focus
icon url

janice shell

07/01/24 7:43 PM

#482291 RE: hap0206 #482290

Is "record acquisition problems" what you call taking a large number of classified documents with you when you leave the White House, refusing to return them, and storing some of them in a shower?
icon url

fuagf

07/01/24 7:48 PM

#482292 RE: hap0206 #482290

hap0206, What president has ever not had total immunity for presidential acts set out by the constitution. Trump asked for total immunity and didn't get it. Trump lost. Of course he would get total immunity for constitutional acts. Next question is should he get immunity for obstructing law enforcement people from regaining the classified documents he stole. Surely the answer there is no. And in telling his VP to not recognize a fair and legal election result. Surely the answer has to be no.

"And he got total immunity for official acts carried out in accordance with his duties under the constitution -- big cheer for our nation and the supremes -- the rest of it is guidance for the lower courts if the POTUS is accused of things like J6, record acquisition problems, telephone calls about election rigging -- hey maybe even ignoring the supremes on loan forgiveness -- ya think "

The decision does make it harder for prosecutors to prove Trump broke the laws that he broke. No cheers for the the liars McConnell allowed Trump to get there. Yes, they lied about their position on Roe.
icon url

janice shell

07/01/24 8:06 PM

#482301 RE: hap0206 #482290

And he got total immunity for official acts carried out in accordance with his duties under the constitution -- big cheer for our nation and the supremes

Bullshit. For nearly 250 years, no president ever needed that immunity. It was obvious that every president was not liable for any official acts performed. It wasn't till Donald Trump took office and began committing actual crimes that a president thought he needed it. And Trump got it, with the help of two of the three judges he appointed.

Shameful.