In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Dreeben has trapped himself with this line of argument that every prosecutor operates in good faith. When he is working for a second time for an animus motivated Special Counsel.

---

This seems to be the gaping hole to me. If things have to go to court to determine official capacity, then the president can be drug to court for every action they take. The lawfare gate flys off its hinges if a president isn't insulated by impeachment.

---

Mueller knew the Russia hoax was a hoax in September 2017 when he allowed the Title I FISA against Carter Page to lapse and not renew the application. Dreeben knew back then that he was working on a bogus investigation.

Now he is working for Jack Smith. The same Jack Smith that is taking orders from the Biden WH and who was slapped down by SCOTUS for his prosecution of Bob O'Donnell in Virginia.

---

It's disgusting jaw these feral Democrat DAs and judges, people like Mueller just get to lie all the time and nothing really happens to them. Hillary too. But, I guess when you have the DOJ and FBI on your side doing evil, this is what happens. But it's just over and over and over and over. So blatantly corrupt.

I'm sad for America.

Quote:

---

Smith indicted Trump on charges of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. In simpler terms, Smith alleges that Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen were false and that Trump knew they were false.

To support his claims, Smith alleges that since federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency which meddled in the 2020 election told Trump the election wasn't stolen, and he should have taken that at face value, as pointed out by Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson.

---

(From same link posted above.)

And CISA subsequently issued an alert about massive problems about Dominion voting machines and suggested patches and changes to faulty software coding.

BTW making a correlation that if an AG tells a POTUS something is allowable results in immunity but if the AG says it is not allowable but POTUS does it anyway it is not an official act is circular logic. Sure as hell didn't work for John Mitchell and Richard Nixon. LOL.

Trump just needs to leave $1000 on the podium after he speaks.

In reply to BMX Bandit I have a former colleague that has become quite the expert in 5th Cir. appeals. He can walk out of oral argument and outright tell you who won and exactly why.

But that's a 3 judge panel and cases aren't so massively political.

So who knows. At this point, I wouldn't be all that shocked by a 5-4 majority officially declaring "shenanigans" and instructing everyone to get a broom.

In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird Circuit court a completely different animal. It's not rare to leave knowing what's coming.

If the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision on this, I look forward to this board's realization that Biden now has unlimited Presidential immunity to both alter elections and kill Americans including political rivals through the end of his presidency.

Honestly, it's a ****ing joke that we are even here making this case in court. But why not erode Democratic instutions in Trumps name at this point.

In reply to Gordo14 They aren't going to grant the Presidency absolute immunity, just immunity on the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties.

In reply to Gordo14

Quote:

---

But why not erode Democratic instutions in Trumps name at this point.

---

Well we did it for Biden and Obama, why not one more?

I am now listening to oral arguments for the third time. Sauer was awful both for conceding too much was private acts including following the safe harbor provision of the ECA in effect at that time and the precedent set in Hawaii in 1960.

While I was writing this post Turley was on Special Report and was laughing at Dreeben saying all DOJ prosecutors exercise their duties in good faith and that is a protection against former Presidents being falsely charged.

Dreeben has been directly involved in not one, not two but three separate investigations solely created to get Trump by any means necessary. His personal animus is self evident.

Want to know more about Dreeben? Read THIS

In reply to sam callahan

Quote:

---

OP - just make it easy on me this go around and tell me whether or not to be happy when we get the outcome.

---

That depends on what it will take to make you happy.

If to be happy you need the charges to go away, you likely will be down in the dumps.

But if being happy just requires this to stretch out long enough to prevent trial before the election, then I think you'll be grinning ear to ear.

In reply to Gordo14

Gordo14 said:

---

If the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision on this, I look forward to this board's realization that Biden now has unlimited Presidential immunity to both alter elections and kill Americans including political rivals through the end of his presidency.

Honestly, it's a ****ing joke that we are even here making this case in court. But why not erode Democratic instutions in Trumps name at this point.

---

Conversely, if SCOTUS makes the decision that several on here have posited, BIDEN needs to start sweating bullets if he loses the election...

In reply to BMX Bandit

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

OP - just make it easy on me this go around and tell me whether or not to be happy when we get the outcome.

---

That depends on what it will take to make you happy.

If to be happy you need the charges to go away, you likely will be down in the dumps.

But if being happy just requires this to stretch out long enough to prevent trial before the election, then I think you'll be grinning ear to ear.

---

I have a question...

Let's say the trial occurs and Trump is convicted...but AFTER election day and before inauguration dat. And Trump wins.

I know there's precedence while someone is actually POTUS to not do things that would involve legal proceedings...but, Trump would not be POTUS YET...however he WILL be POTUS.

What kind of cluster**** would occur then?

In reply to Gordo14

Gordo14 said:

---

If the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision on this, I look forward to this board's realization that Biden now has unlimited Presidential immunity to both alter elections and kill Americans including political rivals through the end of his presidency.

Honestly, it's a ****ing joke that we are even here making this case in court. But why not erode Democratic instutions in Trumps name at this point.

---

Neither side argued for unlimited immunity. You may need to watch the reporting and re-read the thread.

In reply to Ag with kids " What kind of cluster**** would occur then?"

Just your run-of-the-mill Constitutional crisis. Not a big deal really.

In reply to MiamiHopper

MiamiHopper said:

---

" What kind of cluster**** would occur then?"

Just your run-of-the-mill Constitutional crisis. Not a big deal really.

---

Oh...cool, so nothing major, just the meltdown of the court system. Glad I wasn't worried.

In reply to Ag with kids If he hasn't been sentenced before he's sworn in, probably nothing happens. If there's a sentence involving jail time, he could still serve as president from inside the jailhouse walls; there's nothing preventing that.

In reply to HTownAg98

HTownAg98 said:

---

If he hasn't been sentenced before he's sworn in, probably nothing happens. If there's a sentence involving jail time, he could still serve as president from inside the jailhouse walls; there's nothing preventing that.

---

Like Third World cartel leaders in jail

In reply to Ag with kids

Ag with kids said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

" What kind of cluster**** would occur then?"

Just your run-of-the-mill Constitutional crisis. Not a big deal really.

---

Oh...cool, so nothing major, just the meltdown of the court system. Glad I wasn't worried.

---

WelI I haven't seen too many Republicans show any indication that they care about going in that direction. Frankly, it seems like it's desired.

...Justice Barrett just asked if any immunity would also bar state prosecutions. She suggested that immunity may also protect a president from standing for trial on the state or local levels...

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 25, 2024

That would comport with the decision in the Colorado ballot case

i believe dreeben agreed that immunity would also apply to a state court prosecution.

In reply to BMX Bandit

BMX Bandit said:

---

i believe dreeben agreed that immunity would also apply to a state court prosecution.

---

Bye-bye Fani Willis' case against Trump then.