The real attack on Democracy.

[crazydoc]

No projection - just an experienced grifter telling the hoi polloi what they want to hear (unrelated to reality many times), and hiding the reality that he doesn't want them to hear.

You can fool some of the people all of the time...

 

[Matador]

No projection

Whatabout Biden's twitter files? Whatabout Clinton's Russia hoax? Whatabout the DNC's collusion with the Liberal Media?

 

[hodad]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-new-legal-bills-are-hiding-an-dollar8-million-mystery?ref=wrap


Hmmmmmm……….

 

[Matador]

Hmmmmmm……….

Donald Trump’s legal payroll is easily the largest and most diverse of any political figure in modern U.S. history

Does that mean we can call Trump's legal team the "DEI lawyers". Since DEI means "lacking merit" to the right, it even checks out semantically.

 

[crazydoc]

Whatabout Biden's twitter files? Whatabout Clinton's Russia hoax? Whatabout the DNC's collusion with the Liberal Media?

Well yes, and I guess Pizzagate, the poster child (as it were) of projection.

 

[jabe]

Speaking of his crack legal team, this just went down at SCOTUS.

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military … to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” Sotomayor asked.

“That could well be an official act,” Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, said.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Speaking of his crack legal team, this just went down at SCOTUS.

a few words taken out of context... I am listening to the entire arguments.
===
IMO (so far) Justice Sotomayor sounds surprisingly lucent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jones not as much.

Maybe that's why political operatives want 69YO Justice Sotomayor to resign so they can appoint another justice more like Jones, sooner rather than later.

JR

 

[jabe]

a few words taken out of context

*waits patiently for the context that makes assassinations of political rivals official acts*

 

[JohnRoberts]

keep waiting...
====
BTW the arguments are still going.

JR

 

[jabe]

keep waiting...
====
BTW the arguments are still going.

So the words were taken out of a context which... so far doesn't exist?

 

[Matador]

So the words were taken out of a context which... so far doesn't exist?

Yes and yes. It's a Schrondinger's Context.

 

[JohnRoberts]

They were investigating the limits of "official" vs "personal" acts. The distinction makes a difference because presumably official acts by POTUS have immunity, personal acts do not. Some of the hypotheticals sound like partisan talking points (already?).
====
The case in court and behavior surely already exists. SCOTUS is speculating about a ruling with consequences for all time. No cats involved.

JR

 

[jabe]

They were investigating the limits of "official" vs "personal" acts.

The  justices are "investigating". Not the lawyers, who are  arguing before the court.
There's no "waiting" for the context of an argument before the court.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

The  justices are "investigating". Not the lawyers, who are  arguing before the court.
There's no "waiting" for the context of an argument before the court.

But there is waiting for "journalists" to report the full context of the discussion and for the groupthinkers to accept it rather than repeat twisted talking points.

 

[hodad]

They were investigating the limits of "official" vs "personal" acts. The distinction makes a difference because presumably official acts by POTUS have immunity, personal acts do not.

JR

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can give immunity?
Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.


So a president could well have imunity to assassinate a rival, by this weasel’s reckoning.

One further point: all this right wing speculation about the effects on future presidents—how in the world is this originalism? Shouldn’t these so-called originalists be focusing on what the law says and not what its consequences might be? (Of course, the whole originalist conceit is just propagandistic BS, so I guess as long as their premise is a lie, they can use it to justify anything.)

 

[jabe]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can give immunity?
Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.

Watch it now. Those direct quotes are actually twisted talking points somehow.

Shouldn’t these so-called originalists be focusing on what the law says

That would be textualism. Originalism is when you claim the founding fathers would agree with your foregone conclusion, regardless of what year the law was passed.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Indeed those questions were hypothetical talking points waiting to happen, you guys took the bait and are running with them. That's life in the free world.
===
What matters is the decisions that the justices write.

JR

 

[hodad]

Justice Ketanji Brown Jones not as much.

I don’t know. If you don’t get the point of this, maybe it’s your problem and not hers:

“What was up with the pardon for President Nixon? If everybody thought that presidents couldn’t be prosecuted, then what was that about?”

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don’t know. If you don’t get the point of this, maybe it’s your problem and not hers:

again always trying to make it personal...

“What was up with the pardon for President Nixon? If everybody thought that presidents couldn’t be prosecuted, then what was that about?”

When then President Ford pardoned ex-President Nixon, Nixon was not under indictment but clearly guilty of criminal behavior (Watergate break-in etc).

I have no love for ex-President Nixon, that MF drafted me...

As has been stated multiple times already in this thread, immunity for official acts is different from immunity for private acts. Nixon's "Plumbers" political dirty tricksters was not an official act.

Then President Ford Pardoned ex-President Nixon to heal the nation and help us move on.

"Worse than Watergate" is now a drinking game trigger. Cheers...

JR

 

[hodad]

again always trying to make it personal..

I am simply suggesting that if you don’t find her lucid, maybe you should at least entertain the possibility that she is not the one with the problem here. I often find her comments trenchant and insightful. Also, your Nixon comment was largely pointless. How is trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power within the scope of a president’s duties? And all that “healing the nation” pablum—if Nixon had been tried and convicted, there’s a fair chance Trump wouldn’t have tried his stunt, and we’dall be better for it.