https://youtu.be/7n09BiOgbhs?si=vhlgv7mYoVz_bUv8

A federal appeals court has ruled that former President Trump is not immune from prosecution in the election interference case.
28 min ago


https://youtu.be/K9HDuzR6VxY?si=79WuVLIk9IwUA3cb

Appeals court rejects Trump immunity claim in election interference case

Let's hope SCOTUS has the sense to refuse to hear an appeal.
When ALL cases go to trial the American voters have a right to know the kind of shit he's been involved in. Course there will always be those who will refuse to accept it.

With something that is this important I do not see how the SC could refuse to hear the case. If they refused it would just throw fuel on the fire and Trump would have a field day with it.

Did past presidents have immunity?

Presidents Nixon and Clinton did not have immunity.

I could see the Supreme Court not granting cert. The decision is unanimous.

The en bloc panel comes first.

Did Bush? Obama?

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Did Bush? Obama?

For what? Was it ever challenged for either one? For any decision to grant immunity, the act/acts would have to have been a part of his official and/or normal duties of the office. Inciting an insurrection to interfere in the electoral process is hardly a duty of the President. Ordering the removal of Soleimani [if he in fact did] would be a situation where immunity is likely to apply.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Presidents Nixon and Clinton did not have immunity.

I could see the Supreme Court not granting cert. The decision is unanimous.

The en bloc panel comes first.

That decision was carefully crafted to let the full panel and the Supremes say "Nah, that about covers it.", and the stay on the trial moving forward expires I think Monday unless an appeal is filed to the Supremes, just asking for an en banc rehearing won't reinstate the stay.

Bluefish, your post are nonsense and make no relevant contribution.

The issue of immunity for a President has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court concerning two presidents. They being Nixon and Clinton. Both lost immunity challenges. Those cases give the legal framework for addressing presidential immunity.

You need to go read them.

Asking for an en blanc will not reinstate a stay. Assuming, the trial criminal case is in abeyance (technical term of art), I do not see the criminal trial judge removing the claim from abeyance or giving a new trial date at least until the decision becomes final. He had 30 days bf this decision becomes final. Notwithstanding filing an emergency injunction bf the Supreme Court.

I agree a you Jefffive ax to the structure of the opinion.

Acreage time. I can see a majority of the S. Ct., saying, “ We have to have our say on this matter.” My voice would be not to grant cert.

The implication smart guy is to watch out for what you wish. The way your side is going if DJT gets in your version of lawfare will seem like an ice cream party for kids. And you will have earned it. He’ll restructure the DOJ and the other alphabet agencies and then burn your side alive. But please keep playing with fire. You people seem to want this.

One Republican and One Dem set the guidelines for presidential immunity concerning alleged illegality by the president.

The courts are proper to address this issue.

They have.

Go read the cases, if you want to offer an educated opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The implication smart guy is to watch out for what you wish. The way your side is going if DJT gets in your version of lawfare will seem like an ice cream party for kids. And you will have earned it. He’ll restructure the DOJ and the other alphabet agencies and then burn your side alive. But please keep playing with fire. You people seem to want this.

Ya'll are such idiots, if the Court had agreed with Trump that a President is granted full immunity President Biden could simply have Trump's plane shot down and nobody could touch him.

Yes we want the equal application to law regardless of person. Yes, we want to controlling precedents concerning presidential immunity applied.

To answer your observation, “we seem to want this.” The answer is yes.

Application of the Constitution and controlling precedent to President Trump or any former president.

You should too.

Woohoo!



Fuck your feelings!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...093c759a3de9f5&ei=70

Supreme Court Doesn't Share Jack Smith's Sense of Urgency: Legal Analyst
Story by Matthew Impelli • 7h

(excerpt)

Prior to the ruling on Tuesday, Michael McAuliffe, a former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney, told Newsweek that the ruling was one of the "most significant the court, any court, will ever entertain."

Turley also said that while he is not "surprised" that the panel rejected Trump's claims, he noted that "it was important for the Trump team to push this trial back" and to attempt to delay any hearings till after the 2024 election.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The implication smart guy is to watch out for what you wish. The way your side is going if DJT gets in your version of lawfare will seem like an ice cream party for kids. And you will have earned it. He’ll restructure the DOJ and the other alphabet agencies and then burn your side alive. But please keep playing with fire. You people seem to want this.

Damn, I’m scared shitless..

Of President Trump would respond to equal application of law, you have just made the best argument why no one should vote for him. That includes you.

https://youtu.be/FJHU3pXD8Fw?si=XOeDZR0Ro_zC47xb

Breaking down appeals court's rejection of Trump's immunity claim

Former President Donald Trump has until Monday to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a federal appeals court ruling that says he is not entitled to broad immunity from federal prosecution.

==============================================

This video has additional info regarding the appeal, and the probable timeline so-forth:

https://youtu.be/n-kN90Bbkl0?si=6rot5S5A5oNtI1OR

Appeals court uses SURPRISE TACTIC to prevent further Trump delay

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The implication smart guy is to watch out for what you wish. The way your side is going if DJT gets in your version of lawfare will seem like an ice cream party for kids. And you will have earned it. He’ll restructure the DOJ and the other alphabet agencies and then burn your side alive. But please keep playing with fire. You people seem to want this.

. . . typical “I vote with my middle finger” voter attitude. Irrationally driven by anger.

Nope but your side is gonna pay for this.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Presidents Nixon and Clinton did not have immunity.

I could see the Supreme Court not granting cert. The decision is unanimous.

The en bloc panel comes first.

Should SCOTUS admonish trump's lawyers for wasting the court's time?

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Nope but your side is gonna pay for this.

Due process and a trial of peers shall decide if President Trump bares criminal responsibility.

You do not scare anyone.

SCOTUS: “POTUS has total immunity!”

Joe Biden: “Cool! Get me Seal Team 6 on the phone, stat!”.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Nope but your side is gonna pay for this.

Pay for what, supporting the Rule of Law?

And pay how?

I know ya'll are all about revenge and grievance, but don't forget that MAGAts aren't the only ones with guns and the skill to use them.

And I personally didn't sign the fucking Geneva Conventions.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Did past presidents have immunity?

Yes. al-Awlakia was an American citizen, killed in a drone strike ordered by an American president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki8

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Did past presidents have immunity?

Yes. al-Awlakia was an American citizen, killed in a drone strike ordered by an American president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki8

He was a member of Al Qaeda and needed killin', and made himself a legitimate target.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The implication smart guy is to watch out for what you wish. The way your side is going if DJT gets in your version of lawfare will seem like an ice cream party for kids. And you will have earned it. He’ll restructure the DOJ and the other alphabet agencies and then burn your side alive. But please keep playing with fire. You people seem to want this.

If trump did anything of the kind he should be forcible removed in the harshest possible terms and way and I'll cheer the loudest and longest.

I would have been absolutely gobsmacked if the court would decided a POTUS has immunity. What lunatic would ever let a "ruler" operate with that kind of impunity?!?!?!?!

Bluefish made the best argument, unintentionally, as to way President Trump should not get any votes.

President Trump has said the same himself.

Heymen your side will pay for this in blood the way you’re going and your side will have no one to thank but yourselves for it. It’s not a threat but a prediction. Reap what you sow.

Blood now.

My side?

You mean the side that applies the Constitution and its controlling precedents to the actions of the former Chief Executive?

Just like it was applied to Nixon a Republican and Clinton a Dem.

Keep it up. You are fool, but a dangerous one. You condemn yourself, President Trump, and your political view shared by President with your own words.

Your words prove my point that a minority on the Right does not want to be governed by our constitutional system. They want an illegal revolt.

More, you sound just like President Trump.

Note, you cannot dispute you make the best argument for his electoral defeat. I wish I could send your post to the Biden Campaign. They would have a field day with your foolishness.

I see we have returned to sexist insults when we cannot argue the law of the matter.

As I have said before, you are a very base person.

Keep it up. You have done played your violent hand thrice times in this thread. Keep exposing yourself, President Trump, and the minority you vocalize as a violent, sexists, death to the Constitution sect.

It could be objectively argued, reasonably concluded, that Trump is delusional and has been for a long time and the condition has peaked, both mentally and circumstantially, mostly culmination of events of his own making.

The immunity belief, which he has expressed it well, is one of the key factors in his many delusions.

Trump has a long history of behavior based in his belief that he is uniquely and exceptionally above the law. (Grandiose delusion)

To be told emphatically by the courts that he's not above the law, not immune, and is subject to prosecution and has the same means of defense as an ordinary citizen, is gonna take a while to really sink in for him.

What bluefish has demonstrated is also delusional. It's two part - one is introverted, part two is extroverted - stimulated by Trump. Perhaps more specifically, Trump has provided affirmation (license) for the introverted delusions of millions.

Let that sink in folks. Bluefish represents millions of our fellow Americans --- ALL of which are GOPers. (BTW - not all GOPers are delusional)

Delusion is somewhat difficult to define. There are lots of confusing academic-like writings on the topic.

But here's one definition to think about:

Robert Trivers writes that delusion is a discrepancy in relation to objective reality, but with a firm conviction in reality of delusional ideas, which is manifested in the "affective basis of delusion."

Now, if you can understand that - you got it.

Another definition of delusional states these four criteria:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre, or patently untrue)
not amenable to understanding (i.e., belief cannot be explained psychologically)

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Heymen your side will pay for this in blood the way you’re going and your side will have no one to thank but yourselves for it. It’s not a threat but a prediction. Reap what you sow.

The only one threatening blood or violence here is you and if you'd calm down and think a little you'd see that line doesn't have broad public support. The majority of Americans won't support a violent political uprising and especially a Trump based political uprising.

Blue, you won't enjoy either prison or your neighbors in prison. I'd recommend pursuing a peaceful and legal path. I'm a 55 year old white, conservative, lifetime NRA member and I'm telling you now I'll oppose what you are advocating.

All the trials, led by Jack Smith and others, will happen regardless of SCOTUS's decision relating to Sec 3 of the 14th.

Even if he is deemed by SCOTUS to be eligible to be on the ballots and to serve if elected, which seems unlikely, Trump is heading for a probable conviction before November 2024.


https://www.politico.com/news/...0claims%20of%20fraud.

Chutkan contemplates Trump trial extending deep into 2024, as case remains in limbo
It was the judge’s first acknowledgment that Trump’s federal trial could could extend into the general election.

By KYLE CHENEY

02/05/2024 02:04 PM EST

The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s Washington, D.C., criminal case acknowledged Monday that the former president’s trial could extend deep into 2024 — though significant uncertainty continues to cloud the timeline.

Now, she seems to be considering longer-term scenarios. Notably, prosecutors in Georgia have proposed putting Trump on trial in August in a separate criminal case connected to the 2020 election, though the request remains pending before the judge in the case, Scott McAfee.

Chutkan has repeatedly insisted that Trump’s political calendar will have no bearing on her decisions.

Trump is charged with conspiring to disenfranchise millions of voters by pressuring state and federal officials to upend Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election based on false claims of fraud. She has described the matter as weighty and urgent, requiring a fair but speedy resolution, and she rejected Trump’s call to schedule it in 2026.

The only party of constitution is Republican Party
Democrats constantly attack it

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
The only party of constitution is Republican Party
Democrats constantly attack it

Even you aren't stupid enough to believe that.

Bluefish,

I have to agree with everyone else here. Your comments although you say are not a threat can be very readily perceived as a threat and are out of line. If that is truly how you feel you need help. When someone advocates violence on other people because they have different view and options then you that person that is out of line. We are all Americans and one of our major attributes use to be the ability to have difference of options and ideas and still get along with each other.

Both parties (dem and rep) are pitting us against each other. When that happens people get crazy and start doing things that are not good and that leads to more and more discourse. It's time people of this country (and this forum) to just stop and say enough of the hate and prejudice and work together to come up with a middle ground that both sides can support. I know this is asking a lot, but we have to start somewhere, and this forum is a great place to respectfully voice your ideas and hopefully be open to other ideas and can find a common ground.

I am not threatening nor condoning violence but rather pointing out that there are some in this country who may likely follow a path of violence one day if things continue on their current path. I hope it never comes to pass I really do. I like to think we can vote our way to change but many do not share that view. Simply because I am a calling it out it does not mean one can ascribe it to me. That is ridiculous and without merit. I’m just pointing it out.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
The only party of constitution is Republican Party
Democrats constantly attack it

Even you aren't stupid enough to believe that.

I do believe that as I see it with my own eyes

Those people are Jan 6 people. The same Constitution and law that governs President Trump shall govern them. What you articulate is the best argument not to elect President Trump who has campaigned on such revenge, violent breaking of our constitutional system. Thank you for putting the election into full focus.

I am not do convinced your side will take power nor legitimacy from the rule of law. May they try? Yes.

Again, what you are advocating is what President Trump is advocating. The rule of law cannot run from either.

So, Bivoj supporters a single party system with a strongman who can set aside the Constitution to stay in power. Done here wonder why the word Fascist gets used.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
I am not threatening nor condoning violence but rather pointing out that there are some in this country who may likely follow a path of violence one day if things continue on their current path. I hope it never comes to pass I really do. I like to think we can vote our way to change but many do not share that view. Simply because I am a calling it out it does not mean one can ascribe it to me. That is ridiculous and without merit. I’m just pointing it out.

I totally agree with you Bluefish and it seems everyone else is shitting themselves when you point the obvious
I for one didn’t read any of it as threatening