With Trump’s appeal over his claims of presidential immunity about to start, here’s a reminder that there’s always a tweet:
He has also threatened, upon his return to the White House, to throw Biden in jail.
Who’s going to tell him? Jack Smith, today, most likely.
I and approximately 60% of Americans would say that the old demented sock puppet needs thrown in jail.
Team Trump has abandoned the double jeopardy argument and, in fact, flipped it on its head. They’re now arguing that a President can only be prosecuted for an official act if he/she has first been impeached and convicted by Congress.
Ignoring the ridiculosity of such an argument on its face, what happens if such official act happens on the last day of their term of office? Also, in what world is a campaign rally speech an official act of a President? It’s an act of a candidate and - in the case of Jan 6 - an act of a candidate who had already lost.
Trump’s lawyer currently getting de-bagged by the judges because his argument for absolute immunity comes with a caveat and thus is not “absolute”.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/15/bidens-racist-history/
The sock puppet is and has always been a racist. What a disgusting excuse of a human he is.
HAHAHAHA
A Judge just quoted Trump’s defense counsel during his second impeachment that there is no need to impeach him because he is subject to criminal prosecution upon leaving office.
This argument has always been DOA, but it’s hilarious hearing how some of the shit they’ve thrown around has rebounded.
Mic drop:
“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate the criminal laws.”
Judge Pan, trying to get Trump’s lawyer to answer a question for the umpteenth time: “Let me try again…”
The sock puppet knows to do nothing other than lie. From his plagiarism debacle in 1988 to his lies today, he has been at it for a long time. Democrats are used to believing and promoting lies so this may truly be the best candidate to represent them.
“Never Remember!” Dementia Donald.
“Truannaazarpressur” Demented Sock Puppet.
The bottom line of Trump’s argument - to my layman’s ears - was that you can’t prosecute a president for doing crime because then you’d have to prosecute all president’s for doing crime. They referenced W. Bush’s lies being fed to Congress to authorize the Iraq War, and Obama’s use of drones to kill Americans overseas.
Here’s my thoughts on that argument:
Nixon: It was a mistake not to prosecute him for Watergate
Reagan: It was a mistake not to prosecute him for Iran-Contra
Bush Jr.: It was a mistake not to prosecute him for lying us into the Iraq War (and war crimes committed during that conflict)
Obama: It was a mistake not to prosecute him for the extra-judicial killing of Americans overseas (his use of drones will forever be a giant red stain on his presidency)
Trump: It would be a mistake not to prosecute him for Jan 6, espionage, foreign emoluments/bribery
Trump’s lawyer argued that it would have a chilling effect on a President’s decision-making if they had to wait for an army of lawyers to render an opinion as to the legality of a particular decision. My immediate thought was: good! If they’d prosecuted Nixon, it’s arguable that we wouldn’t have had the subsequent scandals because the chilling effect would be working in the right way.
I don’t want a President taking legally-questionable actions purely because the bubble wrap of immunity means they don’t have to sweat the consequences.
I’ve been a design engineer for over 40 years and I have used both permanent magnets and electro-magnets. If water is added, they still exist. Good thing, too, because some of the stuff I’ve designed goes subsea.
Just wanted to clear that up.
You don’t need to be a design engineer to debunk that. Jimmy Kimmel had Guillermo do it on TV last night.
Bonus Rodgers smack included.
I don’t subscribe to this framing at all. Its clear to me that every President should understand that they are accountable to the rule of law; I don’t buy all of your examples as criminal acts, but more importantly, I would never go down that road because it leads right where Trump’s lawyers want, that no actions are prosecutable.
So we should not prosecute presidents for criminal acts to preserve the right to prosecute presidents for criminal acts?
Even if that was the logic, I would argue that now is the time for which we have been saving the presidential get into jail free card.
No, we don’t use examples that people might argue over to reach a categorical conclusion that since the public doesn’t agree about each example, no Presidential act is prosecutable. It’s a line of argument that only leads to bad places.
This is what Trump’s lawyer was arguing today, and he left the courtroom sans pants.
I would also argue that none of the examples I cited are presidential acts.
Not such a great day for Trump.
Did you “do your own research”? Because Cletus McPigfucker did, and he thinks you’re a lying socialist transsexual baby eater.
