The Democrats

[Mori Chu]

Right; obviously I don't advocate any violence. My point is, the argument Trump and his lawyers are making in court is ludicrous on its face when you spin it around and apply it to the other side, the evil Democrats. Of course Republicans would say that it's wrong for evil Joe Biden to have somebody killed, that he wouldn't deserve immunity for that. But they want to support and defend Trump for arguing that that's what he deserves? Ridiculous. He's going down in this trial.

[In2ition]

But would they ever really crack down on their own widespread corrupt practices? I'm doubtful. Too much money involved and too many people doing it. It would be another "we thoroughly investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing. Case closed, and if you bring it up again, you are just a dangerous conspiracy theorist...er domestic terrorist, hellbent on destroying our sacred DEMOCRACY". Did I do that right?

Yes we know the GOP wants Trump to do away with Democracy and make it a Maga Christian country where Trump decides everything about everything and of course a President can do anything he want’s legally and that is much better than the fraudulent Democracy.

What I said went right over your head, huh? This stuff in looney tunes.

We were talking about corrupt practices in Congress and made a comment on how they would never actually indict themselves, with some comedy on what they would say, and you made it about Trump with your half-cocked slants and beliefs.

But the President should have absolute immunity and be able to engage in anything he wants, including insider trading, right?

Whoa, Insider trading? When did that happen?

I can just see the excuse, "It was for national security that I bought those shares of Raytheon, after I knew that we were going to sign them up for our forever wars."

[In2ition]

Right; obviously I don't advocate any violence. My point is, the argument Trump and his lawyers are making in court is ludicrous on its face when you spin it around and apply it to the other side, the evil Democrats. Of course Republicans would say that it's wrong for evil Joe Biden to have somebody killed, that he wouldn't deserve immunity for that. But they want to support and defend Trump for arguing that that's what he deserves? Ridiculous. He's going down in this trial.

First of all, it was a ridiculous hypothetical question by the judge to Trump's lawyer. It wasn't Trump that said anything. Once again, if you set precedent here and take away Presidential immunity, you better not bitch and moan when it's used against you in the future. Don't claim the "DOJ is being weaponized against his opponents. He's a dictator!" when that's exactly what has been happening for the past 3 years with Biden. But since it's your guy, you turn a blind eye and never seem to look at the logical conclusion of what's going to happen next.

[Mori Chu]

This Wikipedia article has a nice summary about Presidential immunity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President ... r%20duties.

The president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from many lawsuits while in office; it is legally untested whether they also enjoy criminal immunity from arrest or prosecution.(a) Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.[1]

The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office.(b) No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity.[4]

It is at best untested whether Presidents have criminal immunity, and it seems likely that (a) if they have it, they have it only during the span of their Presidency, not before/after; and (b) they have it only for acts related to the "perimeter of their duties" as President, not for other random misbehavior unrelated to carrying out the office of the Presidency.

So Trump's lawyer's answer that the POTUS could send the military to kill a political rival, and that this would be just fine because of immunity, is pretty out there. You say it was a "ridiculous hypothetical question," but I think it's a direct implication of the argument Trump and his lawyer are making. So IMO it's totally reasonable to understand the limits of the immunity they are claiming the President has.

[Superbone]

Trump and his lawyers agree. He could only get in trouble if the Dems voted to impeach him. If they are anything like the GOP none of them would vote to impeach him. Republicans wouldn’t vote to impeach because they would all be gone.

This of course is totally ridiculous but, that is the defense Trump is giving.

According to Trump, you can't impeach him but you can have him killed.

[Mori Chu]

Worth noting that some Democrats, namely Cuomo, are gross just like Trump.

[Mori Chu]

Looks like Cori Bush (D) may be in some trouble.

[Superbone]

There should be a deep dive into all politicians.

[In2ition]

Because of course no charges for filming gay sex in the hearing room.

[In2ition]

Ok, so now this makes sense on why 150 Dems voted no to deporting illegal immigrants that were convicted of DUI.

[Mori Chu]

Because of course no charges for filming gay sex in the hearing room.

I'm not defending lewd acts in the Congressional hearing room. But is it a crime? Maybe it's more of a workplace thing, where the person involved should be dismissed or fired?

[In2ition]

I guess it's allowed in this day and age. Not even trespassing or public lewdness. Still have yet to see a single client of Epstein get arrested, so we shouldn't be surprised.

[In2ition]

The comparison is...smh.

[Nodack]

One beat up cops. The other killed a guy.

Former US Marine Daniel Penny put Jordan Neely in a lethal six-minute chokehold that continued for nearly a minute after the homeless subway performer had “ceased all purposeful movement,” according a court filing by Manhattan prosecutors on Wednesday.

It’s George Floyd all over. Another child hold death. Fighting with the cops is bad. Choking someone to death is considered worse in most circles I know.

[Mori Chu]

We're just straight up sharing LibsOfTikTok tweets now? Blech.

[Nodack]

I don’t have aTwitter/X account for a reason. Or tictoc.

[In2ition]

They aren't the same, but of course you would think so. Penny wasn't trying to kill Nealy, and had to act to protect the people on the subway from Nealy, who was threatening to kill them.

[In2ition]

We're just straight up sharing LibsOfTikTok tweets now? Blech.

Libsoftiktok is your Aaron Rupar.

[Mori Chu]

We're just straight up sharing LibsOfTikTok tweets now? Blech.

Libsoftiktok is your Aaron Rupar.

LibsOfTikTok is actively putting people in danger. Aaron Rupar is just some indy journalist who tweets out clips of speeches from CSPAN.

[Nodack]

They aren't the same, but of course you would think so. Penny wasn't trying to kill Nealy, and had to act to protect the people on the subway from Nealy, who was threatening to kill them.

I didn’t say they were the same. I just said I don’t have them.

I get protecting. He was trained in chokeholds and performed it well. A court can decide whether he went too far.