US supreme court to decide on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity

No, but Trump did not do that.

 

fails any easy test that the military can only carry out legal orders. it was brought up

 

Very true, but it is appropriately innocent until found guilty.

 

he absolutely did that (Pence said he did that). HE asked pence to count non-certified electors to change the EC vote in his favor. THATS A FACT

his trila will be after the election because he knows he would be found guuilty on that one and you know it

 

Why wouldn’t any of the mueller busted felons have tried this if it was a legit argument?

 

‘Leonard Leo has “victory” almost within reach.

 

Yep, nowhere does any of the arguments mention "wanting a king". Nor do I want one. So, try again.

 

It's obvious the level of denial being displayed is from not hearing or wosre, comprehending, the full context of the Trump's teams oral spews and how they were dismantled by all of the female justices. You might need to actually listen intently to them because this " blanket denial" is not the cloak you think it is. Try listening to the orals...

 

I have. Have you? You'll see that I've posted the video of the arguments in post 209, you're free to listen in. And through out the thread I've been using the same arguments that has been presented to SCOTUS. Where in any of it mentions anybody "wanting a king"? Point it out DIRECTLY. Because all you're doing right now is throwing out the accusation, with no supporting evidence. Now, you're free to have your opinion that is what people want. But you're not free to have your own facts. And it is a fact that I do not want a king. And it is a fact that no one has argued for wanting a king to SCOTUS.

Oh, and fyi, those same female justices have already acknowledged that previous SCOTUS rulings have shown that Presidents do have immunity for certain things.

 

Presidents need to have a qualified immunity for official acts. But none of what Trump is charged with involves official acts of the president. It’s that simple.

 

Then you may want to listen to them again because what you are claiming lack the facts of these actual orals. I'd hate to think you are prone to desiminating those facts by mischaracterizing them in your mind. I listened to the entire orals so I 'd suggest you revisit the specific questioning by the female SOTUS' on the Trump team claims. Stop hiding behind, in bold, your deflections to a generality unrelated to these specific orals. Focus.......on the specifics of the female SCOTUS orals IN THIS CASE.

 

So your assertion that he did nothing illegal is premature. Thanks.

 

I see you have yet to quote directly where anyone is arguing for wanting a king. I'll take that as an admission that your are just expressing your own opinion and biased belief.

 

That is what needs to be determined.

 

Unless our SCOTUS creates crazy new law, it already has been.

 

The rest of the facts are, Trump did nothing illegal.

 

It is as premature for you to say, “trump did nothing illegal” as it would be to say, “trump broke the law”.

A jury of his peers will decide that.

 

That is not my assertion in the least. Trump did absolutely nothing illegal, but that does not preclude a jury or judge finding him guilty anyway.

 

Wrong. Trump broke the law. So many times, in so many ways.

But that does not preclude SCOTUS, a judge or a jury from letting him off the hook.

 

You’re forgetting the one who did. The conservatives on the Supreme Court are trying to do the same.

 

SCOTUS doesn't make law. Never has.

 

That's what he will claim.

Do you think he should not be held responsible for his work to overthrow our election by use of fake electors?

 

LOL!!

 

Laugh all you want. But facts are facts. The only time such is claimed is because SCOTUS ruled in a way that the person saying it disagrees with the ruling.

 

Oh, you got me there Rod

read up on Election Interference crimes…….