Absolute immunity

So, I expect dems to campaign heavily on this using the technique of lies we saw right after the debate.

Kamela had no shame stating that Trump would restrict access to all abortion despite him saying the complete opposite during the debate. This ruling doesn't make Trump king- but that will be the line from 1600 Pennsylvania. And the useless mouthholes in the media. Wait for the Today Show opening tomorrow morning- "A concerning ruling coming out yesterday from the conservative court…"
 
Last edited:
WestlinnDuck said:
You know who has absolute immunity in their official capacity? Federal judges. Funny that, huh? And many federal and state officials, including police officers have qualified immunity. So, if Trump wins the dems current immunity position (immunity for dems but not republicans) the dems position is that we can drag barry into a friendly republican jurisdiction and charge barry and Holder with the death of the border patrol officer killed as a result of their Fast and Furious Mexico gun running operation as they viewed the operation as a political operation to achieve 2A political changes. Or charge Biden with the murder of the 13 soldiers as a result of the Afghanistan bug out because he viewed the bug out as a political contribution for his re-election.
Click to expand...
The president was running guns to the cartels and ISIS. Yet he's walking around free…
 
So hypothetically if Biden loses he could hypothetically order the hypothetical elimination of Mr Trump given that he actually is a threat to democracy.
 
PurpleThrobber said:
Wellness check on Ern

lol. Fuck off.
Click to expand...

barun-i-am-fine.gif
 
AOG said:
So hypothetically if Biden loses he could hypothetically order the hypothetical elimination of Mr Trump given that he actually is a threat to democracy.
Click to expand...
Assassinating an elected President-elect because he is a “threat to Democracy” would make Biden a clear “threat to Democracy” and he’d be prosecuted and court-martialed.
That’s not at all what the SCOTUS decision allows but you Retards get fed talking points and spout them as factual.
You Leftists are completely unhinged and it’s rapidly reaching mass psychosis.
 
Last edited:
EverettChris said:
AOG said:
So hypothetically if Biden loses he could hypothetically order the hypothetical elimination of Mr Trump given that he actually is a threat to democracy.
Click to expand...
Assassinating an elected President-elect because he is a “threat to Democracy” would make Biden a clear “threat to Democracy” and he’d be prosecuted and court-martialed.
That’s not at all what the SCOTUS decision allows but you Retards get fed talking points and spout them as factual.
You Leftists are completely unhinged and it’s rapidly reaching mass psychosis.
Click to expand...
I'm just referencing the decision. Biden could argue that he was acting in an official capacity. SCOTUS granted absolute immunity to offical actions. So it comes down to convincing a jury that his actions were official.
 
AOG said:
EverettChris said:
AOG said:
So hypothetically if Biden loses he could hypothetically order the hypothetical elimination of Mr Trump given that he actually is a threat to democracy.
Click to expand...
Assassinating an elected President-elect because he is a “threat to Democracy” would make Biden a clear “threat to Democracy” and he’d be prosecuted and court-martialed.
That’s not at all what the SCOTUS decision allows but you Retards get fed talking points and spout them as factual.
You Leftists are completely unhinged and it’s rapidly reaching mass psychosis.
Click to expand...
I'm just referencing the decision. Biden could argue that he was acting in an official capacity. SCOTUS granted absolute immunity to offical actions. So it comes down to convincing a jury that his actions were official.
Click to expand...
Bull shit
 
Where is it in the official duties of a President to order and execute the President-elect who just defeated you?
This is nonsensical and shows how desperate Democrats are to hold onto power.
 
AOG said:
So hypothetically if Biden loses he could hypothetically order the hypothetical elimination of Mr Trump given that he actually is a threat to democracy.
Click to expand...
Would love to see how this polls.
 
The ruling today gives absolute immunity for actions taken in an official capacity. But it's impossible to make a list of official duties since the president could argue virtually any action is official. So in the hypothetical case of assassination of a rival, the president could argue it was his official duty, provide evidence, try to persuade the jury. That example was provided in the dissenting opinion. The jury would probably not buy it, but like any trial it depends on the evidence, jury, etc. The point is that a president can seriously present such an argument now.
 
Last edited:
AOG said:
EverettChris said:
AOG said:
So hypothetically if Biden loses he could hypothetically order the hypothetical elimination of Mr Trump given that he actually is a threat to democracy.
Click to expand...
Assassinating an elected President-elect because he is a “threat to Democracy” would make Biden a clear “threat to Democracy” and he’d be prosecuted and court-martialed.
That’s not at all what the SCOTUS decision allows but you Retards get fed talking points and spout them as factual.
You Leftists are completely unhinged and it’s rapidly reaching mass psychosis.
Click to expand...
I'm just referencing the decision. Biden could argue that he was acting in an official capacity. SCOTUS granted absolute immunity to offical actions. So it comes down to convincing a jury that his actions were official.
Click to expand...
he could.

He could also get hung up Mussolini style by the military for making such a fucking stupid order.
 
AOG said:
The ruling today gives absolute immunity for actions taken in an official capacity. But it's impossible to make a list of official duties since the president could argue virtually any action is official. So in the hypothetical case of assassination of a rival, the president could argue it was his official duty, provide evidence, try to persuade the jury. That example was provided in the dissenting opinion. The jury would probably not buy it, but like any trial it depends on the evidence, jury, etc. The point is that a president can seriously present such an argument now.
Click to expand...
If only there were some other means by which to remove a president. Maybe we should give that power to Congress
 
PurpleThrobber said:
AOG said:
EverettChris said:
AOG said:
So hypothetically if Biden loses he could hypothetically order the hypothetical elimination of Mr Trump given that he actually is a threat to democracy.
Click to expand...
Assassinating an elected President-elect because he is a “threat to Democracy” would make Biden a clear “threat to Democracy” and he’d be prosecuted and court-martialed.
That’s not at all what the SCOTUS decision allows but you Retards get fed talking points and spout them as factual.
You Leftists are completely unhinged and it’s rapidly reaching mass psychosis.
Click to expand...
I'm just referencing the decision. Biden could argue that he was acting in an official capacity. SCOTUS granted absolute immunity to offical actions. So it comes down to convincing a jury that his actions were official.
Click to expand...
he could.

He could also get hung up Mussolini style by the military for making such a fucking stupid order.
Click to expand...
Being assassinated by the military is illegal though and such assassins are not given immunity. The point is that the president has been given absolute immunity — if he can prove it is "official."
 
Last edited:
EverettChris said:
Where is it in the official duties of a President to order and execute the President-elect who just defeated you?
This is nonsensical and shows how desperate Democrats are to hold onto power.
Click to expand...
Says the voter of the guy who actually, factually, desperately tried to hold on to power.
 
AOG said:
The ruling today gives absolute immunity for actions taken in an official capacity. But it's impossible to make a list of official duties since the president could argue virtually any action is official. So in the hypothetical case of assassination of a rival, the president could argue it was his official duty, provide evidence, try to persuade the jury. That example was provided in the dissenting opinion. The jury would probably not buy it, but like any trial it depends on the evidence, jury, etc. The point is that a president can seriously present such an argument now.
Click to expand...
The ruling is quite clear it needs to be an official duty under the Constitution. Offing American traitors in Afghanistan who have taken up arms against American soldiers is an official duty of the Commander in Chief. Offing your political opponent who isn't engaged in an insurrection isn't an official duty of the Commander-in-Chief. Like I said, federal judges of absolute immunity and they don't get to execute American citizens because that's not in their official duties. If they mistakenly sentence someone to death, they can't be sued. Just like barry and Holder can't be sued for Fast and Furious which did have plausible deniability.
 
FWIW,
"I believe, " Absolute immunity doesn't provide protection when fraud was perpetrated.
Meaning if a person became President fraudulently they are not protected from prosecution
Fraud vitiates everything.

We better check with @HHusky to be sure though.
 
Blueduck said:
FWIW,
"I believe, " Absolute immunity doesn't provide protection when fraud was perpetrated.
Meaning if a person became President fraudulently they are not protected from prosecution
Fraud vitiates everything.

We better check with @HHusky to be sure though.
Click to expand...
When you find a president like that, let us know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top