That is true. You’re suffering from an illusion of choice. The fight should be to bring down big and dark money and remove all barriers to accessing the ballot. Installing measures such as hand counted paper ballots, one month extended voting periods. No more gerrymandering, careful and correct listing of registered voter rolls,
Every constitutional lawyer knows how this will end up. Jan. 6 was within the scope of his duties. He was addressing the public. In the Colorado decision they addressed it. Nobody had held due process and procured a conviction of insurrection.
The 14th amendment has no reference to vision whatsoever. You’re a fucking blatant fake ass hotter bullshit is transparent to a third grader with basic reading comprehension skills. Fuck off. All the way off it when you get there, you should fuck off some more.
What stands out the most from any discussion about the laws that constrain Presidents is that although the laws sound fair, just, and good, a review of our history reveals that all Presidents to date have enjoyed immunity. FDR imprisoned an entire ethnic group of Americans. (Karamatzu?) I wasn’t born yet, but haven’t read of his impeachment, removal or prosecution. President Obama killed an American citizen with a drone strike followed by another that killed his children. President Kennedy, President Reagan. No one wants to see our President humiliated for his official acts. Not prosecuting beyond impeachment and removal maintains our democracy by keeping the power in the hands of the people to vote, and away from the judiciary.
Furthermore, we have seen a travesty of “justice” in the last 2 years that should end and never be repeated. Punishing former Presidents is unseemly, as is robbing him of his material wealth.
I completely agree with you. I don’t think any honest agent could disagree with what you said. It’s obvious that the legal system is being extremely abused against Trump. I hope he wins and gives the other side the same medicine gave him.
I agree but that's not how DJT thinks. IMO that's the reason he didn't have them go after HRC for all her criminal behavior. He is way too fair and doesn't believe in that type of retribution. If he is reelected and can get more done without interference from Congress and can put the people he has learned to trust (he was naive in this first term to trust many Rs to give him good advice on appointments etc. I doubt he will do that again) into place in order to accomplish the things he would have in 2020 had things ended differently.
His success, of bringing things back to what we had before C19, will be enough for him.
Just exactly what do you think we had before COVID-19 thing pretty much the same as we have now pick a choice between corporate oligarchy enable to fascism and totalitarian despotism. The corporate donor class raping the planet and the proletariat built treasury. Do you want believe that is a codependent Coconspiring international crime syndicate as a federal and state government supposed choice completely consented to buy the probably ignorant proletariat.
We’ve been on a diverging tangent from the ideal that is America since we were stupid enough to elect Ronnie Rayguns.
Actually let me rephrase that last statement. Since we were moronic enough to elect a senile old bee movie grade actor over a man with calluses on his hands who put his farm in a blind trust while he held public office.
Not quite people who didn’t write a short bus to school would do
The rest of that nebulous gibberish is completely disconnected from reality. Not correlated, even on a coincidental basis. You need help. Do you not have anyone in your circle that is concerned about your lack of residence in the here and now?
Obviously, and blatantly, there was no criminal behavior on the part of HRC. Do you think Bill Barr in seditious money laundering child rapist orange Putin cocksleeve would have not prosecutor if any of those accusations and grounding in reality? That’s an impressive level of stupid. Must’ve taken a lot of hard work…..
🤣🤣🤣 Guess while you were out being the "gentleman" farmer, you missed a few things that have been in the news. The "Dossier," the four deaths in Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation/Haiti. That woman has been a hot mess since Arkansas.
You’re talking about violations that fall within the purview and prosecution by the world court at the Hague . We aren’t members of such. Doubt you were advocating this during the Dubya era.
No. Everything Hass to be in a historical context. We must follow our laws codes and founding DOCUMENT. Interpretation is an error allowing a perverted unintended by the framers reality to exist. Like now. The first amendment has been breached, the second amendment completely and totally twisted from its intent, the fourth amendment no longer existing, the fifth and 14th Interpreted intentionally and politically driven in the wrong direction.
Counts and recounts mean nothing until the software coding of machines is open source and/or all voting done on paper ballots with a secure and transparent chain of custody.
The debate is solely hinged on whether or not it’s “within the scope of duties of the office” someone needs to prove whatever he did was outside the scope
I find that there are two lawyers on the jury. If they follow the law (as we would hope) they will have the jury out with a not guilty/acquittal in short order. I understand one of the reasons lawyers aren't usually on juries, they tend to intimidate and easily sway the others? Let's hope they see the stupidity of the case and end this quickly.
No they’re not there all they have to do is prove that he tried to interfere with the lawful functioning of government according to the constitution United States was exactly what he did. No other connections are relevant to the case. You fucking people are beyond insane. You’re proudly stupid.
That shit should be eliminated from the gene pool here put behind humanity for once and ever OK it’s our only hope of survival as a species ….
The prosecution is still piecing together another misdemeanor so it can become a felony. The problem is they have the burden of proof in the false entry case first. The one with the expired SOL.
where the statute of limitations ran our after 2 years. They are trying to tie it to election fraud, but the FEC refused to take it up or charge it. They always fine rather than prosecute.
The entire case is a mess. Bragg didn't charge it before when he had the chance, Cyrus Vance refused to prosecute it. No one wanted to touch it??? Wonder why? Could it be they knew it was a loser and would never pass appeal? Wonder if the desperately angry little creep AG Garland, is still angry he isn't SCOTUS? Trying to burn it all down on his way out?
Perfect demonstration of why Shakespeare said “kill all the lawyers”. Mankind will twist laws of the Creator to his own desire if allowed to do so. The reason why Magna Carta and Constitution started out attempting to be “conservative” in wording. Boil it down more: the reason why “Creator” not “God” was chosen as the source of our inalienable individual rights. Free Will, we all choose to surrender them or not, consequences be damned. Live free or die, not just a slogan. Life is short, eternity lasts forever. Choose wisely. That’s self interest, rightly understood. “Our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for any other.” - John Adams
There’s no fucking such thing as “presidential immunity” other than the bullshit regulation which should be removed of not inciting a sitting president which is a simple house rule of the DOJ. Having nothing to do with Congress or any law whatsoever. Motherfuck, you’re a fool’s fool
I'm not seeing any "question authority" in any of this. I'm only seeing "support the authority with whom I can align". Through our legislative and judicial branches, we've given the executive branch way too much power. The legislative, the folks responsible for creating our laws, need to take back a lot of the power they've given away these last 200 years. There are more than a dozen presidents that should be criminally charged for their crimes against humanity and the citizens of the US. Do I want to hamstring the Exec's power? Hell yes. We all should want to hamstring them. Let's start with the demagogues first and ensure we can hold the exec branch more accountable (yes, they should be afraid that we can take them down). They represent the will of corporations; the industries which support their will to power and greed. None of these people's actions support anything ethical and humane; they defame an ethics that is imperative for a "fair and just" nation-state to survive. That's questioning authority. I had some hopes for this--"The Rabbit Hole"--but alas, it's just the same ol' crap. Thanks for letting me rant. Be safe and take care, y'all. #freakpower
The state should not exist in the first place. And if there is one, it--and its officials--should have absolutely zero immunity of any sort. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in my article.
But the article wasn't about what SHOULD be in an ideal society. It's about what the US Constitution specifies as the rules for Presidential immunity. (Note the title of the article.)
As I said in the article, what the US Constitution mandates, allows or prohibits is not always ethically correct. And sovereign immunity is NOT ethically correct. Keep in mind that the immunity granted by the US Constitution is only immunity from legal action that might otherwise be taken by the legal entity that the US Constitution charters: The US Federal government does have the right to limit its own authority. That's not what's ethically incorrect. No, the ethical failure rests elsewhere: Neither the Constitutional Convention, the several States, nor anyone else has any ethically justified authority to make any person or other entity a monopoly provider of justice and security. As Larken Rose explained:
"The mythology surrounding the constitution alleges that it served as a sort of contract between the people in general and their new ‘servants’ in congress. But there is not a shred of truth to that. One cannot by signing a contract, bind someone else to an ‘agreement.’ The idea that a few dozen white, male, wealthy landowners could enter an agreement on behalf of over two million other people is absurd. But the absurdity does not stop there. No contract can ever create a right held by none of the participants, which is what all ‘government’ constitutions pretend to do. The form of the document makes it clear that it was not an actual contract, but an attempt to fabricate out of thin air the right to rule, however ‘limited’ it was supposed to be.
An actual agreement by contract is a fundamentally different thing from any document purporting to create a ‘government.’ For example, if a thousand American colonists had signed an agreement saying ‘We agree to give a tenth of whatever we produce, in exchange for the protection services of George Washington Protection Company,’ they could be morally bound by such an agreement. (Making an agreement and breaching it is a form of theft, akin to going to a store and taking something without paying for it.) But they could not bind anyone else to the agreement, nor could they use such an agreement to give the ‘George Washington Protection Company’ the right to start robbing or otherwise controlling people who had nothing to do with the contract. Additionally while the constitution pretends to authorise ‘congress’ to do various things, it does not actually require congress to do anything. Who in their right mind would sign a contract which did not bind the other party to do anything? (In DeDhanney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, even the U.S. Supreme Court officially declared that ‘government’ has no actual duty to protect the public.) The result is that the constitution, rather than being a brilliant, useful valid contract, was an insane attempt by a handful of men to unilaterally subject millions of other people to the control of a machine of aggression, in exchange for no guarantee of anything. The fact that millions of constitutionalists are desperately trying to get back to that, in hopes that it can save their ‘country’ if the people try it again - after it completely failed on the first attempt - is a testament to the power and the insanity, of the superstition of ‘authority.’” ~ Larken Rose, _The Most Dangerous Superstition_
Thank you SO much for this well-hidden truthful information!!
BTW, what happened to me, reading the article, was it hit a point where I wasn't following easily, and I scrolled down to where I saw the words "Bottom line:"
I happen to have had the thought then, that a good idea might be to have a Mercola-like "Story at a Glance" up top, with bullet points.
It may sound like catering to the short-attention-span crowd; but I find that, unless it's all topics I'm already familiar with, I do go ahead and read the body of the text; at least the parts that are new to me.
It’s not the current “state” that is at failure in the United States. Is “we the people”. At least, now we have a Posterboi. Thanks for participating. Sorry I’m fresh outta ribbons ….
Think you misunderstood. I meant everything the author wrote after “the state should not exist” imho…is pointless. There HAS to be some kind of “state” or we get into Hobbesian territory. Libertarianism is awesome in theory, but it’s just not a practical exercise when applies to human beings and society.
I am remiss. I must agree with your assertion. Occasionally, I can be incredibly good at miss communication.
Yes it has a real world success rate of zero. I don’t even think it sounds good in theory but that’s neither here nor there. I appreciate your taking the time to learn to meet clarity. That’s a heavy lift .😉✌️
I hope they don’t. The Judge in Washington does not have the brains to analyze the question. The DC Circuit likewise, not understanding the military concept code.
I hope the same. But more likely than not, it's a forlorn hope, although there is an outside chance that the Justices will settle the matter themselves.
The Supreme Court is not going to get into the debate of what action is “immune” vs what action is “not immune,” the court simply hates that stuff.
This unwillingness to get into the granular debate of statutory interpretation is the same reason why the court will not look at what the executive branch defines as “classified documents” vs “non-classified” documents. Once they open that pandoras’ box there would be a bazillion appeals for SCOTUS writ on the baseline of illegitimately denied FOIA requests. They ain’t going to touch it. Same applies here.
The Supreme Court is going to send this back to the lower DC court and tell them to hash out the issue of “private interest” acts, vs “official” acts. This is the core of the originating issue.
We’re all being played with like dumb dogs.
That is true. You’re suffering from an illusion of choice. The fight should be to bring down big and dark money and remove all barriers to accessing the ballot. Installing measures such as hand counted paper ballots, one month extended voting periods. No more gerrymandering, careful and correct listing of registered voter rolls,
Restoring the republic, even
Every constitutional lawyer knows how this will end up. Jan. 6 was within the scope of his duties. He was addressing the public. In the Colorado decision they addressed it. Nobody had held due process and procured a conviction of insurrection.
The 14th amendment has no reference to vision whatsoever. You’re a fucking blatant fake ass hotter bullshit is transparent to a third grader with basic reading comprehension skills. Fuck off. All the way off it when you get there, you should fuck off some more.
Conviction*pardon me
What stands out the most from any discussion about the laws that constrain Presidents is that although the laws sound fair, just, and good, a review of our history reveals that all Presidents to date have enjoyed immunity. FDR imprisoned an entire ethnic group of Americans. (Karamatzu?) I wasn’t born yet, but haven’t read of his impeachment, removal or prosecution. President Obama killed an American citizen with a drone strike followed by another that killed his children. President Kennedy, President Reagan. No one wants to see our President humiliated for his official acts. Not prosecuting beyond impeachment and removal maintains our democracy by keeping the power in the hands of the people to vote, and away from the judiciary.
Furthermore, we have seen a travesty of “justice” in the last 2 years that should end and never be repeated. Punishing former Presidents is unseemly, as is robbing him of his material wealth.
I completely agree with you. I don’t think any honest agent could disagree with what you said. It’s obvious that the legal system is being extremely abused against Trump. I hope he wins and gives the other side the same medicine gave him.
I agree but that's not how DJT thinks. IMO that's the reason he didn't have them go after HRC for all her criminal behavior. He is way too fair and doesn't believe in that type of retribution. If he is reelected and can get more done without interference from Congress and can put the people he has learned to trust (he was naive in this first term to trust many Rs to give him good advice on appointments etc. I doubt he will do that again) into place in order to accomplish the things he would have in 2020 had things ended differently.
His success, of bringing things back to what we had before C19, will be enough for him.
Just exactly what do you think we had before COVID-19 thing pretty much the same as we have now pick a choice between corporate oligarchy enable to fascism and totalitarian despotism. The corporate donor class raping the planet and the proletariat built treasury. Do you want believe that is a codependent Coconspiring international crime syndicate as a federal and state government supposed choice completely consented to buy the probably ignorant proletariat.
We’ve been on a diverging tangent from the ideal that is America since we were stupid enough to elect Ronnie Rayguns.
Gee, aren't you just a "merry sunshine?" So full of angst and all knowing.
Speaking of gibberish... do you actually read what you post?
Actually let me rephrase that last statement. Since we were moronic enough to elect a senile old bee movie grade actor over a man with calluses on his hands who put his farm in a blind trust while he held public office.
Not quite people who didn’t write a short bus to school would do
The rest of that nebulous gibberish is completely disconnected from reality. Not correlated, even on a coincidental basis. You need help. Do you not have anyone in your circle that is concerned about your lack of residence in the here and now?
Obviously, and blatantly, there was no criminal behavior on the part of HRC. Do you think Bill Barr in seditious money laundering child rapist orange Putin cocksleeve would have not prosecutor if any of those accusations and grounding in reality? That’s an impressive level of stupid. Must’ve taken a lot of hard work…..
🤣🤣🤣 Guess while you were out being the "gentleman" farmer, you missed a few things that have been in the news. The "Dossier," the four deaths in Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation/Haiti. That woman has been a hot mess since Arkansas.
It’s interesting that he is also fighting in court for Joe Biden’s immunity. He really is going to need it.
Totally not connected to reality. U have no one in your circle concerned about your obviously poor mental health?
You’re talking about violations that fall within the purview and prosecution by the world court at the Hague . We aren’t members of such. Doubt you were advocating this during the Dubya era.
Hipocracy removes any standing on the topic, Bruh
I am certain these and any offenses could be found within our many statutes, precedents, or founding document by willing prosecutors.
No. Everything Hass to be in a historical context. We must follow our laws codes and founding DOCUMENT. Interpretation is an error allowing a perverted unintended by the framers reality to exist. Like now. The first amendment has been breached, the second amendment completely and totally twisted from its intent, the fourth amendment no longer existing, the fifth and 14th Interpreted intentionally and politically driven in the wrong direction.
Calling states and asking them to do recounts is legal and within the scope
Counts and recounts mean nothing until the software coding of machines is open source and/or all voting done on paper ballots with a secure and transparent chain of custody.
It is an historical precedent wherein the actors were not prosecuted.
The debate is solely hinged on whether or not it’s “within the scope of duties of the office” someone needs to prove whatever he did was outside the scope
The burden of proof is never on the defendant. The State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (in a criminal case).
I find that there are two lawyers on the jury. If they follow the law (as we would hope) they will have the jury out with a not guilty/acquittal in short order. I understand one of the reasons lawyers aren't usually on juries, they tend to intimidate and easily sway the others? Let's hope they see the stupidity of the case and end this quickly.
That is a big “if”. We certainly can expect attorneys to understand the law, however, they are more adept at arguing both sides, so it’s a toss up.
No they’re not there all they have to do is prove that he tried to interfere with the lawful functioning of government according to the constitution United States was exactly what he did. No other connections are relevant to the case. You fucking people are beyond insane. You’re proudly stupid.
That shit should be eliminated from the gene pool here put behind humanity for once and ever OK it’s our only hope of survival as a species ….
That’s an insanely difficult conviction to get bumped to a felony.
The prosecution is still piecing together another misdemeanor so it can become a felony. The problem is they have the burden of proof in the false entry case first. The one with the expired SOL.
Hush money has already been admitted to be the national enquirer, not trump, that covered up the story.
The NDA is immaterial to the case, which hinges on false entries in TO accounting records-8 years ago.
where the statute of limitations ran our after 2 years. They are trying to tie it to election fraud, but the FEC refused to take it up or charge it. They always fine rather than prosecute.
The entire case is a mess. Bragg didn't charge it before when he had the chance, Cyrus Vance refused to prosecute it. No one wanted to touch it??? Wonder why? Could it be they knew it was a loser and would never pass appeal? Wonder if the desperately angry little creep AG Garland, is still angry he isn't SCOTUS? Trying to burn it all down on his way out?
Perfect demonstration of why Shakespeare said “kill all the lawyers”. Mankind will twist laws of the Creator to his own desire if allowed to do so. The reason why Magna Carta and Constitution started out attempting to be “conservative” in wording. Boil it down more: the reason why “Creator” not “God” was chosen as the source of our inalienable individual rights. Free Will, we all choose to surrender them or not, consequences be damned. Live free or die, not just a slogan. Life is short, eternity lasts forever. Choose wisely. That’s self interest, rightly understood. “Our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for any other.” - John Adams
There’s no fucking such thing as “presidential immunity” other than the bullshit regulation which should be removed of not inciting a sitting president which is a simple house rule of the DOJ. Having nothing to do with Congress or any law whatsoever. Motherfuck, you’re a fool’s fool
I'm not seeing any "question authority" in any of this. I'm only seeing "support the authority with whom I can align". Through our legislative and judicial branches, we've given the executive branch way too much power. The legislative, the folks responsible for creating our laws, need to take back a lot of the power they've given away these last 200 years. There are more than a dozen presidents that should be criminally charged for their crimes against humanity and the citizens of the US. Do I want to hamstring the Exec's power? Hell yes. We all should want to hamstring them. Let's start with the demagogues first and ensure we can hold the exec branch more accountable (yes, they should be afraid that we can take them down). They represent the will of corporations; the industries which support their will to power and greed. None of these people's actions support anything ethical and humane; they defame an ethics that is imperative for a "fair and just" nation-state to survive. That's questioning authority. I had some hopes for this--"The Rabbit Hole"--but alas, it's just the same ol' crap. Thanks for letting me rant. Be safe and take care, y'all. #freakpower
The state should not exist in the first place. And if there is one, it--and its officials--should have absolutely zero immunity of any sort. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in my article.
But the article wasn't about what SHOULD be in an ideal society. It's about what the US Constitution specifies as the rules for Presidential immunity. (Note the title of the article.)
As I said in the article, what the US Constitution mandates, allows or prohibits is not always ethically correct. And sovereign immunity is NOT ethically correct. Keep in mind that the immunity granted by the US Constitution is only immunity from legal action that might otherwise be taken by the legal entity that the US Constitution charters: The US Federal government does have the right to limit its own authority. That's not what's ethically incorrect. No, the ethical failure rests elsewhere: Neither the Constitutional Convention, the several States, nor anyone else has any ethically justified authority to make any person or other entity a monopoly provider of justice and security. As Larken Rose explained:
"The mythology surrounding the constitution alleges that it served as a sort of contract between the people in general and their new ‘servants’ in congress. But there is not a shred of truth to that. One cannot by signing a contract, bind someone else to an ‘agreement.’ The idea that a few dozen white, male, wealthy landowners could enter an agreement on behalf of over two million other people is absurd. But the absurdity does not stop there. No contract can ever create a right held by none of the participants, which is what all ‘government’ constitutions pretend to do. The form of the document makes it clear that it was not an actual contract, but an attempt to fabricate out of thin air the right to rule, however ‘limited’ it was supposed to be.
An actual agreement by contract is a fundamentally different thing from any document purporting to create a ‘government.’ For example, if a thousand American colonists had signed an agreement saying ‘We agree to give a tenth of whatever we produce, in exchange for the protection services of George Washington Protection Company,’ they could be morally bound by such an agreement. (Making an agreement and breaching it is a form of theft, akin to going to a store and taking something without paying for it.) But they could not bind anyone else to the agreement, nor could they use such an agreement to give the ‘George Washington Protection Company’ the right to start robbing or otherwise controlling people who had nothing to do with the contract. Additionally while the constitution pretends to authorise ‘congress’ to do various things, it does not actually require congress to do anything. Who in their right mind would sign a contract which did not bind the other party to do anything? (In DeDhanney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, even the U.S. Supreme Court officially declared that ‘government’ has no actual duty to protect the public.) The result is that the constitution, rather than being a brilliant, useful valid contract, was an insane attempt by a handful of men to unilaterally subject millions of other people to the control of a machine of aggression, in exchange for no guarantee of anything. The fact that millions of constitutionalists are desperately trying to get back to that, in hopes that it can save their ‘country’ if the people try it again - after it completely failed on the first attempt - is a testament to the power and the insanity, of the superstition of ‘authority.’” ~ Larken Rose, _The Most Dangerous Superstition_
Please don your HERO of the DAY cape.
Thank you SO much for this well-hidden truthful information!!
BTW, what happened to me, reading the article, was it hit a point where I wasn't following easily, and I scrolled down to where I saw the words "Bottom line:"
I happen to have had the thought then, that a good idea might be to have a Mercola-like "Story at a Glance" up top, with bullet points.
It may sound like catering to the short-attention-span crowd; but I find that, unless it's all topics I'm already familiar with, I do go ahead and read the body of the text; at least the parts that are new to me.
Train load of irrelevant gibberish much?
You should have stopped writing after “the state should not exist”
In a sane world, you'd be right. But alas...
Anarchy has always worked so well…
It’s not the current “state” that is at failure in the United States. Is “we the people”. At least, now we have a Posterboi. Thanks for participating. Sorry I’m fresh outta ribbons ….
Think you misunderstood. I meant everything the author wrote after “the state should not exist” imho…is pointless. There HAS to be some kind of “state” or we get into Hobbesian territory. Libertarianism is awesome in theory, but it’s just not a practical exercise when applies to human beings and society.
I am remiss. I must agree with your assertion. Occasionally, I can be incredibly good at miss communication.
Yes it has a real world success rate of zero. I don’t even think it sounds good in theory but that’s neither here nor there. I appreciate your taking the time to learn to meet clarity. That’s a heavy lift .😉✌️
lol I could totally see how my post could be interpreted that way
I'm thinking they'll send it back to the lower court.
I hope they don’t. The Judge in Washington does not have the brains to analyze the question. The DC Circuit likewise, not understanding the military concept code.
I hope the same. But more likely than not, it's a forlorn hope, although there is an outside chance that the Justices will settle the matter themselves.
The Supreme Court is not going to get into the debate of what action is “immune” vs what action is “not immune,” the court simply hates that stuff.
This unwillingness to get into the granular debate of statutory interpretation is the same reason why the court will not look at what the executive branch defines as “classified documents” vs “non-classified” documents. Once they open that pandoras’ box there would be a bazillion appeals for SCOTUS writ on the baseline of illegitimately denied FOIA requests. They ain’t going to touch it. Same applies here.
The Supreme Court is going to send this back to the lower DC court and tell them to hash out the issue of “private interest” acts, vs “official” acts. This is the core of the originating issue.