Presidential Immunity

Lol, so through context magic, one is a crime and one is not?

Barr also admitted he was going to vote for Trump over Biden, despite the fact Trump called him a traitor. Maybe the real problem here is actually Biden....

That's the problem.

Right. Now all you need is evidence of a crime. Let me know when you have it.

Who says you need evidence? All you need is a right wing jury in Wyoming

And do you support that?

Why not? Rule of law says the right-tribe gets to do the exact same things the left-tribe does without fear or favor.

You support rule of law...do you not?

There's no law against pushing.

Why not? Rule of law says the right-tribe gets to do the exact same things the left-tribe does without fear or favor.

You support rule of law...do you not?

Exactly. If you can bring a person in front of Democratic jury, then why can’t we do the same in front of right wing jury.

You can, as soon as you provide evidence that the person committed a crime within a jurisdiction where the alleged defendant would be subject to the findings of a right wing jury pool. Good luck.

You can, as soon as you provide evidence that the person committed a crime within a jurisdiction where the alleged defendant would be subject to the findings of a right wing jury pool. Good luck.

Your exact words: "even if their act was entirelymotivated by personal gain?"

Pressuring a secretary of state to "recalculate" the results in order to hand you the victory is illegal. That is a crime. And the phone call alone proves that.

Then Al Gore is a criminal. He pressured Florida to "recalculate". Also every congress person who ever objected to electors.

Double R, meet reconstruction. Reconstruction, this guy needs to know about you.

Now imagine 60 million people agree with the officer. You think you can live with people like that under an unrestricted government?

I asserted it was impossible to reject without reasonable doubt some motivations except in cases of confession.

A murder may be premeditated, but that does not mean the murderer wasn't angry in the moment as well. That can't be proven, and that why crimes of passion and premeditation are defined in such a way that it is not necessary to disprove passion in order to prove premeditation.

The trials are being held in the places where the law was violated. That's how the law works.

Unacceptable.

You should read up on the filings in the documents case.

If a cop comes to your door asking for letters, and you give him some letters but not all, that's not lying.

They said they wanted more. He said come look. They swatted his house.

I've said many times the crimes are made up. Stitched together from laws written for completely different contexts.

Yes, unequal applications of the laws is an excuse to "violate" laws.

None, so long as you admit the clear implication of the impeachments clause is to remove all jurisdiction over named office holders doing official acts to the congress of the United States of America.

That's why our system depends on an adherence to the basic principals of logic and reason, evidence, and the rule of law above all else.

Ah, so that's why we're doomed.

As they commonly say, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if that's what you wanted.

We don't need evidence, or laws, or jurisdiction. All we need is a judge who will pretend.

Your exact words: "even if their act was entirelymotivated by personal gain?"

Correct, but you bolded the wrong part. Note the first two words quoted: “even if”. Aka even in the farthest extreme you still argue they shouldn’t be prosecuted? That was my question to you. And then you turned it around and acted as if I was implying that was the requirement. It wasn’t, just a hypothetical.

Pressuring a secretary of state to "recalculate" the results in order to hand you the victory is illegal. That is a crime. And the phone call alone proves that.

Then Al Gore is a criminal. He pressured Florida to "recalculate". Also every congress person who ever objected to electors.

So you believe challenging an election result through the courts is the same thing as calling the secretary of state and telling him to just "recalculate". Is that a serious argument?

Double R, meet reconstruction. Reconstruction, this guy needs to know about you.

Do you understand that the administration of an election and a constitutional amendment are two different things?

Now imagine 60 million people agree with the officer. You think you can live with people like that under an unrestricted government?

No, that's why it would be nice for the millions of brainwashed MAGA cultists to stop warshipping a clinical narcissist and join us in reality.

I asserted it was impossible to reject without reasonable doubt some motivations except in cases of confession.

The fact that one’s motivations can always be doubted does not make those doubts reasonable. Possible =/= reasonable to suspect.

The passion of the moment is irrelevant to the question of what motivated the murder. If it was premeditated then it would have occurred anyway. This is where the ‘but for’ test comes in. You’re trying to argue that some alternative factor also being present changes the question of why someone did something, it doesn’t.

The trials are being held in the places where the law was violated. That's how the law works.

Unacceptable.

And yet this is how laws have been enforced all throughout human history.

You should read up on the filings in the documents case.

You should probably read up on a legal dictionary. Classified by definition means it’s restricted and controlled by the government. That directly conflicts with the definition of personal.

If a cop comes to your door asking for letters, and you give him some letters but not all, that's not lying.

He made his lawyers sign affidavits telling the FBI all documents were returned despite everyone involved knowing they were not. That’s called lying.

They said they wanted more. He said come look. They swatted his house.

Total BS. Have you even read the indictment? You sound like you are getting your information from truth social.

I've said many times the crimes are made up. Stitched together from laws written for completely different contexts.

Yes I know, you say this all the time but never present a legal analysis so it’s nothing more than a meaningless rant.

Yes, unequal applications of the laws is an excuse to "violate" laws.

Then you don’t believe in the rule of law as a principal

so you can stop pretending you take issue with what the left is doing.

You care about winning and you’re pissed because you think the other side is winning. That’s it, that’s all you believe in. Thank you for making that clear.

None, so long as you admit the clear implication of the impeachments clause is to remove all jurisdiction over named office holders doing official acts to the congress of the United States of America.

No, that’s not what it implies. The impeachment process was put in place to remove office holders who have violated the trust of the people they represent and should therefore no longer wield the power of their offices. That has absolutely nothing to do with the justice system. They address fundamentally different issues so trying to combine them somehow is absurd.

Then you should have no problem bringing your prosecution. Good luck.

Then you should have no problem bringing your prosecution. Good luck.

A legally impossible hypothetical with no legal relevance since I've never seen a law which defines a crime based on "entirely motivated by".

It's your claim not mine. Pressuring to change results is illegal over phones? Illegal when you ask the wrong people? Illegal when expressed in public? Illegal when private?

All these questions would be answered if you know... there was a law that applied instead of your desperate inventions

Do you understand that the administration of an election and a constitutional amendment are two different things?

Do you know that when federal troops show up to enforce an amendment, that's kinda like the commander in chief is involved in enforcement?

And yet this is how laws have been enforced all throughout human history.

Who sat in judgement at nuremberg? It wasn't a random sample of the citizens of nuremberg.

BS, no lawyer would sign such a thing if they knew it was false. "made"

What happened was that NARA conspiring with the FBI and the white-house intentionally made a mess messier

Total BS. Have you even read the indictment? You sound like you are getting your information from truth social.

Have you read anything besides what the feds and their dogs have publicly asserted?

Yes, unequal applications of the laws is an excuse to "violate" laws.

Then you don’t believe in the rule of law as a principal

If that's what you call "rule of law" then I don't believe in it.

so you can stop pretending you take issue with what the left is doing.

Why would I stop taking issue with people using lawfare because you define lawfare as "rule of law"?

There is a machine, your side is throwing a wrench in it because they don't like how it was working (electing DJT)

If there was no connection between the impeachments clause and random local courts then it would follow that the Q-Anon town could imprison a president and that president would still wield the power of their office.

That is absurd.

Then you should have no problem bringing your prosecution. Good luck.

Yep it’ll work out

that this absolves the defendant of being found guilty of having improper motivations

The point was to say forget that for now and *assume* this was the reason he did it. Now what?

And not for nothing, it really is amusing to me that after months and months of you arguing that you know exactly what motivated Joe Biden in Ukraine that you now act like motivations behind official acts can’t be questioned.

It's your claim not mine. Pressuring to change results is illegal over phones? Illegal when you ask the wrong people? Illegal when expressed in public? Illegal when private?

Do you believe challenging election results in court is the same thing as calling the Secretary of State and telling him to “recalculate” the results so that you win? Yes or No.

Answer the question. Or is there a reason you are dodging this?

All these questions would be answered if you know... there was a law that applied instead of your desperate inventions

Do you even read the indictments?

If you’re going to argue that the actions Trump is alleged to have taken are not illegal then present that case.

And when you do, take note that even Trump’s lawyers aren’t trying that because they know how stupid that would be.

Do you understand that the administration of an election and a constitutional amendment are two different things?

Do you know that when federal troops show up to enforce an amendment, that's kinda like the commander in chief is involved in enforcement?

Troops show up after the courts decide that they are in violation, not the president.

And yet this is how laws have been enforced all throughout human history.

Who sat in judgement at nuremberg? It wasn't a random sample of the citizens of nuremberg.

So what? What is your point?

I’d ask if you have any evidence of that but of course you don’t.

or we can apply Occam’s razor

There is no where on earth where this is a tenable principal for its citizenry to live by. You are the embodiment of a cancer on society.

so you can stop pretending you take issue with what the left is doing.

Why would I stop taking issue with people using lawfare because you define lawfare as "rule of law"?

The term lawfare gets its connotational strength by implying a wrong and inappropriate usage of the rule of law.

If there was no connection between the impeachments clause and random local courts then it would follow that the Q-Anon town could imprison a president and that president would still wield the power of their office.

That is absurd.

Yes, but what makes it absurd isn’t that no one ever thought it would be necessary to craft laws to address this possibility

That should tell you something.

Laws define what motivations are improper when the mention motivations or imply motivations via the definition of words.

Impeachment and conviction by the senate or bust.

No one seriously believed that Biden could be criminally prosecuted for corruption as vice president without impeachment

Are they the same legally? Yes both are totally legal.

Are they the same morally? Yes both are totally moral (if you believe there was inaccuracy).

Yes, but the problem (for the propagandists and hacks like yourself) is that I also read the cited laws, the defense motions, and then used logic.

Make a thread and in the OP admit that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Troops show up after the courts decide that they are in violation, not the president.

Troops aren't under the command of courts.

Who sat in judgement at nuremberg? It wasn't a random sample of the citizens of nuremberg.

So what? What is your point?

Playing dumb about something so obvious means you have no response.

I’d ask if you have any evidence of that but of course you don’t.

I'd tell you to read the unredacted filings, but of course you won't.

My definition of "rule of law" is mutually exclusive with "wrong and inappropriate usage of"

So... the people who wrote the impeachments clause never imagined criminal behavior from the most powerful person in the nation?

Interesting lack of imagination given what they just wrote mentioned crimes by name.

That should tell you something.

That they are cowards who think…

Once again, impeachment is an inherently political process...

Laws define what motivations are improper when the mention motivations or imply motivations via the definition of words.

This conversation isn’t about an individual law, it’s about how the constitution applies to any law that seeks to hold the president accountable for his actions as president, so these concepts are relevant and necessary to address.

Impeachment and conviction by the senate or bust.

No one seriously believed that Biden could be criminally prosecuted for corruption as vice president without impeachment

Nonsense. Find one example of any prominent scholar or political figure arguing that impeachment and conviction was a necessary precursor for criminal prosecution before Trump. Ever. You won’t because it’s an absurd ad hoc rationalization that the Trump team made up whole cloth as an excuse to delay his trials.

Ok. So to be clear, when Biden loses Arizona by 9,483 votes, and he calls up the Democratic Secretary of State and tells her that he wants her to find 9,484 votes and that there is nothing wrong with telling everyone she “recalculated”, you’re going to be perfectly fine with this… right?

Troops show up after the courts decide that they are in violation, not the president.

Troops aren't under the command of courts.

Yes

Once again, impeachment is an inherently political process. The only thing it addresses is whether an office holder shall lose the power of their office. That is a completely and totally different question from whether a citizen shall lose their freedom, which is what the Justice system determines. The fact that I have to explain this is itself ridiculous.

MAGA yawn...

This conversation isn’t about an individual law, it’s about how the constitution applies to any law that seeks to hold the president accountable for his actions as president, so these concepts are relevant and necessary to address.

Constitution doesn't say anything about motivations, so no it isn't. It specifies who decides, that is all.

Find one person charged for official acts before Trump. You can't because it is an absurd notion that you can bypass the impeachments clause to construe official acts as crimes.

It's not asking that is illegal, it's the forging and breaking election laws.

Troops aren't under the command of courts.

Yes

There ya go.

The absurd implication of your interpretation remains.

The impeachment clause still has nothing to do with the Justice system.

By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns.