Israel and Hamas Agree to Gaza Cease-Fire Deal
International by Curt_Anderson     January 15, 2025 9:52 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [25 views]

"I created the Leahy Law. It should be applied to Israel."
International by Donna     January 14, 2025 10:33 am (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Donna (27 comments) [281 views]

California jumped 10 points toward GOPs in 024... BEFORE the LA fires brouhaha
Politics by HatetheSwamp     January 15, 2025 4:19 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [38 views]

Pete Hegseth
Government by HatetheSwamp     January 14, 2025 7:17 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [58 views]

Fascist America.
Politics by meagain     January 14, 2025 3:04 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (9 comments) [63 views]

Pam Bondi Hearing
Law by HatetheSwamp     January 15, 2025 7:49 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [12 views]

Oregon sends fire fighters to Los Angeles; Ashland sent a crew and equipment
Government by Curt_Anderson     January 13, 2025 10:09 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (5 comments) [128 views]

Jill Biden Prepares For Final Week As President
President by HatetheSwamp     January 14, 2025 8:37 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [75 views]

CA MAGA politicians flee CA to hang out with Trump at Maralago as L.A. burns
Travel by Donna     January 13, 2025 7:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [85 views]

pb's Legal Goober #1: "Smith's one sided screed is lawfare at its worst"
Media by HatetheSwamp     January 14, 2025 3:26 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [14 views]

Does anyone here believe that Trump's claim of "total presidential immunity" is anything but flaming bullshit? By Ponderer January 21, 2024 9:03 am Category: Humor (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

Anyone...?

Because flaming bullshit is legally all such a claim is. And I don't think even his biggest fans in here would disagree with me on this.

Am I right... Or am I right...?"

Comments Start Below

by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 9:22 am Trump even wants immunity for his actions that “cross the line”. Knowing what he thinks is OK, I hate to think what he thinks crosses the line. by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 9:28 am Oh, and Trump has convinced his cult that Biden is dictatorial. What is more dictatorial than an unaccountable president with blanket immunity? by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 9:29 am po, "...anything but flaming bullshit?" I think that the claim is neither "flaming" not "bulk$#!t." Try this thought experiment. You and I both admire Jimmy Carter. And, face it. That may be the entirety of what we agree on. Imagine that, in the 80 election, wacko Reagan supporters charged Carter with a crime connected to the deaths of Americans resulting from Carter's failed attempt to free the American hostages in Iran. And, Carter's attorneys argue that, as President, he has immunity? Whadaya think? "Flaming bull$#!t," or not. by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 9:42 am HtS, It is not complicated. The attempted hostage rescue is clearly within presidential duties. Immunity covers various governmental employees when doing their job, even if their efforts are unsuccessful. But it doesn’t allow them go on a crime spree. by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 9:59 am How do you know that, Curt... other than its your characterization of what Trump did? Right. Sometimes I forget that you, too, clerked at the Supreme Court. For Chief Justice John Jay, right? by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 10:21 am HtS, I don't know why the mundane concepts of government and law are such a mystery to you. There are plenty of online resources that discuss immunity and what it covers. It's funny that you don't know this. Republicans constantly complain (at least they did previously) about "government overreach". Now they take seriously Trump's insistence of "ex-presidential immunity". Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” See: Pearson v. Callahan. When determining whether a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. law.cornell.edu by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 10:42 am What I know, in reference to the Trump case, pb's Legal Goobers think that the claim ain't frivolous. They are skeptical that he'll prevail... as pb's already noted. BTW, based on what the Goobers are saying, Trump will almost certainly lose at the Appeals Court... AND... if the Supreme Court refuses to accept the case, that'd be them to use the po-ism, Trump's claim is, in fact, "flaming bull$#!t." by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 10:58 am Trump posted this on his own Truth-Social website: “EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD,” Trump wrote. “THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY. EXAMPLE: YOU CAN’T STOP POLICE FROM DOING THE JOB OF STRONG & EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THE OCCASIONAL ‘ROGUE COP’ OR ‘BAD APPLE.’ SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH ‘GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT.’ ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR THE AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE AN EASY DECISION. GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT!” The absurdity of his position should be obvious. Take his "rogue cop" example. A cop (like my son for instance) can legally shoot his gun in a situation which would be illegal if you or I did it. However, a cop cannot "cross the line" by robbing a 7-11 at gunpoint while in uniform then demand immunity. yahoo.com by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 11:05 am I'm pretty certain that Trump won't be arguing the case if it reaches the Supreme Court. by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 11:17 am HtS, That's a safe prediction since Trump is not a lawyer who has been admitted to the Supreme Court bar. Trump's inane and preposterous "legal arguments" are aimed at a particular low-information audience. Guess who that audience is. by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 11:24 am Trump's inane and preposterous "legal arguments" are aimed at a particular low-information audience. Makes sense. How else would you have come upon it? Baha. by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 11:54 am Andy McCarthy, pb's Legal Goober #3, has a nice column in National Review on the immunity issue. Like much of his writing, it's hard to quote well. He says, in part, "Why isn’t (immunity) in the Constitution? In large part it seems to me that, having made Congress the principal locus of government power, the Framers assumed that a corrupt president would be impeached and removed. Federal prosecution was not a thing in 1787. If a president committed an egregious abuse of power that warranted House impeachment and Senate conviction, why would it occur to anyone that that should be immunized? It was also assumed, however, that presidents — and, for that matter, legislators — would be statesmen..." Immunity has been "discovered" already as far as civil suits are concerned. What's the deal with accusations of criminality? I recommend the article for its struggle to make sense of this case which will set a huuuuuuuuuge precedent. ***** A quick heads-up. #3 doesn't describe Trump's claim of immunity "flaming bull$#!t." nationalreview.com by Indy! on January 21, 2024 11:57 am The only people killed in Carter's hostage rescue attempt (which - btw - was foiled by a series of unexpected coincidences they could not plan for) - was 8 American soldiers and one Iranian civilian (if memory serves). Carter as president is the CiC and therefore sending soldiers into conflict (to possibly be killed) is one of his duties and responsibilities. Civilians - especially non-Americans on foreign soil - being killed accidentally in military adventures is simply part of the game... "collateral damage". So there is no way to charge Carter with whatever law you thought applied, peebs. by Indy! on January 21, 2024 12:01 pm So far as Pondy's original question - of course Trump has to answer for his crimes. It's the law of the land and as the old saying goes "no one is above the law". There is no asterisk on that saying *except for Donald Trump or any other rich narcissistic racist assholes the media loves because they increase ratings. And we know this is true because the wingdings of the board refuse to answer the question. Which - in turn - tells us the wingdings of the board also know Trump IS guilty of the crimes he has been accused of. by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 12:03 pm The only person killed in the J6 riot was Ashli Babbitt, a protester shot by Capitol Police. by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 12:31 pm McCarthy eventually answers his own question: "I am not claiming such immunity is in the Constitution; to the contrary, it would be surprising if it were." My son uses an expression, that he probably learned on the job, as to what is covered by immunity. The expression is "lawful but awful". Now if Trump somehow prevails and SCOTUS agrees that presidents have total immunity, Joe Biden should immediately send Seal Team Six to the Mar-a-Lago compound and drop Trump's bloated corpse into the Atlantic Ocean. Biden could watch it all happen from the Situation Room. by Ponderer on January 21, 2024 12:57 pm I swear to God. The ridiculously asinine lengths that Hate will go to in order to slavishly defend his Mango Messiah. by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 1:19 pm When he says that, Curt, he's also referring to the immunity the Supreme Court had already "discovered." by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 1:23 pm I swear to God. The ridiculously asinine lengths that Hate will go to in order to slavishly defend his Mango Messiah. I myself swear, po, if you had a sense of humor, you'd be friggin EFFINlethal! by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 1:59 pm Trump is making stupid arguments and statements now during the primaries that will come back to haunt him in the general election. Donald Trump Evokes Hiroshima in Argument for Presidential Immunity At his Saturday rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, Trump continued to make that case. He claimed that President Harry Truman would never have dropped atomic bombs on Japan if he was worried he may face criminal charges. "Take a look at Harry Truman," he said. "He wouldn't have done… If you think Hiroshima, not exactly a nice act, but it did end the Second World War probably, right? Nagasaki. He wouldn't be doing that. He said, 'I do not want to do that because my opponents will indict me.' You have to give a president full and total immunity." newsweek.com by oldedude on January 21, 2024 2:04 pm Lead- The only person killed in the J6 riot was Ashli Babbitt, a protester shot by Capitol Police. And to boot, he may have lied both on the radio on J6, and in court. OOPS! We'll see in the coming months. msn.com by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 2:35 pm I underlined the salient immunity issue below. Police, presidents and others are protected by qualified immunity. That qualification being that they are performing their work in a reasonable manner, even if they made a mistake. Babbitt was shot as she attempted to crawl through a broken window with the obvious intent to unlock a door that separated an angry mob from members of Congress. It's inconceivable that OD, Ms. Babbitt or other J6 rioters would hesitate to shoot an intruder breaking through their window at their home---even without the mob. According the OD's article: Before the incident, a police dispatcher incorrectly said, “They’re taking shots into the House floor.” “Lt. Byrd erroneously believed and acted on a false radio call and/or false report of shots fired on the House floor occurring before he left the House floor and moved across the Speaker’s Lobby to the adjacent Retiring Room,” alleges the lawsuit. “A reasonably prudent officer in Lt. Byrd’s position would have been aware that, in fact, the report was false and the sound heard on the House floor was glass breaking, not shots fired,” the lawsuit continues. “The facts speak truth. Ashli was ambushed when she was shot by Lt. Byrd,” writes Mr. Babbitt’s attorneys. “Lt. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashli’s homicide,” the lawsuit claims. by Ponderer on January 21, 2024 4:31 pm If it's so impossible for a president to do their job without breaking the law and then being prosecuted for it by the opposition once they leave office as Trump declares it to be, how is it then possible that every other president in our country's entire history manage to pull it off? by HatetheSwamp on January 21, 2024 5:14 pm Simple, po. No other President had to deal with deranged TrumpHate and a politicized DOJ. by Ponderer on January 21, 2024 6:24 pm I didn't think that Hate would come up with anything approaching a realistic explanation of how they managed it. And I'm right again! Boy I am on a roll lately! by Indy! on January 21, 2024 7:51 pm Have you folks seen the Babbitt video? First off - it's tragic. But it's also very clear the House security guys were warning the people trying to break down the door that they were prepared to shoot them. They had their weapons out and were clearly concerned about the door being broken down and them being overrun by the mob. On the other side, one of the people trying to help her thru the broken window (actually lifting her up) is a COP. Babbitt looks like she thinks it's a joke or something - she apparently didn't realize the severity of the situation and thought they would not shoot her. She had a cop HELPING her - so of course she would believe what she was doing was not that serious or dangerous. But as soon as she starts going thru the lead security guy on the other side fires the round that killed her. by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 8:10 pm Indy, What video do see that shows that a cop was helping Babbitt through the window? I found at least a couple different angles and I don't see a cop helping her. In this video there are two cops: one tall with a Covid mask and a shorter cop with a cap on. They initially are against door facing the mob. Then they are out of the picture. It was foolhardy of Babbitt to go against that drawn and aimed gun. What did she think would happen when she stuck her head through the broken window? by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 8:32 pm Babbitt, wearing a Trump flag as a cape, was among several dozen rioters who approached the doors to the Speaker's Lobby, adjacent to the House chambers.[5][54] Three uniformed officers were posted outside the Lobby where they were threatened by the crowd. One member of the mob yelled, "Fuck the Blue" (blue being a reference to the police). One officer guarding the doors told the others "They're ready to roll", and the three officers moved away from the barricaded doors leading to the Speaker's Lobby.[5] No longer impeded by police, rioter Zachary Jordan Alam smashed a glass window beside the doors.[12][55] On the other side of those doors, many lawmakers and staff were being evacuated by Capitol Police,[8] but some were trapped in the House balcony.[56] After "he's got a gun" was yelled several times when Lieutenant Michael Byrd aimed his weapon,[57] Babbitt, hoisted by two men,[18] began to climb through the shattered window. She was then shot in the left shoulder[9] by Lieutenant Byrd[10][8] and fell back among the other protesters.[18] Babbitt had been warned not to proceed through the window: one witness recalled that "A number of police and Secret Service were saying 'Get back! Get down! Get out of the way!'; [Babbitt] didn't heed the call."[58] by oldedude on January 21, 2024 9:30 pm curt #22- Police, presidents and others are protected by qualified immunity. That qualification being that they are performing their work in a reasonable manner, even if they made a mistake. And then went on to say... “Lt. Byrd erroneously believed and acted on a false radio call and/or false report of shots fired on the House floor occurring before he left the House floor and moved across the Speaker’s Lobby to the adjacent Retiring Room,” alleges the lawsuit. “A reasonably prudent officer in Lt. Byrd’s position would have been aware that, in fact, the report was false and the sound heard on the House floor was glass breaking, not shots fired,” the lawsuit continues. He Just shown the defendants case. Thusly was the "Kristallnacht." When do you "reasonably, quit shooting?" according to curt, never, until they're all dead." I would add there are (according to curt), plays in the scenario that indicate the sounds are broken glass, not shots (different in decibels and their sound). (pcidencitudardojne below). by Curt_Anderson on January 21, 2024 9:57 pm What does Kristallnacht have to do with this? Rioters broke glass? Officer Byrd took one shot, hitting Babbitt in the shoulder. Given the situation that was reasonable and appropriate. en.wikipedia.org Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page