Now you're getting it.
Posted on 07/25/2025 9:31:09 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Now you're getting it.
So you admit this decision defies common sense. Well we are making progress.
Not only do you lack common sense you also lack any sense of morality.
Ok, was Harod’s slaughter an official act that merited immunity from legal action?
She replied, "goodness had nothing to do with it."
John Marshall said, "it is a Constitution we are expounding."
He was saying the court was making rules that apply equally to both sides. Our common sense and our morality might tell us, as they do in this case, that Barack Obama is evil and deserves exposure and incarceration, but the Supreme Court is fashioning a rule under the Constitution which takes into consideration not just your predilections, nor mine, but a rule for governing that apply equally to both sides and preserve the vital role of a president who, in the nuclear age, we entrust to act as a patriot and not as a man in fear of lawfare.
People like you think you are Patriots but you are useful idiots in the war on the republic for which it stands. Here is my cyber spit in your face you loser .
Oh, now you slid back from all the good progress you made.
If I had to choose between exchanging posts with you or a child molester the later, while disgusting, would at least posses common sense. I hold you lower than a pedophile
So was that Herod exercising his official duty?
Good news: the Constitution is not a vehicle to please Justice Sonia Sotomayor (even though you agree with her)
Bad news: the Constitution is not a vehicle to please your common sense or your morality.
In other words the Constitution is not a place from which either you or Justice Sonia Sotomayor can rationalize backwards to make yourselves happy.
It is a Constitution we are expounding, not a soap opera, but a rulebook to be applied uniformly and consistently, even if doing so makes you feel indignant.
Too bad the Nuremberg defense lawyers didn’t know about the official act loophole. Maybe the final solution was just Hitler performing an official act. Who knew?
Richard head I don’t agree with Sotomayor . Immunity must be based on criminal intent. Trump did not have criminal intent Obama did. To say otherwise throws common sense down the drain and is the slippery slope to a USSR style dictatorship. So now any future President can use the IC as their own political smear machine. A political retard like you may want that but normals do not.
I go back to my earlier point.
We have here two acts, both of which cannot be true.
Starting in July, 2016, Obama's intelligence agencies were preparing an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that said that there was NO Russian interference in the election.
On December 9, 2016, Obama held a meeting where he directed the ICA to be changed to state that there WAS Russian interference.
One of those ICAs had to be known to be false: was it the July one that said there was no interference or the December one that said there was? The facts didn't suddenly change overnight, except for the fact that Trump won the election in November and not Clinton.
So, either the original ICA was being falsely prepared, or the amended ICA was being falsely prepared. Either way, there was a conspiracy to falsify intelligence documents.
It's also telling that the July ICA was supposed to be included in a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) that was drafted on December 8, 2016 to be given to both Obama and President-Elect Trump on December 9, 2016, but the FBI rescinded its approval on the evening of December 8 and Obama called a meeting of his top intelligence officials for December 9. It's at this meeting that the ICA was changed, and the altered PDB wasn't shared with Trump until January 6, 2017.
Those are the acts. One of them has to have been known to be a falsification of intelligence documents.
-PJ
The sickening reality is the leftists will have their way and you will be revulsed by the results. If the lawfare of the recent years has taught us anything it is that the left seeks to put Donald Trump in jail for the rest of his life. It also teaches us that when he gets to trial in a blue city he has virtually no chance.
Trump did not have criminal intent Obama did.
Have you learned nothing? Do you think a Washington DC jury is gonna say, central_va says Trump did not have criminal intent so we have to acquit Donald Trump. Oh yeah, central_va says that Obama does have criminal intent so we will convict him?
It may well be that the only thing that saved Donald Trump from dying in jail was the fact that he won his election. Now the Supreme Court has put another barrier between the president and the mob, the decision that you disdain.
The point is that the Constitution wants a President free to exercise his best judgment without worry about that DC jury. To your surprise it has done its duty faithful to common sense, and good practical common sense at that.
I tried to get around this by arguing that the criminal act complained of is not the ordering of a new intelligence assessment but the ordering of its distribution, knowing it was false. I suggested that the criminal intent to falsify and further a conspiracy could be considered in defining the act, that is, in determining whether the act complained of was core or otherwise.
Later, I extensively quoted the language of the supreme court ruling out that approach.
I've come to terms with the balance struck by the court, the value of a president free from fear of lawfare outweighs the danger of a president committing crimes, when immunity extends only to official acts.
Wow the solution is to give POTUS Stalin like power to show me the man and I will show you the crime. I am not buying it.
Here's the rub.
The President has absolute immunity for official acts, but those official acts have to be lawfully executed (Article II Section 3 "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed").
Ordering an ICA might be a core official act, but ordering a fraudulent ICA is an unlawful act and is in violation of Article II Section 3.
If the President ordered the fraudulent ICA to be presented to Congress (for intelligence briefings) or the court (e.g., for FISA warrants), then that becomes a fraud upon the court or Congress that crosses separation of powers boundaries, which is also an unlawful act.
The President should NOT have immunity for unlawful acts, because unlawful acts CANNOT be official acts.
-PJ
You are trying to argue with a brick wall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.