Posted on 07/02/2024 8:19:42 AM PDT by Lazamataz
“Deranged democrats have no clue how the US works”
They have a much better understanding than we do. The US works just the way they want and they will do anything to make sure that happens and they will pay no price for doing so.
That’s how the US works.
-PJ
This is the way Democrat-Communists think. Like Stalin, they instinctively prefer to kill their opponents instead of defeating them at the ballot box. With the SCOTUS decision on immunity, we’d better never elect another Democrat President!!
Zoe Lofgren is an example of a very important point. Back when she was elected to the non-partisan Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, that county, at worst, was mildly liberal and it was not at all shocking when republicans would be elected to office. Now it’s a hard core rat bastion, and she’s entrenched.
The point being you can never vote for a rat at any level because they’ll eventually make it to partisan office and show their true stripes
This guy lies more than Biden. Not one thing he said is true. He’s either terminally stoooopid (which I don’t believe) or he thinks that his party’s constituents have an average IQ of 70.
They are getting crazier. Didn’t think that was possible.
Far from removing restrictions on the actions of a president - ANY President - this decision actually puts on restrictions on the actions of a President that never existed formally in the law before now. The simple fact is that no president has ever been charged with a criminal offense in the entire history of our nation. There was, effectively, complete and total immunity. What the Supreme Court did is to say that for constitutional duties, there is total immunity. Nothing changed there. For acts done while president that are not actually constitutionally required or permitted acts, there is presumptive immunity. That means that somebody can overcome that presumption and prove that they were personal in nature, and thus hold a President criminally liable while in office or afterwards. Thus, the Court clearly stated that certain acts don’t have any immunity at all. Finally, the Court indicated that for clearly personal acts, there was no immunity whatsoever. So if the President picks up an ashtray and smashes somebody over the head with it, he can be charged with criminal assault, and perhaps attempted murder. If the president shoots and kills somebody without any kind of justification, he can be charged and convicted of first-degree murder or manslaughter, and if the President orders some forces under his command to murder Supreme Court justices or political opponents, that is purely personal in nature, it is meant for his own personal benefit in some way or other, and has no immunity attached whatsoever. Weissman is not stupid, far from it (evil and hyper-partisan is another thing altogether), and he knows this quite well - but he chooses to lie like the leader of his party and pretty much every other Democrat, simply to make his/their political opponents look bad and to thus retain power. He is a thoroughly disgusting, despicable and pathetic individual.
I think that all of this was implied by common sense, but since somebody decided to criminally prosecute Trump, this became a case and the Supreme Court was pretty much forced to take on the issue and make a ruling that has an awful lot of common sense in it. These Democrats are barking-at-the-Moon crazy, they are all suffering from an overwhelming infection of TDS. They can’t even think logically anymore.
Posse Comitatus is a law, not part of the Constitution. You are actually incorrect that using the military on US soil is Constitutionally impermissible. It is explicitly provided for in the Constitution that the militia (if called up by Congress) is commanded by the President, and that it be used to put down an insurrection. One could make a very strong argument that draftees ARE the militia, and that inducting them into one or another branch of the military doesn’t change that, particularly if Congress approves of the call-up and the conflict. Lincoln used the army for exactly that purpose during the Civil War. One can argue whether the Civil War should have been fought or not, and I’m not going to weigh in on that issue at all, but in view of this fact one cannot reasonably argue that the Constitution forbids such an action where Congress has declared war against a domestic enemy.
Zooy zooy, Here pig pig pig.
Excellent summary.
This is what happens when elections become popularity contests...
We end up ruled by idiots.
Thanks. I cannot entirely claim credit for all of it, as I read a very interesting article in “Coffee & Covid” on Substack about this subject on Substack this morning. I think that anyone with a bit of common sense, intellectual honesty, and curiosity, and a bit of knowledge about the constitution and how our legal system works, could come to the exact same conclusions. Though I am an attorney I don’t think that one needs to be one in order to Understand or formulate the ideas in my earlier post. Again, it’s more about common sense and a little bit of general knowledge more than anything else.
I don’t know about you, but I find nearly all of the network “legal analysts” to be really awful. Jonathan Turley has a pretty easy job since he just needs to be better than the others. He’s about the only one I can watch anymore.
Rep. Lofgren should be removed from office. This is an insurrection.
And he could send all the mentally deranged DEMONRATS to Mars.
Three lies for the price of one. He did not summon a mob, he held a rally. He had no way of knowing if they were armed. And he sent them to the capitol to have their voices heard, peacefully and patriotically.
Ordering the killing of SCOTUS justices is not part of official duties of POTUS.
These people are very stupid.
You misspelled 'evil and corrupt'.
Can we get a two-for-one prosecution of threats to SCOTUS...Schumer and Lofgren?
I think that efforts that Trump made to ensure that the election was fair and legal could be said to be official in nature, despite some personal stake in the issue. He has to protect the nation and thus if he has a question about cheating...then as president he must pursue it!
That will be the question...did Trump have the right to question the election results as part of his job to protect election integrity vs the presumption that he was trying to overturn the election. I think if the Trump team plays to that question in court, then the Prosecutors have no case. They can’t prove that Trump did not have that right to question the results officially as president.
No court would grant any real hearings on the issues of possible cheating so thus Trump was stymied.
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.