The Courts (not specific to either party)

[TGHusker]

32 minutes ago, Fru said:

ONE bad man? Dude. C’mon.

And the cult he created

[TGHusker]

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

33 minutes ago, Fru said:

ONE bad man? Dude. C’mon.

It has a lot more to do with millions of voters who enable his behavior in the name of moronic culture war nonsense.

 

Trump is probably going to be found to be immune from prosecution for trying to overthrow Democracy, won't end up in jail, and because the average voter is stupid beyond comprehension, he's likely to win in November.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm old enough to remember Republicans arguing that they shouldn't impeach Trump because it's a legal issue and we should all let the courts decide this after he leaves office.

 

NOW....they argue that he can't be held accountable in court unless he was impeached.

 

Amazing how this works.

Isn’t it his lawyers job to make these arguments on his behalf?  Even if they end of losing said arguments.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Isn’t it his lawyers job to make these arguments on his behalf?  Even if they end of losing said arguments.  

Republicans in congress are his personal lawyers?  Sure, his actual lawyer can make that case during the impeachment hearings, but MAGA congressmen were making the case right along with them.....it was all total BS.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Republicans in congress are his personal lawyers?  Sure, his actual lawyer can make that case during the impeachment hearings, but MAGA congressmen were making the case right along with them.....it was in total BS.

No, Republicans in Congress are not his personal lawyers.   
 

I don’t believe the President has absolute immunity, it is an interesting case to follow though, and I’d have to look up which members of Congress are making those statements beyond the MTG’s and Boebarts of the world.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Isn’t it his lawyers job to make these arguments on his behalf?  Even if they end of losing said arguments.  

At a certain point, shouldn't a person look themselves in the mirror and say "wow, I'm actually going to step in front of SCOTUS and say that attempting a coup attempt, ordering the military to commit a coup, or assassinating a political rival should be allowed by Presidential immunity. Maybe this entire political movement is f#&%ing stupid, enabled by the lowest dredges of society, and I probably shouldn't be doing this"

 

I realize looking into the mirror and asking difficult questions is kind of difficult for a certain voter who enabled all this, but lets be honest here - Trump is a catastrophic idiot enabled by elements of society who cheer his anti-American authoritarianism on because it OwNs teH LiBs. 

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

12 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

At a certain point, shouldn't a person look themselves in the mirror and say "wow, I'm actually going to step in front of SCOTUS and say that attempting a coup attempt, ordering the military to commit a coup, or assassinating a political rival should be allowed by Presidential immunity. Maybe this entire political movement is f#&%ing stupid, enabled by the lowest dredges of society, and I probably shouldn't be doing this"

Do you even understand what a defense attorney does?  
 

Does this mean the argument is going to win?  Hopefully not, but that is their job when they take the job. 
 

 

[BigRedBuster]

57 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Do you even understand what a defense attorney does?  
 

Does this mean the argument is going to win?  Hopefully not, but that is their job when they take the job. 
 

 

There are examples all the time where defense attorneys either turn down cases or refuse to make a certain argument that the client wants because it's just wrong.

[Archy1221]

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

There are examples all the time where defense attorneys either turn down cases or refuse to make a certain argument that the client wants because it's just wrong.

Correct.  This attorney did not turn down the case it seems since he/she is arguing the case.  

[commando]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

There are examples all the time where defense attorneys either turn down cases or refuse to make a certain argument that the client wants because it's just wrong.

mafia attorneys defend their bosses 

[Dr. Strangelove]

17 minutes ago, commando said:

mafia attorneys defend their bosses 

The primary difference being that, in this instance, it sets a precedent for authoritarianism. 

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Do you even understand what a defense attorney does?  
 

Does this mean the argument is going to win?  Hopefully not, but that is their job when they take the job. 

See above. Congrats on creating this. Wish I could say that it was difficult to see coming and that Trump really veered off course, but you know, decades of being a piece of s#!t kind of eliminates that excuse. 

[Scarlet]

The circular logic to authoritarianism

 

Impeachment is not the vehicle to deal with, for example an insurrectionist, the judicial system is.   But the judicial system is not that vehicle because the president has broad immunity and the president must first be impeached and convicted.  

 

 

[ZRod]

46 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

The circular logic to authoritarianism

 

Impeachment is not the vehicle to deal with, for example an insurrectionist, the judicial system is.   But the judicial system is not that vehicle because the president has broad immunity and the president must first be impeached and convicted.  

 

 

I think the frame work that a sitting president can't be tried until impeached is sound. If not you would have a never ending load of cases against every president for any conceivable slight. That said once they become a normal citizen again impeachment would no longer be necessary, and cases should go straight to court.

[Scarlet]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

I think the frame work that a sitting president can't be tried until impeached is sound. If not you would have a never ending load of cases against every president for any conceivable slight. That said once they become a normal citizen again impeachment would no longer be necessary, and cases should go straight to court.

That gets sticky in a situation such as the one we went through only three years ago.  Trump could have called out the military to back his coup attempt and as we've seen, his sycophants in Congress would never impeach him.  Next time, if he's elected and his Project 2025 comes to fruition he'll have vetted loyalists to do his bidding.  If an authoritarian we're to pull it off he'd never become a normal citizen.  In our history we've never had a president need immunity from breaking the law while in office.  There wouldn't be a never ending load of cases.  That hasn't happened before.  Frivolous cases would be bounced immediately.