WOKE and proud of it....

[phyllo]

You would have to define *self-serving* with some examples. All political persons act self-servingly.

I will send that down to a lower court. They can define "self-serving".

It's Miller time.

[FlashDangerpants]

K: Of more interest to me is that Biden can assassinate the entire Supreme court as part of his presidential duties. This ruling may be the single worst decision in the history of the United States Supreme Court and that includes a ruling that practically started the American Civil, the Dred Scott case.

Your view is shortsighted. The ruling is one that applies to the presidency and for the future of it. A president must have immunity when making those official decisions.

If you understood the ruling, its actual language, it has left open the possibility of adjudicating Trump's actions which have been described as criminal. It simply pushes the issue back down to lower courts who can then put together their case.

It is not a bad decision looked at in this way.

K: no, there is no criminal actions involved in official acts....
Biden can legally assassinate anyone he wants as long
as he declares it an '''official action'' in the duty of being president...
he cannot be prosecuted in any way, shape or form....
for any official acts..... that is why the president is now immune
from any official acts... he is legally immune from all official actions...

Kropotkin

He doesn't get to just declare things "official actions", actions become official if he is exercising one of the enumerated powers of his office. One such is that he is Commander in Chief of your military, so he is doing an official action any time he issues an order to the military. That's why the question in the court was specifically about using Seal Team 6 (a military unit) to assasinate political opponents.

If he takes a gun to the second debate and just shoots Trump through the face for himself, that wouldn't be an official act of the presidency under enumerated powers, it would be quite prosecutable under present statute.

[Flannel Jesus]

he cannot be prosecuted in any way, shape or form...

False.

Why?

You cut out the qualifiers to the statement PK made, so the "why" is of course assuming you're replying to the full statement he made, including qualifiers.

[Alexis Jacobi]

he cannot be prosecuted in any way, shape or form...

False.

Why?

You cut out the qualifiers to the statement PK made, so the "why" is of course assuming you're replying to the full statement he made, including qualifiers.

A thousand apologies. I meant that yes he can be prosecuted.

He can be prosecuted in ways, shapes and forms.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Your view is shortsighted. The ruling is one that applies to the presidency and for the future of it. A president must have immunity when making those official decisions.

If you understood the ruling, its actual language, it has left open the possibility of adjudicating Trump's actions which have been described as criminal. It simply pushes the issue back down to lower courts who can then put together their case.

It is not a bad decision looked at in this way.

K: no, there is no criminal actions involved in official acts....
Biden can legally assassinate anyone he wants as long
as he declares it an '''official action'' in the duty of being president...
he cannot be prosecuted in any way, shape or form....
for any official acts..... that is why the president is now immune
from any official acts... he is legally immune from all official actions...

Kropotkin

He doesn't get to just declare things "official actions", actions become official if he is exercising one of the enumerated powers of his office. One such is that he is Commander in Chief of your military, so he is doing an official action any time he issues an order to the military. That's why the question in the court was specifically about using Seal Team 6 (a military unit) to assasinate political opponents.

If he takes a gun to the second debate and just shoots Trump through the face for himself, that wouldn't be an official act of the presidency under enumerated powers, it would be quite prosecutable under present statute.

K: that is the point of legal immunity... he is immune to any actions he deems
to be ''official actions'' he cannot be prosecuted, nor can he now be
impeached... he can declare the impeachment process as being illegal
and that is that with that.... the president of the United States is now
a monarch with unlimited powers and no checks of any kind...
he can do anything and claim it is an ''official action''
and he will not fact any consequences of any kind...
that is what immunity means....

Kropotkin

[Flannel Jesus]

False.

Why?

You cut out the qualifiers to the statement PK made, so the "why" is of course assuming you're replying to the full statement he made, including qualifiers.

A thousand apologies. I meant that yes he can be prosecuted.

He can be prosecuted in ways, shapes and forms.

Including for official acts as President?

[FlashDangerpants]

K: no, there is no criminal actions involved in official acts....
Biden can legally assassinate anyone he wants as long
as he declares it an '''official action'' in the duty of being president...
he cannot be prosecuted in any way, shape or form....
for any official acts..... that is why the president is now immune
from any official acts... he is legally immune from all official actions...

Kropotkin

He doesn't get to just declare things "official actions", actions become official if he is exercising one of the enumerated powers of his office. One such is that he is Commander in Chief of your military, so he is doing an official action any time he issues an order to the military. That's why the question in the court was specifically about using Seal Team 6 (a military unit) to assasinate political opponents.

If he takes a gun to the second debate and just shoots Trump through the face for himself, that wouldn't be an official act of the presidency under enumerated powers, it would be quite prosecutable under present statute.

K: that is the point of legal immunity... he is immune to any actions he deems
to be ''official actions'' he cannot be prosecuted, nor can he now be
impeached... he can declare the impeachment process as being illegal
and that is that with that.... the president of the United States is now
a monarch with unlimited powers and no checks of any kind...
he can do anything and claim it is an ''official action''
and he will not fact any consequences of any kind...
that is what immunity means....

Kropotkin

You are spouting nonsense. There is no need for shrill hyperbole, the truth is bad enough. He doesn't get to just announce any old shit is "offical action" and you cannot point to any place in that ruling which says he can. Acts are official acts of the office holder only if they are carried out within the scope of the office. This means that they have to be in some way related to the official powers of the president. Donld J Trump has never taken an official J shit any more than Peter F-ing Kropotkin has.

The power to impeach a president is reserved to Congress under your own constitution. It is not within the scope of presidential power to annul a constitutional power granted to another branch of the government. The talk of unlimited powers is just dumb.

[accelafine]

Just life, I suppose.

Was your response "angry and bitter"? If so, it's gone right over my head as usual. It seemed on the level to me.

It's nothing to do with my response or with you, Gary. I was put on accelafine's hit list yesterday, and that was just the first shot.

Oh spare me the 'I'm clueless' 'comedy' act. Never mind that you are continually making snide, passive/aggressive little comments on my threads/posts and deliberately misquoting me or 'quoting' other people's comments as mine. That goes back a lot further than yesterday. Well poor you. You and Gary make a good double-act with your self-pitying, sympathy-seeking garbage.

[Peter Kropotkin]

He doesn't get to just declare things "official actions", actions become official if he is exercising one of the enumerated powers of his office. One such is that he is Commander in Chief of your military, so he is doing an official action any time he issues an order to the military. That's why the question in the court was specifically about using Seal Team 6 (a military unit) to assasinate political opponents.

If he takes a gun to the second debate and just shoots Trump through the face for himself, that wouldn't be an official act of the presidency under enumerated powers, it would be quite prosecutable under present statute.

K: that is the point of legal immunity... he is immune to any actions he deems
to be ''official actions'' he cannot be prosecuted, nor can he now be
impeached... he can declare the impeachment process as being illegal
and that is that with that.... the president of the United States is now
a monarch with unlimited powers and no checks of any kind...
he can do anything and claim it is an ''official action''
and he will not fact any consequences of any kind...
that is what immunity means....

Kropotkin

You are spouting nonsense. There is no need for shrill hyperbole, the truth is bad enough. He doesn't get to just announce any old shit is "offical action" and you cannot point to any place in that ruling which says he can. Acts are official acts of the office holder only if they are carried out within the scope of the office. This means that they have to be in some way related to the official powers of the president. Donld J Trump has never taken an official J shit any more than Peter F-ing Kropotkin has.

The power to impeach a president is reserved to Congress under your own constitution. It is not within the scope of presidential power to annul a constitutional power granted to another branch of the government. The talk of unlimited powers is just dumb.

K: you don't get it... the constitution is now dead.... it has
no bearing of any kind on the president...... the entire point of
the constitution is checks and balances on each branch of government....
there are no more checks on the president... for example,
one might say, he can be prosecuted... but in fact, there
is no office that can legally prosecute him now......
who can legally prosect him? no one.....
he controls the federal justice department...
so, no one there will prosecute him and any state
or local agency lacks standing to prosecute a federal officer.....
So, who exactly can prosecute the president? No one...

we no longer have a constitution in America... that is the new reality...


Kropotkin

[FlashDangerpants]

K: that is the point of legal immunity... he is immune to any actions he deems
to be ''official actions'' he cannot be prosecuted, nor can he now be
impeached... he can declare the impeachment process as being illegal
and that is that with that.... the president of the United States is now
a monarch with unlimited powers and no checks of any kind...
he can do anything and claim it is an ''official action''
and he will not fact any consequences of any kind...
that is what immunity means....

Kropotkin

You are spouting nonsense. There is no need for shrill hyperbole, the truth is bad enough. He doesn't get to just announce any old shit is "offical action" and you cannot point to any place in that ruling which says he can. Acts are official acts of the office holder only if they are carried out within the scope of the office. This means that they have to be in some way related to the official powers of the president. Donld J Trump has never taken an official J shit any more than Peter F-ing Kropotkin has.

The power to impeach a president is reserved to Congress under your own constitution. It is not within the scope of presidential power to annul a constitutional power granted to another branch of the government. The talk of unlimited powers is just dumb.

K: you don't get it... the constitution is now dead.... it has
no bearing of any kind on the president...... the entire point of
the constitution is checks and balances on each branch of government....
there are no more checks on the president... for example,
one might say, he can be prosecuted... but in fact, there
is no office that can legally prosecute him now......
who can legally prosect him? no one.....
he controls the federal justice department...
so, no one there will prosecute him and any state
or local agency lacks standing to prosecute a federal officer.....
So, who exactly can prosecute the president? No one...

we no longer have a constitution in America... that is the new reality...


Kropotkin

It's been DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for decades already.

[Harbal]

Was your response "angry and bitter"? If so, it's gone right over my head as usual. It seemed on the level to me.

It's nothing to do with my response or with you, Gary. I was put on accelafine's hit list yesterday, and that was just the first shot.

Oh spare me the 'I'm clueless' 'comedy' act. Never mind that you are continually making snide, passive/aggressive little comments on my threads/posts and deliberately misquoting me or 'quoting' other people's comments as mine. That goes back a lot further than yesterday. Well poor you. You and Gary make a good double-act with your self-pitying, sympathy-seeking garbage.

Here you are, then, I've quoted the whole damn thing, in its entirety, with your name on the top. And I've double checked it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Including for official acts as President?

Not those — if they are acts performed in his official capacity that are understood to be such.

[Flannel Jesus]

Including for official acts as President?

Not those — if they are acts performed in his official capacity that are understood to be such.

so what's the point of cutting off the words that specify what he's saying, and responding to him as if he didn't make those specifications? That would be like me quoting you, but instead of saying "not those" I act like you just said

those

[Alexis Jacobi]

we no longer have a constitution in America... that is the new reality...

Every cloud has a silver lining. We can now round you up and put you in a Reeducation Facility. Do you like gruel?

[Alexis Jacobi]

so what's the point of cutting off the words that specify what he's saying, and responding to him as if he didn't make those specifications? That would be like me quoting you, but instead of saying "not those" I act like you just said

those

I’m beyond all this now …

It is like fading dream. Like when you wake up and the memory of what you’d been dreaming sinks back into you and into oblivion.

You know what I mean?