Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

The question is basically to what degree does the POTUS have immunity wrt doing their official job description...good luck defining the specifics on that. Just keep in mind this decision is going to be about more than just this Trump case...this is for future precedent...and future presidents...so careful what you wish for here DSL...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Heck, a President could rob the US Treasury, immediately resign, and he's beyond the law, according to Trump. Impeachment/conviction must happen before criminal prosecution and impeachment can ONLY happen to the acting President.

Obviously I don't think any Justice will go along with this but Trump's team doesn't really expect to win on merits either. Delay is the only thing they're after.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump has also told different courts at different times that

1) A President cannot be prosecuted for anything he does in office unless he is impeached AND convicted first by Congress. And even that is iffy.

2) But the moment a President leaves office, he cannot be held accountable by the impeachment process

if that's the case than a President can wait until his last couple weeks in office, commit all the crime he wants, and will never face consequences of any kind. If it's found out six months into the new Presidency that the last President took $10M personal bribes for pardons, Trump's saying too bad, nothing you can do about that.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Complete immunity is not going to happen. I think they (the conservative faction anyway) believe there should be limited liability granted...and will remand this back to the lower court in DC...which frankly is the right thing to do. The POTUS should not be given cart blanche but there should be restraints on "lawfare" like we see now.

[Dr. Strangelove]

By the overall tone of the justices it's pretty obvious that they are going to go against Trump on this...which is no surprise. My guess is they are going to split the baby here and refer it back to the lower court in DC. But this has successfully delayed this to where its doubtful this gets to court before the election. In that way I guess Trump has won it.

I don't think any of the nine justices are really open to Trump's claim of total and complete immunity for anything done while President. Alito had some skeptical questions. Thomas asked if Trump's position is that Jack Smith's appointment as Special Counsel was unconstitutional and the lawyer said "No". That's a theory some conservative lawyers have pitched in an attempt to make this all go away.

Some of them will be amenable to sending it back down to the district court with additional questions to resolve before trial and therefore waste enough time to make any trial impossible this year. It really depends on what Roberts and ACB want to do. From what I heard ACB sounded very hostile to Trump's position.

[THE_WIZARD_]

By the overall tone of the justices it's pretty obvious that they are going to go against Trump on this...which is no surprise. My guess is they are going to split the baby here and refer it back to the lower court in DC. But this has successfully delayed this to where its doubtful this gets to court before the election. In that way I guess Trump has won it.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Jackson has to be the dumbest USSC Justice in our history.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Figures that DSL is a Kagan fan...

[Dr. Strangelove]

[THE_WIZARD_]

That bitch!

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's your 4th wife. The one that caught you and that hussy John Deere next door getting "intimate".

[THE_WIZARD_]

That must be DSL's Mom...

[Mike]

Wiz, you’ll love the 2nd video then.

[Mike]

[THE_WIZARD_]

They all chant "from the river to the sea!"...yet they don't even know what that means...nor do they know what river and what sea they are quoting.

This generation is the fucking biggest bunch of imbeciles in history...right after DSL's generation...