On 4/25/24 8:42 PM, Homer Stille Cummings wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 5:33 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:40:42 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>> <dalmationstation@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Max Boot <max.boot@lathymes.com> wrote in news:wRuWN.111991$moa7.54520
>>> @fx18.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2024 7:44 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> | Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a
>>>>>> | corrupt person and he orders the military to assasinate
>>>>>> | him, is that within his official acts to which he has
>>>>>> | immunity?
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | "That could well be an official act," Trump lawyer John
>>>>>> | Sauer says
>>>>>
>>>>>    |
>>>>>    | Trump attorney just told Kagan a president ordering a
>>>>>    | military coup might be an official act that would be immune
>>>>>    | to prosection
>>>>>    | ...
>>>>> <https://bsky.app/profile/adamserwer.bsky.social/post/3kqxmyoz2am2f>
>>>>
>>>> The horrifying thing is that Thomas and Alito agree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   Trump: "Presidents cannot function without
>>> criminal immunity"
>>>
>>>   Except for every president in US history.....
>>
>> They aren't totally sold on Trump's demand.
>>
>> "Justices in both ideological camps expressed skepticism at Trump’s
>> broadest argument that
>> former presidents should receive absolute immunity for all official
>> acts while in the
>> White House."
>
> Inciting an insurrection against Congress and slopping together slates
> of fake electors are not official presidential acts. Official
> presidential acts are executing powers expressly assigned to the
> executive branch, or acting to enforce laws passed by Congress. Trump's
> efforts to remain in office after losing the free, fair and clean
> election were neither one of those.

The "broad argument" can't work (these days). Even
presidents are not allowed to act as despots. The
more narrow argument however, presidents DO need
some - at least temporary - slack in order to do
the necessary stuff we'd prefer not to know about.
It's legally, ethically, TRICKY here.

Trump is not a "fascist". He's an egomaniacal asshole
you can't listen to for more than five minutes, but
his politics are not "fascist" - actually a bit closer
to "moderate" by and large.

Oh, and saying a political rival/party is corrupt is
not a bad thing in and of itself - a public service.
However you need to be able to BACK that with a
bunch of specifics and whistle-blowers.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:24:37 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net> wrote:

> The "broad argument" can't work (these days). Even
> presidents are not allowed to act as despots. The
> more narrow argument however, presidents DO need
> some - at least temporary - slack in order to do
> the necessary stuff we'd prefer not to know about.
> It's legally, ethically, TRICKY here.

I can agree that Presidents should have immunity from prosecution for official
Presidential acts performed while in office. Aside from that, they should be as subject
to the rule of law as anybody else.

> Trump is not a "fascist". He's an egomaniacal asshole
> you can't listen to for more than five minutes, but
> his politics are not "fascist" - actually a bit closer
> to "moderate" by and large.
>
> Oh, and saying a political rival/party is corrupt is
> not a bad thing in and of itself - a public service.
> However you need to be able to BACK that with a
> bunch of specifics and whistle-blowers.

Which Comer utterly failed to do in Biden's impeachment hearings. The right has also
failed on the same basis with Hunter's laptop.

Swill
--
Conservative thinking only predicts the past. - R Kym Horsell

https://www.gocomics.com/mattdavies/2024/04/01

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>