Werewolf said:

---

By the way, I seldom refer to R's in my posts other than the most obvious.

Uni-Party Globalist Establishment BAAL Worshippers vrs MAGA sovereign is the battle at hand. Returning to the Constituion would follow.

---

It sounds totally sane when you put it that way.

caryking said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

By the way, I seldom refer to R's in my posts other than the most obvious.

Uni-Party Globalist Establishment BAAL Worshippers vrs MAGA sovereign is the battle at hand. Returning to the Constituion would follow.

---

I think we can and should do both.

---

1st things first...........only one ball goes through the basket at one time.

Have you figured out who the “snake” is in the snake poem yet ?

On her way to work one morning
Down the path alongside the lake
A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
"Oh well," she cried, "I'll take you in… pic.twitter.com/gLd0XbTqSW

— Dr. C IET 17 (@DrC_IET17) March 11, 2024

Hint, hint. ;-)

Biden renewed it for the THIRD time https://t.co/PAT9p3mnlL pic.twitter.com/eMI0416vWi

— Dr. C IET 17 (@DrC_IET17) April 21, 2024

In light of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a Supreme Court case from 1973, that established that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for actions that fell within the "outer perimeter" of their official duties it will be interesting to see if the justices extend that same framework to criminal liability as some legal experts have articulated. I'm thinking they may set forth some limitations as to what criminal actions are covered and which aren't.

IOW no dudettes wet dream of Biden being able to shoot Trump and avoid prosecution probably wouldn't pass muster. There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.

Not that it matters much to the leftists like dudette anyway since they routinely use the Constitution as toilet paper except when it's to protect their ideology.

I can see this going 7-2,8-1, or 9-0 in favor of some form of immunity and then being kicked back to the district court to figure out private vs official. I know on the other site we gave her crap during her selection but I'm actually impressed with how the court is divesting from feelings lately and ruling on legal applications.
Eta. Wow. Brain was going way faster than fingers. I was talking about brown.

Lmao. Yes!!!! It is on record now in a court hearing that ham sandwiches are not safe from indictment. Lmao.

barelypure said:

---

There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.

---

If so, do you think there is any way the line is not drawn before "trying to overturn a Presidential election"?

I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?

Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.

How do Americans benefit from Presidents operating with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts?

And, how does Presidents not being immune harm America?

If Trump and his merry band of idiots behaved in as unhinged a way as they did in November/December/January 2020/2021 with there being some threat of prosecution, can you imagine what he would/could have done if he had no risk or fear of being prosecuted?

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

Wufskins said:

---

Oh no, it's the TDS label. Cuts almost as bad as when my Carolina buddies say I went to MooU.

---

It's true I have few friends, it's also true I have NO Carolina buddies.

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oh no, it's the TDS label. Cuts almost as bad as when my Carolina buddies say I went to MooU.

---

It's true I have few friends, it's also true I have NO Carolina buddies.

---

You do you. Sorta hard to grow up in Raleigh and not have friends or family that went to Carolina.

Ncsufist said:

---

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

---

Nice try. Once an American is deemed an enemy combatant it's perfectly legal to take them out in any way the military chooses.

Have any other tortured examples to muddy the waters of common sense?

Civilized said:

---

I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?

Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.

---

ooooh, oooh, oooh my little grasshoppa #Sieve. I want you, #Snappy and #Foreskin to remember those two sentences......

don't forget em' ..........we'll be back to revisit them real soon. ;-)

Civilized said:

---

barelypure said:

---

There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.

---

If so, do you think there is any way the line is not drawn before "trying to overturn a Presidential election"?

I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?

Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.

How do Americans benefit from Presidents operating with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts?

And, how does Presidents not being immune harm America?

If Trump and his merry band of idiots behaved in as unhinged a way as they did in November/December/January 2020/2021 with there being some threat of prosecution, can you imagine what he would/could have done if he had no risk or fear of being prosecuted?

---

You already convicted Trump in your own mind before even his actual legal persecutors have. That said, this line of reasoning is already bringing the spotlight on Obama's drone strike killing an American citizen overseas, which sounds a lot more legally actionable than Trump's mostly peaceful demonstration.

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

barelypure said:

---

There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.

---

If so, do you think there is any way the line is not drawn before "trying to overturn a Presidential election"?

I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?

Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.

How do Americans benefit from Presidents operating with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts?

And, how does Presidents not being immune harm America?

If Trump and his merry band of idiots behaved in as unhinged a way as they did in November/December/January 2020/2021 with there being some threat of prosecution, can you imagine what he would/could have done if he had no risk or fear of being prosecuted?

---

You already convicted Trump in your own mind before even his actual legal persecutors have. That said, this line of reasoning is already bringing the spotlight on Obama's drone strike killing an American citizen overseas, which sounds a lot more legally actionable than Trump's mostly peaceful demonstration.

---

It's not up to me.

I trust the courts, including a Supreme Court absolutely stacked in Trump's favor, to sort it out.

Good luck charging Obama for droning terrorist combatants.

Ncsufist said:

---

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

---

I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

barelypure said:

---

There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.

---

If so, do you think there is any way the line is not drawn before "trying to overturn a Presidential election"?

I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?

Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.

How do Americans benefit from Presidents operating with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts?

And, how does Presidents not being immune harm America?

If Trump and his merry band of idiots behaved in as unhinged a way as they did in November/December/January 2020/2021 with there being some threat of prosecution, can you imagine what he would/could have done if he had no risk or fear of being prosecuted?

---

You already convicted Trump in your own mind before even his actual legal persecutors have. That said, this line of reasoning is already bringing the spotlight on Obama's drone strike killing an American citizen overseas, which sounds a lot more legally actionable than Trump's mostly peaceful demonstration.

---

I understand what your comparing and agree with the comparison; however, this line of thinking is what we would expect from MSNBC…

caryking said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

---

I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.

---

Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.

caryking said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

---

I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.

---

Biden is the current occupant of the White House. This is how you know that the "Biden Crime Family" stuff is a steaming pile of crap that conservatives themselves don't even believe. You'd only argue that a President is above the law if you're sure the other guys are a bunch of boy scouts.

Oldsouljer said:

---

caryking said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

---

I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.

---

Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.

---

The precedent is if you try to overthrow an election you very well may get charged with associated crimes.

Which is good. That should be the precedent.

Oldsouljer said:

---

caryking said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

---

I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.

---

Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.

---

I understand what you're saying. I think we should expect a level of immunity for any dumbass in the White House. The dumbasses, recently, are Biden and Obama.

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

caryking said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

---

I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.

---

Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.

---

The precedent is if you try to overthrow an election you very well may get charged with associated crimes.

Which is good. That should be the precedent.

---

You had the correct terminology earlier when you said Trump tried to overturn the election, even if it was in quotes. There was no overthrow. By the time we got to Jan6 the die had already been cast. Even if the certification was paused for hours or even days it was going to happen. It didn't matter if Biden legitimately got the electoral votes or by nefarious means he was going to be President. Trump's only chance to overturn the election had already passed him by thru inept attorneys and the very system we operate under. That he took the actions he did is regrettable but hardly rises to the level of him being criminally responsible.

You have to look at the timeline that day. The fact remains that the protest that turned into a riot began during the time Trump was speaking. The people listening to him were at least 45 minutes away from the Capitol. Those at the Capitol never heard him say to peacefully march to the Capitol and let their voices be heard. After all in some old dusty document there exists the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Thus the masses being at the Capitol is not and was not the problem.

Now those who engaged in violence should be prosecuted. I've never wavered from that. The problem I have is the prosecution of those who were there peacefully. I even make allowances for those who entered the Capitol after the Capitol Police opened the doors for them to enter even tho that is illegal and they shouldn't have gone in. But I doubt that many knew what they were doing was illegal since entrance is allowed on other days.

In short the Democrats have gone all hell bent to prosecute and some would say persecute Trump followers rather than trying to unify the Nation and heal the rift between the various groups. The Democrats have created a martyr out of Trump as he's able to use the very prosecution against him and his followers as a rallying cry and why he is now so popular and on the cusp of once again being President.

Had they been more selective in who they sought to prosecute it could have dampened the enthusiasm but then Biden would have needed to actually produce good results. Instead Biden has been a destructive force in people's lives and they have flocked to Trump and his mostly empty promises to return the country back to its former glory they experienced during his time in office.

In a different world, without Trump being elevated to Hero status, we may have had a Nikki Haley or someone else as the nominee. The Democrats have to accept some of the blame that we'll have either Trump or Biden in the White House and neither is a good choice. I feel bad times are ahead and we're just now seeing the beginning of the downfall in our economy which will be felt worldwide. This could give China the opening they've been seeking to become the world leader they aspire too.

barelypure said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

caryking said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?

---

I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.

---

Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.

---

The precedent is if you try to overthrow an election you very well may get charged with associated crimes.

Which is good. That should be the precedent.

---

You had the correct terminology earlier when you said Trump tried to overturn the election, even if it was in quotes. There was no overthrow. By the time we got to Jan6 the die had already been cast. Even if the certification was paused for hours or even days it was going to happen. It didn't matter if Biden legitimately got the electoral votes or by nefarious means he was going to be President. Trump's only chance to overturn the election had already passed him by thru inept attorneys and the very system we operate under. That he took the actions he did is regrettable but hardly rises to the level of him being criminally responsible.

You have to look at the timeline that day. The fact remains that the protest that turned into a riot began during the time Trump was speaking. The people listening to him were at least 45 minutes away from the Capitol. Those at the Capitol never heard him say to peacefully march to the Capitol and let their voices be heard. After all in some old dusty document there exists the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Thus the masses being at the Capitol is not and was not the problem.

Now those who engaged in violence should be prosecuted. I've never wavered from that. The problem I have is the prosecution of those who were there peacefully. I even make allowances for those who entered the Capitol after the Capitol Police opened the doors for them to enter even tho that is illegal and they shouldn't have gone in. But I doubt that many knew what they were doing was illegal since entrance is allowed on other days.

In short the Democrats have gone all hell bent to prosecute and some would say persecute Trump followers rather than trying to unify the Nation and heal the rift between the various groups. The Democrats have created a martyr out of Trump as he's able to use the very prosecution against him and his followers as a rallying cry and why he is now so popular and on the cusp of once again being President.

Had they been more selective in who they sought to prosecute it could have dampened the enthusiasm but then Biden would have needed to actually produce good results. Instead Biden has been a destructive force in people's lives and they have flocked to Trump and his mostly empty promises to return the country back to its former glory they experienced during his time in office.

In a different world, without Trump being elevated to Hero status, we may have had a Nikki Haley or someone else as the nominee. The Democrats have to accept some of the blame that we'll have either Trump or Biden in the White House and neither is a good choice. I feel bad times are ahead and we're just now seeing the beginning of the downfall in our economy which will be felt worldwide. This could give China the opening they've been seeking to become the world leader they aspire too.

---

Lol, man, what a wall of bull****.

After losing endless court cases around claimed vote fraud, Trump and friends orchestrated a multi-state conspiracy to create slates of fake electors. The plan was to use a "novel" (a.k.a. comically not legit) legal theory that allowed Mike Pence to declare election irregularities and insert the fake electors instead. And if he wouldn't do that, at least declare that it was up to the House to decide who was President (meaning a Trump victory).

The January 6th riot was planned well in advance. There is tons of evidence, including audio of the phone calls of Proud Boys, etc, showing them planning things out with military precision. The idea was to apply pressure to Pence (who was wavering on the idea) to do what Trump wanted. Ever wonder why the crowd was chanting "hang Mike Pence"?

So yeah, please spare us. You attempted a coup and failed, and ever since then your mighty bull*** machine has been doing what it always does, insisting that up is down.

After reading about Kristi Noem, I wholeheartedly believe she needs a bullet to the head. Hope that isnt Trumps running mate.

erniencsu02 said:

---

After reading about Kristi Noem, I wholeheartedly believe she needs a bullet to the head. Hope that isnt Trumps running mate.

---

What did she say that you don't like?

caryking said:

---

erniencsu02 said:

---

After reading about Kristi Noem, I wholeheartedly believe she needs a bullet to the head. Hope that isnt Trumps running mate.

---

What did she say that you don't like?

---

She talks about killing her dog in her new book because it was "less than worthless" and "untrainable". As someone who owns 4 dogs I cant fathom that.

Trump really needs to stay far far away from that evil witch.

erniencsu02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

erniencsu02 said:

---

After reading about Kristi Noem, I wholeheartedly believe she needs a bullet to the head. Hope that isnt Trumps running mate.

---

What did she say that you don't like?

---

She talks about killing her dog in her new book because it was "less than worthless" and "untrainable". As someone who owns 4 dogs I cant fathom that.

Trump really needs to stay far far away from that evil witch.

---

Now I must ask. Have you read the book and seen this part or only seen a story about her book? If it's the latter than maybe you should hold off on condemning her. It's not like the MSM makes things up about people they fear. It may be 100% true, but until I read the actual account in her book, I would not trust a word about it. That is just me.

I like Kristi Noem and I think she would be a great pick for Trump's VP candidate and she is a Conservative.

The best pick for Trump's VP is still DeSantis... you have to pick someone that could actually serve as a capable President if needed. Same goes for the Dems.

Picking DeSantis would be a huge advantage for the Republicans v. the Democrats having Kamala Harris.

Be smart for once here lately.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

erniencsu02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

erniencsu02 said:

---

After reading about Kristi Noem, I wholeheartedly believe she needs a bullet to the head. Hope that isnt Trumps running mate.

---

What did she say that you don't like?

---

She talks about killing her dog in her new book because it was "less than worthless" and "untrainable". As someone who owns 4 dogs I cant fathom that.

Trump really needs to stay far far away from that evil witch.

---

Now I must ask. Have you read the book and seen this part or only seen a story about her book? If it's the latter than maybe you should hold off on condemning her. It's not like the MSM makes things up about people they fear. It may be 100% true, but until I read the actual account in her book, I would not trust a word about it. That is just me.

I like Kristi Noem and I think she would be a great pick for Trump's VP candidate and she is a Conservative.

---

You know, it might be true about the dog; however, I think that would have garnered more attention by now…. Perhaps not.

TheStorm said:

---

The best pick for Trump's VP is still DeSantis... you have to pick someone that could actually serve as a capable President if needed. Same goes for the Dems.

Picking DeSantis would be a huge advantage for the Republicans v. the Democrats having Kamala Harris.

Be smart for once here lately.

---

DeSantis might be a good pick, I agree…. That said Kristie Noem is solid, unless the dog story, above is true, or the long affair with Corey Lewandoski…

erniencsu02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

erniencsu02 said:

---

After reading about Kristi Noem, I wholeheartedly believe she needs a bullet to the head. Hope that isnt Trumps running mate.

---

What did she say that you don't like?

---

She talks about killing her dog in her new book because it was "less than worthless" and "untrainable". As someone who owns 4 dogs I cant fathom that.

Trump really needs to stay far far away from that evil witch.

---

I might have missed it, but who do you like?