"Who Is The Judge" On The Donald J. Trump Jan 6th Case In Washington DC?

[Belk]

The supreme court has already absolved Trump of all responsibility.

They did? This rally was an "official act" of the president?

 

[DaisyDay]

That is what the left tells everyone. Are you suggesting that Rachel Maddow was spreading misinformation when she called it a "death squad ruling" and that Trump is allowed to assassinate his political opponents?

Yes, the Supreme Court did rule that if a sitting president were to order the execution of a political rival by the Navy Seals, he would have absolute immunity as that could fall under presidential power. That, however, is not what he is charged with.

Did you read Chutkan's order?

 

[Truth7t7]

It seems that you don't know what he's being charged with. From here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/03/trump-biden-tanya-chutkan-00172566

'Chutkan swept aside Trump’s attempt to dismiss his Washington, D.C., criminal case — which charges him with sweeping conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election'.

You are free to address those charges as you see fit.

Chutkan is an Obama appointee, she is biased and practicing liberal lawfare IMO

Thank God America has a conservative US Supreme Court, and the liberals fear this fact

 

[Belk]

Chutkan is an Obama appointee, she is biased and practicing liberal lawfare IMO

Thank God America has a conservative US Supreme Court, and the liberals fear this fact

IMO you will use any excuse to absolve Trump.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Chutkan is an Obama appointee, she is biased and practicing liberal lawfare IMO

Thank God America has a conservative US Supreme Court, and the liberals fear this fact

Is "lawfare" just a meaningless word you toss around to legal cases you don't like?

 

[Bradskii]

Chutkan is an Obama appointee, she is biased and practicing liberal lawfare IMO

Thank God America has a conservative US Supreme Court, and the liberals fear this fact

So you choose not to address them. Fair enough.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

They did? This rally was an "official act" of the president?

I don't recall anyone in the liberal media mentioning anything about "official acts" would you care to explain?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Yes, the Supreme Court did rule that if a sitting president were to order the execution of a political rival by the Navy Seals, he would have absolute immunity as that could fall under presidential power. That, however, is not what he is charged with.

Did you read Chutkan's order?

Nope. But it appears that you and Belk have conflicting statements.

 

[Belk]

I don't recall anyone in the liberal media mentioning anything about "official acts" would you care to explain?

The SCOTUS rules that the president is immune for official acts. Acts that are not official are still subject to scrutiny.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The SCOTUS rules that the president is immune for official acts. Acts that are not official are still subject to scrutiny.

So the Liberal MSM lied to their listeners to monger fear? Say it isn't so. In all fairness, you and I both know that the opinion of one justice doesn't determine the verdict of the supreme court. Perhaps somebody should explain that that to the liberal MSM before they start making ridiculous statements about "death squad" verdicts. Unfortunately, this is what so many on the left listen to and is why they have the views that they have.

 

[Pommer]

So the Liberal MSM lied to their listeners to monger fear? Say it isn't so. In all fairness, you and I both know that the opinion of one justice doesn't determine the verdict of the supreme court. Perhaps somebody should explain that that to the liberal MSM before they start making ridiculous statements about "death squad" verdicts. Unfortunately, this is what so many on the left listen to and is why they have the views that they have.

I got that there was a distinctive (but as yet undefined) demarcation of which actions by a sitting President are “Official”, (directly or indirectly pertaining to their office as POTUS), and others which fall outside the scope of the office.

The SCOTUS ruling remanded, telling the district court that “you skipped a step”, (by assuming that these actions the President Trump were de facto “outside that scope“ of his office without deciding first if these actions were, in ANY way, directly or indirectly pertaining to the Chief Executive’s adherence to the Oath of Office.

The ”difference” is there, as per SCOTUS, it’s up to the courts to “find it”, if they’re willing.

 

[A2SG]

So the Liberal MSM lied to their listeners to monger fear? Say it isn't so.

Yeah, that's Fox News' job. They really should stay in their lane.

In all fairness, you and I both know that the opinion of one justice doesn't determine the verdict of the supreme court.

Very true. However, the decision that the President has "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" came from a majority of justices, so it is the official ruling of the Court.

Perhaps somebody should explain that that to the liberal MSM before they start making ridiculous statements about "death squad" verdicts.

If you're certain that's a ridiculous statement, then maybe you can explain how a President, acting as Commander in Chief (one of the actions "within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority"), issuing an order to assassinate a political rival wouldn't be subject to the "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution" described in the ruling? And, in answering, please cite the specific law or constitutional provision that limits his authority in doing so, or places his actions as Commander in Chief outside of his constitutional authority.

Unfortunately, this is what so many on the left listen to and is why they have the views that they have.

People of all political leanings listen to commentators and sometimes even agree with them. It's why commentators continue to get air time.

-- A2SG, at least none of these so-described "liberal MSM" outlets haven't had to pay $787 million because they told proven lies.....

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Yeah, that's Fox News' job. They really should stay in their lane.

Last I checked, Rachel Maddow was on MSNBC.

 

[wing2000]

So the Liberal MSM lied to their listeners to monger fear? Say it isn't so. In all fairness, you and I both know that the opinion of one justice doesn't determine the verdict of the supreme court. Perhaps somebody should explain that that to the liberal MSM before they start making ridiculous statements about "death squad" verdicts. Unfortunately, this is what so many on the left listen to and is why they have the views that they have.

Hint: Perhaps you should spend more time understanding a legal ruling and less time trying to spin.

 

[Belk]

So the Liberal MSM lied to their listeners to monger fear? Say it isn't so. In all fairness, you and I both know that the opinion of one justice doesn't determine the verdict of the supreme court. Perhaps somebody should explain that that to the liberal MSM before they start making ridiculous statements about "death squad" verdicts. Unfortunately, this is what so many on the left listen to and is why they have the views that they have.

What on earth are you rambling about? I'm not going to even attempt to answer for your accusations of "liberal MSM". I simply pointed out your claims were incorrect. You have issue with the reporting, take it up with them.

 

[A2SG]

Last I checked, Rachel Maddow was on MSNBC.

Yup. She's the one who wasn't fired because of emails found in discovery for a defamation lawsuit that proved she lied, repeatedly.

-- A2SG, easy to tell her apart from the others....

 

[DaisyDay]

Nope. But it appears that you and Belk have conflicting statements.

What do you think the conflicting statements are? Seems to me that that we are in agreement - SCOTUS ruled that sitting presidents do have absolute immunity for official acts including ordering the assassination of political rivals by, for some reason, the Navy Seals. The question for Chutkan is if the charges against Donald were committed as an official presidential act or not a part of his duties.

As for what you understand the “liberal media” said, so what? I have linked Chukan’s newest order, twice in this thread, but you want to dispute what some reporters and pundits might have said? No thanks.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Hint: Perhaps you should spend more time understanding a legal ruling and less time trying to spin.

Tell that to Rachel Maddow. But I digress.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

SCOTUS ruled that sitting presidents do have absolute immunity for official acts including ordering the assassination of political rivals by, for some reason, the Navy Seals.

Is that what the SCOTUS verdict said? Or was it the ranting of one liberal judge in her descenting argument that you heard Rachel Maddow used to spread misinformation on MSNBC? Because I guarantee you that using the Navy Seals to assassionate a political opponent for political gain is not covered under the ruling. But you seem to disagree with that, and Belk.

 

[DaisyDay]

Is that what the SCOTUS verdict said?

Here (link, pdf)​

- read it for yourself.

Or was it the ranting of one liberal judge in her descenting argument that you heard Rachel Maddow used to spread misinformation on MSNBC?

It is in Sotomayer's dissenting opinion (pg 29), but it also figured in the questions the justices threw at Trump's lawyers. You can read the oral arguments transcript.


I have no idea what Maddow said but you can link to it or quote it if you think it is important.

Because I guarantee you that using the Navy Seals to assassionate a political opponent for political gain is not covered under the ruling. But you seem to disagree with that, and Belk.

Show me where it is not covered. The link to the ruling is here, again: Trump V the United States.

This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.​

It depends on whether or not ordering the Navy Seals is an official act, part of his core presidential powers, or not. I don't see any disagreement with @Belk on this but felle free to point out what I may have missed.