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

[Bradskii]

Because I guarantee you that using the Navy Seals to assassionate a political opponent for political gain is not covered under the ruling.

Have we come to this, that that statement can actually be used in all seriousness in an argument? How in heaven's name did we get to this point?

This is NOT *$%@&* NORMAL! Please stop treating it as if it is.

 

[SimplyMe]

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....

Yes, ironic that she and Tucker Carlson both had that happen. Though I suppose Tucker was fired the second time it happened and it cost Fox almost a billion dollars.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

read it for yourself.

I am not reading 119 pages of this stuff, and I am fairly confident you haven't either. Otherwise you would have know that the idea that Trump can assassinate his political rivals by SEAL Team 6 came from the deranged rantings of Sotomayor in her desention statement, not what the official verdict stated.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Have we come to this, that that statement can actually be used in all seriousness in an argument? How in heaven's name did we get to this point?

This is NOT *$%@&* NORMAL! Please stop treating it as if it is.

I seriously think you need to take a break from the forums.

 

[A2SG]

I am not reading 119 pages of this stuff, and I am fairly confident you haven't either. Otherwise you would have know that the idea that Trump can assassinate his political rivals by SEAL Team 6 came from the deranged rantings of Sotomayor in her desention statement, not what the official verdict stated.

Fact: being Commander In Chief of the military does fall under a President's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority." Also fact: the SCOTUS ruling states that the President has "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."

Given the facts, where in the Constitution does it state that a President, using his authority as Commander In Chief, cannot order the assassination of a political rival? Or that he can be criminally prosecuted if he does?

-- A2SG, what exactly did Rachel Maddow say, anyway, and don't forget to include documentation to show her factual errors, if any.....

 

[A2SG]

Have we come to this, that that statement can actually be used in all seriousness in an argument? How in heaven's name did we get to this point?

This is NOT *$%@&* NORMAL! Please stop treating it as if it is.

Welcome to Donald Trump's America.

-- A2SG, really hope I wake up soon from this fever dream.....

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Fact: being Commander In Chief of the military does fall under a President's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority." Also fact: the SCOTUS ruling states that the President has "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."

Given the facts, where in the Constitution does it state that a President, using his authority as Commander In Chief, cannot order the assassination of a political rival? Or that he can be criminally prosecuted if he does?

-- A2SG, what exactly did Rachel Maddow say, anyway, and don't forget to include documentation to show her factual errors, if any.....

I posted a video of Rachel Maddoe ranting about the "death squad verdict."

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Welcome to Donald Trump's America.

-- A2SG, really hope I wake up soon from this fever dream.....

We too.

 

[A2SG]

I posted a video of Rachel Maddoe ranting about the "death squad verdict."

Okay. So where's the evidence proving what she said was factually incorrect?

-- A2SG, I provided facts, be nice if you could do the same....

 

[A2SG]

We too.

You also long for the days when Donald Trump was just the brain in Bill the Cat's body?

-- A2SG, ah, those were the days.....

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Okay. So where's the evidence proving what she said was factually incorrect?

-- A2SG, I provided facts, be nice if you could do the same....

I would respectfully request that you look up what constitutes absolute immunity vs presumptive immunity.

 

[A2SG]

I would respectfully request that you look up what constitutes absolute immunity vs presumptive immunity.

Per SCOTUS ruling:

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.​

Per US Constitution, article II, section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States​

Now, which facts have I gotten wrong here?

-- A2SG, don't be afraid to provide evidence at any time....

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Per SCOTUS ruling:

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.​

Per US Constitution, article II, section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States​

Now, which facts have I gotten wrong here?

-- A2SG, don't be afraid to provide evidence at any time....

Now please explain to me how in any circumstances, using SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival constitutes an "official presidential act" that gives Trump absolute immunity?

 

[Bradskii]

Now please explain to me how in any circumstances, using SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival constitutes an "official presidential act" that gives Trump absolute immunity?

From here: Fact-checking Trump’s false claim about FBI deadly force

"BREAKING FROM TRUMP: BIDEN’S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!" read an all-caps subject line on an email from Trump’s campaign.

"It’s just been revealed that Biden’s DOJ was authorized to use DEADLY FORCE for their DESPICABLE raid in Mar-a-Lago. You know they’re just itching to do the unthinkable…Joe Biden was locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger," the email said.

So if he thinks that Biden can do it to him it's obvious that he thinks he can do the same to Biden.

 

[A2SG]

Now please explain to me how in any circumstances, using SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival constitutes an "official presidential act" that gives Trump absolute immunity?

I've done that. Several times already.

The President is Commander in Chief of the military. He gives the orders, the military carries them out.

If commanding the military isn't within the bounds of a president's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," then kindly show me where in the Constitution this is specified, or if there's a specific exception for the assassination of political rivals, then point that out.

The problem is...that specific exception doesn't exist. It was always assumed that, were a president to give an illegal order (like assassinating a political rival), he'd be subject to impeachment, removal from office, and subsequent criminal prosecution for that criminal act. Plus which, the military would be justified in disobeying such an illegal order.

But now, with the SCOTUS ruling, we can't assume any of this. It officially states that the President has "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority." So, according to that ruling, if he acts within his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, he cannot be criminally prosecuted for anything he does. Period.

Now, I am absolutely certain that Joe Biden won't use the military to assassinate a political rival. I'm also absolutely certain Kamala Harris won't either, should she be elected to the office. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I'm equally as certain about practically every President in my lifetime, or beyond.

But Donald Trump....? Let me be clear: I'm not saying he will do something like this. But I also can't say I'm equally as certain he wouldn't.

-- A2SG, your mileage, of course, may vary.....

 

[A2SG]

From here: Fact-checking Trump’s false claim about FBI deadly force

"BREAKING FROM TRUMP: BIDEN’S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!" read an all-caps subject line on an email from Trump’s campaign.

"It’s just been revealed that Biden’s DOJ was authorized to use DEADLY FORCE for their DESPICABLE raid in Mar-a-Lago. You know they’re just itching to do the unthinkable…Joe Biden was locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger," the email said.

So if he thinks that Biden can do it to him it's obvious that he thinks he can do the same to Biden.

And, apparently, he doesn't think Biden is limited by time and space either....since Trump wasn't anywhere near Mar A Lago at the time.

-- A2SG, granted, neither was Biden, but whatevs....

 

[Truth7t7]

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.

IMHO Chutkan is a "biased liberal", judicial political activist appointed by Obama, what's new

Sorta like asking the question of Biden chosen SCOTUS justice Ketanji Brown on what the definition of a woman is without answer?

 

[wing2000]

IMHO Chutkan is a "biased liberal", judicial political activist appointed by Obama, what's new

An opinion based on which rulling by Judge Chutkan?

 

[Truth7t7]

An opinion based on which rulling by Judge Chutkan?

Snopes​

Did Judge in Trump Jan. 6 Case Work at Same Burisma-Linked Law Firm as Hunter Biden?​

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan worked for 12 years at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, leaving the firm in 2014.​

Alex Kasprak​

Published Aug. 3, 2023​

Claim:
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan worked at a law firm that also employed Hunter Biden and performed work for the Ukrainian oil company Burisma.
Rating:

True

 

[wing2000]

Snopes​

Did Judge in Trump Jan. 6 Case Work at Same Burisma-Linked Law Firm as Hunter Biden?​

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan worked for 12 years at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, leaving the firm in 2014.​

Alex Kasprak​

Published Aug. 3, 2023​

Claim:
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan worked at a law firm that also employed Hunter Biden and performed work for the Ukrainian oil company Burisma.
Rating:

True

It seems you did not understand my request.