╌>

Retired military leaders warn of threat if Supreme Court finds Trump is immune

  
Via:  Gsquared  •  one month ago  •  183 comments

By:   Jordan Rubin (MSNBC. com)

Retired military leaders warn of threat if Supreme Court finds Trump is immune
Former military leaders are sounding the alarm ahead of Donald Trump's Supreme Court immunity hearing later this month.

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Former military leaders are sounding the alarm ahead of Donald Trump's Supreme Court immunity hearing later this month. Retired four-star admirals and generals, along with former secretaries of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, want to warn the justices about the dangers of his presidential immunity claim.

Unless Trump's theory is rejected, they wrote in an amicus brief, "we risk jeopardizing America's standing as a guardian of democracy in the world and further feeding the spread of authoritarianism, thereby threatening the national security of the United States and democracies around the world."

Oral argument in Washington is set for April 25. Meanwhile, Trump's federal election interference case is on hold pending the high court's ruling. Even if the justices rule against the former president, depending on when and how they rule exactly, their decision to take up the appeal and set it for a hearing in late April could effectively immunize him. That's because Trump could win the presidential election in November before even standing trial and use his reacquired presidential power to crush the case.

Memorably, at the federal appeals court argument earlier this year, a judge raised the prospect that, if presidents are immune from prosecution as Trump claims, then they could order the military to murder their political rivals.

Memorably, at the federal appeals court argument earlier this year, a judge raised the prospect that, if presidents are immune from prosecution as Trump claims, then they could order the military to murder their political rivals. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee's lawyer didn't have a good answer to that nightmare scenario under his immunity theory.

On that note, in their amicus brief filed Monday, the retired military leaders wrote that Trump's theory "has the potential to severely undermine the Commander-in-Chief's legal and moral authority to lead the military forces, as it would signal that they but not he must obey the rule of law."

The filing comes alongside several other amicus briefs supporting special counsel Jack Smith's position. It's hard to think that a majority of the Supreme Court would endorse a view that grants presidents the authority to order a rival's murder without criminal consequence. But this latest filing highlights the broader dangers at stake to the military and the nation itself.


Red Box Rules

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.  Any use of the terms "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted.  Right wing trolls can expect to have their trolling comments deleted.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Gsquared    one month ago
Unless Trump's theory is rejected, they wrote in an amicus brief, "we risk jeopardizing America's standing as a guardian of democracy in the world and further feeding the spread of authoritarianism, thereby threatening the national security of the United States and democracies around the world."

They know whereof they speak.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gsquared @1    one month ago

Agree.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @1    one month ago

americans like these are the last line of defense against a fascist like trump.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

Everyone who worked for Trump and knows he would be a disaster if he was elected again needs to speak up NOW.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

They're the true patriots - not the former 'president' traitor and his magats

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.3  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

America is just a hop, skip and a jump away from fascism.

Trump and his low IQ fascists need to be nipped in the bud.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.4  CB  replied to  cjcold @1.2.3    one month ago

I agree. January 6, 2021 was a "wake the "F" up U.S." moment. It was Trump's "brigade" putting the world on notice that they are here and they are not planning on going away. After this,  his brigade is looking for an opening; a chance to test the separate and combined loyalties of the country's majority of law enforcement officers and military. Even if it is just to get one or both forces to stand down and stay down while MAGAs revolt. 

It is clear as day is light and night is dark. . . we have found 'natural' enemies inside the walls. . . . They are not listening to us, barely are talking to us, and are keeping a great many of their plans hidden until they are ready to reveal (them).

BTW, we can keep the country we love through "all" of this mess that we are presently end. . .and, safely and prosperously come out the other side. . . but we must be vigilant and 'nimble.' 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.5  CB  replied to  CB @1.2.4    one month ago

One more thing. We have a former president who is treating himself like a man stuffed to the gills with political explosives. . . waiting and pleading with SCOTUS to give him a politically lit immunity matchstick!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.6  cjcold  replied to  CB @1.2.4    one month ago

Trump's Hitler youth  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2.6    one month ago

... youth?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.8  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.2.7    4 weeks ago

a lot of maga is the spawn of the greatest generation that so was busy killing fascists in WWII, they didn't notice their kids becoming fascists...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1    one month ago

Who are these former military leaders?[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    one month ago

So everyone but the former 'president' is lying.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.1    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.3.3  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    one month ago

yes Vic, they are all just more of those piling on the witch hunt, where as the greatest conspiracy in all the world has every aspect of our illegal system all picking on your favorite little GOP , election wannabee winner

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    one month ago

Signatories include former CIA Director Michael Hayden, retired Adm. Thad Allen and retired Gens. George Casey, Carlton Fulford, Craig McKinley and Charles Krulak.  Complete list and the brief:

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.4    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.3.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.5    one month ago

They did throw in a disclaimer: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails … are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

Some men got have been persuaded to think Russians finding it hard to believe that Hunter could be so careless and stupid.

They were however Biden supporters, the same isn’t true he, some were appointed or promoted by Trump.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.3.7  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.6    one month ago
Some men got have been persuaded to think Russians finding it hard to believe that Hunter could be so careless and stupid. They were however Biden supporters, the same isn’t true he, some were appointed or promoted by Trump.

is this someone's quote ? As i see quotation marks on the disclaimer, but am curious who writes like this unless to make a point ...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.3.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.3.7    one month ago

No my careless typing on the smart phone while riding a bus and squinting in the sunlight - sorry.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.3.9  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.8    one month ago

ll good, and now understood, but you can see where with such blatant abuse of the English language( something perhaps I am familiar with ) I thought there was a point being subtly implied, or was it inferred, doesn't matter at this point, but Vic may care. Always find it a sign of good, when one is corrected by another with whom they usually share similar takes on things, for it lets the truth shine, from different angles, acutely obtuse, or sometimes right, either way, I support it for all sides, not just B sides, cause they aren't played often enough, imho

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.3.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.3.9    one month ago
Always find it a sign of good, when one is corrected by another with whom they usually share similar takes on things, for it lets the truth shine,

Appreciate you calling it out, I have a bad habit of not proofreading before posting.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3.11  Thomas  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.3.9    one month ago

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.2    one month ago

See 1.3.1

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.5    one month ago

The NY Post as your unimpeachable source?

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.14  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.5    one month ago

The NY Post as your unimpeachable source?

This is the emoji I meant to use but cannot edit my comments

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.3.15  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Thomas @1.3.11    one month ago

perhaps, except for this one  (my response to B Sides not being played often enuff)

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.16  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.14    one month ago

yeah, you have to be careful when posting those emojis in some [places,deleted][]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.3.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.3.16    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2  MrFrost    one month ago

It's HIGHLY unlikely they will find him immune. It would create a path to dictators in the US if presidents are immune from committing crimes. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  MrFrost @2    one month ago
It's HIGHLY unlikely they will find him immune.

I agree, but Alito and Thomas might like to try.

 It would create a path to dictators in the US if presidents are immune from committing crimes. 

Yes, it would.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @2.1    one month ago

try to look at the bright side. if trump destroys constitutional due process and the rule of law, it could possibly become pretty difficult for maga to ever achieve a quorum anywhere in order to legislate.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
2.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  MrFrost @2    one month ago
s HIGHLY unlikely they will find him immune

guess all that bleach didn't get it done...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Igknorantzruls @2.2    one month ago

the dose was too small...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @2.2.1    one month ago

Trump should have injected a gallon of bleach.  The world would be a much better place.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.3  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @2.2.2    one month ago

directly into the jugular...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  MrFrost @2    one month ago

Is will CREATE a dictatorship if presidents are immune to the rule of law. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.3    one month ago

that's trump's goal...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @2.3.1    one month ago

that and looting the US treasury....

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.3.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @2.3.2    one month ago

There is nothing in the Treasury to loot except for IOUs.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.4  JBB  replied to  devangelical @2.3.2    one month ago

You may be onto something. Trump is really fond of gold and the US Treasury is currently holding nine hundred tons of gold. Which is by far the most of any nation in the entire world...

original original

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.5  devangelical  replied to  JBB @2.3.4    one month ago

that's as close as he'll ever get to streaming on any platform he owns...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3  Right Down the Center    one month ago

Retired four-star admirals and generals, along with former secretaries of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, want to warn the justices about the dangers of his presidential immunity claim.

So the thought is the court should not rule on the law but on the fears of some retired military leaders who said that Trump's theory "has the potential to severely undermine the Commander-in-Chief's legal and moral authority to lead the military forces, as it would signal that they but not he must obey the rule of law."  Makes one wonder if they know how the Supreme Court is supposed to work and where they got their constitutional law degree.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Right Down the Center @3    one month ago
So the thought is the court should not rule on the law

Not even remotely the case. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Gsquared @3.1    one month ago

Then why a warning to the judges if not to try and sway their decision?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.1    one month ago
Then why a warning to the judges if not to try and sway their decision?

Don't you think the Justices are better off knowing all the ways a psycho like Trump could fck this country up ? Cause if elected, guaranteed he will

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1.3  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.1    one month ago

Anyone has the right to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court and make their opinion known.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.2    one month ago
Don't you think the Justices are better off knowing all the ways a psycho like Trump could fck this country up ? Cause if elected, guaranteed he will

No, the judges are supposed to rule on the law, this is not a trial about Trump specifically

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.3    one month ago

Sure, and they are warning the judges specifically about Trump, not the dangers of immunity in general.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.5    one month ago

So?  Cases are decided based on the facts as well as the law.  This case is based on Trump's claim for absolute immunity.  Of course factual issues related to Trump, as well as general legal principles, are pertinent.

I don't believe there is anything about the amicus brief that stands outside the Constitution.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.4    one month ago
No, the judges are supposed to rule on the law, this is not a trial about Trump specifically

Every one of the justices knows that the immediate application of their ruling is on Trump. 

Further, there is nothing at all wrong with the justices considering Trump as a fine example of just how far a PotUS might go.   Trump had demonstrated that simply being elected PotUS does not mean the individual is responsible, ethical, and trustworthy with their power.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.8  cjcold  replied to  Gsquared @3.1    one month ago

The far right 'wing scotus no longer deserves any respect.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.9  JBB  replied to  cjcold @3.1.8    one month ago

I called 2016 wrong. When Trump snuck in with his Electoral College win what made me most sick were the implications for our courts, and especially the Supreme Court. My worst fears came to pass and our republic remains in the balance.

Trump will be in court Monday. May his judgement be fair...

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.10  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    one month ago
Trump had demonstrated that simply being elected PotUS does not mean the individual is responsible, ethical, and trustworthy with their power.

Or willing to follow any rule, oath, or other restriction on his power.  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  cjcold  replied to  JBB @3.1.9    one month ago

Fair means he goes to prison for the rest of his life.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.12  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @3.1.11    4 weeks ago

... with a daily beating in the pod common area for switching the TV channel to FOX.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.13  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.1.12    4 weeks ago

and a 400 pound boyfriend named tiny...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.14  JBB  replied to  devangelical @3.1.13    4 weeks ago

The 400 lb bookie and coke dealer from OKC named Tiny? 

He is a sweetheart. Somebody told me he had come out...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.14    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.16  devangelical  replied to  JBB @3.1.14    4 weeks ago

I guess we'll never know now...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.17  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.1.16    4 weeks ago

... since one of his butt puppets got deleted.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.2  Krishna  replied to  Right Down the Center @3    one month ago
Makes one wonder if they know how the Supreme Court is supposed to work

Of course they don't!

Obviously none of them as not nearly as experienced in government-- or as wise-- as you are! jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

(So you have every right to wonder!!!! )

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.1  cjcold  replied to  Krishna @3.2    one month ago

Google is your friend.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4  Kavika     one month ago

I don't believe that the justices will find him immune the ramifications of that would be catastrophe at best.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Kavika @4    one month ago

If the Supreme Court were to agree with Trump's immunity argument it would be antithetical to the founding principles of American democracy.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4.1.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Gsquared @4.1    one month ago

They are only entertaining it to give Trump his much needed delay and cover, with say some possible culpable deniability. 

Between they and Cannon, they're making a mockery of our system, imho. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @4.1    one month ago

 it would give the orange menace carte blanche if he was to be elected again...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Gsquared @4.1    one month ago
If the Supreme Court were to agree with Trump's immunity argument it would be antithetical to the founding principles of American democracy.

Well they've already removed a woman's right to privacy with her doctor, allowing states to try and force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

They've also allowed religious beliefs to trump peoples rights to not be discriminated against.

What's one more antithetical ruling?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.1.4  George  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.3    one month ago
Well they've already removed a woman's right to privacy with her doctor,

That comment is 100% wrong, there have been no HIPPA lawws reoked, women still have the right to privacy with their doctor.

allowing states to try and force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

Nobody is forcing her to go through with a pregnancy, there are multiple states that not only allow woman to kill their unborn child, some seem to encourage it.

They've also allowed religious beliefs to trump peoples rights to not be discriminated against.

Who is getting discriminated against? because there are laws against discrimination. Though racism dies hard in the democrat party.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1.5  cjcold  replied to  George @4.1.4    one month ago

Sad that so many right wingers were dropped on their heads as baby's.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.6  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @4.1.5    one month ago

their mothers probably knew...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @4.1.6    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5  GregTx    one month ago

Of course they're going to. To not do so would open a whole Pandoras box.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @5    one month ago

Assuming you mean that the SCotUS is going to rule that Trump is NOT immune, why do you suppose they decided to hear this case?

After all, if the SCotUS granted presidents this level of immunity that would indeed open Pandoras box — and they already know this.

It would have been best to NOT hear this case and let the lower court's ruling stand.   So why are they hearing this case?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    one month ago
It would have been best to NOT hear this case and let the lower court's ruling stand. 

The appellate opinion was masterful and stood on its own without the need for the Supreme Court to intervene.

So why are they hearing this case?

They denied the government's motion to bring the case directly to the Supreme Court for a speedy resolution of the issue and ordered that it be heard by the appellate court.  The appellate court issued its outstanding opinion and ruling, and then the Supreme Court decided to hear the case and delayed their hearing until the last day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.   Something is definitely wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    one month ago
The appellate opinion was masterful and stood on its own without the need for the Supreme Court to intervene.

Exactly.   And the decision of the appellate court was obviously correct.   Trump's motion was absurd.

The appellate court issued its outstanding opinion and ruling, and then the Supreme Court decided to hear the case and delayed their hearing until the last day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.   Something is definitely wrong.

Yes.   And will any Trump supporters acknowledge this?   (rhetorical)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    one month ago
So why are they hearing this case?

You should ask Special Counsel Jack Smith. He laid out a litany of reasons why the Supreme Court should decide this. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    one month ago
The appellate opinion was masterful and stood on its own without the need for the Supreme Court to intervene.

Most informed  commenters I've seen thought it simplistic and faulted it for glossing  over the distinction between official and unofficial duties. Only partisan democrats seem to think it's adequate and for purely political reasons (the artificial election deadline of course)

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.5  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    one month ago

If that is their position, the "informed commentators" you've seen would be, at best, political hacks.  Truly informed commentators almost universally agree that the appellate court's opinion was outstanding.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.3    one month ago
You should ask Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Why do you engage in sophistry like this?   You know that Smith made his request prior to the appellate court hearing and for a very good reason — expediency.

Smith argued that the SCotUS should hear the case directly and not go to the appellate court because he knew that the decision by the court would be appealed and that this would wind up in their laps anyway.

They rejected his request and forced the appellate process.   The appellate court denied Trump's absurd motion.   Trump then, as Smith predicted, appealed to the SCotUS.

The SCotUS could NOW uphold the appellate court's decision by not hearing the case.   Or it could hear the case.

Why are they hearing the case?   Do they think the appellate court got it wrong ... that Trump has his absurd immunity?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    one month ago

A recent concise analysis:

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.6    one month ago

The former 'president's' legal strategy is as follows:  First he lies, then he denies, then he delays.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.8    one month ago

Pretty much what he has done.   Only the lying continues throughout.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.10  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.6    one month ago

To me, and I heard this on the news on one of the cable news shows some time ago, it could be the justices want to detail what/when/where circumstance a president is immune from prosecution charges. I don't think the court has ever engaged in this type of 'exercise.' And so they are intrigued by the 'offer.'  It reminds me of what Justice Scalia considered himself doing in "settling" the second amendment "question" with his opining on it.  They, the justices, are seeking to set a precedent that stands.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.10    one month ago

I doubt it.   If they were so keen to spend their time laying this all out (especially when the lack of a decision is directly delaying justice) they should have taken the case when Jack Smith first asked them to.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.12  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.11    one month ago

6 members of the SCOTUS bench are probably afraid if they rule in trump's favor for full immunity before 1/21/25, chances are pretty good that they'll get clipped within 24 hours...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.13  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.11    one month ago
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2024 

CERTIORARI GRANTED 

23-939 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. UNITED STATES 
(23A745) 

The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question:

Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.

The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024 .


TiG, to continue this a bit farther. . . in looking at the above order of the Supreme Court coupled  with reading through the appeals court decision. . . where it references (points to ("calls out") past affirming cases of SCOTUS decisions) I could suggest that the reason SCOTUS is taking this case over "the Appeals" is the highest court (SCOTUS) wants to 'tidy up' those instances of its past opinions in regards to immunity cases and—  in a way that the case can be applied to present and future presidents specifically .

And for whatever reason,. . . certainly not as a courtesy to the Special Counsel. . . or to speed or timeliness. . . the high court sees this as not an urgent "request" for which they should "upgrade" their prior schedule. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.13    one month ago

It is the lack of urgency that leads me to see this more as being complicit in the overall delay tactic of team Trump.

Surely the SCotUS is aware that by introducing these delays they seriously hinder the ability of the justice system to conduct a full and fair trial for the Jan 6 issues prior to the election.   And they are also certainly aware that they can make a narrow ruling (e.g. in the case of Trump, his immunity argument has no merit) and thus (essentially not overruling the appellate court) let the justice system operate.

Of course, as I have noted, the mere fact that they took this case makes no sense to me.   They are not going to grant Trump immunity yet are taking actions that could result in justice never being served.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.15  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.14    one month ago

Well yes. . .we will have to "hurry up and wait" it out for their opinion (which they carefully avoided disclosing in granting (Smith's) request for a stay

The only other offering I can give relevant to this is that Trump's team has been 'running' January 6th related cases up to the Court and they are being dealt with in the order in which they come.  

All that said, we must wait for a plain clarification.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.1.16  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.14    4 weeks ago
Of course, as I have noted, the mere fact that they took this case makes no sense to me.   They are not going to grant Trump immunity yet are taking actions that could result in justice never being served.  

Haven't you heard?

The justices are having their cake and eating it too

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.17  GregTx  replied to  Thomas @5.1.16    4 weeks ago

How so?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.1.18  Thomas  replied to  GregTx @5.1.17    4 weeks ago

Read

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.19  GregTx  replied to  Thomas @5.1.18    4 weeks ago

Mmmmkay 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.20  devangelical  replied to  Thomas @5.1.18    4 weeks ago

LOL

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1.21  Igknorantzruls  replied to  GregTx @5.1.19    4 weeks ago

did you eat the cake as well ?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.22  GregTx  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.21    4 weeks ago

No, nobody offered any. :( Seems to be alot of tension over something that should be obvious. 

 
 
 
fineline
Freshman Silent
5.2  fineline  replied to  GregTx @5    one month ago

Who is "they" and what do you suppose is in Pandora's Box ?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.2.1  GregTx  replied to  fineline @5.2    4 weeks ago

Pretty butterflies  

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.3  George  replied to  GregTx @5    one month ago

Obama ordered the execution of an American citizen, he specifically targeted the American citizen without due process, it wasn’t self defense or an imminent threat. Here’s hoping that someday justice is served and the DOJ is as active in pursuing this prosecution as they have been others. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  George @5.3    one month ago

Is it your (gross mis-) understanding that Obama targeted this 16 year old son of a terrorist?   That the Obama administration ordered the attack in order to kill this boy?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.3.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  George @5.3    one month ago

Assuming you are referring to Anwar al-Awaki, he was a member of Al Qaeda and, as such, an enemy combatant.

As the Supreme Court held regarding a German saboteur during WW2 who happened to be an American citizen:  "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences" (Ex Parte Quirin, 1942).

That doesn't stop reactionary propagandists from constantly besmirching Obama, of course.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.3.3  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.3.2    one month ago

Wow, you compare a country with a declared war killing a enemy combatant with a extrajudicial murder under the color of authority, so all trump has to do is declare a person an enemy combatant and you will be okay with it? 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.3.4  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.3.2    one month ago

Plus from your article,

On reviewing their military trial and death sentences, the Justices declared: “Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences”

So he did receive a trial, military trial, he had counsel, and was sentenced after a trial.

And if this is an actual judicial opinion the judge who wrote it is either a moron or a piece of shit partisan who has no idea how our judicial process works, this is all the head up his ass example I need.

Last December, however, a federal court in Washington dismissed the ACLU’s case. It observed that judges had little ability to intervene in wartime targeting decisions and that Awlaki always had the option of returning home to prove his innocence.

Anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass knows that in this country you don’t have to prove your innocence, the government has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.3.5  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.1    one month ago

Your overly gross misunderstanding of extra judicial drone strike killings of US citizens w/o due process would be laughable- if it wasn't the type of shit Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and other countries we pretend to be better than pull.

By the way it wasn't one American it was three.

  The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration’s asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today. “Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply,” said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government’s claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration’s claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing.”

Funny, don't remember the military or Democrats throwing a hissy fit over this? Guess if it is D in charge then anything goes.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.3.6  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @5.3.5    one month ago
kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat.

There is your answer. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.3.7  devangelical  replied to  Ronin2 @5.3.5    one month ago
sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world

what were all those terrible things they've been saying about the CIA?

gee, that might alter some trumpster travel/vacation plans in the future... /s

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @5.3.2    one month ago

Awesome sauce!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.3.9  devangelical  replied to  George @5.3.3    one month ago

american laws only apply in america, it's terrritories, and it's embassies and consulates....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.3.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @5.3.6    one month ago

Don't we have the Bush administration to thank for all of that?

They weren't POWs...they were enemy combatants and they could lock them up indefinitely

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.3.11  evilone  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.3.10    one month ago
They weren't POWs...they were enemy combatants and they could lock them up indefinitely

The whole reason they created a prison in GITMO. Bringing them to the states afforded them rights they didn't get - including the right to a trial.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.3.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.3.10    one month ago

Al Qaeda wasn't representing a state, they were, non state actors who

  • Didn't have a military hierarchy
  • Didn't wear a uniform and weren't  distinctive signs at a distance
  • Didn't carry arms openly like other armed forces
  • Didn't  conduct themselves  according to the laws and customs of war

Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention requires the above.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.3.13  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.3.10    one month ago
Don't we have the Bush administration to thank for all of that?

Yep! Correct! 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.4  devangelical  replied to  GregTx @5    one month ago

the longer the majority on SCOTUS delays their decision, the more complicit they become...

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
6  GregTx    one month ago

Fucking hilarious,  the twisting and bending. ...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  GregTx @6    one month ago

What the hell are you talking about?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    one month ago

personal comment history?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    one month ago

... another article that won't break double digits in comments?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    one month ago

the rwnj political version of speaking in tongues...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.4  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @6.1.3    4 weeks ago

bibaduh, bibaduh, bibaduh, that's all folks...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.5  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @6.1.4    4 weeks ago

!

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
6.1.6  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @6.1.5    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7  Igknorantzruls    one month ago

To the Trump defenders what about Obama, mammas,

When Trump gives that order to have Seal Team 6 take out that annoying disposable unadorable attacker of the deplorable (s), Is the Admiral or General going to be at risk of breaking the Law when political opponents are removed, or, will they all be charged, all while the douche bag Don boy gets to be immune ?

Cause the Military  is Fckd! Damn if they do, damn if they don’t, cause they are in deep shit for refusing to carry out orders as well , so. 

do tell !

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1  devangelical  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7    one month ago

that's why I have mixed some feelings about full presidential immunity, and obviously I'm totally against it. for example, if SCOTUS rules trump is immune from prosecution for anything he did while POTUS one day, the next day most of the trump's family could disappear along with the maga in congress and the SCOTUS judges that awarded him immunity. tsk, tsk, tsk, quite the conservative conundrum...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.1  JBB  replied to  devangelical @7.1    one month ago

If the Supreme Court rules for Trump what stops Biden from putting a bounty on him?

Dead Or Alive!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @7.1.1    one month ago
If the Supreme Court rules for Trump what stops Biden from putting a bounty on him?

A rational, decent mind.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.3  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.2    one month ago
A rational, decent mind.

... now rare on the right.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.4  Igknorantzruls  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.2    one month ago
A rational, decent mind

and the GOP has already given him an alibi on top, as his mind is so far gone, he didn't realize what he was doing....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.1    one month ago

I really like how you think . . . . . 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.4    one month ago

See 7.1.4

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.5    one month ago

thanks, 50+ years experience of fucking over fascists and thumpers...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.8  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @7.1.7    one month ago

... when they used to be affected by public humiliation.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.9  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @7.1.8    one month ago

... and had a conscience.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.10  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @7.1.9    4 weeks ago

so far back nobody remembers

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @7.1.10    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
7.1.12  GregTx  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.11    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @7.1.10    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
If the Supreme Court rules for Trump what stops Biden from putting a bounty on him?

We would have to borrow the money to pay it.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8  Nerm_L    one month ago

When did the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force become democracies?  Military 4 star brasshats are warning about authoritarian governance?  The guardians of democracy want to put a boot on Trump's neck?  Really?

Man, oh, man, you can't make this stuff up.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
8.1  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @8    one month ago

That would be a swing and a miss. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
8.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Nerm_L @8    one month ago

That is an astonishing comment displaying a complete lack of understanding about the American system of governance.  The implication that the defenders of democracy don't value our system and aren't capable of reasoned judgment can be dismissed as blathering nonsense.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @8.2    one month ago
defenders of democracy don't value our system and aren't capable of reasoned judgment

them's fighting words for anyone who has ever swore an oath to defend the Constitution and wore a uniform

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @8.2    one month ago

Blathering nonsense is all some seem to utter.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.1    one month ago

access, motivation, and opportunity combined with the proper mindset to defend the constitution. the absolute last line of defense in our country.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Nerm_L @8    one month ago
When did the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force become democracies?

They support and defend a democracy.

 Military 4 star brasshats are warning about authoritarian governance? 

Yes, that's what they are doing in this SCOTUS review.

The guardians of democracy want to put a boot on Trump's neck?  Really?

Just a guess, but they would rather put their boots up his ass.

Man, oh, man, you can't make this stuff up.

You got it, if there was a movie predicting Trumps behavior, I'd never would have believed it.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
8.3.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.3    one month ago
they would rather put their boots up his ass

As does every rational, thinking human being.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
8.4  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @8    one month ago

All right, I'll play along....

The guardians of democracy want to put a boot on Trump's neck?  

Well, maybe that should tell you something about Trump. They might realize that Trump is a threat to democracy. 

Really?

I can't think of anywhere more appropriate for the guardians of democracy's boot to be.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
9  George    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  George @9    one month ago
, who here is stupid enough to think trump can threaten democracy without the support of the military?

I would be stupid enough.

Would you be stupid enough to think that he can't ?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
9.1.1  George  replied to  Igknorantzruls @9.1    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  George @9.1.1    one month ago

This is in no way, an attack on the integrity of our military, what it is, is a fear that the enablers of Trump, have shown he can go further then any of them ever thought possible. Thus why the many who disavowed him previous, have only once again stated their support, when it should have always been ABORT!

  Trumps' 2025 plan, where in it, he expels any and all he can, replacing them with women and 'YES' men, is evidence that Trump plans on not repeating his "mistakes" from Trump 1administration, where he had 'Adults' in the room to keep the A DOLT, from venturing too far, so whomever said Dolt does surround himself with, they will be of like sick thinking. And you should believe him.

  If anyone told me, after January 6th we would still be threatened by this miscreant maniacal mucus with a deformed mem-brain in our upcoming 2024 Presidential election, i would have said their mind has an infection, for if taken are the statements of say so many Republicans, whose lives were put in harm's way that day, and that compilation of what they, the Republican Congress and Senate, along with the hunted Mike Pence had to say after that stand out day, it's hard not to notice, how short a memory, or just how Dense, feeble minds have become. Do you recall McConnel's words, as he wholly attributed the insurrection to be that of Donald Trump's origination, and i concur.  

  I find US A ll in straits so convoluted, that knot shore as to who might just salute it, cause just like so many times before, never thought Americans would allow such an impure, to infest our hallowed halls where so many fought so hard to keep one like Trump from ever ascending, and as i, and so many others watch in disbelief at the gullibility of so many others, i unfortunately cannot with certainty, state that our Military, is capable of containing one, who has brainwashed so many blinded constituents, the Republican Party, and possibly, our Suprem Court, to a way of thinking as if involved, was heavy drinking. If he somehow achieves another impossibility, as he has conquered so many of what i had once considered to be, in getting the Supreme Court to declare total immunity, how far off is he to be, from manipulating Military minds, whom already, may have tendencies to see like he's, been saw to have seen, without sight acutely keen, it has become the obscene, and the norm, for a cult liter, quart appointed law cheater, accomplisher of the most improbable deceits ever by a deceiver, to ever get past so many so lost, will be a price paid upon where there is not a value , one could cast, to determine its worth, and all emanated from Trump, a plentiful placenta full, of after birth matter that has done left quite the splatter, on all that does matter, to quite a few patriotic AMERICANS, who actually do care about the outcome of this election, as at stake, is more than you and so many others, can even truthfully admit, cause after reading what you have written, you would be full of shit, but don't let that stop you one bit, so go ahead, and prove to US, and anyone reading, how you can defend Trump, without misleading...US ALL   

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.3  CB  replied to  Igknorantzruls @9.1.2    one month ago

You make a cogent point about a possibility: A president named Trump can divide the military's unity. That is, he can conflict (or open the door for opportunists military officials) soldiers, air-persons, marines, sailors, and guardspersons into CHOOSING to follow his commander in chief orders over that of a military officer or Joint Chief secretary.. Especially if the top officials are in disarray over what steps should be taken when his (questionable) order is given.

It is a recipe for chaos in an otherwise together/unified armed services.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.1.4  Igknorantzruls  replied to  CB @9.1.3    one month ago

as stated, i never thought i'd see a lot of things, Trump has somehow gotten away with, and yet, he keeps achieving that which i have trouble believing, cause for so many to be conceding to one bleeding US of patriotic blood, with his Flag all stained with MUD, just should land with a THUD, yet he continues to over achieve at the art of deceive, and his deception is not an exception, as it has become more of an acception , and that does truly concern 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.1.3    one month ago
You make a cogent point about a possibility:

Really, what compelled you?

A president named Trump can divide the military's unity.

Evidence or CB conjecture?

that of a military officer or Joint Chief secretary

Do you mean the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Secretary of Defense?

Especially if the top officials are in disarray over what steps should be taken when his (questionable) order is given.

They weren't on 6 Jan

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.1.6  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.5    one month ago

Did i not just read from another seed where as you could never predict a Trump movie, or something to that effect ?

The things Trump has accomplished , against such ridiculous odds, are what make me cautious of him. He has an unnatural following that should concern all, but since it does not, it should concern even more, those who can see past his blinded followers. For without they who would call out he, where the FCK would we actually be by now, cause there have been many bringing attention to the cult leaders ascension, yet ascend he does with the closed eyes of far too many, that cannot see, cannot see what is so blatant, to say you, and possibly me...?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.7  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.5    one month ago

They weren't on 6 Jan

This upcoming possible Trump presidency won't be January 6, 2021. More to the point, when we have been shown (time and time again) this individual is a fool who does not even know how to keep himself out of legal jeopardy and possible jail/prison, has put on full display a willingness to be reckless in testing 'every' system government wields control over, in his professional past has caused others to become and behave foolishly en-mass, and finally puts into positions of leadership, cabinet officials that are loyal to the president himself and hold him as a constitutional 'authority'—disarray will happen.
This is a listing of past 'experiences' to fall back on as evidence to look forward.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.1.7    one month ago
More to the point, when we have been shown (time and time again) this individual is a fool who does not even know how to keep himself out of legal jeopardy and possible jail/prison,

That’s him, not our senior military leaders.

finally puts into positions of leadership, cabinet officials that are loyal to the president himselfand hold him as a constitutional 'authority'—disarray will happen.

That didn’t happen with those that were promoted to 4 stars under him or those that he nominated for Service Secretaries. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.9  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.8    one month ago

I have given you all that you need to come to a commonsense and rational conclusion and you can do with it as you see fit. It still won't change what has occurred factually, and what has been demonstrated and explained as highly probable to occur if Trump is president again. I will not belabor this point if you just want to do comment 'gymnastics' for its own sake, because I don't have time or interest in doing that. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.1.9    one month ago
I have given you all that you need to come to a commonsense and rational conclusion and you can do with it as you see fit.

I was never going to vote for Trump, I didn’t in 2016 or 2020 or any primary including this year.

highly probable to occur if Trump is president again

You’ve cited nothing to indicate that it’s highly probable” that the senior military leaders will split over Trump.

if you just want to do comment 'gymnastics' for its own sake, because I don't have time or interest in doing that

At least you remain consistent in your ability to leave me clueless on parts of your comments.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.11  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.10    one month ago
At least you remain consistent in your ability to leave me clueless on parts of your comments.

And yet you CONSISTENTLY continue to break my peace with your bull daily. As if I am some 'dedicated project' of yours. On that note, I have recently observed that you can be gracious in your comment delivery when you wish to be.  Though, I reckon you must think I am some chump you can mess over. Well, you can't. And that is the bottom line.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.1.11    one month ago
And yet you CONSISTENTLY continue to break my peace with your bull daily.

List some bull.

As if I am some 'dedicated project' of yours.

You think more highly of yourself than I do.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
9.1.13  Thomas  replied to  Igknorantzruls @9.1.2    one month ago

Masterpiece...jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png Towards iggy

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9.2  evilone  replied to  George @9    one month ago

There is a plan out there by a certain group of far right wing populists to replace the heads of the military, the judiciary and federal branches of government. Were Trump to be elected the plan is to have him call martial law and use southern state national guard troops as law enforcement in blue states. 

Now... Do I think this will work? No. Not a chance in hell, but it doesn't stop them for fucking things up and making life a nightmare for millions of people on a daily basis.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @9.2    one month ago

Do these people honestly believe that Yankees don't own guns?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.2  CB  replied to  evilone @9.2    one month ago

I can visualize it happening. As this creepy individual named Trump wants immunity from his presidential acts and activities and if he gets it. . . he can try anything. . . and tie courts up until they scream from the exploitation!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.2.3  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.2.1    one month ago

original

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
9.2.4  George  replied to  evilone @9.2    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
9.2.5  George  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.2.1    one month ago

So.......I minimum of 2 posters insult the integrity of the military, and you as a Vet only have this comment in defense of your brothers and sisters in arms? 

I will ask you point blank, do you think the military would support evilones "plan"?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.6  CB  replied to  George @9.2.5    one month ago

Okay George, there is too much that you have gotten wrong about Evilone's comment that I, awkwardly I admit, will  ask you to start over with it. Here is the comment:

There is a plan out there by a certain group of far right wing populists to replace the heads of the military, the judiciary and federal branches of government. Were Trump to be elected the plan is to have him call martial law and use southern state national guard troops as law enforcement in blue states.  Now... Do I think this will work? No. Not a chance in hell, but it doesn't stop them for fucking things up and making life a nightmare for millions of people on a daily basis.
 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.2.7  Igknorantzruls  replied to  evilone @9.2    one month ago
There is a plan out there by a certain group of far right wing populists

and how many of Trumps plans, that we thought were so far out there that we need not give a care, about them, have come to fruition via attrition or some demented Republican tradition...?

Too many to not mention, would be my contention. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9.2.8  evilone  replied to  Igknorantzruls @9.2.7    one month ago
and how many of Trumps plans,

This isn't Trump's plan. Trump is just the useful idiot to rally support around.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.2.9  Igknorantzruls  replied to  evilone @9.2.8    one month ago
Trump is just the useful idiot to rally support around.

so it IS, Trumps' plan if he pushes it, for whom else could push such a plan, besides the cult leader, for I have not another i can think of, that could implement such a disgraceful plan, than none other than Orange 'Man', but point taken

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Igknorantzruls @9.2.7    one month ago

Seven Days in May

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.2.11  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.10    one month ago

Do you believe it is i, who speak of a conspiracy , for i am only cautioning those whom seem to be underestimating, what a cult leader can achieve

or

are you just recommending a good ole movie i have not before seen ?

As i am not too conspiracy driven, but have to admit, the reality we are all living, can sometimes appear to be. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.2.12  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.10    one month ago

intriguing trailer for sure

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.2.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Igknorantzruls @9.2.12    one month ago

Worth a watch, it’s a good suspense drama highlighting the paranoia of the Cold War.  Great director and a fine cast, screen play by Rod Serling.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.2.14  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.13    one month ago

yes, an impressive cast as well. Perhaps i'll gve it a go when able, 

a thank you irregardless of our on occasion differing views, as one learns not much in echo chambers non diverse,  except, new ways to  curse, ive  been known to print, i'm   impressionable that way

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
9.2.15  Thomas  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.2.1    one month ago

Well, I am a yankee, and I actually don't own a gun.

I know where I can get a lot, come need to

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.2.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Igknorantzruls @9.2.14    one month ago

Some years ago I was in a band called “Echoes”, but you probably heard us.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
9.2.17  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.16    one month ago
you probably heard us.

in a mosh pit, bouncing off moshers, as well as the walls (Mexico never paid for}

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Thomas @9.2.15    one month ago

I have my own personal weapon and Mr G has a few. We share a shotgun

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.2.19  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.2.18    one month ago

I sold all my long guns when the tea party came along, too tempting...

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
9.3  George  replied to  George @9    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10  devangelical    one month ago

meh, the white house is due for a full remodel if the orange menace moves back in...

 
 

Who is online

Ronin2


35 visitors