Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:42 pm Biden should indulge in a little brazen shoplifting and drunk driving just to test whether Republicans truly believe POTUS is immune to prosecution.

Your thinkning too small. I say he commits armed robbery while robbibg a bank.

If the President truly is immune for any action, Biden could repeatedly shoot Trump in the head before the election.

If anyone could get through Trump's security detail...

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:49 pm If the President truly is immune for any action, Biden could repeatedly shoot Trump in the head before the election.

What election?

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:50 pm If anyone could get through Trump's security detail...

shift change!

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:49 pm If the President truly is immune for any action, Biden could repeatedly shoot Trump in the head before the election.

It kind of is amazing that they are literally arguing that our current President Biden could have Trump arrested and put in jail with no consequences to himself.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:55 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:49 pm If the President truly is immune for any action, Biden could repeatedly shoot Trump in the head before the election.

What election?

The one we’re trying to rig. Please read the newsletter we send out.

Again, none of this matters because Kamala Harris is free to pick whichever electors she prefers. That's just the constitution.

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 9:23 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:55 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:49 pm If the President truly is immune for any action, Biden could repeatedly shoot Trump in the head before the election.

What election?

The one we’re trying to rig. Please read the newsletter we send out.

But why bother with an election at that point?

I know it's fun to chortle about how illogical they are but I'm not laughing anymore. The point is that these are raw exercises of power. They use these lame explanations as a feint at applying objective truth. And when authoritarianism takes hold this transforms from just something to scoff at to something far more serious. At some point, they use this sort of out in the open illogic to prove to everyone that they can do whatever they want and get away with it. And until someone actually lands gloves on Trump this is what I see in this.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 10:49 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 9:23 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:55 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:49 pm If the President truly is immune for any action, Biden could repeatedly shoot Trump in the head before the election.

What election?

The one we’re trying to rig. Please read the newsletter we send out.

But why bother with an election at that point?

I know you're joking, but we aren't at that point yet. November's election matters a great deal, if SCOTUS doesn't strike it down. Which would also matter a great deal.

I do think that SCOTUS is going to decide the next election. Eleven months out there are already penalty flags flying all over the field.

Excellent thread from Greg Sargent laying out the rationale why Donald Trump is ineligible to hold public office in the United States.

Read this thread. I would like to pose some hypothetical questions to insurrection-deniers: Is there anything Trump could have done that *would* have unambiguously constituted insurrection — anything that you’d acknowledge *does* require disqualifying him?

Breaking on @MSNBC: In a more-than-80-page filing, special counsel Jack Smith is urging an appeals court to reject Donald Trump's efforts to dismiss his federal election interference case on presidential immunity grounds.

"Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant's sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office."

"The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result."

Article

Isn't this argument obviously frivolous? How does Impeachment equate to criminal jeopardy? I mean the Impeachment clause literally says the Impeached person is still at risk of Indictment. I don't even see what the question is. Considering that you'd think there'd be an interest in fast tracking these inane blocking actions through the court system.

The real answer is to figure out how he's paying attorneys for all these nonsense lawsuits. And at some point, start filing frivolous counterclaims to force him to also pay the fees that states/locals need to incur in order to deal with his nonstop legal nonsense.

Also, it's funny - because in that impeachment - Mitch McConnell argued that "impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice" and suggested Trump could be subject to criminal prosecution in the future. “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation."


Honestly, it's one of the biggest go-to answers the GOP gives to everything they have no answer for:: This isn't the time or place for this conversation. We should talk about it later, or elsewhere.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 12:21 pm Isn't this argument obviously frivolous?

That's kind of Team Trump's MO, isn't it? It's not like this is the first or 30th obviously frivolous case brought since November of 2020 by his team.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 12:43 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 12:21 pm Isn't this argument obviously frivolous?

That's kind of Team Trump's MO, isn't it? It's not like this is the first or 30th obviously frivolous case brought since November of 2020 by his team.

Sure. I think though this is breaking new ground. At some level we were seeing some wrestling with actual questions - that mostly existed because a President has never crimed like this - but this and the broad immunity claims are now getting into just blatant, obvious wasting time territory. It's gotten to the point where that even the staunchest defenders of our system are straining to defend it. It's just painfully obvious there is a two or maybe even three-tier legal system where rich/powerful people just game the system. It's disgusting and corrosive to tenets of rule of law and worse all this caution is in serving to protect someone who is obviously dangerous to national order.

To clarify, this isn't a frivolous suit by Trump. It's an arguably frivolous motion in the criminal case against him. They're throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks. It's novel because we've never had a case like this before, but I think his lawyers would be foolish if they didn't at least try. You miss all the shots you don't take!

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 1:59 pm To clarify, this isn't a frivolous suit by Trump. It's an arguably frivolous motion in the criminal case against him. They're throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks.

Right. The argument about frivolousness in particular is the first argument in the motion where they claim somehow that impeachment is related to double jeopardy...you know despite the text.

It's novel because we've never had a case like this before, but I think his lawyers would be foolish if they didn't at least try. You miss all the shots you don't take!

Especially when the system rewards the behavior!

ImLawBoy wrote:To clarify, this isn't a frivolous suit by Trump. It's an arguably frivolous motion in the criminal case against him. They're throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks. It's novel because we've never had a case like this before, but I think his lawyers would be foolish if they didn't at least try. You miss all the shots you don't take!

It's not even what sticks, it's what argument will persuade the Supremes to support him, or if they'll just inject enough delay to get him through the election so he can pardon himself.

Even if it were criminal charges in both places, it's a state case and a federal case.

There's no way we aren't living in a simulation:

Trump attorney John Sauer argued that under certain circumstances, a president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution in a stunning exchange at an appeal hearing on former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

...

On Tuesday morning, Judge Pan grilled Sauer on a series of hypotheticals that resulted in Sauer arguing that a president could only face prosecution for such an assassination if he were impeached and convicted first:

A more detailed transcript of the exchange is included in the link.

It's not a simulation. It's the reality we've face and it is the face of evil. We have to stop pretending this is just about political disagreement and realize that you may soon have to decide whether you keep your head down, leave, or fight.

I'm in the leave department. I don't see any way I can really fight this nonsense and I certainly can't live around people that support it. My options would be terrible so I mean that's not really going to happen. Move to Bosnia? Not like anything bad ever happens there?

Two problems with 'leave' amount to 'where is better' and 'are they taking people?'

three I guess.... 'what is the financial hit?'

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 1:21 pm I'm in the leave department. I don't see any way I can really fight this nonsense and I certainly can't live around people that support it. My options would be terrible so I mean that's not really going to happen. Move to Bosnia? Not like anything bad ever happens there?

It's not too late yet. You live in New Jersey, right? Do some political volunteering in Pennsylvania, a state next door that actually matters in terms of whether we will descend fully into madness.

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 1:32 pm Two problems with 'leave' amount to 'where is better' and 'are they taking people?'

three I guess.... 'what is the financial hit?'

Nailed it on all three counts. A fourth is family and friends but as I get older, there are less of them.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 2:49 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:To clarify, this isn't a frivolous suit by Trump. It's an arguably frivolous motion in the criminal case against him. They're throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks. It's novel because we've never had a case like this before, but I think his lawyers would be foolish if they didn't at least try. You miss all the shots you don't take!

It's not even what sticks, it's what argument will persuade the Supremes to support him, or if they'll just inject enough delay to get him through the election so he can pardon himself.

Is this actually possible or are we on the way to actually finding out?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 12:55 pm There's no way we aren't living in a simulation:

If so, its a very buggy, pre-pre-pre-alpha.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 1:59 pm To clarify, this isn't a frivolous suit by Trump. It's an arguably frivolous motion in the criminal case against him. They're throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks. It's novel because we've never had a case like this before, but I think his lawyers would be foolish if they didn't at least try. You miss all the shots you don't take!

I think the main point is delay, delay, delay. If Trump is not convicted before the election, and if he is elected, then he'll just quash the Justice Department, fire Smith and everyone who came close to the case, and it's all over. No one on his legal team has any belief that any of these shots have chance to hit.

Maybe Biden can order Seal Team Six to solve the problem?

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:30 pm Maybe Biden can order Seal Team Six to solve the problem?

As long as the senate doesn't convict him, he's golden.

If Trump does kick the bucket, can you imagine the conspiracies that would swirl around this now?

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:48 pm If Trump does kick the bucket, can you imagine the conspiracies that would swirl around this now?

There is zero chance in this timeline of that happening. He will probably live to 110 just to spite people.

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 1:32 pm Two problems with 'leave' amount to 'where is better' and 'are they taking people?'

three I guess.... 'what is the financial hit?'

Four: Are you the kind of person that other places accept to begin with?

Punisher wrote:

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 2:49 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:To clarify, this isn't a frivolous suit by Trump. It's an arguably frivolous motion in the criminal case against him. They're throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks. It's novel because we've never had a case like this before, but I think his lawyers would be foolish if they didn't at least try. You miss all the shots you don't take!

It's not even what sticks, it's what argument will persuade the Supremes to support him, or if they'll just inject enough delay to get him through the election so he can pardon himself.

Is this actually possible or are we on the way to actually finding out?

He was advised against it in January '21.

He won't listen to those same advisors in' 25.

State crimes aren't subject to the pardon, but good luck arresting a sitting President.

And a friendly governor could do so, probably for the right price...

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:30 pm Maybe Biden can order Seal Team Six to solve the problem?

Seals can't keep their mouths shut. He'd be better off with Delta Force.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 9:09 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:30 pm Maybe Biden can order Seal Team Six to solve the problem?

Seals can't keep their mouths shut. He'd be better off with Delta Force.

Accurate. My long ago roommate dated a former Seal. He wouldn't shut up about all the shit he was involved in.

Space force. Nobody knows who they are!