LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:58 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:37 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:21 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:14 pm Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

He knew innocents were all around the line of fire and did it over and over.

You're ignoring what I wrote. Typical "Petey" behavior.

He would have to prove his “care” in multiple murder trials. Over 1000 innocents murdered in multiple events is far more serious than the Trump lawfare cases.

Then the civil trials to compensate the families of the murdered innocents including American citizens

Obama drone murdered more innocents than all the mass shootings of the last 20 years.

Go for it. War is ugly.
Again, I very much doubt that his legal counsel was EVER claiming absolute immunity, indeed quite the opposite.

BTW, Presidents do have civil immunity for acts as President...well established.

This is a really dumb or ignorant argument you're making, very troll-like as it appears intentional.

"Trump lawfare"...such a dumb term.
Criminal actions are being prosecuted, both state and federal.
Some performed pre Presidency, some post Presidency.
Some overlapping, but for personal benefit not Presidential duties.

Due Process. Juries. 12-0.

So far.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:20 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:58 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:37 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:21 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:14 pm Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

He knew innocents were all around the line of fire and did it over and over.

You're ignoring what I wrote. Typical "Petey" behavior.

He would have to prove his “care” in multiple murder trials. Over 1000 innocents murdered in multiple events is far more serious than the Trump lawfare cases.

Then the civil trials to compensate the families of the murdered innocents including American citizens

Obama drone murdered more innocents than all the mass shootings of the last 20 years.

Go for it. War is ugly.
Again, I very much doubt that his legal counsel was EVER claiming absolute immunity, indeed quite the opposite.

BTW, Presidents do have civil immunity for acts as President...well established.

This is a really dumb or ignorant argument you're making, very troll-like as it appears intentional.

"Trump lawfare"...such a dumb term.
Criminal actions are being prosecuted, both state and federal.
Some performed pre Presidency, some post Presidency.
Some overlapping, but for personal benefit not Presidential duties.

Due Process. Juries. 12-0.

So far.

No war was declared. He just murdered more innocent people than all the mass shootings in the last two decades and did it over and over. Each case would have to be considered in separate trials in the jurisdictions of the murdered . Then the civil trials.

Exponentially worse crimes than anything Trump has been lawfared with

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:20 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:58 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:37 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:21 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:14 pm Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

He knew innocents were all around the line of fire and did it over and over.

You're ignoring what I wrote. Typical "Petey" behavior.

He would have to prove his “care” in multiple murder trials. Over 1000 innocents murdered in multiple events is far more serious than the Trump lawfare cases.

Then the civil trials to compensate the families of the murdered innocents including American citizens

Obama drone murdered more innocents than all the mass shootings of the last 20 years.

Go for it. War is ugly.
Again, I very much doubt that his legal counsel was EVER claiming absolute immunity, indeed quite the opposite.

BTW, Presidents do have civil immunity for acts as President...well established.

This is a really dumb or ignorant argument you're making, very troll-like as it appears intentional.

"Trump lawfare"...such a dumb term.
Criminal actions are being prosecuted, both state and federal.
Some performed pre Presidency, some post Presidency.
Some overlapping, but for personal benefit not Presidential duties.

Due Process. Juries. 12-0.

So far.

Petey thinks that ToughGuyTrump didn't use Drones, and was soft on terrorism. Poor Petey still can't troll right.

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:23 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:20 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:58 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:37 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:21 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:14 pm Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

He knew innocents were all around the line of fire and did it over and over.

You're ignoring what I wrote. Typical "Petey" behavior.

He would have to prove his “care” in multiple murder trials. Over 1000 innocents murdered in multiple events is far more serious than the Trump lawfare cases.

Then the civil trials to compensate the families of the murdered innocents including American citizens

Obama drone murdered more innocents than all the mass shootings of the last 20 years.

Go for it. War is ugly.
Again, I very much doubt that his legal counsel was EVER claiming absolute immunity, indeed quite the opposite.

BTW, Presidents do have civil immunity for acts as President...well established.

This is a really dumb or ignorant argument you're making, very troll-like as it appears intentional.

"Trump lawfare"...such a dumb term.
Criminal actions are being prosecuted, both state and federal.
Some performed pre Presidency, some post Presidency.
Some overlapping, but for personal benefit not Presidential duties.

Due Process. Juries. 12-0.

So far.

No war was declared. He just murdered more than all the mass shootings in the last two decades and did it over and over. Each case would have to be considered in separate trials in the jurisdictions of the murdered . Then the civil trials.

uh huh, total BS troll.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ ... publ40.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-con ... olution/23

Directing US armed services to engage in an attack on foreign enemies of the United States is a central core power of the Executive Branch. Hamas and other enemies of this country hide themselves among the local populations.

An action by, say, a person injured or on behalf of persons killed collateral to such a directive and operation, to seek any kind of relief in the American courts would never have gotten past the immediate motion to dismiss, long before the Supreme Court carved out this big, vague wardrobe of immunity for Trump. The United States would never, moreover, participate in or accept a judgment of a foreign sovereign court in these circumstances. Either grossly uninformed, or a completely stupid bit of trolling.

Can we just Boycott Stupid?

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:26 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:20 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:58 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:37 pm

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:21 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:14 pm Totally.

We all thought the immunity claims were ridiculous too.

Huh ? Without immunity Obama is on the hook for drone murdering over 1000 innocent people including American citizens. He did it over and over after he knew it was happening .

You think Obama isn’t immune to murder?

Is it your contention that Obama intentionally murdered specific innocent American citizens, not enemy combatants in a state of war, in an arena of warfare, and with collateral damage an unfortunate cost?

Do you imagine that he did so intentionally, over the objections of multiple counsel who review such decisions for legality?

My own hunch is that he wasn't relying on "immunity" for such decisions but rather on the confidence that the actions he was taking were not prosecutable as 'murder' under any federal or state statute. I doubt that counsel was telling him he had 'absolute immunity'.

So, care was taken to not commit 'murder'. And we should want Presidents to take care, right?

What SCOTUS has ostensibly done is grant immunity for intentional murder of domestic political opponents if exercised through the offices as commander in chief. That was the proposition they did not thoroughly reject.

He knew innocents were all around the line of fire and did it over and over.

You're ignoring what I wrote. Typical "Petey" behavior.

He would have to prove his “care” in multiple murder trials. Over 1000 innocents murdered in multiple events is far more serious than the Trump lawfare cases.

Then the civil trials to compensate the families of the murdered innocents including American citizens

Obama drone murdered more innocents than all the mass shootings of the last 20 years.

Go for it. War is ugly.
Again, I very much doubt that his legal counsel was EVER claiming absolute immunity, indeed quite the opposite.

BTW, Presidents do have civil immunity for acts as President...well established.

This is a really dumb or ignorant argument you're making, very troll-like as it appears intentional.

"Trump lawfare"...such a dumb term.
Criminal actions are being prosecuted, both state and federal.
Some performed pre Presidency, some post Presidency.
Some overlapping, but for personal benefit not Presidential duties.

Due Process. Juries. 12-0.

So far.

Petey thinks that ToughGuyTrump didn't use Drones, and was soft on terrorism. Poor Petey still can't troll right.

yup, so stupid.

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:40 am Aileen Cannon gunning to be nominated to take Clarence Thomas’ place.

Holy molie!

Ken Starr— illegal. David Weiss — illegal. Bob Mueller — illegal. Jack Smith — illegal.

All special counsels illegal.

And Trump walks. Since he’ll be re elected long before any appeals can be heard.

Ken Starr was appointed under the Independent Counsel statute which expired in 1999,
Weiss & Durham were serving US Attorneys, confirmed by the Senate. Jack Smith was not.

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 11:32 am You mean Clarence’s advisory opinion memo to Judge Cannon?

I actually didn’t think she would go for this one because it is so obviously wrong. Increases the chances that the 11th Circuit will remove her.

I don't see that happening.

I mean a sitting Supreme Court justice agrees with her ruling! So she has plenty of cover to do this. Despite the innumerable district and circuit rulings on this topic to the contrary.

If every single issue is considered TBD unless/until there's a direct on point SCOTUS ruling, it will be forever until this comes to trail -- even if SCOTUS affirms the legality of the special counsel regs. And of course it is all moot if Trump gets elected.

And with this SCOTUS, the Cannon/Thomas position just might prevail. Total crazy town.

I'm thinking that Weiss, however, may be able to keep going after Hunter however. Since he is a Senate confirmed US Atty and also an SC. Remember the complaints of Salty (and his muse Andy McCarthy) about how Weiss (but not Jack Smith) was a bad SC appointee (under the special counsel regs) because he was a current DOJ insider (i.e. Deep Stater in the tank for Sleepy Joe).

What a cluster.

We should of course boycott stupid.

Glass half full. If it turns out that Sleepy Joe ordered the hit against Trump on Saturday, he's immune!!

Barack Obama Is A War Criminal

https://harvardpolitics.com/obama-war-criminal/

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:28 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:40 am Aileen Cannon gunning to be nominated to take Clarence Thomas’ place.

Holy molie!

Ken Starr— illegal. David Weiss — illegal. Bob Mueller — illegal. Jack Smith — illegal.

All special counsels illegal.

And Trump walks. Since he’ll be re elected long before any appeals can be heard.

Ken Starr was appointed under the Independent Counsel statute which expired in 1999,
Weiss & Durham were serving US Attorneys, confirmed by the Senate. Jack Smith was not.

Great. Let Trump go. Works for me.

Mark this for when you cats want a IC in the future...and can't get one because Dems have too much control. More oversight lost, just like you want.

This blows up the DC lawfare case too!!!

It will be important for the looney tunes NY judge to imprison Trump for “campaign violation” 30 times smaller than the one Hillary was fined for by the FEC.

Got to keep the Trump train advancing

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:29 pm Remember the complaints of Salty (and his muse Andy McCarthy) about how Weiss (but not Jack Smith) was a bad SC appointee (under the special counsel regs) because he was a current DOJ insider (i.e. Deep Stater in the tank for Sleepy Joe).

Because he was not confirmed by the Senate. Garland should have gone with a serving US Atty, who had been confirmed by the Senate.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:47 pm Garland should have gone with a serving US Atty, who had been confirmed by the Senate.

What for? You and your buds have boatloads more excuses at the ready as to why you think a President....or even someone who is campaigning for President....is untouchable, and doesn't have to follow rules or laws.

You win, my man. Take your victory lap.

Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:31 pm Barack Obama Is A War Criminal

https://harvardpolitics.com/obama-war-criminal/

Love it, your reference is to a far lefty college senior writing a bunch of typical far lefty drivel.

https://hlrecord.org/remarks-by-prince- ... 4-05-2024/

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:32 pm May be. For what its worth.....reading between the lines, this was borderline 4th branch gambit type stuff, which will always lose.

Maybe not with this incarnation of SCOTUS
Cannon already took the hint from Clarence - only need four more votes to carry the day

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:52 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:47 pm Garland should have gone with a serving US Atty, who had been confirmed by the Senate.

What for? You and your buds have boatloads more excuses at the ready as to why you think a President....or even someone who is campaigning for President....is untouchable, and doesn't have to follow rules or laws.

You win, my man. Take your victory lap.

Garland can still give the FL case to a serving US Atty or anyone in DoJ who is Senate confirmed.

This ruling could still be reversed by a higher court.
There's no guarantee that this ruling will bind the DC Judge in the Jan 6 case.

In fact, there is a guarantee it does not.

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:02 pm In fact, there is a guarantee it does not.

Yup -6 other Federal judges at both district and appellate courts have ruled on this legal situation in opposition to what Cannon just ruled.

Expect the Feds to either appeal immediately to the 11th Circuit and also include a motion to reuse Cannon from the case. The issue with that is OD lawyers will appeal it to SCOTUS and a favorable ruling is not a guarantee.

Refiling in either DC or NJ using confirmed US Atty eliminates that possibility, at least until after a trial is completed.

In any event nothing likely to be achieved before the election. The stroons did her job