madvillian420
Well-Known Member
how dare you misgender me. Is that not against the soft ass rules here?
January 6th hearings on Trump's failed insurrection.
- Thread starter hanimmal
- Start date
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
The Fulton County District Attorney, who has empaneled a special grand jury against Donald Trump and others for election tampering, now says that a charging decision will likely be made in the first half of this year. We’re now likely looking at Trump in handcuffs within months.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Take your meds and step away from the computer.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Georgia DA investigating Trump closer to decision on charges
The prosecutor weighing whether Donald Trump and others committed crimes by trying to pressure Georgia officials to overturn Joe Biden’s presidential election victory said a decision on whether to bring charges could come as early as the first half of this year. Fulton County District Attorney...
printer
Well-Known Member
Judge questions Trump's claim of 'absolute immunity' in Jan. 6 lawsuits
During a hearing, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta appeared skeptical of Trump's argument that the suits from Democratic lawmakers and U.S. Capitol Police officers should be thrown out because a president's speech and actions while in office is completely protected from civil action.
"Is there anything the president could say while president of the United States that could subject him to civil suits?" said Mehta, who was appointed by former President Obama.
Jesse Binnall, Trump's attorney, said he could not think of a hypothetical example that would fall outside of the immunity that the former president is claiming.
"It's a purposely hard road to hoe, because the duties of the president are all-encompassing," Binnall said. "When that person holds the office, for that term of office, what a president does is constantly part of being the sole person responsible for the executive branch of government."
Trump is seeking to have the suits dismissed, arguing that the comments he made during the rally are protected from civil action because he was carrying out the normal duties of a president — namely speaking to his supporters about government issues — and that allowing judicial intervention over that conduct would disrupt the office of the president.
But the plaintiffs argue that Trump's alleged incitement of his supporters was delivered as a candidate making a campaign speech and thus falls outside of the immunity afforded to a president's official duties.
"Those are actions that have to fall outside the scope of the presidency," Joseph Sellers, an attorney for Thompson, said during Monday's hearing. "The president could promote treason in a public forum, and by Mr. Binnall's argument, the court would be powerless to assess whether his conduct ... is immune."
Still, Mehta appeared to be unsure about where president's legal shield begins and ends, expressing caution about setting a precedent that could hinder a president's speech.
"How does any judge make a distinction between what is speech in a purely personal capacity, which you say is not subject to immunity versus that which is within the presidential capacity?" Mehta asked.
"What's been attributed to Mr. Trump is fomenting an insurrection directed at a co-equal branch of government that was either [intended to] or at least had the effect of disrupting the lawful function of the government, of the Congress," he said.
thehill.com
During a hearing, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta appeared skeptical of Trump's argument that the suits from Democratic lawmakers and U.S. Capitol Police officers should be thrown out because a president's speech and actions while in office is completely protected from civil action.
"Is there anything the president could say while president of the United States that could subject him to civil suits?" said Mehta, who was appointed by former President Obama.
Jesse Binnall, Trump's attorney, said he could not think of a hypothetical example that would fall outside of the immunity that the former president is claiming.
"It's a purposely hard road to hoe, because the duties of the president are all-encompassing," Binnall said. "When that person holds the office, for that term of office, what a president does is constantly part of being the sole person responsible for the executive branch of government."
Trump is seeking to have the suits dismissed, arguing that the comments he made during the rally are protected from civil action because he was carrying out the normal duties of a president — namely speaking to his supporters about government issues — and that allowing judicial intervention over that conduct would disrupt the office of the president.
But the plaintiffs argue that Trump's alleged incitement of his supporters was delivered as a candidate making a campaign speech and thus falls outside of the immunity afforded to a president's official duties.
"Those are actions that have to fall outside the scope of the presidency," Joseph Sellers, an attorney for Thompson, said during Monday's hearing. "The president could promote treason in a public forum, and by Mr. Binnall's argument, the court would be powerless to assess whether his conduct ... is immune."
Still, Mehta appeared to be unsure about where president's legal shield begins and ends, expressing caution about setting a precedent that could hinder a president's speech.
"How does any judge make a distinction between what is speech in a purely personal capacity, which you say is not subject to immunity versus that which is within the presidential capacity?" Mehta asked.
"What's been attributed to Mr. Trump is fomenting an insurrection directed at a co-equal branch of government that was either [intended to] or at least had the effect of disrupting the lawful function of the government, of the Congress," he said.
Judge questions Trump’s claim of ‘absolute immunity’ in Jan. 6 lawsuits
A federal judge on Monday questioned former President Trump’s claims of “absolute immunity” in the face of a trio of civil lawsuits accusing him of fomenting the Capitol riot last…
thehill.com
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
Are you sure it isn't Madvilliany?
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
No, I lived in Joseph, Oregon
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Relax. You will be able to vote for another wannabe dictator in the fall of 24.
Meanwhile, just spread those cheeks to your Trumpy master. Some people like that kind of sex. I don't know why you need to include the subby stuff but if wearing a rubber mask and a name tag that says Reek is your thing, then who am I to say something is wrong with you. Just don't hurt anybody else and remember the safe word.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's Madvilliany, not Madvilliany. .
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
Why would anyone want to identify as being a "villain" anyway?
I may have been an outlaw for many years, but never a villain
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Somebody whose first second and third languages are all Russian?
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
madvillian420
Well-Known Member
you werent ever an outlaw you dork lmao
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
Are you a villain?
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
I would have been surprised had you been a monk or priest. But it was in the realm of the possible.
Top of my head I cannot think of any other -ite demonyms in the US.
oh wait -Joiseyite, I was one for some years.
MisterKister
Well-Known Member
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
Probably just a typo.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
looks like they oversold the Capitol tour that day.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
Fact check: Post comparing Capitol riot to 2018 Kavanaugh protests lacks context
A post comparing the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot to 2018 protests against Brett Kavanaugh doesn't acknowledge mob's violence, deaths.
www.google.com
“Mixed” factuality
Hindustan Times - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
www.google.com
Last edited: