Trump is the only president in our history to have been impeached twice and indicted four times, because he instigated an insurrection to destroy our democracy, and he committed numerous crimes trying to overthrow the presidential election to remain in office. Trump is the most corrupt, the biggest liar and the most dishonest person in our history. Wake up people. Is this who you want for our president?
Who knew that inciting a riot was part of the President’s job.
Why would someone who isn’t president get “Presidental immunity”?
I asked Santa for a pony.
Yeah the constitution doesn’t give the president to right to tear up the constitution.
Nope – carry on Jack…
And then, can you make my hair thickerer?
>hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear
Ah yes, we all know how important history, tradition, precedent, etc are to Republicans (when and ONLY when it helps them)
*Often times* funny remarks can be found in the various footnotes if you don’t want to read it all.
My notes as a non-lawyer:
* Firstly, dismissal for immunity first requires the alleged acts to be considered true, yet this motion specifically says they are not true.
* A lot of cases and essays are cited showing that presidents have immunity from CIVIL suits. Immunity from criminal acts is explicitly undecided.
* Immunity from civil suits only applies to acts **”within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the president’s official responsibility.”** This seems like a critical point. That is, are these allegations within the ‘outer perimeter’ of POTUS duties? How is the ‘outer perimeter’ defined?
* I could see a world where a court would agree that the president would be immune from criminal acts for the same reasons they are immune from civil suits. However, the crux then becomes whether or not these acts were within the outer perimeter of duties.
* Alright, the second half mostly argues that the allegations are within the outer perimeter of duties. Frankly, I can’t comment on how effective these arguments are, but I’ll be looking forward to Jack Smith’s response which I believe he has 3 calendar days to submit. He tends to do a good job dismantling trump’s motions.
Once this is thrown out as a defense, start levying sanctions every time it’s repeated. Make it cost them money and time to keep lying.
Trump asks judge to make a mockery of the United States justice system
Sanctions incoming.
This is him trying to delay despite that this very filing didn’t work before
I seriously think dipshit Donny’s lawyers’ strategy is to set up an appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel.
The “When You’re President, They Let You Do It” defense.
I wish there was a clip of him asking the judge, speed up like Mr. Bean, and then a laugh track as the judge’s reply.
This argument already failed in the Georgia case. The President does not have any constitutional authority or duties related to the election of the President.
Trumps defense is ” I was President so I am above the law ” or my favorite ” the statute of limitations has passed so I am immune ”
He’s admitting he did these things.
So being president allows you do whatever the fuck you want. Guess Biden should just never leave. Presidential immunity.
Shut the fuck up Donnie.
What is really infuriating is that Rs, during the impeachment, said “no need to impeach, if there were crimes, then indict”
Now this nonesense
A ChatGPT detector thinks that over a third of this filing is AI generated.
You weren’t indicted as a sitting president though.
If the 2020 Republican Senators weren’t so power hungry and spineless individuals, they would have voted to impeach Trump and the GOP & the country would be far better off today!!
Inciting a riot isn’t the official business of the Office of the President.
Yeah, this is going to get slapped back for a couple of reasons.
The first reason is that any immunity must come from a defence that he was acting within the perimeter of his office. This is a fact in dispute. Indeed, it’s central. He’s entitled to prove that all of his acts were within the perimeter of his office, but that’s not a matter to decide at summary judgment.
The second reason is that the president has personal immunity from *civil* liability for acts within the perimeter of office. For good reasons. But there is no immunity for criminal liability. For obvious reasons. Otherwise a president needs only the support of a minority of the senate, or half of the house to simply defy all laws and dispense with the constitution (by essentially making the president immune to the only other possible remedy, being impeachment).
This reminds me of a couple things. First it’s so reminiscent of someone who was supposed to do a book report, but only read a sentence or two of each chapter and doesn’t understand the context, meaning or the words themselves. You get this diarrhea report of things from the book that are incoherent and misapplied at best. Second, it’s spaghetti at the wall and praying someone sees a noodle stick.
“The prosecution does not, and cannot, argue that President Trump’s efforts to ensure election integrity, and to advocate for the same, were outside the scope of his duties. Instead, the prosecution falsely claims that President Trump’s motives were impure — that he purportedly ‘knew’ that the widespread reports of fraud and election irregularities were untrue but sought to address them anyway,”
The problem is that Trump was just on national TV a week or two ago and literally stated “all of the legal teams told me it was safe, secure, fair and I lost and I didn’t believe them.” Why? “I didn’t respect them.” But then you get into the likes of Bannon and Stone who Trump “respects” and he employs their playbook with decrying fraud regardless, even before the election. And lastly, HIS claims were addressed in courts. All the outlandish things from the Internet failed in court. All of his claims were unfounded and his challenges, 60+, were dismissed.
At least his legal team FINALLY attempted something to give the court pause, but this is drivel at best.
He really likes pissing judges off by bringing up the same frivolous motions again and again. I guess when it’s all you’ve got and you’re desperate to delay…
[Donald Trump inner monologue ] “When you’re Trump, they let you do it.”
I’ve only seen presidential immunity used on foreign policy crimes (iran-contra, Iraq war crimes, fast and furious)
Watergate would have led to Nixons arrest had he not resign and quietly leave the national stage. We’ve always gone after domestic crimes much harder.
What a wild statement. Just saying he’s immune and able to tell these lies and sow chaos with no consequence. They’re not even denying anything.
I may slog through the 51 page motion later, but he’s another idiot who never read the indictment.
The indictment says he had the right to say he thought he won. He had the right to challenge the results in court.
When he lost every court except one about some minor point he was obligated to peacefully give up the presidency. He didn’t have the right to plot how to obstruct the certification of the electoral votes. He didn’t have the right to incite a mob to attack congress in an attempt to overthrow the rightfully elected candidate.
The only thing unprecedented in the whole thing is he was the only president to not transfer power peacefully. The indictment and the court case are only the natural consequences of that.
I look forward to reading Jack Smith’s response and then the judge’s rejection of whatever nonsense is in Trump’s motion.
Edit missing didn’t. I hate how my eyes always catch things after hitting reply, even after proofreading
Chutkan has already ruled on presidential immunity by saying “President’s are not kings and you are not president.”
What part of that does he not understand? Oh yeah, every single syllable.
The overall thrust of their argument is that a president can’t be tried for crimes committed in office because he has absolute immunity. The Constitution say otherwise. That last clause is the kicker. Congress can only kick the person out, but it does not limit the power of the law to prosecute and punish.
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
And the judge says. GFYS…..
On Jan. 6, Trump was not acting as the president. He was acting as the leader of an insurrection.
Nice to know President Biden has… presidential immunity
As usual their defense is not “my client is innocent.”
Rather it’s “my client did it and you deserved it and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it.”
We’re not even past page one of the narcissist playbook here.
I don’t think presidential imunity covers inciting an insurrection and treasonous activity
Attempting to overturn the election is a presidential act?
So his defense is that the president is above the law?
Man, republicans are not gonna like finding out that Biden can do anything he wants now.
Jesus Christ. Just close one of these fucking cases and lock the moron away. So sick of hearing about this non-stop. Let’s learn from it, be better, and move on. Fuck this guy. We should all get to throw a tomato or a dog turd at his face.
43 comments
Trump is the only president in our history to have been impeached twice and indicted four times, because he instigated an insurrection to destroy our democracy, and he committed numerous crimes trying to overthrow the presidential election to remain in office. Trump is the most corrupt, the biggest liar and the most dishonest person in our history. Wake up people. Is this who you want for our president?
Who knew that inciting a riot was part of the President’s job.
Why would someone who isn’t president get “Presidental immunity”?
I asked Santa for a pony.
Yeah the constitution doesn’t give the president to right to tear up the constitution.
Nope – carry on Jack…
And then, can you make my hair thickerer?
>hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear
Ah yes, we all know how important history, tradition, precedent, etc are to Republicans (when and ONLY when it helps them)
[Link to the 52 page filing if anyone is interested.](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/74/united-states-v-trump/)
​
*Often times* funny remarks can be found in the various footnotes if you don’t want to read it all.
My notes as a non-lawyer:
* Firstly, dismissal for immunity first requires the alleged acts to be considered true, yet this motion specifically says they are not true.
* A lot of cases and essays are cited showing that presidents have immunity from CIVIL suits. Immunity from criminal acts is explicitly undecided.
* Immunity from civil suits only applies to acts **”within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the president’s official responsibility.”** This seems like a critical point. That is, are these allegations within the ‘outer perimeter’ of POTUS duties? How is the ‘outer perimeter’ defined?
* I could see a world where a court would agree that the president would be immune from criminal acts for the same reasons they are immune from civil suits. However, the crux then becomes whether or not these acts were within the outer perimeter of duties.
* Alright, the second half mostly argues that the allegations are within the outer perimeter of duties. Frankly, I can’t comment on how effective these arguments are, but I’ll be looking forward to Jack Smith’s response which I believe he has 3 calendar days to submit. He tends to do a good job dismantling trump’s motions.
Once this is thrown out as a defense, start levying sanctions every time it’s repeated. Make it cost them money and time to keep lying.
Trump asks judge to make a mockery of the United States justice system
Sanctions incoming.
This is him trying to delay despite that this very filing didn’t work before
bullshit. no.
Presidential dementia may work.
52 pages of the same rehashed shitty arguments
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/74/united-states-v-trump/
I seriously think dipshit Donny’s lawyers’ strategy is to set up an appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel.
The “When You’re President, They Let You Do It” defense.
I wish there was a clip of him asking the judge, speed up like Mr. Bean, and then a laugh track as the judge’s reply.
This argument already failed in the Georgia case. The President does not have any constitutional authority or duties related to the election of the President.
Trumps defense is ” I was President so I am above the law ” or my favorite ” the statute of limitations has passed so I am immune ”
He’s admitting he did these things.
So being president allows you do whatever the fuck you want. Guess Biden should just never leave. Presidential immunity.
Shut the fuck up Donnie.
What is really infuriating is that Rs, during the impeachment, said “no need to impeach, if there were crimes, then indict”
Now this nonesense
A ChatGPT detector thinks that over a third of this filing is AI generated.
You weren’t indicted as a sitting president though.
If the 2020 Republican Senators weren’t so power hungry and spineless individuals, they would have voted to impeach Trump and the GOP & the country would be far better off today!!
Inciting a riot isn’t the official business of the Office of the President.
Yeah, this is going to get slapped back for a couple of reasons.
The first reason is that any immunity must come from a defence that he was acting within the perimeter of his office. This is a fact in dispute. Indeed, it’s central. He’s entitled to prove that all of his acts were within the perimeter of his office, but that’s not a matter to decide at summary judgment.
The second reason is that the president has personal immunity from *civil* liability for acts within the perimeter of office. For good reasons. But there is no immunity for criminal liability. For obvious reasons. Otherwise a president needs only the support of a minority of the senate, or half of the house to simply defy all laws and dispense with the constitution (by essentially making the president immune to the only other possible remedy, being impeachment).
This reminds me of a couple things. First it’s so reminiscent of someone who was supposed to do a book report, but only read a sentence or two of each chapter and doesn’t understand the context, meaning or the words themselves. You get this diarrhea report of things from the book that are incoherent and misapplied at best. Second, it’s spaghetti at the wall and praying someone sees a noodle stick.
“The prosecution does not, and cannot, argue that President Trump’s efforts to ensure election integrity, and to advocate for the same, were outside the scope of his duties. Instead, the prosecution falsely claims that President Trump’s motives were impure — that he purportedly ‘knew’ that the widespread reports of fraud and election irregularities were untrue but sought to address them anyway,”
The problem is that Trump was just on national TV a week or two ago and literally stated “all of the legal teams told me it was safe, secure, fair and I lost and I didn’t believe them.” Why? “I didn’t respect them.” But then you get into the likes of Bannon and Stone who Trump “respects” and he employs their playbook with decrying fraud regardless, even before the election. And lastly, HIS claims were addressed in courts. All the outlandish things from the Internet failed in court. All of his claims were unfounded and his challenges, 60+, were dismissed.
At least his legal team FINALLY attempted something to give the court pause, but this is drivel at best.
He really likes pissing judges off by bringing up the same frivolous motions again and again. I guess when it’s all you’ve got and you’re desperate to delay…
[Donald Trump inner monologue ] “When you’re Trump, they let you do it.”
I’ve only seen presidential immunity used on foreign policy crimes (iran-contra, Iraq war crimes, fast and furious)
Watergate would have led to Nixons arrest had he not resign and quietly leave the national stage. We’ve always gone after domestic crimes much harder.
What a wild statement. Just saying he’s immune and able to tell these lies and sow chaos with no consequence. They’re not even denying anything.
I may slog through the 51 page motion later, but he’s another idiot who never read the indictment.
The indictment says he had the right to say he thought he won. He had the right to challenge the results in court.
When he lost every court except one about some minor point he was obligated to peacefully give up the presidency. He didn’t have the right to plot how to obstruct the certification of the electoral votes. He didn’t have the right to incite a mob to attack congress in an attempt to overthrow the rightfully elected candidate.
The only thing unprecedented in the whole thing is he was the only president to not transfer power peacefully. The indictment and the court case are only the natural consequences of that.
I look forward to reading Jack Smith’s response and then the judge’s rejection of whatever nonsense is in Trump’s motion.
Edit missing didn’t. I hate how my eyes always catch things after hitting reply, even after proofreading
Chutkan has already ruled on presidential immunity by saying “President’s are not kings and you are not president.”
What part of that does he not understand? Oh yeah, every single syllable.
The overall thrust of their argument is that a president can’t be tried for crimes committed in office because he has absolute immunity. The Constitution say otherwise. That last clause is the kicker. Congress can only kick the person out, but it does not limit the power of the law to prosecute and punish.
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
And the judge says. GFYS…..
On Jan. 6, Trump was not acting as the president. He was acting as the leader of an insurrection.
Nice to know President Biden has… presidential immunity
As usual their defense is not “my client is innocent.”
Rather it’s “my client did it and you deserved it and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it.”
We’re not even past page one of the narcissist playbook here.
I don’t think presidential imunity covers inciting an insurrection and treasonous activity
Attempting to overturn the election is a presidential act?
So his defense is that the president is above the law?
Man, republicans are not gonna like finding out that Biden can do anything he wants now.
Jesus Christ. Just close one of these fucking cases and lock the moron away. So sick of hearing about this non-stop. Let’s learn from it, be better, and move on. Fuck this guy. We should all get to throw a tomato or a dog turd at his face.