Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Poopymonster]

If I read Scotus right they specifically outline that the ONLY means of holding the executive accountable is impeachment. That being said I wouldn't be surprised if whoever gets impeached then decides to take it to court under the grounds that it can't be a violation because it was done by the president in his official capacity and is therefore immune. As much as I think the courts ruling over presidential immunity is bullshit i'm not sure even roberts would go that for. Impeachment is theoretically the only remaining line between the executive branch and a monarchy.

By the time it would come before the Courts, Trump would be out of office, and probably dead. Due to age, lifestyle, etc.
SCOTUS Ruling "Whoopsy Poopsy, we take back that immunity ruling, shit man, were we high? Or taking undeclared vacations from billionaires? Or returning the favor that got some of us here? Who knew this would be so complicated?"

[Gabriel]

Hey question @ the scholars itt: assuming the President now has complete immunity for official actions taken while in office... What about the people he tells to commit acts that would be illegal? Do they have immunity as well?

Like, if Biden told some alphabet agency to take out Trump because he is a threat to national security or whatever, would the people in that agency be compelled by law to carry out the order, and if they did, could they be held legally accountable for the clearly unlawful act even if the President himself has immunity?

Could the people ordered to commit an unlawful act just decline from carrying it out without repercussions? How does this shit actually work?

[Flarelaine]

Hey question @ the scholars itt: assuming the President now has complete immunity for official actions taken while in office... What about the people he tells to commit acts that would be illegal? Do they have immunity as well?

Like, if Biden told some alphabet agency to take out Trump because he is a threat to national security or whatever, would the people in that agency be compelled by law to carry out the order, and if they did, could they be held legally accountable for the clearly unlawful act even if the President himself has immunity?

Could the people ordered to commit an unlawful act just decline from carrying it out without repercussions? How does this shit actually work?

"I was just following orders" is not a valid defence since Nuremberg.

[Gabriel]

"I was just following orders" is not a valid defence since Nuremberg.

I assume it would be somewhat different case from Nuremberg.

[Jessicka]

I assume it would be somewhat different case from Nuremberg.

Depends on the Supreme Court members and which president told them. Biden telling them now, no way, Trump telling them in 2 years, 100%.

The politicisation of the judiciary is an abomination that needed fixing years ago.

[Santti]

"I was just following orders" is not a valid defence since Nuremberg.

Couldn't the president just pardon them, in that case? Imagine if something like that happened in the Nuremberg trials.

[Odinfrost]

Depends on the Supreme Court members and which president told them. Biden telling them now, no way, Trump telling them in 2 years, 100%.

The politicisation of the judiciary is an abomination that needed fixing decades ago.

FTFY
/leasthan10

[Belize]

"I was just following orders" is not a valid defence since Nuremberg.

Legal precedence holds no value to the current SCOTUS. If Trump were to stand before them and say "Yeah, we discussed assassinating political rivals, but we did it officially as President" the current bench would rule 6-3 in his favor.

[Breccia]

Hey question @ the scholars itt: assuming the President now has complete immunity for official actions taken while in office... What about the people he tells to commit acts that would be illegal? Do they have immunity as well?

He would presumably pardon them.

Funny story: Trump never pardoned the people he ordered to attack the Capitol. Draw what conclusions you like.

[Glorious Leader]

"I was just following orders" is not a valid defence since Nuremberg.

No but the president can simple grant a pardon which is also an official act of his office.

[Ivanstone]

He would presumably pardon them.

Funny story: Trump never pardoned the people he ordered to attack the Capitol. Draw what conclusions you like.

CapitolClowns: Low Class.
FinancialBros: High Class.

If you need to line the prison industrial complex with fresh bodies you may as well load up on people with no class. I'm not sure how Trump himself counts as "High Class" but I guess having a gold plated toilet makes him look the part.

[Twdft]

Like, if Biden told some alphabet agency to take out Trump because he is a threat to national security or whatever, would the people in that agency be compelled by law to carry out the order, and if they did, could they be held legally accountable for the clearly unlawful act even if the President himself has immunity?

Could the people ordered to commit an unlawful act just decline from carrying it out without repercussions? How does this shit actually work?

I'm old enough to have done mandatory service in the German army and that was actually one lesson we got in theoretical instructions how to be a good soldier boy. It is any soldiers duty to not carry out unlawful orders, if the unlawfulness is obvious to him. They stressed the words duty and obvious. Like when you're sitting in your artillery bunker and get the order "bomb the shit out of 123 by 456" you do so. If you get the order "bomb the shit out of that childrens hospital" you do not. Same with shooting people. You return fire if you get shot at by some people, you do not kill civilians. Etc.

I would assume every civilized country has similar rules.

[Poopymonster]

I'm old enough to have done mandatory service in the German army and that was actually one lesson we got in theoretical instructions how to be a good soldier boy. It is any soldiers duty to not carry out unlawful orders, if the unlawfulness is obvious to him. They stressed the words duty and obvious. Like when you're sitting in your artillery bunker and get the order "bomb the shit out of 123 by 456" you do so. If you get the order "bomb the shit out of that childrens hospital" you do not. Same with shooting people. You return fire if you get shot at by some people, you do not kill civilians. Etc.

I would assume every civilized country has similar rules.

Awfully bold of you to assume that the US is civilized.
We're not.

[Hugo88]

Here is the 2nd part of the Four Corners Documentary on Donald Trump & the upcoming election

Again, it is presented in a balanced view. You hear from both Trump supporters & Democrat Supporters.
This final episode looks at two possible swing states . Arizona & Georgia where Pres. Biden won by small majority at the last election.
Arizona & Georgia could both decide the election come November.

[Doomcookie]

Here is the 2nd part of the Four Corners Documentary on Donald Trump & the upcoming election

Again, it is presented in a balanced view. You hear from both Trump supporters & Democrat Supporters.
This final episode looks at two possible swing states . Arizona & Georgia where Pres. Biden won by small majority at the last election.
Arizona & Georgia could both decide the election come November.

What was your favorite part about this 54-minute video?

You never responded to anyone else when you dropped other videos.

[postman1782]

What was your favorite part about this 54-minute video?

You never responded to anyone else when you dropped other videos.

There's a reason they have 88 in their name, they weren't born in 88 and they aren't 88 years old.

[Doomcookie]

There's a reason they have 88 in their name, they weren't born in 88 and they aren't 88 years old.

I didn't even catch that.

It could be a coincidence, as they are Australian. But, I doubt they will be responding.

[Gorsameth]

its hard to give someone with 88 posting about Trump the benefit of the doubt.

[LilSaihah]

I didn't even catch that.

It could be a coincidence, as they are Australian. But, I doubt they will be responding.

I don't think he's Australian; he's posting in the NFL thread and it's really rare to see an Australian who cares about that.

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the dude is just leaning entirely on Australian reporting rather than American reporting. The ABC's reporting has generally been very good when it comes to the American election. Australia won't really mind which candidate you pick, so long as you keep sending tourists here and carrier groups to Taiwan.

[Breccia]

Once again, calling upon known Trump supporters @tehdang and @YUPPIE who view things Trump says positively in this fast-moving thread to respond.

1) Is the "Border" that Trump claims is the MOST DANGEROUS Border anywhere in the World, the US-Mexico border? If so, by what metric is it the most dangerous? If not, what border, and why would Trump care about borders between countries that aren't the USA?

2) What are pole numbers?

3) How old is "brilliant young man" Donald Trump? (Harris is 59)

Surely a pair of honest, genuine posters such as yourselves have opinions on this post from your chosen candidate, and we'd like to hear them. Because, from the outside, it looks like two blatant lies and a typo in a single sentence.

Oh, and don't think I missed "Lyin' Kamala Harris" as per usual, Trump is in no position to call anyone else out for lying. I direct you to the WaPo article counting Trump's 10,000 objective lie while in office, in case you've forgotten...somehow.