Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[NED funded]

See:
Literally the page, the section, and the important words to focus on. This is known as citing the page, citing the paragraph, and citing the words.

Condensing that down into a sentence or two-sentence summary loses some important meaning, which is why I corrected you in the first place.

First, the arrested president is released after habeas. You're assuming too much for officers of the state to be in league with the president.

Second, they only enjoy presumptive immunity. That's overwhelmed by showing in court that "show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” The other guy I was talking to wouldn't read three paragraphs, but maybe you can read page 4 of just the syllabus. First paragraph on the page. Show it, in court, to a judge, and overcome presumptive immunity for official acts.

Nope.

You are spending more time doing this rather than actually making the argument with the relevant citations. Its whatever tho. Conservatives asking people to make their arguments for them is the standard.

If you have something to say type it otherwise you can just not engage. Ive done a lot of debate in highschool and in college and the strat of here is the document read it and find the arguments yourself is new to me lol

[gondrin]

How so? What orders? How are they not listening?

You've got the typical crank's dilemma. Not only does the general go crazy, but every single one of his officers down to the lowliest grunt goes yes sir. Unless you imagine Trump is walking down with those hands of his and doing the handcuffing. I guess that's a more entertaining hypothetical.

What I think you're doing, and I won't know unless you fill me in on your logic, is you're pretending that Presidents can be illegal aliens, and a President uses the Alien Enemies Act to take them to El Salvador and declare them out of their jurisdiction.

The refusal of their inferior officers to go along with patently unconstitutional orders. That's what's stopping them. The second question, can they be prosecuted, is also a yes. Their presumption of immunity can be overcome, since criminalizing the acts does not impair the authority and functions of the executive branch.

What I'm gathering is that you really believe prosecuting a president should be easier, but you've spent so much time on that angle that you forget it's still possible and probable to overcome high burdens when it comes to extreme acts.

Ok, what orders you say?

Lets start off with the obvious.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...4a949_lkhn.pdf

This order that states that the administration is required to facilitate the return of Garcia.

Second, and this is Rubio literally stating he is not required to listen to court orders on matters of foreign policy.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._good_job.html

There is a division in our government between the executive branch and the judicial branch. No judge in the judicial branch can tell me or the President how to conduct foreign policy. No judge can tell me how I have to outreach to a foreign partner, or what I need to say to them.

And if I do reach that foreign partner and talk to them, I am under no obligation to share that with the judiciary branch—just like a judge cannot order me to negotiate with the foreign minister of Russia, they cannot order me to negotiate with the foreign minister or the president of El Salvador.

And if I did negotiate with them—which we have—we have responded to them and told them we’ve had communications with the president of El Salvador. I am under no obligation, under our division of powers in this country, to share with the judicial branch how I conduct the diplomacy of the United States. It would actually be counterproductive. If I started sharing with courts—or frankly, with the media—my conversations with foreign leaders and all of their details. No foreign leader would talk to me again. And we would break trust with them.

So, I have complied with every court order. What I won’t comply with is an order to disclose what I’m saying and what we’re talking about with a foreign leader—because then they won’t talk to me. Diplomacy doesn’t work that way.

Here is Noem basically saying that she will not follow the courts orders in facilitating the release of said individual.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/krist...b0a178bbffc98e

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday openly flouted a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S., insisting during a Senate committee hearing that there is “no scenario” in which the Maryland man will be in the country again.

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court last month ordered the Trump administration to immediately “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and proceed with its case against him in the U.S., as he was never given due process, which is required by the Constitution. But the administration has been violating the court’s order — which on Thursday Noem bizarrely said wasn’t true, while also insisting Abrego Garcia is never coming back to the U.S.

“Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador and should never have been in this country and will not be coming back to this country,” she told senators. “There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again. If he were to come back, we would immediately deport him again.”

So, tell me, is this the rhetoric or language used of people actively following a legit court order. One that came from SCOTUS itself.

[Edge-]

Moral and criminal cases pursued incompetently jeopardize the results, no matter the righteousness of the cause. You're left sort of shaking your fist at your impotence, and stuff like Trump=Bad and Republicans=Sycophants are poor consolation. You can have defeat and that booby prize if you really want it, but part of the rage I'm hearing sounds like you'd rather have victory.

That doesn't seem to answer my question, it just complains around it.

[tehdang]

You are spending more time doing this rather than actually making the argument with the relevant citations. Its whatever tho. Conservatives asking people to make their arguments for them is the standard.

If you have something to say type it otherwise you can just not engage. Ive done a lot of debate in highschool and in college and the strat of here is the document read it and find the arguments yourself is new to me lol

Linked and cited. Remember, it's not an argument. You have tried to quote from a document, but you changed it.

the Supreme Court did say absolute immunity for official presidential actions.

Occurs nowhere in the document, and is directly contradicted on the first page of the document. You meant to say "presumptive immunity," or you haven't read it in a while.

Ok, what orders you say?

Lets start off with the obvious.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...4a949_lkhn.pdf

This order that states that the administration is required to facilitate the return of Garcia.

I gather that Bukele has refused to release him. I'm squinting, but I don't see Trump compelled to go to war with El Salvador, or threaten President Bukele to obtain his release.

Second, and this is Rubio literally stating he is not required to listen to court orders on matters of foreign policy.

That's a pretty obvious statement on the division of powers. If Congress tells the President that the President can't declare war, that's also a statement of constitutional powers.

Here is Noem basically saying that she will not follow the courts orders in facilitating the release of said individual.

Inventing quotes will not help you.

there is “no scenario” in which the Maryland man will be in the country again.

Sounds like Bukele is not keen on releasing him.

Where is Trump defying the Supreme Court?
gondrin: I have some harsh statements from officials. Very harsh. If you squint, they say Bukele's released him and the US refuses to facilitate his transfer back!

[Edge-]

i enjoy that some people are still pretending that rubio's carefully worded statements weren't purely intended for the continued theater of this administration "standing up to radical courts that want to let foreign thugs and criminals remain in our country" or something

because every one of these people in this administration has been totally participating in good faith and not been incredibly dishonest or anything

[NED funded]

Linked and cited. Remember, it's not an argument. You have tried to quote from a document, but you changed it.
Occurs nowhere in the document, and is directly contradicted on the first page of the document. You meant to say "presumptive immunity," or you haven't read it in a while.

I gather that Kilmar Garcia has refused to release him. I'm squinting, but I don't see Trump compelled to go to war with El Salvador, or threaten President Bukele to obtain his release.

That's a pretty obvious statement on the division of powers. If Congress tells the President that the President can't declare war, that's also a statement of constitutional powers.

Inventing quotes will not help you. Sounds like Bukele is not keen on releasing him.

Where is Trump defying the Supreme Court?
gondrin: I have some harsh statements from officials. Very harsh. If you squint, they say Bukele's released him and the US refuses to facilitate his transfer back!

Now we are making an argument.

(a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history
of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Deter
mining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution
may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential
power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that
a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for
official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the

President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity
must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled
to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15.

Its just not true

[tehdang]

i enjoy that some people are still pretending that rubio's carefully worded statements weren't purely intended for the continued theater of this administration "standing up to radical courts that want to let foreign thugs and criminals remain in our country" or something

because every one of these people in this administration has been totally participating in good faith and not been incredibly dishonest or anything

It's in fact perfectly congruous that the statements amount to theater, and aren't themselves proof of violating SCOTUS opinions.

I gather that people don't like the theater, but saying so seems too pathetic, and they go with VIOLATING SCOTUS ORDERS RAWR. Then cite the theater.

- - - Updated - - -

Now we are making an argument.



Its just not true

You said "official acts" not "core constitutional powers." These are not the same. Official acts only get presumptive immunity, the exercise of core constitutional powers get absolute immunity. Glad you got there.

It seems both you and I agree, based on the quoted and bolded, that your first post was incorrect on the substance!

[NED funded]

It's in fact perfectly congruous that the statements amount to theater, and aren't themselves proof of violating SCOTUS opinions.

I gather that people don't like the theater, but saying so seems too pathetic, and they go with VIOLATING SCOTUS ORDERS RAWR. Then cite the theater.

- - - Updated - - -

You said "official acts" not "core constitutional powers." These are not the same. Official acts only get presumptive immunity, the exercise of core constitutional powers get absolute immunity. Glad you got there.

It seems both you and I agree, based on the quoted and bolded, that your first post was incorrect on the substance!

The supreme court ruling literally mentions that official acts can be part of their core constitutional powers or acts that the president shares responsibility with congress. The ruling gives him absolute immunity for the first.

Its in the text I quoted. Which Ill quote again

(a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history
of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Deter
mining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution
may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential
power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that
a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for
official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the

President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity
must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled
to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15.

This is in the first page that you insisted I read. And in the second page it expands on official acts where presumptive immunity is granted and making the difference.

(2) Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive
and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s ab
solute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of
his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas
where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the Presi
dent’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Fram
ers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, prece
dent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal cases
where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents. P.
9.

Official acts in this case refers to both.

[tehdang]

The supreme court ruling literally mentions that official acts can be part of their core constitutional powers or acts that the president shares responsibility with congress. The ruling gives him absolute immunity for the first.

Its in the text I quoted. Which Ill quote again



This is in the first page that you insisted I read. And in the second page it expands on official acts where presumptive immunity is granted and making the difference.



Official acts in this case refers to both.

Following your own logic, since some official acts are not part of core constitutional powers, then it can't be said that official acts enjoy absolute immunity. Only some official acts enjoy absolute immunity; those that are part of core constitutional powers. All official acts enjoy presumptive immunity, which would be truthful if you had said it.

You understand that the presence of some official acts that don't enjoy absolute immunity invalidates your statement that "Cuz in that ruling the Supreme Court did say absolute immunity for official presidential actions." It's untrue. It's pretty easy.

[postman1782]

Linked and cited. Remember, it's not an argument. You have tried to quote from a document, but you changed it.
Occurs nowhere in the document, and is directly contradicted on the first page of the document. You meant to say "presumptive immunity," or you haven't read it in a while.

I gather that Bukele has refused to release him. I'm squinting, but I don't see Trump compelled to go to war with El Salvador, or threaten President Bukele to obtain his release.

That's a pretty obvious statement on the division of powers. If Congress tells the President that the President can't declare war, that's also a statement of constitutional powers.

Inventing quotes will not help you. Sounds like Bukele is not keen on releasing him.

Where is Trump defying the Supreme Court?
gondrin: I have some harsh statements from officials. Very harsh. If you squint, they say Bukele's released him and the US refuses to facilitate his transfer back!

The only reason Beukele won't release him, is because Trump is paying them to keep Garcia.

[Mekh]

Following your own logic, since some official acts are not part of core constitutional powers, then it can't be said that official acts enjoy absolute immunity. Only some official acts enjoy absolute immunity; those that are part of core constitutional powers. All official acts enjoy presumptive immunity, which would be truthful if you had said it.

You understand that the presence of some official acts that don't enjoy absolute immunity invalidates your statement that "Cuz in that ruling the Supreme Court did say absolute immunity for official presidential actions." It's untrue. It's pretty easy.

It refers to all acts where his authority is not shared with congress. That's a lot. You dishonest retard.

[Shadowferal]

Not sure of its provenance.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Oh good, more pages of tehdang nitpicking about the meaning of words in order to derail any possibility of discussion. And he wonders why we told him to fuck off out of the Brexit thread.

In the meantime the Trump administration carries on ignoring the rule of law, and carries on dismantling the democratic apparatus. But sure, let's argue about what specific form of immunity his pet Supreme Court just granted him.

[En Sabah Nur]

Nah he's just whining because he is indeed a sycophant that cheers on the bad stuff Trump does.

I remember when he was a DeSantis supporter over being a Trump supporter. Sure didn't take long to turn that completely around, huh?

That doesn't seem to answer my question, it just complains around it.

AKA his modus operandi.

- - - Updated - - -

Good job, Trump. Amazing job.

In response to Trump’s cuts to science research funding and attacks on universities, the EU is investing over $500 million to recruit researchers and scientists from the U.S.

Drain the swamp? Nah. Brain drain the whole country? Heck yeah!

[Twdft]

Not sure of its provenance.

Well, in the late night shows he's saying they're good friends.

[alach]

What the fuck is wrong with this lump of a human?!
Who refers to Al Capone by Alphonse repeatedly?? This is not normal people behavior.
And dear God can he go five minutes without talking about himself??
Trump supporters, if your grandfather acted this way, wouldn't you be worried for his mental health?
It's going to be a painful hangover when you realize this is not the man you think, believe, and wish him to be.

[Mayhem]

[img]snip[/img]
Not sure of its provenance.

So how tall is Trump again?

[Breccia]

How so? What orders? How are they not listening?

Sea Lioning. This is admission that you don't have a defense, you admit that @gondrin is right, you admit that Trump is a danger to democracy and you admit that's what you voted for.

[NED funded]

Oh good, more pages of tehdang nitpicking about the meaning of words in order to derail any possibility of discussion. And he wonders why we told him to fuck off out of the Brexit thread.

In the meantime the Trump administration carries on ignoring the rule of law, and carries on dismantling the democratic apparatus. But sure, let's argue about what specific form of immunity his pet Supreme Court just granted him.

When it comes to rulings the meaning of words is important. But he at least admits thats the supreme court did give the president absolute immunity (wrt to actions that he does not share responsibility with congress). I should have also been specific in my language. But there isnt much to argue anymore.

We can argue the implications (and the fact that the president can never be held in contempt of court or killing american people as official presidential act) but at least there is some fact base here

[tehdang]

Oh good, more pages of tehdang nitpicking about the meaning of words in order to derail any possibility of discussion. And he wonders why we told him to fuck off out of the Brexit thread.

In the meantime the Trump administration carries on ignoring the rule of law, and carries on dismantling the democratic apparatus. But sure, let's argue about what specific form of immunity his pet Supreme Court just granted him.

It would be worrying if the Supreme Court granted absolute immunity for all Trump’s official acts, so it’s a damn good thing that this is not what happened. It probably doesn’t come as a comfort to gloom and doomers.