Once again Harris lies. Who is surprised by this? Because were she in the White House she would want immunity for donating to criminal organizations. It's time to clean the swamp. Let's start with her.
Excellent breakdown of the "Facts" of the case. Facts are a curious thing, in that they provide evidence of truth. Devoid of emotional response, facts are just facts. Or a statement of the truth. It's a fact that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. You can get all emotional and try to deny or change that fact. But, the fact remains that the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. We have evidence of this every day. Even on cloudy days where the sun isn't visible, it's a fact that if you get above the clouds you will see the sun. As to this case, from my understanding, Trump made an executive order detailing "any foreign interference in the election negates the election. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) found foreign interference in the election. Under the executive order, the intelligence agencies were to provide the President a report in 45 days to determine if there was interference in the election. This report was NOT provided to the President in the time frame provided. But the Media ignored this FACT, and proceeded promote propaganda about the President trying to Steal a stolen election. They accused the President of what they did. That is a common act that the left does called projection, they project onto others what they themselves are doing. Again Great post... Peace...
The decision confirmed that Trump is entitled to some immunity but not blanket or absolute immunity. The SCOTUS remanded the matter back to the trial court to determine whether the facts warranted a dismissal based on immunity.
Immunity for official acts by government officials is not unique or exclusive to POTUS. Judges enjoy immunity as do other local, state and federal officials for actions within the scope of their office and authority. Without these immunities, the official and discretionary acts of government would be rendered impotent by the constant Monday morning quarterbacking by their political opponents and other detractors.
As to your questions:
did Kamala Harris
(1) fail to understand a case that a second-year law student is qualified to summarize, -- It is completely unfathomable that Harris could make such a ridiculous outburst alleging Scotus gave Trump immunity to do "whatever he wants" --unless she was either intentionally misleading or woefully ignorant of the law.
(2) not read the case at all, before peddling the lie that the case gave Trump immunity, or (3) is she lying straight to your face? ----As a former AG, even in a place like crazifornia, Harris enjoyed a similar type of government immunity for her official acts under color of her governmental authority.
Her comments were reckless and she ***knew or should have known*** this was fraudulent and untrue and her comments were not made in the course of her duties as VP- so probably not immune statements.
Is any answer remotely appropriate for someone aspiring to stand behind the seal of the President of the United States? --- NO and this was (PTL) thankfully and correctly decided by the voters on Nov 5
Those who have not read the entire, very long Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity (like me) will now understand this does not equate to blanket immunity for whoever is (or was) president.
Very informative. This is actually more or less what I'd imagined the ruling to be. I basically ignored the hyperbole and hysteria in the anti-Trump camp, as I so often do these days.
The idea that-in these circumstances-the issue of former presidents' immunity from criminal prosecution is even an issue that needs to be settled by the court is pretty shameful. It seems even more so when you consider the kinds of 'crimes' Trump has been pursued for. I think most people probably agree: former presidents should only be tried for the most EGREGIOUS crimes, and not even for those if he's acting in his executive role. Pursuing political opponents for fraud or alleged decades-old sexual improprieties is a fucking awful precedent for our country, regardless of the specific individuals incvolved.
Once again Harris lies. Who is surprised by this? Because were she in the White House she would want immunity for donating to criminal organizations. It's time to clean the swamp. Let's start with her.
Excellent breakdown of the "Facts" of the case. Facts are a curious thing, in that they provide evidence of truth. Devoid of emotional response, facts are just facts. Or a statement of the truth. It's a fact that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. You can get all emotional and try to deny or change that fact. But, the fact remains that the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. We have evidence of this every day. Even on cloudy days where the sun isn't visible, it's a fact that if you get above the clouds you will see the sun. As to this case, from my understanding, Trump made an executive order detailing "any foreign interference in the election negates the election. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) found foreign interference in the election. Under the executive order, the intelligence agencies were to provide the President a report in 45 days to determine if there was interference in the election. This report was NOT provided to the President in the time frame provided. But the Media ignored this FACT, and proceeded promote propaganda about the President trying to Steal a stolen election. They accused the President of what they did. That is a common act that the left does called projection, they project onto others what they themselves are doing. Again Great post... Peace...
This ^ ^
Good breakdown of the SCOTUS opinion.
The decision confirmed that Trump is entitled to some immunity but not blanket or absolute immunity. The SCOTUS remanded the matter back to the trial court to determine whether the facts warranted a dismissal based on immunity.
Immunity for official acts by government officials is not unique or exclusive to POTUS. Judges enjoy immunity as do other local, state and federal officials for actions within the scope of their office and authority. Without these immunities, the official and discretionary acts of government would be rendered impotent by the constant Monday morning quarterbacking by their political opponents and other detractors.
As to your questions:
did Kamala Harris
(1) fail to understand a case that a second-year law student is qualified to summarize, -- It is completely unfathomable that Harris could make such a ridiculous outburst alleging Scotus gave Trump immunity to do "whatever he wants" --unless she was either intentionally misleading or woefully ignorant of the law.
(2) not read the case at all, before peddling the lie that the case gave Trump immunity, or (3) is she lying straight to your face? ----As a former AG, even in a place like crazifornia, Harris enjoyed a similar type of government immunity for her official acts under color of her governmental authority.
Her comments were reckless and she ***knew or should have known*** this was fraudulent and untrue and her comments were not made in the course of her duties as VP- so probably not immune statements.
Is any answer remotely appropriate for someone aspiring to stand behind the seal of the President of the United States? --- NO and this was (PTL) thankfully and correctly decided by the voters on Nov 5
Thanks so much for your detailed comment! It means so much to have another lawyer review and interact with our work so thoughtfully
Wow! Great article! I appreciate the law/facts being broken into sections and presented in layman’s terms.
Great article. Kamala Harris and the left are absolute liars that won stop. They only care about winning.
Thank you for this thoughtful breakdown.
Those who have not read the entire, very long Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity (like me) will now understand this does not equate to blanket immunity for whoever is (or was) president.
Very informative. This is actually more or less what I'd imagined the ruling to be. I basically ignored the hyperbole and hysteria in the anti-Trump camp, as I so often do these days.
The idea that-in these circumstances-the issue of former presidents' immunity from criminal prosecution is even an issue that needs to be settled by the court is pretty shameful. It seems even more so when you consider the kinds of 'crimes' Trump has been pursued for. I think most people probably agree: former presidents should only be tried for the most EGREGIOUS crimes, and not even for those if he's acting in his executive role. Pursuing political opponents for fraud or alleged decades-old sexual improprieties is a fucking awful precedent for our country, regardless of the specific individuals incvolved.