直播今天在最高法院庭审的关于trump无限终身豁免的案子 第一个问题 大法官问：trump命令直接暗杀处决任何政治对手，是否违法 trump律师回答：如果是trump当总统时候下的命令，属于总统职权，所以trump随便杀谁都不违法 第二个问题 如果trump2025年1月20日上台当天就宣布逮捕处决最高法院里面3个自由派大法官，民主党州的州长，民主党参议员众议员，Trump是否应该收到法律制裁 回答：如果是总统下令，则不会受到任何联邦法律制裁，有full immunity 大家还记着几个月前trump 自己说漏嘴的自己在计划”day 1 dictator”的那个采访吗？按这个趋势确实1天就能搞定所有政治对手了再联想一下最近电影院热播的电影，civil war就是映射trump再次夺权后变成full blown dictator 的事情，里面有个细节很让人深思，几个香港记者被trump支持派抓住，直击问where do you come from? Hong Kong. ok China 直接爆头的片段
Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assasinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?
"That could well be an official act," Trump lawyer John Sauer says — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) April 25, 2024
The Supreme Court of the United States is literally deciding today whether Donald Trump can legally have them all executed on January 20, 2025, and the upshot I get from major media updates from inside the courtroom is that they are taking a serious look at it
America is over — Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 25, 2024
supersleeper 发表于 2024-04-25 15:51
你没仔细吧? 比如你的第一个问题，律师回答是depends on if the president''s action is an official act. 比如，bribery is not an offical act. The whole argument is surrending if a president''s offical acts are 100% immune to procecution and both sides showed hypotherical senarios and consequences on both ends. For an example, should Bush be prosecuted for lying to congress about Iraq''s weapon of mass destruction and Obama should be prosecuted for sending drones killing us citizens or if whoever ordered japanese americans be rounded into camps during the second world war should be prosecuted...
whoescaped2024 发表于 2024-04-27 07:44 你没仔细吧? 比如你的第一个问题，律师回答是depends on if the president''''s action is an official act. 比如，bribery is not an offical act. The whole argument is surrending if a president''''s offical acts are 100% immune to procecution and both sides showed hypotherical senarios and consequences on both ends. For an example, should Bush be prosecuted for lying to congress about Iraq''''s weapon of mass destruction and Obama should be prosecuted for sending drones killing us citizens or if whoever ordered japanese americans be rounded into camps during the second world war should be prosecuted...
Read your original post, is that exactly what the lawyer said in the C-SPAN recording? That was my point. Did your verbal GRE 99% percentitle entitle you to change the topic in the middle of an argument?
whoescaped2024 发表于 2024-04-27 07:44 你没仔细吧? 比如你的第一个问题，律师回答是depends on if the president''s action is an official act. 比如，bribery is not an offical act. The whole argument is surrending if a president''s offical acts are 100% immune to procecution and both sides showed hypotherical senarios and consequences on both ends. For an example, should Bush be prosecuted for lying to congress about Iraq''s weapon of mass destruction and Obama should be prosecuted for sending drones killing us citizens or if whoever ordered japanese americans be rounded into camps during the second world war should be prosecuted...
Read your original post, is that exactly what the lawyer said in the C-SPAN recording? That was my point. Did your verbal GRE 99% percentitle entitle you to change the topic in the middle of an argument?
Yes to me the answer is obvious but that's not how the court systems work. Again that's my opionion. Original Poster's first point (I didn't even read the rest) was wrong and I gave a link so people can listen themselves.
whoescaped2024 发表于 2024-04-27 09:19 Yes to me the answer is obvious but that's not how the court systems work. Again that's my opionion. Original Poster's first point (I didn't even read the rest) was wrong and I gave a link so people can listen themselves.
Sir, Fact is fact. all you are saying so far is your own opinion. DC court went exactly the way you did hence this hearing. You can ridicute the hearing but I think you should admit all your concerns were presented as hypotherical examples. How many times did you go through the recording, may I ask? btw, I have no idea what L7/L8 means, all those above U.S. supreme court? whatever you are, attack the points, not the person and stick with facts.
a lawyer in supreme court will never let the judge ask a question without answering it. Your video ends with a question that''s how I know it was cut off. Let me show you the full video, your clip starts at 419 https://youtu.be/ex87haMPB5s?t=419
whoescaped2024 发表于 2024-04-27 10:21 a lawyer in supreme court will never let the judge ask a question without answering it. Your video ends with a question that''s how I know it was cut off. Let me show you the full video, your clip starts at 419 https://youtu.be/ex87haMPB5s?t=419
Blah blah blah blah 也不知道你这位是装傻装nerd搅浑水呢 还是真的目光短浅呢
Trump supporter: “This country needs a dictator. I hate to say it, but this is the truth.”
Weird. In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote a law review article specifically contemplating criminal prosecutions for Presidents after they leave office, and noting that this possibility provides a check on a “bad-behaving or law-breaking” President. I guess he just changed his mind for some… pic.twitter.com/6zY7QIuDn8 — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 27, 2024
Weird. In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote a law review article specifically contemplating criminal prosecutions for Presidents after they leave office, and noting that this possibility provides a check on a “bad-behaving or law-breaking” President. I guess he just changed his mind for some… pic.twitter.com/6zY7QIuDn8 — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 27, 2024
Weird. In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote a law review article specifically contemplating criminal prosecutions for Presidents after they leave office, and noting that this possibility provides a check on a “bad-behaving or law-breaking” President. I guess he just changed his mind for some… pic.twitter.com/6zY7QIuDn8 — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 27, 2024
2 ways you know Alito is making it up to help Trump: 1. In abortion if it isn't in the constitution it doesn't count; never mind when it's immunity 2. entire criminal justice system so corrupt a president could be wrongly prosecuted.. from the man who never met a conviction he… — Jennifer Truth Over Phony Balance Rubin 🇺🇦🇮🇱 (@JRubinBlogger) April 27, 2024
Again, which part you quoted me was not true? The named video clip was not cut off (thus taken out of context)? If one listens to the *whole* argument/exchange one will draw the conclusion that your first point in your original post was wrong. And which part supports your point that I agree with trump supporter? So far your responses are full of your own opinions (which you are entitled to) but with no substances. Invest some time so you are able to distinguish facts from opinions so you don't always resort to only name calling.
Weird. In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote a law review article specifically contemplating criminal prosecutions for Presidents after they leave office, and noting that this possibility provides a check on a “bad-behaving or law-breaking” President. I guess he just changed his mind for some… pic.twitter.com/6zY7QIuDn8 — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 27, 2024
supersleeper 发表于 2024-04-27 13:37
IMHO Neither you nor did Ms. Rangappa (whom you quoted) had listened to the hearing carefully. If you had, you would know that 1st: The examples you have mentioned in your original post were repeatedly mentioned were hypotherical extremes. 2nd: what Kavanaugh said in 2009 was precisely what Trump''s lawyer was gunning for in the supreme court hearing. If you agree with what Kavanaugh said in 2009 then the DOJ''s suit against Trump needs to stop now because Trump should be impeached succesfully first and then prosecuted criminally. That''s where statute and clear statement come into play and Trump walks free. So far we haven''t seen a impeachment attempt let alone a successful impeachment. Frankly I can''t believe you will quote something to support Trump''s motion. You need to read up on article 2 regarding the presidency.
楼上这位：你需要把头从沙子里伸出来看看当前的情况 继续当鸵鸟保护不了你免进即将到来的川氏集中营，到时候你也许可以试试把宪法拿出来，看到时候能不能驱逐川氏太保护体 “Trump’s legal argument is a path to dictatorship. That is not an exaggeration: His legal theory is that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for official acts. Under this theory, a sitting president could violate the law with impunity, whether that is serving unlimited terms or assassinating any potential political opponents, unless the Senate impeaches and convicts the president. Yet a legislature would be strongly disinclined to impeach, much less convict, a president who could murder all of them with total immunity because he did so as an official act. The same scenario applies to the Supreme Court, which would probably not rule against a chief executive who could assassinate them and get away with it.”
NEW JUST IN: Mark Meadows has asked the Supreme Court to acknowledge immunity for the president's staff. He, along with Trump, faces criminal charges for a scheme to overturn Biden's victory in Georgia. Interestingly, one of Trump's appointees to the Supreme Court appears to have reached a different conclusion.
Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/chief-staff-mark-meadows-granted-immunity-tells-special/story?id=104231281 law and order party， lol
楼上这位：你需要把头从沙子里伸出来看看当前的情况 继续当鸵鸟保护不了你免进即将到来的川氏集中营，到时候你也许可以试试把宪法拿出来，看到时候能不能驱逐川氏太保护体 “Trump’s legal argument is a path to dictatorship. That is not an exaggeration: His legal theory is that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for official acts. Under this theory, a sitting president could violate the law with impunity, whether that is serving unlimited terms or assassinating any potential political opponents, unless the Senate impeaches and convicts the president. Yet a legislature would be strongly disinclined to impeach, much less convict, a president who could murder all of them with total immunity because he did so as an official act. The same scenario applies to the Supreme Court, which would probably not rule against a chief executive who could assassinate them and get away with it.”
you sounded like a parret that just knows how to echo other people's voice and you don't even know you were slapping yourself silly. Go listen to the recording from the beginning to the end again and read article 2.
你看过比trump才大3岁的Biden都国情咨文讲话吗？一站几个小时
同样，你看过老年痴呆trump的讲话吗？把现总统说成Obama？
同样，你要不要检讨下自己为什么这么容易被纳粹党宣传机器洗脑？人云亦云和个鹦鹉一样？
嗯，上次要翻红蓝州，这次要保送
阿利托确实比较牛：对coup追责会导致总统因为怕被追责而搞coup. 所以我搞coup全赖你要追责我搞coup，而不赖我自己搞coup.逻辑链完美闭合。
你没仔细吧? 比如你的第一个问题，律师回答是depends on if the president''s action is an official act. 比如，bribery is not an offical act.
The whole argument is surrending if a president''s offical acts are 100% immune to procecution and both sides showed hypotherical senarios and consequences on both ends. For an example, should Bush be prosecuted for lying to congress about Iraq''s weapon of mass destruction and Obama should be prosecuted for sending drones killing us citizens or if whoever ordered japanese americans be rounded into camps during the second world war should be prosecuted...
这一点我也是佩服，我们当初很多人是支持Trump的，后来他当上台后的所作所为才使我们站到对立面的，而美国人民那时候反Trump当选全国范围游行。美国的民主体制有几个大缺陷：1.总统选举结果由摇摆州决定，2.极富可以两边捐款，3.大法官有总统设定，终身制，这个如果一方邪恶点搞暗杀之类就可以控制高院了。
鸡蛋里挑骨头的典型例子
典型的nerd思维
都有absolute immunity了 都可以随意处决最高法院法官了 把宪法都当厕所纸了 你觉得独裁者会在意当年庭审时候律师说的一句话当作比宪法还重要的规范自己行为的圣律来执行？
你超了一大段纳粹法官Alito的循环逻辑废话，无非是搅浑水。案子议题就是trump作为个人去干扰大选找选票的事情，Alito故意搅浑水，然后你不知道是真nerd还是假装nerd，copy paste以为别人看不懂英文？再提醒你一次，本人当年GRE verbal 99% percentile
看出来了吧 一无用处是书生
你要装nerd
本人L7启发真nerd模式 跟你来较真 所谓official capacity and personnel capacity
这个案子是审判trump jan 6未遂政变的罪行是否有豁免的
你看看当时trump自己给supreme court的motion里面怎么定义自己干预大选是属于personal capacity 的
希望你能看懂英文
我说的都是事实，你再去听一遍吧。我那句是错的？你列的第一条就是错的。当然你可以有自己的意见，但事实就是事实。 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex87haMPB5s
真的没完没了了 好像我没现场听那几个纳粹法官和川律师怎么眉来眼去试图找个理由判它可以当独裁者一样
你知道你为啥升不到L7/L8吗？你该当nerd时候当不好（看我上个帖子关于你不停纠结的personal capacity 的说辞），该有大局观时候见树不见林
Enough said
Read your original post, is that exactly what the lawyer said in the C-SPAN recording? That was my point.
Did your verbal GRE 99% percentitle entitle you to change the topic in the middle of an argument?
其实他们只需要就事论事，川普的1.6一系列行为有没有immunity ，但是都拒绝讨论事实，还扯什么FDR、Bush Obama有没有immunity，这几个总统被charge了吗。另外官方行为就具有immunity 不是也很可笑吗？自己亲自上阵杀政敌算私人行为，利用军队杀政敌就算官方行为了。
那个律师说coup 算官方行为，100%有immunity ，你不觉得搞笑吗？
Yes to me the answer is obvious but that's not how the court systems work. Again that's my opionion. Original Poster's first point (I didn't even read the rest) was wrong and I gave a link so people can listen themselves.
楼主的第一条说的没错，你可能听漏了，川普律师回答sonia就是这么说的could well be official, 而100%immunity for official act就是他们的argument. 这里有剪辑
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Udw-Ft97alo?si=JXl-9k9LTvgrdOIt
Sir,
Fact is fact. all you are saying so far is your own opinion. DC court went exactly the way you did hence this hearing. You can ridicute the hearing but I think you should admit all your concerns were presented as hypotherical examples. How many times did you go through the recording, may I ask?
btw, I have no idea what L7/L8 means, all those above U.S. supreme court? whatever you are, attack the points, not the person and stick with facts.
why cut it off, the lawyer didn't answer?
律师的回答清楚的在视频里呢。看来你并没有看漏，是不承认。
a lawyer in supreme court will never let the judge ask a question without answering it. Your video ends with a question that''s how I know it was cut off.
Let me show you the full video, your clip starts at 419
https://youtu.be/ex87haMPB5s?t=419
呵呵，Biden专治trump，只要是trump竞选，推Biden出来没毛病。用魔法打败魔法。
你们以为那些众议院和律师和法官们 一个月多少收入啊 为什么美国一直是案例法 大家可以断章取义按照实际老百姓的标准 换句话 世界上所有的法律体系 也就是美国的 稍微亲民一些 对现在的这位可以是一肚子火气呢
这是我的看法啦
背后逻辑就是 谁能给我们好日子 就谁上 试一试也可以 反正 我们要回到原来的好日子 呵呵
Blah blah blah blah
也不知道你这位是装傻装nerd搅浑水呢
还是真的目光短浅呢
这个Kavanaugh
Obama在台上时候它的“法律基础”是可以随意用联邦法逮捕制裁前总统，哪怕是这些事情是总统official capacity
然后现在180大转弯了，有一点intellectual consistency吗 还要一点点脸吗？
是的
哪个前总统被判了？
这个案子进了高院，几个自由派法官跟川律师正经辩论法理基础、程序正义，说明水已经被成功搅浑了。我也是闲的，有这功夫不如去给民主党捐款拉票了。
一部分老美想要dictator我理解，中国移民想要dictator的干嘛呆在这？
你不懂黄川的心思
只要是白人的💩都是香的
你跟那个群体接触下就能明白我说的
Again, which part you quoted me was not true? The named video clip was not cut off (thus taken out of context)? If one listens to the *whole* argument/exchange one will draw the conclusion that your first point in your original post was wrong.
And which part supports your point that I agree with trump supporter?
So far your responses are full of your own opinions (which you are entitled to) but with no substances.
Invest some time so you are able to distinguish facts from opinions so you don't always resort to only name calling.
IMHO Neither you nor did Ms. Rangappa (whom you quoted) had listened to the hearing carefully.
If you had, you would know that
1st: The examples you have mentioned in your original post were repeatedly mentioned were hypotherical extremes. 2nd: what Kavanaugh said in 2009 was precisely what Trump''s lawyer was gunning for in the supreme court hearing. If you agree with what Kavanaugh said in 2009 then the DOJ''s suit against Trump needs to stop now because Trump should be impeached succesfully first and then prosecuted criminally. That''s where statute and clear statement come into play and Trump walks free. So far we haven''t seen a impeachment attempt let alone a successful impeachment. Frankly I can''t believe you will quote something to support Trump''s motion.
You need to read up on article 2 regarding the presidency.
楼上这位：你需要把头从沙子里伸出来看看当前的情况
继续当鸵鸟保护不了你免进即将到来的川氏集中营，到时候你也许可以试试把宪法拿出来，看到时候能不能驱逐川氏太保护体
“Trump’s legal argument is a path to dictatorship. That is not an exaggeration: His legal theory is that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for official acts. Under this theory, a sitting president could violate the law with impunity, whether that is serving unlimited terms or assassinating any potential political opponents, unless the Senate impeaches and convicts the president. Yet a legislature would be strongly disinclined to impeach, much less convict, a president who could murder all of them with total immunity because he did so as an official act. The same scenario applies to the Supreme Court, which would probably not rule against a chief executive who could assassinate them and get away with it.”
Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/chief-staff-mark-meadows-granted-immunity-tells-special/story?id=104231281
law and order party， lol
you sounded like a parret that just knows how to echo other people's voice and you don't even know you were slapping yourself silly. Go listen to the recording from the beginning to the end again and read article 2.