So can Biden have Trump officially assassinated now or officially refuse to transfer power?

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

Wait so if I want Biden to gift me a kilt all I need to do is drive on the wrong side of the road?! I'm Scottish so you're really just making it sound like I'm one quick traffic infraction away from a free kilt.

Also is fast a place? I've always wanted to go to fast. I've been to two places called Belfast but never just been to fast. Should I go there too?

I went to fast the other day, but gave up after sixteen hours - was just too hungry.  

Lang may yer lum reek!

[MSC]

On 7/5/2024 at 8:00 PM, iNow said:

But who the hell knows? These are decidedly uncharted waters into which Trumps justices have thrown us.

Indeed. Before their recent decision the subject of presidents assassinating each other wasn't a legal grey area. Now who can fault us for having the discussion when the highest court seems to just be totally fine with talk of presidents assassinating each other with legal loopholes? 

Thing is though we all know the hypocrisy of that court would come careening out if Biden is the one committing terrible acts via their enablement and not Trump. 

[MSC]

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

Lang may yer lum reek!

Wi ither folks coal!

I love how you always clock my humour for what it is my friend. 

And for those that don't know, long may yer lum reek means long may your chimney smoke. It's a wish of longlife, usually said on Hogmanay our new year celebration. You can ad "wi ither folks coal" to make it even more of a well wish and that particular addage originated in my hometown of Edinburgh. 

[geordief]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

my hometown of Edinburgh. 

Auld Reekie

(not mine)

Edited July 8 by geordief

[Airbrush]

On 7/2/2024 at 7:40 PM, Peterkin said:

He has to do it himself - his aides and bodyguard don't have immunity.

Still, he has time to travel the country, ostensibly campaigning, and take a few side-trips with an automatic.

It just doesn't quite seem to be in character somehow.

For Biden to commit such a crime is totally out of character.  For Trump, not so.  The SCOTUS majority are counting on Biden's decency and hoping Trump will win and take full advantage of extreme immunity.

If the shooter was successful there would likely have been social unrest or even a minor civil war.

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

If the shooter was successful there would likely have been social unrest or even a minor civil war.

Some ructions; a couple of looting sprees; an excuse to guzzle beer and shoot up some mosques and cars on fire.

The next bigmouth would come along in five minutes, and vowing revenge, lead his mob toward the Capitol - along the way, only encounter six other loudmouths with the same idea of filling the power vacuum.

Anyway, regarding the Supreme Court decision - they put a postscript : Only if we say it's okay.

[iNow]

A nice article outlining how special counsel Smith is using the courts own immunity logic to press the case against Trump. 
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/how-jack-smith-outsmarted-the-supreme-court/680149/

Quote

On the basis of their past decisions, it is reasonable to expect that both the D.C. district court under Judge Chutkan and the U.S. Court of Appeals will rule in favor of Smith. Trump v. United States would then go once again before the Supreme Court. This will happen if Harris wins the election, because a Justice Department under her administration would almost certainly allow Smith to remain to continue prosecution of Trump. What, then, would the Court do? Would it uphold those decisions and throw Trump upon the mercy of a D.C. federal jury? Or would it strike those decisions down, thereby redoubling the disgrace it earned the first time around?  

The only way the Court can avoid that dilemma is if Trump wins the election, an outcome that its conservative majority would now have all the more reason to desire. But what happens if, as seems highly possible, the election leads to litigation, much as the 2020 election did, only this time the Court is left to make the final decision? Will the Court then intervene as Trump’s enabler once again, installing him as a constitutionally tainted president, allowing him to kill the indictment against him, and to pardon those convicted of violent crimes in the attack on the Capitol whom he calls “hostages”?

Non paywalled gift link for a full read: https://archive.ph/fywL4