The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS:

"In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office."
Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort.
Click to expand...
I don't think trying to steal the election is an official act.
 
Stacyhs said:
Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS:

"In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office."
Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort.
Click to expand...

The highlighted. I would take that to mean that if the POTUS decided to authorise the building of a road or a pipeline, say, those adversely affected couldn't sue the person who was the POTUS for such a decision, as it was part of their presidential acts.

Defaming someone should not be considered part of that. ETA: Anymore than failing to pay personal bills incurred for personal acts whilst holding the office of president but unrelated to the job of President
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS:

"In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts.
Click to expand...
The highlighted. I would take that to mean that if the POTUS decided to authorise the building of a road or a pipeline, say, those adversely affected couldn't sue the person who was the POTUS for such a decision, as it was part of their presidential acts.

Defaming someone should not be considered part of that. ETA: Anymore than failing to pay personal bills incurred for personal acts whilst holding the office of president but unrelated to the job of President
Click to expand...
True. I suspect what will happen in that case is that Trump will launch various court challenges/appeals, it will find its way to the supreme court, where they will probably sit on it for a while until they issue a ruling that is less than crystal clear. (Much like their "can they have Trump's taxes? We won't say but we will give guidelines, which will result in more court cases").

Delay delay, until Trump dies. Or becomes president, giving him all the more reason to appeal.

All this should be handled quickly. (After all, Clinton v. Jones was a fairly clear precedent.) But it won't be.
 
Stacyhs said:
Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS:

"In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office."
Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort.
Click to expand...


That was Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). It dealt with immunity for officials performing discretionary functions when their actions did not violate clearly-established law.

Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald, an American engineer, member of the Senior Executive Service in the United States Air Force, and prominent U.S. government whistleblower, filed a lawsuit against government officials. claiming that he had lost his position as a contractor for the US Air Force because of testimony he made before Congress in 1968. Fitzgerald alleged that the action taken against him later by President Richard Nixon represented unlawful retaliation for his congressional testimony.

In this sort of discussion, it is often useful to go back to the actual decision and see what it says, rather than just look at someone's summary of it.
Here are the important sections of the actual rulings in that case (I have highlighted salient points and emboldened the significant parts)

Held:

2. Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.
2 (b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts.
2 (c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.
2 (d) (d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature. ​

Are lying about election results, attempting to overthrow an election, and calling down his mob to do violence on individual citizens part of POTUS "discretionary functions", or "official duties" or "within the outer perimeter of his duties of office"?

I would not have thought so!

Did The Fat Orange Turd's "desire to earn re-election" protect these people from his misconduct.

Definitely not!!
 
jimbob said:
https://twitter.com/maddowblog/status/1539427773349040128?s=21&t=SnDvtMKzA3rvNWEEUBDYDQ



Video in link
Click to expand...

Not wishing to defend Ron Johnson, but this bit "he tried to pretend he was on the phone." is likely BS. That looks like its an Android phone Johnson is using, and almost without exception, the proximity detector deactivates the touchscreen and turns the screen black when you put the phone up to your ear during a phone call, to prevent you from accidentally tapping any buttons

Now, he may well have been pretending to be on a phone call, but the black screen is irrelevant to that.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Not wishing to defend Ron Johnson, but this bit "he tried to pretend he was on the phone." is likely BS. That looks like its an Android phone Johnson is using, and almost without exception, the proximity detector deactivates the touchscreen and turns the screen black when you put the phone up to your ear during a phone call, to prevent you from accidentally tapping any buttons

Now, he may well have been pretending to be on a phone call, but the black screen is irrelevant to that.
Click to expand...

He started answering questions after that, so tacitly acknowledged it.
 
I think the problem is in defining what are 'official duties' and the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.


Freeman and MOss sued OAN and Giuliani for defamation. OAN settled out of court a couple months ago so only Giuliani remains as a suit defendant in that case.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tw...ation-lawsuit-against-one-america-2022-04-21/

They are also suing Gateway Pundit. There is no suit against Trump so I suspect their lawyers have advised them against suing him, perhaps for the reason I gave.
 
Good news! The hearings are apparently having an impact on voters...in the latest polls, and in a huge reversal from last year, Desantis is leading Trump in New Hampshire.

Oh wait...that's not good news. :eek:
 
Regnad Kcin said:
He may have threatened me, bullied me, cajoled, harassed and intimidated me.

He may have sent dozens, hundreds, multitudes of his lunatic minions to come after not only me but also my wife and dying child.

He, and Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman, may have tried every trick in the book to force me, as Arizona's secretary of state, to cheat, lie, and steal the state for him.

I'm still backing him for president in 2024.
Click to expand...

Katie Hobbs is Secretary of State. Bowers is speaker of the AZ House.
 
I did not buy Bowers' 'coming to Jesus' moment in the hearings yesterday.

He has been on the Trump train all along and was actively involved in supporting the ridiculous and illegal efforts to question the election results here in AZ.

For once, T might have been the truthful party when he said Bowers told him that the election had been rigged.

So why would he change his tune? Perhaps he recognizes a sinking ship and wants to gain favor with whomever takes Trump's place.
ETA: or he could be trying to save his own butt
 
Last edited:
Mitch McConnell: "“I think I have an obligation to support the nominee of my party.”

That's about as blatant a "Party of Country" declaration I've ever read. And probably one of the most honest things McConnell has ever said.

Bill Barr : Trump should not be the Republican nominee in 2024 but that he would support him if he were: “I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party. It’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee.”

So the Dems are more dangerous to the country with their 'progressive agenda' than a pathological liar, malignant narcissist, disconnected from reality sociopath who has done his best to destroy the very bedrock of our democracy: the peaceful and lawful transference of power as chosen by the American people by a free and honest election.

Gotcha, Bill.
 
That's almost as insulting as participating in the Jan 6th made for TV drama to save our mid terms show.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's almost as insulting as participating in the Jan 6th made for TV drama to save our mid terms show.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all those Republicans like Rusty Bowers, Brad Raffensperger, and Ronna McDaniel, getting up there and lying about how Trump and his minions tried to get them to subvert the election with fake pro-Trump electors. And what about those fake phone calls to Georgia GOP election officials where Trump tried to get them to just find him the amount of votes he needed to win the state? Crisis actors! And those two women, Moss and Freeman! They were so obviously lying. No way did they get death threats even though they were passing around USB ports with votes on them like vials of heroin or cocaine. And if anyone knows what a vial of coke looks like, it's Patriot Rudy so he should know!

The next thing those libtards on the committee are going to tell us is that there's no such thing as Bigfoot! Sheesh.
 
smartcooky said:
That was Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). It dealt with immunity for officials performing discretionary functions when their actions did not violate clearly-established law.



Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald, an American engineer, member of the Senior Executive Service in the United States Air Force, and prominent U.S. government whistleblower, filed a lawsuit against government officials. claiming that he had lost his position as a contractor for the US Air Force because of testimony he made before Congress in 1968. Fitzgerald alleged that the action taken against him later by President Richard Nixon represented unlawful retaliation for his congressional testimony.



In this sort of discussion, it is often useful to go back to the actual decision and see what it says, rather than just look at someone's summary of it.

Here are the important sections of the actual rulings in that case (I have highlighted salient points and emboldened the significant parts)



Held:



2. Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.


2 (b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts.


2 (c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.


2 (d) (d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature. ​



Are lying about election results, attempting to overthrow an election, and calling down his mob to do violence on individual citizens part of POTUS "discretionary functions", or "official duties" or "within the outer perimeter of his duties of office"?



I would not have thought so!



Did The Fat Orange Turd's "desire to earn re-election" protect these people from his misconduct.



Definitely not!!
Click to expand...
Some thoughts that floated through my head while reading that:

It is disruptive to the operation of government that the President might have to think about the consequences of his actions on citizens?

This immunity is rooted in the separation of powers? But you're the court, a separate branch enabled to act as a check on the executive.

Impeachment is nice and all, bit still doesn't address any way to recover damages by those affected. It can only prevent further potential harm, not harms already caused.

Every random statement a President makes is a "function?"

In the overall, while the Presidency* was once far more limited than a monarch in the age of absolutism, it appears far more shielded from any consequences than than its contemporaries today.

*ETA: even more to the point, the person inhabiting the office.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Some thoughts that floated through my head while reading that:

It is disruptive to the operation of government that the President might have to think about the consequences of his actions on citizens?

This immunity is rooted in the separation of powers? But you're the court, a separate branch enabled to act as a check on the executive.

Impeachment is nice and all, bit still doesn't address any way to recover damages by those affected. It can only prevent further potential harm, not harms already caused.

Every random statement a President makes is a "function?"

In the overall, while the Presidency* was once far more limited than a monarch in the age of absolutism, it appears far more shielded from any consequences than than its contemporaries today.

*ETA: even more to the point, the person inhabiting the office.
Click to expand...

It's long been apparent to me that, among the democracies, POTUS is regarded nearest to a king. The oft brayed, "No man is above the law" is revealed to be not just delusional, but a brazen lie. Indeed, because money is prized above all else in the US, the rich are already sheilded to a shameful degree, with the result that a craven scofflaw became President. Look at the fallout such myopic idiocy has wrought.

Even IF that prolapsed orange anus should eventually be convicted for one or more of its crimes, the trepidatious, timorous, tender tip-toeing by the DOJ exemplifies the irrational reverence for the office. Evident also is a certain pusillanimity where overwrought hand-wringing over political ramifications too heavily weighted induces inertia and delay. If not outright inaction.

That one phone recording with Raffensberger should have resulted in indictment the day following its release. Or at least the immediate ousting from office. In most any of the other democracies there would have resulted serious consequences essentially immediately had a PM, President or Chancellor done such a thing.
 
Once again, it's not that the gist is new in today's hearing, but OMG the extent Drumpf went to promote the Big Lie is shocking. He was obsessed!

Today we get to see which legislators asked for pardons. My guess, Drumpf was pouting and wasn't about to let any of the 'losers' off the hook. They all failed him including the 'mob'. Before today I would have thought Drumpf didn't give pardons because it would look like he himself was guilty. But now it looks like he was so obsessed, day after day, that when it was over he probably went into a depression and blamed all the people he felt failed him.
 
Petty clear that one thing the investigations have done is put McCarthy permanenly in Trump's dogshouse, and this time a trip to Marg Largo to kiss the ring won't be enough.
I am sure the idea is, if the GOP gets the House back, to remove him and put a 100% Trump loyalists in his place. Ring and even Butt kissing will no longer be enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom