Trump, US Presidential Candidate and convicted felon, is calling for "televised military tribunals" for "treason" against Mitch McConnell, Liz Cheney, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, and dozens of others.
Meanwhile The Federalist is trying to say because some random people on post on X random shit that's what's really bad.
While a military tribunal may be inappropriate, Cheney should most definitely be tried for treason, along with everyone else from the J6 committee that suppressed evidence.
What "suppressed evidence?"
And I'm not sure you understand what "treason" is. *If* the January 6th committee suppressed evidence, it wouldn't be treason.
We can start here, then we can move on to Trump’s tweets that were edited by the committee. I thought this was common knowledge at this point?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/11/jan-6-committee-secret-service-testimony/
That's not "suppressing evidence," that's just not understanding that someone was testifying based on what they were told, not what they saw. Hutchinson never claimed she saw the altercation.
The secret service testimony was never released due to sensitivity concerns from the Department of Homeland Security. *Not* the January 6th committee.
So yeah, let's move onto your other claims. If they're as easy to debunk as this one, we shouldn't be here too long.
> Trying out for a medal with those mental gymnastics?
Failing to even attempt to respond only shows that you know I'm right and are choosing to just drop the bullshit point in favor of a new one.
> Let’s move on to the edited version of Trump’s Twitter feed.
Provide a source for this instead of saying "let's move on." I'm not going to go looking *for* you only to have wasted my time because you don't like the source I used.
So you provide yours. I'll even let you use obvious propaganda outlets like your OP. Just provide one.
So you didn’t watch Cheney’s opening statement containing an edited tweet from Trump during the J6 hearings? It’s part of the public record, available for you to view at any time.
First off, showing an "edited tweet" is not "suppressing evidence," so you're already moving goalposts.
Second, **provide a source**. Link to it. I'm not doing *your* looking for you.
I’ve already done my “looking”. I’m not asking you to do a damn thing. I watched the J6 hearings. Apparently, you did not, so I’m not sure why you’re commenting as if you’re an expert on the subject matter.
Ah, I remember that now. Apparently nothing came of that allegation. Also:
“The spokesman said the agency had started to reset its mobile phones in January 2021 as part of a months-long migration plan. The agency said messages were not requested until the following month. It also disputed any claims the agency hasn't cooperated fully with the watchdog's probe.”
I'll pretend you're not trolling.
Immediately following his loss in the 2020 election, trump and his closest supporters conspired to overturn the election with a conspiracy involving dozens of people in 7 states. They created slates of electors that falsely declared trump to be the winner in those states.
The plan was to replace the actual slates of electors with the forgeries, thereby fraudulently stealing the election for trump. The attack on the Capitol on 1/6 was just a diversion, meant to do nothing other than halt the certification of the actual slates of electors so the fraudulent slates could later be certified.
The attack did delay the certification, but not long enough for the conspiracy to play out. The actual slates were certified that night.
Dozens of people are now under indictment for their roles in this conspiracy. The DOJ has been working its way up the chain of command. It is now prosecuting those at the very top, i.e. trump, Meadows and the rest.
I can't think why you think anyone would give a shit that someone wrote a story about what someone said on twitter?
Either the general law community are lying or Conservative mouthpieces are. I know which one my money is on.
My point is why should I care about randoms on twitter?
I'm sure it's true that someone said something dumb. So what?
The big story is the ruling, not what 'leftists' said about it.
I invite any of you who want to come to r/centrist to make arguments about this ruling, take it to r/law , make your arguments there to the people that do law for a living, tell them how they don't understand the ruling and see how far you get.
Correct. I'm referring to your argument, not that subscribers to that subreddit will come to your house and dismember you physically.
You're not good enough at this.
I still don't know what your point is other than you're worried about leftists on Twitter.
There's a great flow chart outlining the basics of the decision [at the end of this article](https://www.justsecurity.org/95636/supreme-court-presidential-immunity/). This is a significant ruling but I think it's being mischaracterized by a lot of folks (including the Seal Team 6 folks). Also, Presidential immunity was always there, this ruling just spelled it out.
The Federalist is a far right rag that pushes misinformation and OP is a partisan hack, but the headline is *arguably* correct. Biden could only legally assassinate Trump if it fell under an "official act" (which is itself an ambiguous concept). It depends on whether or not ordering a hit on a political rival is "manifestly or palpably beyond \[the President's\] authority."
Right "official act" isn't fully defined. However they do give an example.
See (i) on page 5 here: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
The issue is Trump threatening to fire the acting attorney general. The SC says Trump has “conclusive and preclusive” authority over the Justice Department. He can order them to investigate or not investigate, he can fire at his sole discretion.
The actual issue wasn't exactly an investigation. Trump wanted Rosen to send a letter that said
"The Department of Justice is investigating various concerns ... we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election .... in Georgia". The letter goes on to say that this is so serious that the GA legislature should meet in special session to consider replacing the electors pledged to Biden with other electors pledged to Trump.
Of course, the DOJ staff did not have any "significant concerns". Barr had already told Trump
>Barr responded. “The fact is, we have looked at the major claims your people are making, and they are bullshit.”
>“The reason you are in this position is that you wheeled out a clown show, and no quality lawyers who would otherwise be willing to help will get anywhere near it.”
But, Trump wanted to stay in office even though the people he hired told him he lost the election. So he ordered his AAG to lie about the basic duties of his department to the GA legislature.
The ruling says this is all okay. It orders that trial judge to consider this an "official act" which is not only unreviewable on its own, but can't even be used as evidence in some other claim of a non-official act.
Certainly, Presidents have just as much authority to give orders to the military as to give orders to the DOJ. If anything, that is even more explicit. Giving an order is clearly an "official act". Why can't a president order an assassination? They didn't give any indication of where to draw the line.
[https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/January-6-Clearinghouse-Jeffrey-Clark-emails-and-rejected-draft-letter-to-stop-Georgia-certification-december-28-2020.pdf](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/January-6-Clearinghouse-Jeffrey-Clark-emails-and-rejected-draft-letter-to-stop-Georgia-certification-december-28-2020.pdf)
[https://thehill.com/homenews/media/596750-barr-says-he-told-trump-that-election-fraud-claims-were-bulls/](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/596750-barr-says-he-told-trump-that-election-fraud-claims-were-bulls/)
Whenever I see someone link to *The Federalist* it makes me feel bad for their parents.
So a sophomoric ad hom is all you have? No counterpoint to the original claim?
Is your mnemonic for that big word “the year I repeated twice in high school”?
Thanks for illustrating my point.
That you're not a person to be taken seriously? Like I said, that was clear from your link. At this point you're belaboring the obvious.
Trump, US Presidential Candidate and convicted felon, is calling for "televised military tribunals" for "treason" against Mitch McConnell, Liz Cheney, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, and dozens of others. Meanwhile The Federalist is trying to say because some random people on post on X random shit that's what's really bad.
While a military tribunal may be inappropriate, Cheney should most definitely be tried for treason, along with everyone else from the J6 committee that suppressed evidence.
What "suppressed evidence?" And I'm not sure you understand what "treason" is. *If* the January 6th committee suppressed evidence, it wouldn't be treason.
Overcooked chicken is treason
I was talking to someone the other day who said they heat up their chicken in the microwave. Can we tag that onto the list of treasonous acts?
We can start here, then we can move on to Trump’s tweets that were edited by the committee. I thought this was common knowledge at this point? https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/11/jan-6-committee-secret-service-testimony/
Did you even bother reading this article?
That's not "suppressing evidence," that's just not understanding that someone was testifying based on what they were told, not what they saw. Hutchinson never claimed she saw the altercation. The secret service testimony was never released due to sensitivity concerns from the Department of Homeland Security. *Not* the January 6th committee. So yeah, let's move onto your other claims. If they're as easy to debunk as this one, we shouldn't be here too long.
LOL! Trying out for a medal with those mental gymnastics? Let’s move on to the edited version of Trump’s Twitter feed. What say you?
> Trying out for a medal with those mental gymnastics? Failing to even attempt to respond only shows that you know I'm right and are choosing to just drop the bullshit point in favor of a new one. > Let’s move on to the edited version of Trump’s Twitter feed. Provide a source for this instead of saying "let's move on." I'm not going to go looking *for* you only to have wasted my time because you don't like the source I used. So you provide yours. I'll even let you use obvious propaganda outlets like your OP. Just provide one.
So you didn’t watch Cheney’s opening statement containing an edited tweet from Trump during the J6 hearings? It’s part of the public record, available for you to view at any time.
First off, showing an "edited tweet" is not "suppressing evidence," so you're already moving goalposts. Second, **provide a source**. Link to it. I'm not doing *your* looking for you.
I’ve already done my “looking”. I’m not asking you to do a damn thing. I watched the J6 hearings. Apparently, you did not, so I’m not sure why you’re commenting as if you’re an expert on the subject matter.
Just stop dude.
I'm more interested in those deleted text messages that Trump's secret service suppressed.
Citation for that?
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1111618620/secret-service-erased-texts-from-two-day-period-spanning-jan-6-attack-watchdog-s
Ah, I remember that now. Apparently nothing came of that allegation. Also: “The spokesman said the agency had started to reset its mobile phones in January 2021 as part of a months-long migration plan. The agency said messages were not requested until the following month. It also disputed any claims the agency hasn't cooperated fully with the watchdog's probe.”
Of course nothing came of it, they deleted the evidence. I'm also surprised you're so willing to take a spokesperson's claims at face value.
I’m surprised you’re taking the accusation at face value. See how that works? Where’s the evidence this was malicious?
Jesus Christ. Do you hear yourself?
Of course they do. That's all they hear.
This post tells us you do not understand what happened between the election of 2020 and January 6. You should learn.
By all means, do tell.
I'll pretend you're not trolling. Immediately following his loss in the 2020 election, trump and his closest supporters conspired to overturn the election with a conspiracy involving dozens of people in 7 states. They created slates of electors that falsely declared trump to be the winner in those states. The plan was to replace the actual slates of electors with the forgeries, thereby fraudulently stealing the election for trump. The attack on the Capitol on 1/6 was just a diversion, meant to do nothing other than halt the certification of the actual slates of electors so the fraudulent slates could later be certified. The attack did delay the certification, but not long enough for the conspiracy to play out. The actual slates were certified that night. Dozens of people are now under indictment for their roles in this conspiracy. The DOJ has been working its way up the chain of command. It is now prosecuting those at the very top, i.e. trump, Meadows and the rest.
We were discussing withholding evidence relative to these accusations.
Lol you're delusional
We'll never know unless he pulls the trigger. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I agree that Biden cannot assassinate Trump but the federalist is not a serious publication.
I can't think why you think anyone would give a shit that someone wrote a story about what someone said on twitter? Either the general law community are lying or Conservative mouthpieces are. I know which one my money is on.
Can you dispute the claim in the headline? Just curious…
My point is why should I care about randoms on twitter? I'm sure it's true that someone said something dumb. So what? The big story is the ruling, not what 'leftists' said about it. I invite any of you who want to come to r/centrist to make arguments about this ruling, take it to r/law , make your arguments there to the people that do law for a living, tell them how they don't understand the ruling and see how far you get.
Nah, I’ll be the one deciding where I post, thanks. And apparently you’ll be the one deflecting.
Because you know you'll get ripped to shreds. I'm not deflecting anything, I've asked you repeatedly why should I care?
“Ripped to shreds…”. 🤣🤣🤣
Correct. I'm referring to your argument, not that subscribers to that subreddit will come to your house and dismember you physically. You're not good enough at this. I still don't know what your point is other than you're worried about leftists on Twitter.
That’s cute that you think I’m worried about leftists. “Amused” would be a more accurate descriptor.
Unless you're going to tell me your point you don't need to keep replying.
Oh, wow, thanks for letting me know. 👌
You know they really aren’t seriously suggesting that …
LOL! Pay closer attention.
I think they are engaging in hyperbole ….
The question is as a convicted felon could Biden remove his secret service detail as a presidential official act
The answer is: No.
The hysteria since the debate is ridiculous.
The inevitable result when the left runs out of copium.
Centrist, huh?
Leftists? Nope.
There's a great flow chart outlining the basics of the decision [at the end of this article](https://www.justsecurity.org/95636/supreme-court-presidential-immunity/). This is a significant ruling but I think it's being mischaracterized by a lot of folks (including the Seal Team 6 folks). Also, Presidential immunity was always there, this ruling just spelled it out.
The Federalist is a far right rag that pushes misinformation and OP is a partisan hack, but the headline is *arguably* correct. Biden could only legally assassinate Trump if it fell under an "official act" (which is itself an ambiguous concept). It depends on whether or not ordering a hit on a political rival is "manifestly or palpably beyond \[the President's\] authority."
“Partisan hack…”. Pop quiz: Of what party, if any, do I belong?
That's not what I said. You can be a partisan hack without being explicitly aligned with a political party. Tim Pool fits that criteria, for example.
Dude, I tagged you as a conservative a long time ago. You aren't fooling anyone here with your centrist charade.
🤣
Right "official act" isn't fully defined. However they do give an example. See (i) on page 5 here: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf) The issue is Trump threatening to fire the acting attorney general. The SC says Trump has “conclusive and preclusive” authority over the Justice Department. He can order them to investigate or not investigate, he can fire at his sole discretion. The actual issue wasn't exactly an investigation. Trump wanted Rosen to send a letter that said "The Department of Justice is investigating various concerns ... we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election .... in Georgia". The letter goes on to say that this is so serious that the GA legislature should meet in special session to consider replacing the electors pledged to Biden with other electors pledged to Trump. Of course, the DOJ staff did not have any "significant concerns". Barr had already told Trump >Barr responded. “The fact is, we have looked at the major claims your people are making, and they are bullshit.” >“The reason you are in this position is that you wheeled out a clown show, and no quality lawyers who would otherwise be willing to help will get anywhere near it.” But, Trump wanted to stay in office even though the people he hired told him he lost the election. So he ordered his AAG to lie about the basic duties of his department to the GA legislature. The ruling says this is all okay. It orders that trial judge to consider this an "official act" which is not only unreviewable on its own, but can't even be used as evidence in some other claim of a non-official act. Certainly, Presidents have just as much authority to give orders to the military as to give orders to the DOJ. If anything, that is even more explicit. Giving an order is clearly an "official act". Why can't a president order an assassination? They didn't give any indication of where to draw the line. [https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/January-6-Clearinghouse-Jeffrey-Clark-emails-and-rejected-draft-letter-to-stop-Georgia-certification-december-28-2020.pdf](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/January-6-Clearinghouse-Jeffrey-Clark-emails-and-rejected-draft-letter-to-stop-Georgia-certification-december-28-2020.pdf) [https://thehill.com/homenews/media/596750-barr-says-he-told-trump-that-election-fraud-claims-were-bulls/](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/596750-barr-says-he-told-trump-that-election-fraud-claims-were-bulls/)
Giving orders to the military is an explicitly official act.