Australian Politics Forum - Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 149360
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #15 - Jan 9^th, 2026 at 7:25pm

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 6:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 1:55pm:

“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” said Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law.

Mannheimer said that more than 120 years of case law on the issue of so-called supremacy clause immunity has shown that federal officials can be criminally pursued by state prosecutors for conduct taken in the course of their official duties but that it’s up to courts to ultimately determine whether they can be shielded from the charges.

Absolute immunity from state prosecution as they were not acting under state authority.

OMG

Your ignorance of the law is even worse than I thought.

That's right up there with one of the most ignorant things I've ever read in this forum.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 55851
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #16 - Jan 9^th, 2026 at 7:44pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 7:25pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 6:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 1:55pm:

“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” said Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law.

Mannheimer said that more than 120 years of case law on the issue of so-called supremacy clause immunity has shown that federal officials can be criminally pursued by state prosecutors for conduct taken in the course of their official duties but that it’s up to courts to ultimately determine whether they can be shielded from the charges.

Absolute immunity from state prosecution as they were not acting under state authority.

OMG

Your ignorance of the law is even worse than I thought.

That's right up there with one of the most ignorant things I've ever read in this forum.

But you are unable reason beyond assertion.

That's how ****ing corrupt and despicable you are, skunk pig.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14135
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #17 - Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:09pm

'Federal employees are not shielded by immunity and can face state criminal prosecutions if they act unlawfully, commit unauthorized acts, act unreasonably, or act outside the scope of their official duties.'
The US federal law against murder is not a nice law for Mr President 47 but he can't actually write laws with his great big pen, even with Vance helping him.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 55851
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #18 - Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:11pm

chimera wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:09pm:

'Federal employees are not shielded by immunity and can face state criminal prosecutions if they act unlawfully, commit unauthorized acts, act unreasonably, or act outside the scope of their official duties.'
The US federal law against murder is not a nice law for Mr President 47 but he can't actually write laws with his great big pen, even with Vance helping him.

Great. Sue.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 100476

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #19 - Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:14pm

And again, for the old boy. He's rather adverse to questions these days, but let's not let that put us off.

Old boy? If you won't answer this, we're going to post your views ourselves.

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 7:00pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 6:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 1:55pm:

“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” said Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law.

Mannheimer said that more than 120 years of case law on the issue of so-called supremacy clause immunity has shown that federal officials can be criminally pursued by state prosecutors for conduct taken in the course of their official duties but that it’s up to courts to ultimately determine whether they can be shielded from the charges.

Absolute immunity from state prosecution as they were not acting under state authority.

I see. So if JD were to mean absolute immunity from all federal charges, you'd have a problem with that, would you?

You'd see something wrong with an administration letting a murderer off the hook, would you?

You'd take issue with a Vice Prez saying a federal employee should evade all justice for killing somebody, would you?

Two specific questions.

Over to you.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 149360
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #20 - Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:14pm

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 7:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 7:25pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 6:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 1:55pm:

“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” said Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law.

Mannheimer said that more than 120 years of case law on the issue of so-called supremacy clause immunity has shown that federal officials can be criminally pursued by state prosecutors for conduct taken in the course of their official duties but that it’s up to courts to ultimately determine whether they can be shielded from the charges.

Absolute immunity from state prosecution as they were not acting under state authority.

OMG

Your ignorance of the law is even worse than I thought.

That's right up there with one of the most ignorant things I've ever read in this forum.

But you are unable reason beyond assertion.

That's how ****ing corrupt and despicable you are, skunk pig.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 55851
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #21 - Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:34pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:14pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 7:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 7:25pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 6:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 1:55pm:

“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” said Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law.

Mannheimer said that more than 120 years of case law on the issue of so-called supremacy clause immunity has shown that federal officials can be criminally pursued by state prosecutors for conduct taken in the course of their official duties but that it’s up to courts to ultimately determine whether they can be shielded from the charges.

Absolute immunity from state prosecution as they were not acting under state authority.

OMG

Your ignorance of the law is even worse than I thought.

That's right up there with one of the most ignorant things I've ever read in this forum.

But you are unable reason beyond assertion.

That's how ****ing corrupt and despicable you are, skunk pig.

Yeah, yeah skunk pig, memes, clips, film and TV, moronic rock music.

Anything but reasoning.

The arse sniffer will be along with some additional idiotic grimacing. Anything but reason.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Leroy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4482
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #22 - Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:41pm

I think the dems are outraged the government is supporting the people that are protecting the citizens. The people voted in the president because he said that he would allow the police to do their job that congress passed. They are shocked that the government and the police are not governing for the minority but governing and policing for the majority.

It must be hard to accept that majority rules.

Back to top

Trump derangement syndrome
Fareed Zakaria defined the term as "hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people's judgment"

Lets check in at 5pm on 23rd July 2025 then at 5pm on 30th July

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14135
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #23 - Jan 10^th, 2026 at 6:38am

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:11pm:

chimera wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:09pm:

'Federal employees are not shielded by immunity .

Great. Sue.

Minnesota is saying the FBI is hindering the state prosecution. Vance's words shows he is blocking it. Trump has give a verdict of 'innocent'.

(This was the reason for the 2nd Amendment gun-rights for militia : to fight against oppressive Feds. Venezuela is with them and the US Constitution).

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28180
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #24 - Jan 10^th, 2026 at 8:42am

Leroy wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:41pm:

I think the dems are outraged the government is supporting the people that are protecting the citizens. The people voted in the president because he said that he would allow the police to do their job that congress passed. They are shocked that the government and the police are not governing for the minority but governing and policing for the majority.

It must be hard to accept that majority rules.

Not long after being confirmed in her role at Homeland Security, Noem awarded a $200m contract to a newly created company that was owned by - wait for it… Kristi Noem and her boyfriend. Tell me that isn’t entirely improper, or corrupt conduct!

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 55851
Gender: male

Re: Vance: agent has “absolute immunity”
Reply #25 - Jan 10^th, 2026 at 11:38am

Leroy wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 8:41pm:

I think the dems are outraged the government is supporting the people that are protecting the citizens. The people voted in the president because he said that he would allow the police to do their job that congress passed. They are shocked that the government and the police are not governing for the minority but governing and policing for the majority.

It must be hard to accept that majority rules.

Democrats Say Things Would Be Much Safer If Law Enforcement Would Just Stop Trying To Enforce The Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following recent ICE-related shootings, Democrat leaders stepped forward to remind the nation that everything would be much safer if law enforcement would just stop enforcing the law.

According to Democrat lawmakers, the recent spate of violence and rioting could all have been avoided if law enforcement agents had just avoided conflict and sought peaceful resolutions by not preventing criminals from continuing to break the law.

"Clearly, the problem here is the enforcement of laws," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. "They've constantly inflamed, prodded, and goaded mostly peaceful criminals into unavoidable acts of civil disobedience by tyrannically carrying out the charge entrusted to them. What gives them the right? Other than their badges."

Other Democrats were quick to agree, noting that nearly all criminal reports filed somehow involve law enforcement agencies.

"I don't think it's very polite of them to arrest people," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "And things would be so much calmer if they just didn't do that. I understand that it's their job and all, but maybe they should just not do their jobs. They need to stop preventing protesters and lawbreakers from doing whatever they want. It's simple."

At publishing time, Democrats had reintroduced impeachment charges against Donald Trump for allegedly not following the law.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged