₦airaland Forum

Nigeria will feature 35 athletes in the Athletics event of the Paris 2024 Olympics!

You go fear views na 😁😁

MrLibrarian:
they've overtaken USA in football.

💯

MrLibrarian:
. Argentina struggled against Ecuador and Messi missed a penalty

Messi fit ghost on Tuesday 😂

Ngolo Kante is currently unbeaten in 20 straight games with France at major tournaments! 😲
France have recorded 13 wins and 7 draws anytime he has played for them at major tourneys, which is a European record

To be honest, the Canadians’ transition from midfield to attack is up there with the top 5 teams in the world.

Their only Achilles hill is the finishing and questionable decision-making in the final third. If Coach Jesse Marsch can work on those lapses with his team, they could squeak past Argentina.

But even if they lose on Tuesday, the Canadians have already made their country proud, and would surely be a force to reckon with at the WC in 2 years time.

FBS:
Plus the professional foul sef.

Was the definition of “no gree for anybody” 😂😂

It’s Argentina v Canada in Tuesday’s semifinal

Yes! Canada wins it!!!

This Canada v Venezuela ref is pure trash!

He is literally letting the Venezuelans get away with obvious fouls 🤦🏾

MrLibrarian:
na classic players take PK tonight na.
Slovenia na team?
Same Portugal wey Ramos score hatrick in a 6-1 trashing last world cup but during Morocco dude became dumb.
Portuguese lacks consistency.

Got you. Those Slovenian penalties were poor sha

Redman44:
Personally, it is Evelyn Ojeimen ( Nee Akhator ) that I want to see in camp. However, I don't think she has been playing professional basketball for some time now.

Ok

I feel for Ronaldo and Pepe sha. As this was surely their last international tourney with Portugal, it would have been nice to have crowned it with an appearance in the final.

But they bow out as bonafide Portuguese legends🙌🏽🙌🏽

What happened to Diogo Costa??

lovewins:
Michaela is never getting an invite from USA basketball. Lol she's not that good, not even close.

The only person who potentially has a chance is Kiki and even that is subject to her being very good.

Cool

lovewins:
Funny thing is we won't have that problem with them since they didn't play for team USA at any level. So they do not fall under the category of players needing FIBA permits

I get your point. But what if USA Basketball decides to invite them to training camps and fields them in a couple of exhibition games within the next year?

So Carvajal will miss the final if Spain make it all the way…

Michaela and Kiki should be contacted ASAP (assuming there have been no contacts between the NBBF and the players) to secure their availability for the 2025 Women’s Afrobasket.

We certainly don’t want a situation where the NBBF has to beg FIBA to ‘permit’ both players to don the GWG

I wish Adaora Elonu and Akhator made the list

raumdeuter:
Is Martinez the best penalty stopper in the world

He has to. If not him, it will be the Portugal keeper

Ayinde will be a big miss!
Nonetheless, I wish her speedy recovery 🫂🫂

raumdeuter:
The constitution doesn't prohibit per se but they will lose delegates from the state of CA in the main election

Yeah, it’s the relevant provision with regard to the electors of electoral college I was referring to

ijebosb:
If there was a change, Harris would be the nominee and everybody would begrudgingly fall in line.
Harris could choose Newsom as her VP.

That would work if Harris has officially changed her primary state of residence from CA to another place. Otherwise, Newsom can’t be her running mate because the constitution prohibits both nominees on a presidential ticket from being from the same state.

raumdeuter:
I am not a Democrat but the worst thing they can do at this point is replace Biden. It will simply start a civil war in the DNC

Many people dont want Kamala as the head of the ticket, Then how do you explain importing another possibly white guy to jump over a woman when you spent the past5yrs telling everyone Kamala is capable of ruling

At that point Kamala will probably revert back to her attacks on Biden being a racist that supported bussing

Well, if Biden, himself, withdraws from the race, then I don’t see how a civil war would erupt within the Democratic Party.
Don’t forget that Black women and suburban white, who combine to make up the majority of voters, are the solid base of the Democratic Party. So, Kamala Harris becoming the nominee would barely cause a rift within the party.

In fact, what would really cause strife and civil war within the party is if the DNC skips Harris and chooses another candidate, especially if that person is a White guy.

For various legal and logistical reasons, Kamala Harris is the only practical choice to replace Biden as the nominee, if it comes to that…

lovewins:
I agree. I think he'll play a 3-5-2. Randy as a coach places premium on defence, and with the roster he has he may just play 5 at the back.

We'll wait to see how this will all work out.

I think so too. That 3-5-2 offers great flexibility in terms of attacking and defensive movement

Deltamani:
I think this is the only aspect Randy got it Wrong, we needed a good crosser among the flank players upfront, Kanu and Ajibade doesn’t give that.

If Rinsola was there it would have been better because he picked Macleans and Ihezuo who are also very good in the Air and can also feed from good crosses like Oshoala.


Kanu again has a nagging Knee injury which Racing Louisville has been managing well. She won’t play 90minutes for sure, Maybe Randy has plan for Esther and Ihezuo to play from the flank.. Esther can also cross very well from the Left flank too but her style of play is very deceptive.

Maybe Waldrum is relying on the fullbacks to provide the width. But like almost everyone here, I’m kinda mystified as to why Babajide was omitted

French players have only scored one goal
out of SIXTY-SIX goal attempts..

happney65:
And if he says "Killing a political opponent is the best for America and saying he is a threat to America and can be classified under official acts"

E.G, A Trump that didn't want to leave power or asked his supporters to invade the Capitol.

So how would it be classified as unofficial acts?

If a sitting president decides to do that,tell me how it will be classied

Now, your first hypo is where it could get tricky. I wouldn’t want to believe that a reasonable judge would agree that your first hypo is an official act, because even if the political opponent has committed treason against the U.S., he/she would still have to go through due process before a punishment can be meted out to that person.

But if that same rival, for eg, takes hostages in a federal building, while being armed and threatens to shoot all the hostages unless a President Trump (or Biden) withdraws from the race, a court may decide that the sitting president has the official power to authorize the FBI’s SWAT team to take out that rival. No doubt that the DOJ and the court may reason that the president’s duty to protect lives and property would be sufficient justification for the president to authorize the on the spot shooting of his rival, in that circumstance.

As to your second example, the District court would most likely hold that, Trump allegedly asking his supporters to invade Capitol Hill, would be outside the scope of his official duties, especially if he didn’t use any instrument of governance ie the DOJ, FBI etc to pass that order to his supporters.

happney65:
PDPGuy as a Lawyer,so can Biden have Trump arrested and locked up and claim it is official act? How do we differentiate between official and unofficial acts?

Truly, Election has consequences

What a Pity for America!

The delineation between “official” and “unofficial” acts would rest with the DC District court. But as raumdeuter suggested, I would think that Judge Chutkin (of the DC District Court) would likely find that Trump, asking a Secret Service agent to assassinate a rival candidate for president, would fall under “unofficial acts”.

Here's a detailed summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States:

1. Background:
- This case concerns the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
- The indictment alleges that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election results through various means, including pressuring state officials and the Vice President.

2. Court's Ruling:
- The Court held that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his Presidency.

3. New Immunity Framework:
a. Core Constitutional Powers:
- The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

b. Other Official Acts:
- The President is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
- This presumptive immunity can potentially be overcome if applying a criminal prohibition would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

c. Unofficial Acts:
- There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

4. Application to the Case:
- The Court ruled that Trump has absolute immunity for his interactions with Justice Department officials described in the indictment.
- For other allegations, such as those involving state officials, the Vice President, and the January 6 events, the Court remanded to lower courts to determine if they were official or unofficial acts.

5. Rejection of Trump's Broader Immunity Claim:
- The Court rejected Trump's argument that the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires impeachment and Senate conviction before criminal prosecution of a President.

6. Evidentiary Ruling:
- The Court held that evidence of official acts for which a President is immune cannot be admitted at trial, even to prove intent or knowledge for non-immune acts.

7. Dissenting Opinions:
- Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, strongly dissented, arguing that the decision puts Presidents above the law and could allow future Presidents to commit crimes with impunity.
- Justice Jackson wrote a separate dissent focusing on the theoretical implications of the Court's new "Presidential accountability model."

8. Concurring Opinions:
- Justice Thomas concurred, raising additional questions about the appointment of the Special Counsel.
- Justice Barrett concurred in part, disagreeing with the Court's evidentiary ruling.

9. Remand:
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's new immunity framework.

10. Implications:
- The decision significantly alters the landscape of Presidential accountability and raises complex questions about the balance of power between branches of government.
- It leaves many open questions about how to categorize Presidential actions and when immunity applies, which lower courts will now have to grapple with.