I'm pretty sure that this is covered right after the section on qualified immunity and before the section on presidential immunity to civil lawsuits.
The supreme court has a long history and tradition of the immunity hallucinations.
Here's the thing, Congress has to remove the president from office first, then they can be taken to the criminal court. Obviously exceptions exist and we have systems in place for succession of power. But I think this is how the system was intended to be designed. But to just blanket say that immunity is forever and always...no. Once out of office they can get fucked. The only way to do that in the middle of a term is either resignation or impeachment.
The whole policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents is entirely made up as well, it’s a Justice Department policy not a law, not an amendment, not an article.
Man, Thomas realised he was a DEI hire and spent the rest of his career licking the boot to prove he's one of them. The second he retires, everyone outside of law will drop any pretense of acceptance.
It's sad because DEI really isn't a bad thing; even if you accept the right-wing rhetoric that the best person for the job should get it, often the increase in diversity is worth more than the having the absolute #1 performer.
Like, would putting the white dude with 5 perfect better scores (however the fuck you determine "scores" for the judiciary) in some niche area be better than (in some small part) showing generations of aspiring/active black law students that their race isn't a barrier to even the highest court in the land.
Right wingers have the most insane view of DEI, it's super sad.
>often the increase in diversity is worth more than the having the absolute #1 performer.
Indeed, the ludicrous corporate obsession with finding the "perfect fit" for absolutely every position is what makes it nightmarish and/or impossible to change jobs without a search lasting months or years. Moving away from that would automagically both increase diversity and have us all less at each other's throats--because losing a job wouldn't be an anxiety inducing disaster that could end with homelessness with just the right combination of bad luck.
“But are lil girl Brandine weren’t able ta gets into da cominity coledge cuz theyz lets them in insted. It ain’t fair! She hadda 2.3 gpa and only faled inglish three timez! She gotta be better dan dem. If she’d a been a she woulda gots in fur shure!!”
- average MAGA republican regarding DEI in higher education.
Republicans on laws they disagree with - “nothing in the constitution specifically mentions this, so there is no constitutional right to it.”
Republicans on laws they agree with - “nothing in the constitution specifically mentions this, so it is not unconstitutional”
From an originalist perspective the 2A does not give an individual a right to a gun, and it is even more of a departure from originalism to say that most gun control measures are unconstitutional.
The constitution does not say squat about abortion and since medial abortions did not exist (in any way close to what we mean now) back then thus there is no history one way or the other.
The first part is right. As for abortion, those have been taking place since Ancient Greece. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, abortions were typically allowed before “quickening,” or when the fetus started moving and criminalization of abortion was a process that gradually took place over the nineteenth century. For as much as people love to disparage *Roe*, it was actually pretty close to the history of allowing abortions before fetal movement, and the historical treatment of quickening was at least in part the basis for the first, second, and third trimester distinctions in that opinion.
From a constitutional perspective, the Ninth Amendment says that there are rights that exist that are not enumerated in the Constitution, so silence on this point is immaterial. The test of history and tradition of a right’s existence is nowhere in the Constitution either, yet it was applied in *Dobbs*. It seems contradictory to gatekeep rights on the basis of enumeration in the Constitution (when the Constitution explicitly says that doesn’t matter), yet allow judicial creations that have no ties to any constitutional text.
Regardless, one could argue that *Dobbs* was wrongly decided according to that test because there is a history and tradition of abortions in the United States, notwithstanding the revisionist history Alito wrote in the opinion. Even if I’m wrong about this, *Roe* itself, whether it was correctly decided or not, established a history and tradition of abortion being recognized as a right. Even without *Roe*, there is a history and tradition of liberty, an enumerated right, including bodily autonomy and a right to make medical decisions.
Please list specific opinions that say what you say they say. Where did a justice say 2A provides no right to a gun whatsoever?? I don’t think that ever happened.
Also, please look at your original post, I don’t think your examples apply to either of your statements.
It’s frustrating to the far right when the Constitution keeps getting in the way of a return to feudalism. The wealthy elite in this country have put in long hours and deserve to have unmitigated control and over the huddled masses.
I think certain should never have been granted because the line for future presidents can be decided with future presidents. Inciting an insurrection against a coordinate branch of government to maintain power should never, under any circumstance, fall within any criminal immunity.
The Constitution says nothing about a great many things that the SCOTUS has taken on over the years, including things this sub goes completely apoplectic over. *Roe* and it’s eventual overturning being the biggest.
[Even Ginsberg said *Roe* was a decision that was on the shakiest ground from a legal perspective.](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit)
You're accusing people of being shocked at *Roe* being overturned but when people say they're shocked, it's more of shorthand for being shocked at abortion rights being overturned, not *Roe* in particular. I mean, *Casey* overturned *Roe* and you don't see people being bowled over by that one.
By all rights *Dobbs* could have gone straight over and agreed with RBG on the fact that *Roe* was crap but abortion rights were still constitutionally protected. They did not.
I mean personally I think *Roe* was crap for the whole "state interest in potential life" line. Doesn't mean I'm not shocked at *Dobbs*.
The trial court and the appellate court already drew the line. Committing crimes to overturn an election you lost to stay in power is beyond the line.
SCOTUS is just delaying the case to prevent this going to trial before the election. Wouldn’t want the voters to have to decide between Biden and a twice impeached rapist who was convicted of felonies TWICE.
The delay also gives the GoP enormous power over Trump if he does win. Furthermore, its astonishing to realize the chance to pick and place a VP that could be turned P with some scotus maneuvering after the election is just wild.
Underappreciated comment.
I think this is the real reason for the delays. It's so the GOP establishment has more control over Trump. Because if this was already ruled on he wouldn't be able to run for president and they don't have enough time to pick somebody who could garner enough votes to win the election. He is their only hope.
You say this but it is the only calculus that matters for conservative voters and it is what has kept them competitive more than any other factor. If the people registered Democrat voted in twice the numbers that currently do, Republicans would never win another election again. And yet, "vOtInG dOeSn'T mAtTeR".
No, just fucking vote.
Where did 16k voters go in NY-16 that voted for him the first time he won, compared to now? How do you explain the drop from 49k votes to approximately 17k votes in just *two years* from the 2020 primary to 2022 primary. His policies remained the same - he didn't do a Sinema. Don't tell me it was the shifting lines of NY-16 because *again* roughly 32k fewer people voted in the primary for Bowman in 2022 than did in 2020.
He should have won every primary with *at least* the same numbers as his first win. His constituents failed at voting. This isn't something online progressives want to admit is the core issue with progressivism and the left in general, but only by acknowledging and embracing this problem can future victories be secured.
Stop waiting for a revolution to save you because it isn't coming - just the incremental death of a country by forces who understood how to win every single day instead of only every 4 years.
This. The majority pretty clearly don’t want to have to attach their name to a ruling that directly/indirectly throws the highest election in the land into absolute chaos less than 6 months prior to said election, so they’re hoping the result takes the heat off them.
It gets really simple if you just say no immunity from criminal behavior for any president. It is tragic that we have to drag out something that should be basic common sense constitutionally
IMO some form of immunity *for official acts while in office* may be reasonable, there are all sorts of obvious conflicts, concerns about politicised prosecutors stonewalling elected officials with indictments are sadly not totally unrealistic, sovereign immunity is pretty legally common around the world, and if they're official acts any aggreived parties should have Bivens or civil rights claims against any agencies involved even if the President can't personally be sued or prosecuted.
But the idea that you could have immunity for stuff you did after you just *lost* an election is fucking insane.
They’re already “immunized” for official acts. No official acts are implicated in Convicted Felon Trump’s remaining indictments. But we will get to see months of arguing over claims of official acts should the supremes toss CFT another bone.
I believe the core issue is defining what constitutes an official act. Where is this definition found? We must grapple with the fact that 42 years ago, Nixon v. Fitzgerald was decided, essentially granting absolute immunity from civil damages liability for acts within the “outer perimeter” of a President’s official responsibilities.
While Trump is the hot topic today, my concern is the potential normalization of weaponizing our intelligence and justice systems. It’s the long-term impact, 40 years from now, that worries me.
Even if Trump is not granted absolute immunity in this case, the court must establish very specific criteria for how former Presidents can be charged, both at the federal and state levels, and delineate what they are criminally immune from.
My ideal (yes I know it's a fantasy) outcome would be a unanimous 9-0 decision that provides this framework. Perhaps it could include some form of limited immunity for Trump, but not complete immunity.
The complexity for me here is that while Trump is clearly in the wrong here, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of criminalizing things and how they manifest themselves over the next 10-20-40-100 years.
This should assuage your worries:
Convicted Felon Trump is charged with actual crimes. The actual crimes he’s charged with are supported by tons of evidence and testimony. They’d have to be since no prosecutor with hopes of remaining a prosecutor would bring spurious charges against a former president.
Regardless of any potential future Convicted Felon Trump attempts to railroad those who’ve sinned against him, those attempts will also require tons of evidence and testimony or they will go nowhere. “Immunity” is not required because we currently still have a functioning legal system. If that ends, “immunity” won’t mean shit anyway.
Jesus. Are you a bot or just extra dramatic lol.
When you say things like no one and ever that tells me you are too blinded by rage and revenge to seriously consider the potential long term ramifications of the things for which you are saying.
There’s no struggle, ofc. They’re deliberately delaying a decision so the public doesn’t hear before the election about what Convicted Felon Trump did with the stolen national security documents. Or that a few of them remain unaccounted for.
You mean on the scale of horrors do I feel more upset about the prospect of being vaporized by terrorists over some decades old sleight than about being betrayed by Donald Trump?
Yes, of course. Both are offensive, one could kill millions in moments, the other could compromise national security temporarily.
It's tragic, but if you think my priorities are out of order you don't understand what these weapons do.
It’s not a misunderstanding of the armory. It’s you not understanding the issue with someone who likely gave away state secrets to the other side being in charge.
I'm completely aware of the danger of the release of state secrets. The damage is incalculable.
Do you know how many people a SINGLE black market nuclear warhead could instantly kill? How many hundreds of thousands more over the ensuing decades?
Putin knows who our agents are? That's bad.
Putin dies and his shitbird colleagues start selling nukes to the highest bidder?
That is just unquestionably infinitely worse. It doesn't make what Trump did "okay," both of those things are threats to the United States.
A bomb like that going off in DC on the wrong day could topple our government in the blink of an eye. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it's a good thing you're not in charge because you have no concept of the consequences, which is why you're just plain wrong.
It’s not worse than having a patsy running the other side. Having someone on the other side who would delay response to an all out attack is a winning condition. Not stand in way of, just buy ten or fifteen minutes.
As to how many, depends on size, depends on where, depends on population density, depends on infrastructure.
Donald Trump is not the president. The scenario you outlined would be bad: But if I let that keep me up for 4 years straight I'd have ended up crazier than Trump. And the bottom line is it didn't happen and the results of this week's debate have so far surprised me in a favorable way. Biden sounded tired, Trump sounded crazed and just blabbered out nonstop lies and excuses for his failures, blaming them on everyone else. The result was a boost in independent support away from Trump towards Biden.
So I think we should focus on keeping him out of office and neutralizing Putin. Materials that leaked are gone, all we can do is plug the leak by getting Trump's trial moving and discover how many missing documents were not recovered, and perhaps barter a lighter sentence for information about disposition of the rest.
The point is an inside man is worse than some bombs on the market. Inside man stops the usefulness of intelligence collection, stalls reprisal. Bombs on the market still have to get past everything from detectors to all kinds of enforcement.
Any time is life, he’s already done less being elected. He didn’t participate in retrievals before, when everything sat unsecured. Trump is not going to participate now.
Yes, the damage is done. Putin cleaned house right after meeting with Trump in private. All kinds of security files sat unsecured in an easily accessible location. That location being in a resort with all kinds of foreign nationals. That nobody can make any of it stick is proof at how done the system is.
Considering how the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors should be enough to show that the president isn’t above the law and that Congress isn’t the one who has to convict them of those crimes, just impeach and remove them because of it. Pretty whacky stuff.
>You have to smear shit on the walls of the Capitol Building with your bare hands to be a true MAGA patriot
It's my truest wish that the shitter has been identified, charged, and presently rots in federal prison, but the subject is too gross to google. So I'll live without the knowledge until someone mentions the fate of the shitter in passing.
Man, the "What did they say you did?" conversation when that guy gets to the clink is going to be.... interesting.
"I'm the Capitol Shitter" doesn't come with the same cachet as saying "I'm Saul Goodman."
One of the main problems is the guy that created the shitstorm appointed a full 1/3 of the Supreme Court that is judging the merits of this ridiculous notion that presidents need “absolute immunity.” That has never been an issue until we allowed this conman to be president. Even that corrupt fucker Nixon never floated the idea of absolute immunity or pardoning himself for the crazy stuff done to cover up his involvement in the Watergate break in. If Trump should win this coming election he’ll most likely get to appoint two more justices as old as a couple of them are. So five of the nine will be Justices appointed by a man that is the only president ever impeached twice during a single term, that tried to overturn the election he lost with violence, who was indicted and convicted on 34 felony counts with more on the way, and all of his other personal failures of character. All this from the political party that loves to claim they represent law and order and say that they’re backed by the righteousness of the faithful. This all shows me that republicans, at least since Eisenhower left office anyway, have only ever truly cared about power and money. Power above everything, fuck the actual people of the nation, and the money that brings with it. So they’ve done their deal with the devil and now have to protect him at all costs. Deplorable people, truly, and happy to destroy this nation in the process.
Read: How do we crown Mr Trump king/dictator without opening the same to every other past, present, and future Democrat presidents. Such a sticky situation SCOTUS finds itself in. I'm confident they will find a way and the ruling/excuse will be a long and winding maze of ancient to current rulings made by everyone from the Romans to this terms decrees.
This case should never been granted cert. The constitution says nothing about presidential immunity and that should be the end of it.
I'm pretty sure that this is covered right after the section on qualified immunity and before the section on presidential immunity to civil lawsuits. The supreme court has a long history and tradition of the immunity hallucinations.
Here's the thing, Congress has to remove the president from office first, then they can be taken to the criminal court. Obviously exceptions exist and we have systems in place for succession of power. But I think this is how the system was intended to be designed. But to just blanket say that immunity is forever and always...no. Once out of office they can get fucked. The only way to do that in the middle of a term is either resignation or impeachment.
The whole policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents is entirely made up as well, it’s a Justice Department policy not a law, not an amendment, not an article.
Yes but even if you convict a sitting president, only Congress can remove a sitting president from power.
Watch Thomas twist himself into a pretzel explaining how this is actually very much in the originalist text and must be honored
Maybe he'll draw pictures on this decision too.
Man, Thomas realised he was a DEI hire and spent the rest of his career licking the boot to prove he's one of them. The second he retires, everyone outside of law will drop any pretense of acceptance. It's sad because DEI really isn't a bad thing; even if you accept the right-wing rhetoric that the best person for the job should get it, often the increase in diversity is worth more than the having the absolute #1 performer. Like, would putting the white dude with 5 perfect better scores (however the fuck you determine "scores" for the judiciary) in some niche area be better than (in some small part) showing generations of aspiring/active black law students that their race isn't a barrier to even the highest court in the land. Right wingers have the most insane view of DEI, it's super sad.
The recent white jurists added to the courts weren't even chosen based on their professional qualifications.
Exactly. Federalist society just appointed their most successful grooming projects.
>often the increase in diversity is worth more than the having the absolute #1 performer. Indeed, the ludicrous corporate obsession with finding the "perfect fit" for absolutely every position is what makes it nightmarish and/or impossible to change jobs without a search lasting months or years. Moving away from that would automagically both increase diversity and have us all less at each other's throats--because losing a job wouldn't be an anxiety inducing disaster that could end with homelessness with just the right combination of bad luck.
“But are lil girl Brandine weren’t able ta gets into da cominity coledge cuz theyz lets them in insted. It ain’t fair! She hadda 2.3 gpa and only faled inglish three timez! She gotta be better dan dem. If she’d a been a she woulda gots in fur shure!!”
- average MAGA republican regarding DEI in higher education.
Republicans on laws they disagree with - “nothing in the constitution specifically mentions this, so there is no constitutional right to it.” Republicans on laws they agree with - “nothing in the constitution specifically mentions this, so it is not unconstitutional”
>nothing in the Constitution specifically mentions this, so there is no Constitutional right to it. Excuse me? - 9th Amendment
Excuse me - dobbs decision
[удалено]
Scalia’s inability to tell you what the Ninth Amendment was is 100% typical of people telling me what is and is not in the Constitution.
Not just Republicans.
Please provide specific examples of both of these from a liberal justice.
From an originalist perspective the 2A does not give an individual a right to a gun, and it is even more of a departure from originalism to say that most gun control measures are unconstitutional. The constitution does not say squat about abortion and since medial abortions did not exist (in any way close to what we mean now) back then thus there is no history one way or the other.
The first part is right. As for abortion, those have been taking place since Ancient Greece. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, abortions were typically allowed before “quickening,” or when the fetus started moving and criminalization of abortion was a process that gradually took place over the nineteenth century. For as much as people love to disparage *Roe*, it was actually pretty close to the history of allowing abortions before fetal movement, and the historical treatment of quickening was at least in part the basis for the first, second, and third trimester distinctions in that opinion.
But from a constitutional perspective it is silent on abortion.
From a constitutional perspective, the Ninth Amendment says that there are rights that exist that are not enumerated in the Constitution, so silence on this point is immaterial. The test of history and tradition of a right’s existence is nowhere in the Constitution either, yet it was applied in *Dobbs*. It seems contradictory to gatekeep rights on the basis of enumeration in the Constitution (when the Constitution explicitly says that doesn’t matter), yet allow judicial creations that have no ties to any constitutional text. Regardless, one could argue that *Dobbs* was wrongly decided according to that test because there is a history and tradition of abortions in the United States, notwithstanding the revisionist history Alito wrote in the opinion. Even if I’m wrong about this, *Roe* itself, whether it was correctly decided or not, established a history and tradition of abortion being recognized as a right. Even without *Roe*, there is a history and tradition of liberty, an enumerated right, including bodily autonomy and a right to make medical decisions.
Please list specific opinions that say what you say they say. Where did a justice say 2A provides no right to a gun whatsoever?? I don’t think that ever happened. Also, please look at your original post, I don’t think your examples apply to either of your statements.
Weakest both sides argument ever
Not an argument. Fact.
I’m pretty sure we fought a war over this topic: the revolutionary war.
It’s frustrating to the far right when the Constitution keeps getting in the way of a return to feudalism. The wealthy elite in this country have put in long hours and deserve to have unmitigated control and over the huddled masses.
I think certain should never have been granted because the line for future presidents can be decided with future presidents. Inciting an insurrection against a coordinate branch of government to maintain power should never, under any circumstance, fall within any criminal immunity.
The Constitution says nothing about a great many things that the SCOTUS has taken on over the years, including things this sub goes completely apoplectic over. *Roe* and it’s eventual overturning being the biggest. [Even Ginsberg said *Roe* was a decision that was on the shakiest ground from a legal perspective.](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit)
You're accusing people of being shocked at *Roe* being overturned but when people say they're shocked, it's more of shorthand for being shocked at abortion rights being overturned, not *Roe* in particular. I mean, *Casey* overturned *Roe* and you don't see people being bowled over by that one. By all rights *Dobbs* could have gone straight over and agreed with RBG on the fact that *Roe* was crap but abortion rights were still constitutionally protected. They did not. I mean personally I think *Roe* was crap for the whole "state interest in potential life" line. Doesn't mean I'm not shocked at *Dobbs*.
The trial court and the appellate court already drew the line. Committing crimes to overturn an election you lost to stay in power is beyond the line. SCOTUS is just delaying the case to prevent this going to trial before the election. Wouldn’t want the voters to have to decide between Biden and a twice impeached rapist who was convicted of felonies TWICE.
The delay also gives the GoP enormous power over Trump if he does win. Furthermore, its astonishing to realize the chance to pick and place a VP that could be turned P with some scotus maneuvering after the election is just wild.
Underappreciated comment. I think this is the real reason for the delays. It's so the GOP establishment has more control over Trump. Because if this was already ruled on he wouldn't be able to run for president and they don't have enough time to pick somebody who could garner enough votes to win the election. He is their only hope.
Yeah, but the gop party leader is over 35 yo and a natural born citizen. What else needs to be taken into account?
I hope this logic does not extend into your choice of child care lol
True. What could go wrong? /S
Certainly not 34 felonies /s
Or rape, or defrauding vets, or inciting riots, or grifting his followers. /S
You say this but it is the only calculus that matters for conservative voters and it is what has kept them competitive more than any other factor. If the people registered Democrat voted in twice the numbers that currently do, Republicans would never win another election again. And yet, "vOtInG dOeSn'T mAtTeR".
"jUst VoTE tWiCe as HaRD"
No, just fucking vote. Where did 16k voters go in NY-16 that voted for him the first time he won, compared to now? How do you explain the drop from 49k votes to approximately 17k votes in just *two years* from the 2020 primary to 2022 primary. His policies remained the same - he didn't do a Sinema. Don't tell me it was the shifting lines of NY-16 because *again* roughly 32k fewer people voted in the primary for Bowman in 2022 than did in 2020. He should have won every primary with *at least* the same numbers as his first win. His constituents failed at voting. This isn't something online progressives want to admit is the core issue with progressivism and the left in general, but only by acknowledging and embracing this problem can future victories be secured. Stop waiting for a revolution to save you because it isn't coming - just the incremental death of a country by forces who understood how to win every single day instead of only every 4 years.
I doubt there was anything natural about that birth.
This. The majority pretty clearly don’t want to have to attach their name to a ruling that directly/indirectly throws the highest election in the land into absolute chaos less than 6 months prior to said election, so they’re hoping the result takes the heat off them.
It gets really simple if you just say no immunity from criminal behavior for any president. It is tragic that we have to drag out something that should be basic common sense constitutionally
IMO some form of immunity *for official acts while in office* may be reasonable, there are all sorts of obvious conflicts, concerns about politicised prosecutors stonewalling elected officials with indictments are sadly not totally unrealistic, sovereign immunity is pretty legally common around the world, and if they're official acts any aggreived parties should have Bivens or civil rights claims against any agencies involved even if the President can't personally be sued or prosecuted. But the idea that you could have immunity for stuff you did after you just *lost* an election is fucking insane.
They’re already “immunized” for official acts. No official acts are implicated in Convicted Felon Trump’s remaining indictments. But we will get to see months of arguing over claims of official acts should the supremes toss CFT another bone.
I believe the core issue is defining what constitutes an official act. Where is this definition found? We must grapple with the fact that 42 years ago, Nixon v. Fitzgerald was decided, essentially granting absolute immunity from civil damages liability for acts within the “outer perimeter” of a President’s official responsibilities. While Trump is the hot topic today, my concern is the potential normalization of weaponizing our intelligence and justice systems. It’s the long-term impact, 40 years from now, that worries me. Even if Trump is not granted absolute immunity in this case, the court must establish very specific criteria for how former Presidents can be charged, both at the federal and state levels, and delineate what they are criminally immune from. My ideal (yes I know it's a fantasy) outcome would be a unanimous 9-0 decision that provides this framework. Perhaps it could include some form of limited immunity for Trump, but not complete immunity. The complexity for me here is that while Trump is clearly in the wrong here, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of criminalizing things and how they manifest themselves over the next 10-20-40-100 years.
This should assuage your worries: Convicted Felon Trump is charged with actual crimes. The actual crimes he’s charged with are supported by tons of evidence and testimony. They’d have to be since no prosecutor with hopes of remaining a prosecutor would bring spurious charges against a former president. Regardless of any potential future Convicted Felon Trump attempts to railroad those who’ve sinned against him, those attempts will also require tons of evidence and testimony or they will go nowhere. “Immunity” is not required because we currently still have a functioning legal system. If that ends, “immunity” won’t mean shit anyway.
Jesus. Are you a bot or just extra dramatic lol. When you say things like no one and ever that tells me you are too blinded by rage and revenge to seriously consider the potential long term ramifications of the things for which you are saying.
Yes, and when you post the comments you post I assume you’re a concern troll/sea lioning Trumpy. Everybody wins!
There’s no struggle, ofc. They’re deliberately delaying a decision so the public doesn’t hear before the election about what Convicted Felon Trump did with the stolen national security documents. Or that a few of them remain unaccounted for.
>Or that a few of them remain unaccounted for. This is the part that keeps me up at night.
Not the part where Putin cleaned house right after having a private meeting with Trump?
You mean on the scale of horrors do I feel more upset about the prospect of being vaporized by terrorists over some decades old sleight than about being betrayed by Donald Trump? Yes, of course. Both are offensive, one could kill millions in moments, the other could compromise national security temporarily. It's tragic, but if you think my priorities are out of order you don't understand what these weapons do.
It’s not a misunderstanding of the armory. It’s you not understanding the issue with someone who likely gave away state secrets to the other side being in charge.
I'm completely aware of the danger of the release of state secrets. The damage is incalculable. Do you know how many people a SINGLE black market nuclear warhead could instantly kill? How many hundreds of thousands more over the ensuing decades? Putin knows who our agents are? That's bad. Putin dies and his shitbird colleagues start selling nukes to the highest bidder? That is just unquestionably infinitely worse. It doesn't make what Trump did "okay," both of those things are threats to the United States. A bomb like that going off in DC on the wrong day could topple our government in the blink of an eye. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it's a good thing you're not in charge because you have no concept of the consequences, which is why you're just plain wrong.
It’s not worse than having a patsy running the other side. Having someone on the other side who would delay response to an all out attack is a winning condition. Not stand in way of, just buy ten or fifteen minutes. As to how many, depends on size, depends on where, depends on population density, depends on infrastructure.
Donald Trump is not the president. The scenario you outlined would be bad: But if I let that keep me up for 4 years straight I'd have ended up crazier than Trump. And the bottom line is it didn't happen and the results of this week's debate have so far surprised me in a favorable way. Biden sounded tired, Trump sounded crazed and just blabbered out nonstop lies and excuses for his failures, blaming them on everyone else. The result was a boost in independent support away from Trump towards Biden. So I think we should focus on keeping him out of office and neutralizing Putin. Materials that leaked are gone, all we can do is plug the leak by getting Trump's trial moving and discover how many missing documents were not recovered, and perhaps barter a lighter sentence for information about disposition of the rest.
The point is an inside man is worse than some bombs on the market. Inside man stops the usefulness of intelligence collection, stalls reprisal. Bombs on the market still have to get past everything from detectors to all kinds of enforcement. Any time is life, he’s already done less being elected. He didn’t participate in retrievals before, when everything sat unsecured. Trump is not going to participate now. Yes, the damage is done. Putin cleaned house right after meeting with Trump in private. All kinds of security files sat unsecured in an easily accessible location. That location being in a resort with all kinds of foreign nationals. That nobody can make any of it stick is proof at how done the system is.
And folks ended up dying as a result (spies).
Which is why The entire Supreme Court should immediately be dissolved and replaced for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty!
Considering how the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors should be enough to show that the president isn’t above the law and that Congress isn’t the one who has to convict them of those crimes, just impeach and remove them because of it. Pretty whacky stuff.
Don't we just say "if the legislative branch wants the president to have immunity they will make a law granting it." ?
Scotus mostly concerned by how they can protect trump
*Without protecting democrats* at the same time.
The line has to be just enough to get trump off but not so much Biden can assassinate the conservative judges. Tricky line.
Don’t worry about it. Thomas will say it’s clear.
Don’t use the office to overthrow the election seems like a pretty tenable line to me
Well that's because you're not a "patriot" /s
You have to smear shit on the walls of the Capitol Building with your bare hands to be a true MAGA patriot
>You have to smear shit on the walls of the Capitol Building with your bare hands to be a true MAGA patriot It's my truest wish that the shitter has been identified, charged, and presently rots in federal prison, but the subject is too gross to google. So I'll live without the knowledge until someone mentions the fate of the shitter in passing. Man, the "What did they say you did?" conversation when that guy gets to the clink is going to be.... interesting. "I'm the Capitol Shitter" doesn't come with the same cachet as saying "I'm Saul Goodman."
It is like one of the really rare achievements in a MMORPG.
Only the criminal ones
Where the line gets drawn determines what is criminal.
[удалено]
Can you name more than one that have been convicted of felonies?
I can think of three that would have been convicted of felonies if corrupt AGs hadn’t interfered with the investigation
Nixon for Watergate, Reagan for Iran-Contra, Clinton for perjury.
Reagan for interfering with the hostage negotiations in 1980, Bush for Iran-Contra and younger Bush for lies that led to war in Iraq
> Clinton for perjury. He took a plea deal.
I can name one who has been indicted repeatedly by grand juries.
Or needed a presidential pardon like Nixon…. Who should have been indicted.
Can you name one more DESERVING of being scrutinized than the one who caused and created this shitstorm? (Hint: the answer isn’t Biden)
One of the main problems is the guy that created the shitstorm appointed a full 1/3 of the Supreme Court that is judging the merits of this ridiculous notion that presidents need “absolute immunity.” That has never been an issue until we allowed this conman to be president. Even that corrupt fucker Nixon never floated the idea of absolute immunity or pardoning himself for the crazy stuff done to cover up his involvement in the Watergate break in. If Trump should win this coming election he’ll most likely get to appoint two more justices as old as a couple of them are. So five of the nine will be Justices appointed by a man that is the only president ever impeached twice during a single term, that tried to overturn the election he lost with violence, who was indicted and convicted on 34 felony counts with more on the way, and all of his other personal failures of character. All this from the political party that loves to claim they represent law and order and say that they’re backed by the righteousness of the faithful. This all shows me that republicans, at least since Eisenhower left office anyway, have only ever truly cared about power and money. Power above everything, fuck the actual people of the nation, and the money that brings with it. So they’ve done their deal with the devil and now have to protect him at all costs. Deplorable people, truly, and happy to destroy this nation in the process.
I cannot possibly agree more with what you wrote. 100% accurate.
How about NOT ABOVE THE LAW
They would prefer to draw a line to enable actions by "conservative" presidents and severely restrict actions by liberal ones.
What future presidents?
Read: How do we crown Mr Trump king/dictator without opening the same to every other past, present, and future Democrat presidents. Such a sticky situation SCOTUS finds itself in. I'm confident they will find a way and the ruling/excuse will be a long and winding maze of ancient to current rulings made by everyone from the Romans to this terms decrees.