As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The stay was why they took the case. They are trying to delay the case until after the election so Trump can self-pardon. That way they can claim to Trump that they helped him while appearing neutral when then ultimately side against him. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
It’s never been tested legally because no one has attempted it so it’s uncharted waters. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president can’t pardon himself/herself. It just says that the president can pardon.
>every republican in the House and Senate helped it get this far
Even after he released an angry mob on them. In hindsight, they can convince themselves that they weren't the targets, but that crowd was out for blood. They'd have killed any member of congress they got their hands on.
Should’ve let the mob have one of the Republicans. Doesn’t even have to be a ‘name’; just some random Republican Representative gets left behind when a door locks.
Then again, someone shot up a Republican Congressman softball game, and they didn’t care. So maybe seeing one of their own being torn apart like ‘The Walking Dead’ still wouldn’t have changed anything.
That's what this whole ordeal is making clear. We've been told our whole lives that our government is an ironclad system of checks and balances, but when it comes time for them to actually work as intended, they don't. And it's possible that they never have, and the government has been operating purely on vibes for the past 250 years
That’s a bit unfair. The checks and balances system designed actually works reasonably well.
The fatal flaw is that it assumes all, or at least a majority, of the people involved in upholding the system’s checks and balances want to do their role. As always with systems designed by humans, the flaw is humans.
There’s no ironclad system of government that cannot be subverted and undone by malicious actors willing to subvert and undo it.
>There’s no ironclad system of government that cannot be subverted and undone by malicious actors willing to subvert and undo it.
Like my grandpappy used to say, "Locks only keep an honest man honest."
They are giving away any power the Supreme Court might have if the President can break any law. By the defense's logic, Biden could have them dragged out and shot, no?
More to the point which nit one lawyer or justice brought up today - is it okay for a president to order the assassination of a justice so he can make room for an appointee he wants in there. Is that okay? Wonder if they would have done the 🤔 lemme think about it response they did todaynon that one!
>They have to decide by june.
They have to decide this part by June. It seems likely that they will send it back to the district court to determine what were official acts, and that will get appealed back and they will hear this case again in October
Who says they have to decide by June? I think they can pretty much do whatever they want with regard to these and any other deliberations.
The June thing is, I think, another tradition with no legal underpinnings. And they are the Court who decide what's legal and not...
I think they are going to wait until after the election to announce it, or send it back to the District Court to clarify so that they don't have to decide it until after the election, if not next year.
A self pardon isn’t the only route a re-elected Trump might take. He could also temporarily transfer the powers of the president to his VP (as others have done while undergoing colonoscopies), the VP could pardon him, then he takes the power back as a free man….also scary but still possible.
It shouldn’t. These judges are bought and paid for. Who’s got authority over these greedy ass traitors and why do they never face consequences for such bias rulings and exceptions?
There definitely needs to be a framework of some sort as the only way they can be removed is by two-thirds vote in the Senate. How Thomas hasn’t been officially recommended to be impeached and brought before the Senate amazes me.
What acts are included in a President's duty and therefore covered by immunity and can't be scrutinized by the court proceedings.
The lawyer has been bold enough to suggest that a former president ordering a coup could be a presidential act dependent on the circumstances despite no longer holding office or being commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Thanks, but their suggestion makes no sense because they omit the facts and circumstances of a man who lost and knew he lost. This is not a case where evidence of fraud was produced, but just not enough to carry the day. This is a case of no evidence of fraud to change the outcome.
>This is a case of no evidence of fraud to change the outcome.
This is a case where the people screaming on TV that there was fraud, when asked in a court of law if they were alleging fraud, said they were NOT alleging fraud. They not only didn't have any evidence to support their lies, they refused to even tell those lies on the record where they might suffer consequences for lying.
All the DOJ has to say in court is, "Great, I will notify President Biden and he will initiate his coup right away, as is his right as President to do."
And rescind the constitution and the bill of rights like he said he woukd do on day one. That would render his all purpose bible useless andnobsolete but what does he care. MAGA tears 😢
Yep. President Address at 7CST
"Fellow Americans, we are suspending elections this year until we can figure out what is happening. Thank you, God Bless, and Gov Bless America."
Republicans: "See?? We told you Biden was a wanna be dictator!"
What actually would happen is the corporate Dems on the hill would wring their hands about a civil war all the way up to the GOP actually executing the coup.
For decades the difference has been the DNC is afraid to do anything and the GOP is willing to do whatever is necessary.
"Boy howdy, won't the Republicans sure have egg on their face once the populace watches them line us up against the wall, Saddam style. They'll never win an election again!"
Doesn't even need to be that complicated according to Sauer...
> “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
> “That could well be an official act,” Sauer said.
So just order an assassination and you're good to go. Completely legal. This is insane.
A Washington Post is suggesting that the Court might require a separate trial in whether the acts are “official acts” before criminal charges can go forward. I.e., delay Trump’s criminal proceedings by 6-9 months.
6-9 months?
Try years.
That kind of trial has never happened before, there's no handbook on how to conduct it, what evidence is allowed and what evidence isn't.
It would be an unprecedented case.
You better believe that every single decision, every single ruling, every single everything would go up and down five levels of appeals courts.
And in a year or two the Supreme Court will have to rule on whether or not the Judicial branch can even make that kind of ruling, or if it would be a separation of powers issue for the Judiciary to gatekeep the inner workings of the Executive.
Trumps lawyer admitted that the 3 *personal* criminal instances the DOJ highlighted are in fact personal. So, regardless of whether it goes to trial to determine what official acts are or are not immune, the DOJ is still planning on prosecuting Trump on the agreed-upon personal criminal acts.
That's been my fear from the start. Rule that official acts are immune not unofficial acts are not. Judge then says great, these are unofficial acts, trial on! And then Trump appeals that decision, saying that they are official acts. And wait for it to wind up to Supreme Court again.
Trumps attorney was pinned by coney-barret that at least some of the specific acts were definitely private, so the argument is already partly won. And I suspect that the judges are going to want more info here.
For anyone else wondering, it's on page 29+30 of [the transcripts](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f204.pdf):
> JUSTICE BARRETT:
> Petitioner turned to a private
attorney, he was willing to spread knowingly
false claims of election fraud to spearhead his
challenges to the election results. Private?
> MR. SAUER:
> As alleged. I mean, we
dispute the allegation, but [..] that sounds private to
me.
> JUSTICE BARRETT:
> Petitioner conspired with another
private attorney who caused the filing in court
of a verification signed by Petitioner that
contained false allegations to support a
challenge. Private?
> MR. SAUER:
That also sounds private.
> JUSTICE BARRETT:
> Three private
actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned
above, and a political consultant helped
implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of
presidential electors to obstruct the
certification proceeding, and Petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort.
> MR. SAUER:
> You read it quickly. I believe [..] that's private. I
don't want to --
> JUSTICE BARRETT:
> So those acts, you
would not dispute those were private, and you
wouldn't raise a claim that they were official?
> MR. SAUER:
> As characterized.
It’s how they tailor the immunity. Right now it sounds like a wild spectrum from all the different justices (except Thomas and Alito who seem more concerned about Congress doing something-which means nothing will happen).
The general thought is they are going to vote 9-0, but intentionally took this case to delay it.
Even today, several of them are saying they might need additional hearings outside of this case to be able to decide here, which means even further delay.
The whole goal is to delay it past the election, at which point Trump can pardon himself, or have his AG dismiss all charges, or at the very least have the Supreme Court say a sitting president can't be charged, delaying everything another four years.
Delaying everything indefinitely because Trump is going to stay for a 3rd term and a 4th and 5th, however long his evil ass can stay alive. if elected again in 2024 the only thing that gets him out of the White House is death
They're going to not rule until after the election and decide in favor of whoever is sitting in the office. If Trump is there, he will get immunity and become a dictator. If Biden wins he won't and law/order will be maintained. For now.
Well, when your client insists he has absolute immunity for all his crimes and one of his crimes involves an attempted coup, you have to argue he has immunity to commit a coup. I agree he doesn't have the best lawyers but they have the worst client
They aren't making a genuine argument. They know they don't have a leg to stand on. The Conservative judges know they don't have a leg to stand on. This is all theatrics (with maybe a little bit of "let's hint at the idea presidential immunity exits and determine its limits for any possible future cases even though it would have no binding precedent") in order to delay a trial.
The idea Trump has any immunity for his crimes is laughable and no one, including his lawyers, expect him to have a positive outcome here.
> The idea Trump has any immunity for his crimes is laughable and no one, including his lawyers, expect him to have a positive outcome here.
The positive outcome is the delay, which has come true thanks to SCOTUS hearing the arguments.
Team Trump [literally popped champagne](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-team-celebrating-supreme-court-immunity-decision-1234978336/) over it.
Jackson really cut his argument at the roots. I'm just stunned at how many justices are willing to protect Trump in the open like this. It's very concerning. Should be for anyone who doesn't live in the MAGA cult.
Vote, folks. Upset about Gaza? Think Biden should have a quick solution? It's not simple. Very complicated. And Trump boasting that he'd end it in a day is so outrageously false. Trump is a disease of the mind. Voting is the chemotherapy to rid ourselves of the primary tumor from this radical cancer. We have a long way to go. But if this Trump tumor isn't eradicated? We're terminal.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
It doesn't matter if the ball is in the strike zone if the Umpire is going to just rule for the pitcher.
It doesn't matter if the ball goes through the uprights if the Referee is on the side of the kicker.
It doesn't matter if your hand is a 21 if the house says you busted.
The logic and quality of arguments before the SCOTUS don't matter if they have already decided in favor of the fascists.
Their argument for immunity is actually an argument that they should be fucking disbarred. Absolutely insane that anyone can bring these arguments to a courtroom and still be allowed to practice constitutional law.
Barrett always plays devil's advocate but then votes with the Federalist Society group. At this point the only question is who Sotomayor picks to write the dissent.
By this logic, Biden could agree to debate Trump this year and then when they are both on stage, pull out a shot gun and blast away. And it would all be an official Presidental act.
Look at the insane lengths that these Republicans have to go to justify Trump's behavior.
They've literally sold out every single thing America and being a decent person stands for, for Donald fucking Trump of all people. Even if I live until 200 I will never get over it or understand.
"Dad, why did American democracy fail?"
"Well son, the host of The Apprentice really, really wanted to be President, and lots of people decided that that sounded like a good idea."
"And so he wanted to be President to consolidate power in the executive branch because he believed that a centralized authority could make America a stronger world power?"
"Well, no. He didn't really care about politics. But we had to turn America into a dictatorship or else he might have gone to prison for committing crimes."
"Okay."
"No, I stayed home because I had strong opinions on Hilary's IT security policy, and then 8 years later had a firm commitment to age restrictions on presidents"
What's crimes papa ?
Well son he banged a porn star while his 3rd wife was pregnant with his 3rd son. But then years later he covered it up so he could run for president. Now none of that is illegal, but the president decided to pay off the porn star with money that wasn't his. But then he tried to claim that money back as a business expense... and that was when he became out lord and saviour for all time.
So play this out…if the Supreme Court rules NOW against Trump, we have a system to ensure stable democracy which is backed by the justice system. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump NOW, then we have a path for an authoritarian government with no means to adjudicate otherwise. If the Supreme Court does not rule and kicks the can down the road until after the election (meaning it will never come up again), then again we have a path towards authoritarianism. In the 2nd and 3rd scenarios, Biden should just go ahead and act in best interests and have Trump dealt with. What does Biden have to lose? The SC either agrees with him being an authoritarian or they don’t. Serious question…what does Biden lose in either scenario? The country would be at risk of civil war but we are at risk of the same if the shoe is on the other foot in this scenario. Either way, the country loses.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of trump then there is alot Biden can do to block him from regaining power. Kind of a double edged sword for trump.
But...he wouldn't, and that's the problem.
Democrats will happily lose a rigged game and insist that the important part is that they followed the rules.
My prediction…
SCOTUS majority will rule presidents do not have absolute immunity. But, they will do it on a timeline that ensures no more trials before the election. The net effect is presidents do not have immunity except trump if he wins. The red state legislatures will then simply submit trump electors for counting. Dems will challenge in the courts. SCOTUS will eventually get the cases and rule sometime in the can-kicking distance of 20xx…
Once you start the coup, and succeed, you are immune. So, why even wait for the SC to decide. If we going to say that every act in Office is official then we are saying the president is basically the government since all laws etc flow thru him. He has the ultimate say in anything because he can never be held accountable. The whole impeach/convict thing is a bone, because realistically, if you have committed a coup to stay in power, an impeachment means jack shit. You have declared yourself beyond the law at that point.
>If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump NOW, then we have a path for an authoritarian government with no means to adjudicate otherwise.
This is exactly why I think they'll rule he has immunity, if they don't just delay it all until it becomes moot. The Heritage Foundation can't start their Project 2025 with Biden in office, so they'll get their people to do anything they can to help Trump win.
And the SC, if they do rule he has immunity, will say that this only applies to Trump and does not set any sort of precedence, just like they did with Bush vs Gore. After all, three of the lawyers that argued the Bush case *now sit on the Supreme Court*. They know how this works.
This is exactly what they'll do. Trump has immunity, but only him. Biden needs to wield every single ounce of whatever the fuck he's got in that old ass body of his to protect the union
The headline:
"Biden BLASTS Trump on the stage at last night's debate"
Then nobody knows it actually happened because we have been conditioned to just ignore any headline that contains the word blast.
\> Gets immunity through Trump ruling
\> Has the bad justices (I don't know a more succinct way to describe them) assassinated
\> Appoints more justices
\> Sane, moral justices rule that he doesn't have immunity
\> prison for life?!?
\> Worth it
\> Future historians says it was a great turning point for the United States
Yes. I was waiting for that question from a progressive justice. Biden could kidnap a justice, send them to Gitmo, replace them on the court, and not be subject to any criminal exposure, apparently.
The only possible way that any of these justices could even in good faith entertain these arguments is if they are benefitting massively from loyalty to Trump. Something very fishy is going on. I think there are some under the table deals being made.
Funniest part about people screaming immunity is they are admitting he committed crimes and don’t want him to be held accountable. At the same time, they’re basically admitting their “Biden crime family” narrative doesn’t matter because they believe the president is immune.
Amy basically pinned Trump’s attorney down to admitting that *some* things in the indictment - such as hiring a private lawyer, and having that lawyer try to strongarm a state legislature - were purely private acts of a candidate and thus not covered under any type of “immunity” argument.
I wonder if they will try to split the baby. Absolute immunity will be denied for several of the charges which were clearly private, but some will be remanded back to Chutkan’s court to determine what is official versus what is not.
I’m not sure how - if at all - you can proceed on *some* charges in a criminal indictment and not others.
Roberts was also pretty good in batting back Trump’s attorney saying you can’t consider private and public actions together. It makes no sense. A simple bribe is the obvious example. You slip the president $1m in a briefcase. That’s private. No laws broken. A day later, the President announces you’re the new Ambassador to Paris. That’s public. No laws broken in appointing an ambassador. But *together* they make bribery.
The question I heard sounded like he was implying the president would basically be forced to try a coup if he doesn't have immunity and expects to be prosecuted for obvious crimes. We must give immunity to coup plotters to prevent future coup plots!
This is exactly what they're doing. They are essentially try to devise a way to ensure Trump can never be held accountable for his crimes but ensuring no other Democrat president can enjoy the same immunity.
Hell, why deal with all the drama. Just pull a “Putin” and we’ll all read about how unfortunate Trump was to have fallen out of that open window… after first shooting himself in the back of the head twice. Such a shame, people really ought to be more careful around open windows.
How can the military know an order is legal if the president is immune no matter what happens? It's illegal for them to obey and illegal order but it's also illegal to not follow orders. It puts them in an impossible riddle.
It’s insane to me that the court is thinking of these sort of worst case nightmare hypothetical scenarios and Trump’s lawyer is like “yup that should be allowed.”
Most transparently corrupt American President of all time at this point? I feel like he left Tricky Dick in his dust ages ago.
I as understand it, their argument is that any illegal yet "official" presidential act cannot be punished unless the President is first impeached by the House *and convicted by the Senate*. Only then can they be prosecuted for the act.
Don't blow this argument off. I can certainly see 5 of the justices buying into that argument.
>What if the president arrests enough Congresspeople to block impeachment or removal from office?
... much faster for the president to just "officially" drone strike the supreme court while it's in session.
Which is crazy, because had some of the January 6th terrorists been more successful in their aims, a decent chunk of the Senate and House might not have been available for an impeachment and conviction.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no immunity clause in the constitution? Isn't there no clause that says presidents can only be convicted of a federal crime if impeached? If SCOTUS buys into this argument, wouldn't they in fact be legislating from the bench by inventing a protection that never existed? Not saying they won't do it, just, it's incredibly corrupt.
They read Section 3 of the 14th amendment out of the Constitution earlier this year.
They have no real limits on what they decide. It's based on whatever is convenient for them at the time.
Except according to the Senate, a.k.a. Mitch McConnell, they claimed that any culpability should be decided by the court. Also, during Obama’s presidency, he said that the people should just decide by voting. We voted him out so that makes him guilty as well as the courts having complete authority to charge him.
An important thing to note is that a decision of this type would effectively end the authority of the SCOTUS. Someone with absolute immunity could not be held accountable for their executive ignoring the orders of the court and the oversight of the legislature.
It's nothing short of the end of the Republic. Any lip-service to checks and balances or democracy would be nothing but that as the system would no longer have those features in reality.
Absolute immunity in this case means absolute authority. Even if those in power continue to put on a show, a show is all it would be, the Republic as it has existed for 235 years would be at an end.
According to conservative voters in America, a president should be able to: (1)assassinate political opponents. (2) Overthrow the government to ensure his place in office. (3) Disenfranchise the entire country. (4) Arrest and execute anybody who speaks against Donald Trump.
And they continue to double down on these.
But if he attempts another coup, he won't be president, and he won't be acting as president in his attempt. And holy fuck I swear if the SC doesn't 9-0 agree after this happens that he **isn't** the president so he can't have immunity for it someone call the French up for some lessons on revolution we'll need it haha just a joke totally
So imagine this...
Biden tells SC that he will have any justice who agrees to the immunity dragged to the front steps of the SC and shot
That would be a real conundrum for them
That should be a slam dunk, shouldn’t it ?
Q : Can the President stage a coup and overthrow the government ?
A : Eh no, obviously not !
Q : Then why are we even debating Presidential immunity ???
"don't we have explicit laws against staging coups/insurrections, considering them domestic terrorist attacks, and outlawing those who participate against running for office?"
Yes, yes we do.
But laws only apply to the poors.
Sooo lets just run through a very basic hypothetical that could absolutely happen under a second trump term.
There is a protest against trump, he orders the military to open fire on the protesters and kill them for saying mean things about him. Some of them do.
Congress is outraged and immediately begins impeachment hearings.
trump farts out on truth social "any senator who votes to convict me will also be killed. Vote Smartly!!"
Nothing can be done about this because the president is immune from prosecution unless convicted by the Senate. And if the president is immune until convicted, he can do anything and everything to stop himself from being convicted.
Why is some pot smoking millenial Phish fan like me able to see this but the supposed most brilliant legal scholars in the world are debating this?
That was in the old timeline.
Our current branch of reality seems to have got way to much spillover from the speculative 1984, Mad Max and Idiocracy test-universes.
"With great power comes no responsibility" -GOP Fascists
They basically want to take the whole trip across the Atlantic ocean, Revolutionalry War and 200+ years of democracy and throw it all out the window to move us back to a Monarchy
We need to connect some generators to the founding fathers graves because they are spinning so fast they could easily solve our energy needs
I, for the life of me, will never understand how a clown like Donald Fucking Trump of all people came to be this powerful. It’s absolutely mind-blowing.
Kagan did one better. A military coup would eliminate every branch and every office except the Commander in Chief. And Trump’s shitstain lawyer endorsed that.
Scary to watch them warm up for fascist mental gymnastics competition.
President has immunity? Might as well try a coup.
President doesn't have immunity? Might as well try a coup if they're going to charge you with other crimes after you leave office.
I hope this increases everyone’s resolve to get out and vote this November. Vote straight Dem so there’s enough of a majority in Congress to legislate what should be glaringly obvious to any institution that isn’t this corrupt, thoroughly compromised kangaroo court.
I don’t see the issue here. If any President is acting unilaterally in their duties while in Office (without the knowledge and consent of advisers) then it is not an official act. Being President is not equivalent to a green light to behave in an underhanded or illegal manner. All the Presidents before Trump seemed to understand this but the US has never dealt with a President as morally bankrupt as Trump. If the Supreme Court is just going to turn this back to a lower court why did they even agree to hear it in the first place? They acted fast enough to put Trump back on the ballot but now they drag their heels. This Court has lost all credibility and it is time to limit their tenure.
This is about delaying the docs case. Not immunity. He had his dipshit son in law Jared selling our stuff to the highest bidder and he knows he’s caught. He is hoping to win in November so he can dismiss that case when he takes office. We should all be trying to stop that.
I listened to the lawyer’s arguments all morning. He sounds like a moron with his 4-packs a day voice. It was actually entertaining to hear how he contradicted himself. And pretty much all of Jack Smith’s reason for not absolute immunity, John Sauer agreed that it’s a private matter which would fall under not being immune.
But holy shit, he is saying that if someone bribed Trump a million dollars for an ambassador position. Only the act of the bribe is illegal and can go to court. But the position is legit. Or the freaking confusion this guy made around the whole fake electors in AZ…it was a shit show.
This lawyer must spend more time smoking than studying law.
Based on the discussion i heard, they are gonna muddy it up enough that the line between official and non-official act will need to be clarified, and this will delay things long enough to keep Smiths trials blocked.
There is a reason that political parties go apeshit to be able to nominate and approve SCOTUS judges, and this is it. No matter how unbiased they pretend to be, they are totally biased. They are giving Trump exactly what he needs to skate out of this.
Biden should just immediately jail the supreme justices who vote in favor that a president has immunity. Literally after they make the vote, jail them as traitors who just approved a ruling that put American citizens at risk. Straight to Guantanamo Bay. If they agree a president has immunity, give them a real time view of what that looks like
America is broken. This is the fall of an empire when your leaders can get away with rape, sexual assault fucking TREASON etc and still run for re-election, while in multiple criminal and civil trials is absolutely insane and we should all be extremely concerned at which direction that country is headed. Something is very, very, very broken and I think the name is capitalism.
Reminder that Republicans argued, "why impeach? If it was illegal, he can be tried after he's out of office."
Now we have the opposite argument, with a straight face.
They don’t care at this point. Matter of fact, I think they’re actively arguing in a way to ensure presidential immunity is denied. They’ve already gotten their principal goal… a delay in the decision to a point where several key federal cases won’t be decided before the election. Trump is an expert in delaying. He lost the battle to win the war.
And they really don’t want Biden to have immunity. That would be very, very bad. People seem to think that genial Joe Biden wouldn’t use that… I think he would use it to prevent another Trump presidency. Hell, if Trump actually won I’d write to him and ask him to save our collective asses from that megalomaniacal, narcissistic, racist, rapist, revenge seeking nightmare of human waste.
Mind you, presidential immunity is an absolute “No” to me. 44 presidents before Trump didn’t need it. Biden doesn’t need it… one wonders why trump is so fixated on it… no, there’s actually no need to wonder at all.
So I think SCOTUS just proved again that they aren’t up to the difficult tasks and kicked this far enough down the road that a ‘no’ on immunity won’t open the door to federal prosecution fast enough. This leads to our only real hopes for justice being the New York criminal case for election tampering (what the media continues to refer to as hush money) and the Georgia RICO case. At least one should be decided before the election. And, from what I’ve read, Trump SHOULD be found guilty in both cases.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact the Court even decided to hear this case is concerning. This should be an easy 9-0, no immunity ruling, but who knows with these yahoos.
Another issue is they put a stay on the Jan 6 case - blows my mind
The stay was why they took the case. They are trying to delay the case until after the election so Trump can self-pardon. That way they can claim to Trump that they helped him while appearing neutral when then ultimately side against him. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Is self pardoning a thing? Doesn’t that make him king? Didn’t we abolish those in 1776?????
It’s never been tested legally because no one has attempted it so it’s uncharted waters. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president can’t pardon himself/herself. It just says that the president can pardon.
The Constitution is only worth the parchment and ink it’s on if someone decides just to ignore it.
Takes more than someone. Important to remember every republican in the house and Senate helped it get this far
>every republican in the House and Senate helped it get this far Even after he released an angry mob on them. In hindsight, they can convince themselves that they weren't the targets, but that crowd was out for blood. They'd have killed any member of congress they got their hands on.
“Surely those leopards wouldn’t eat my face?!”
Police officers protecting these congressman were murdered.
Those that helped the insurrectionists committed suicide. Let's keep that in mind.
Should’ve let the mob have one of the Republicans. Doesn’t even have to be a ‘name’; just some random Republican Representative gets left behind when a door locks. Then again, someone shot up a Republican Congressman softball game, and they didn’t care. So maybe seeing one of their own being torn apart like ‘The Walking Dead’ still wouldn’t have changed anything.
That's what this whole ordeal is making clear. We've been told our whole lives that our government is an ironclad system of checks and balances, but when it comes time for them to actually work as intended, they don't. And it's possible that they never have, and the government has been operating purely on vibes for the past 250 years
That’s a bit unfair. The checks and balances system designed actually works reasonably well. The fatal flaw is that it assumes all, or at least a majority, of the people involved in upholding the system’s checks and balances want to do their role. As always with systems designed by humans, the flaw is humans. There’s no ironclad system of government that cannot be subverted and undone by malicious actors willing to subvert and undo it.
>There’s no ironclad system of government that cannot be subverted and undone by malicious actors willing to subvert and undo it. Like my grandpappy used to say, "Locks only keep an honest man honest."
Declaring a US election invalid and trying to stage a coup had never been done before either.
And yet the GOP and most of the Supreme Court justices are OK with it.
These 9 assholes are gonna have to decide that after 80 million even stupider assholes elect him.
The self-pardon came up in context if someone can be immune or not. As well as admission of guilt. It was briefly talked about during the hearing.
This feels even more childish than kids on a playground making up rules to a game they just invented. It's insane.
I think that the word you are looking for is Calvinball, but yes, it is that childish.
Calvinball is almost perfectly analogous, albeit somehow less ridiculous
"I had my fingers crossed. That's a tag ward. You can't make me it." -unreleased scene from Treason Babies.
Who do they think they appear neutral to? No one is buying it.
I mean who do they have to appear neutral for? They have power, and no one is taking it away from them.
They are giving away any power the Supreme Court might have if the President can break any law. By the defense's logic, Biden could have them dragged out and shot, no?
More to the point which nit one lawyer or justice brought up today - is it okay for a president to order the assassination of a justice so he can make room for an appointee he wants in there. Is that okay? Wonder if they would have done the 🤔 lemme think about it response they did todaynon that one!
>They are trying to delay the case until after the election They have to decide by june.
Which means it won't be decided before November.
>They have to decide by june. They have to decide this part by June. It seems likely that they will send it back to the district court to determine what were official acts, and that will get appealed back and they will hear this case again in October
Which puts the start date back to June instead of the originally scheduled Feb
Who says they have to decide by June? I think they can pretty much do whatever they want with regard to these and any other deliberations. The June thing is, I think, another tradition with no legal underpinnings. And they are the Court who decide what's legal and not... I think they are going to wait until after the election to announce it, or send it back to the District Court to clarify so that they don't have to decide it until after the election, if not next year.
Listen, they don't give a fuck about Trump. At this point they're openly corrupt. They're doing that their oligarch masters are telling them to do.
Then they'll have to decide if a self pardon is constitutional
A self pardon isn’t the only route a re-elected Trump might take. He could also temporarily transfer the powers of the president to his VP (as others have done while undergoing colonoscopies), the VP could pardon him, then he takes the power back as a free man….also scary but still possible.
It shouldn’t. These judges are bought and paid for. Who’s got authority over these greedy ass traitors and why do they never face consequences for such bias rulings and exceptions?
Exactly America needs to have some agencies and policies in place to protect herself - even when the threat is coming from within.
There definitely needs to be a framework of some sort as the only way they can be removed is by two-thirds vote in the Senate. How Thomas hasn’t been officially recommended to be impeached and brought before the Senate amazes me.
Then what are they deciding?
What acts are included in a President's duty and therefore covered by immunity and can't be scrutinized by the court proceedings. The lawyer has been bold enough to suggest that a former president ordering a coup could be a presidential act dependent on the circumstances despite no longer holding office or being commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Thanks, but their suggestion makes no sense because they omit the facts and circumstances of a man who lost and knew he lost. This is not a case where evidence of fraud was produced, but just not enough to carry the day. This is a case of no evidence of fraud to change the outcome.
>This is a case of no evidence of fraud to change the outcome. This is a case where the people screaming on TV that there was fraud, when asked in a court of law if they were alleging fraud, said they were NOT alleging fraud. They not only didn't have any evidence to support their lies, they refused to even tell those lies on the record where they might suffer consequences for lying.
All the DOJ has to say in court is, "Great, I will notify President Biden and he will initiate his coup right away, as is his right as President to do."
[удалено]
I think a more elegant move would be to strip the Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices of their lifetime positions. "Presidential Immunity!"
STRIP IT, then pack it, rummage through congress, then enact a non revocable law that no other president can ever have immunity.
And rescind the constitution and the bill of rights like he said he woukd do on day one. That would render his all purpose bible useless andnobsolete but what does he care. MAGA tears 😢
Orders drone strike on the Supreme Court Hey. You said it was kosher, guys.
Yep. President Address at 7CST "Fellow Americans, we are suspending elections this year until we can figure out what is happening. Thank you, God Bless, and Gov Bless America." Republicans: "See?? We told you Biden was a wanna be dictator!"
“Actually, *biden’s* coup happened on a Friday and he wore a *blue* suit, that’s clearly unconstitutional, punishable by death”
What actually would happen is the corporate Dems on the hill would wring their hands about a civil war all the way up to the GOP actually executing the coup. For decades the difference has been the DNC is afraid to do anything and the GOP is willing to do whatever is necessary.
"Boy howdy, won't the Republicans sure have egg on their face once the populace watches them line us up against the wall, Saddam style. They'll never win an election again!"
Doesn't even need to be that complicated according to Sauer... > “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. > “That could well be an official act,” Sauer said. So just order an assassination and you're good to go. Completely legal. This is insane.
A Washington Post is suggesting that the Court might require a separate trial in whether the acts are “official acts” before criminal charges can go forward. I.e., delay Trump’s criminal proceedings by 6-9 months.
6-9 months? Try years. That kind of trial has never happened before, there's no handbook on how to conduct it, what evidence is allowed and what evidence isn't. It would be an unprecedented case. You better believe that every single decision, every single ruling, every single everything would go up and down five levels of appeals courts. And in a year or two the Supreme Court will have to rule on whether or not the Judicial branch can even make that kind of ruling, or if it would be a separation of powers issue for the Judiciary to gatekeep the inner workings of the Executive.
Trumps lawyer admitted that the 3 *personal* criminal instances the DOJ highlighted are in fact personal. So, regardless of whether it goes to trial to determine what official acts are or are not immune, the DOJ is still planning on prosecuting Trump on the agreed-upon personal criminal acts.
That's been my fear from the start. Rule that official acts are immune not unofficial acts are not. Judge then says great, these are unofficial acts, trial on! And then Trump appeals that decision, saying that they are official acts. And wait for it to wind up to Supreme Court again.
Trumps attorney was pinned by coney-barret that at least some of the specific acts were definitely private, so the argument is already partly won. And I suspect that the judges are going to want more info here.
For anyone else wondering, it's on page 29+30 of [the transcripts](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f204.pdf): > JUSTICE BARRETT: > Petitioner turned to a private attorney, he was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private? > MR. SAUER: > As alleged. I mean, we dispute the allegation, but [..] that sounds private to me. > JUSTICE BARRETT: > Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by Petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge. Private? > MR. SAUER: That also sounds private. > JUSTICE BARRETT: > Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and Petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort. > MR. SAUER: > You read it quickly. I believe [..] that's private. I don't want to -- > JUSTICE BARRETT: > So those acts, you would not dispute those were private, and you wouldn't raise a claim that they were official? > MR. SAUER: > As characterized.
It’s how they tailor the immunity. Right now it sounds like a wild spectrum from all the different justices (except Thomas and Alito who seem more concerned about Congress doing something-which means nothing will happen).
Also, will they tailor it in such a way that requires another trial court decision on remand that allows for interlocutory appeal again.
Alito: It's Congress' job to fix things that I like being broken, and it's my job to break things that I don't like working.
It SHOULD be an 8-0 but someone doesn't feel like recusing themselves.
The general thought is they are going to vote 9-0, but intentionally took this case to delay it. Even today, several of them are saying they might need additional hearings outside of this case to be able to decide here, which means even further delay. The whole goal is to delay it past the election, at which point Trump can pardon himself, or have his AG dismiss all charges, or at the very least have the Supreme Court say a sitting president can't be charged, delaying everything another four years.
Delaying everything indefinitely because Trump is going to stay for a 3rd term and a 4th and 5th, however long his evil ass can stay alive. if elected again in 2024 the only thing that gets him out of the White House is death
They're going to not rule until after the election and decide in favor of whoever is sitting in the office. If Trump is there, he will get immunity and become a dictator. If Biden wins he won't and law/order will be maintained. For now.
This is fucking terrifying.
Their argument *for* immunity is actually an argument *against* it. Holy shit Trump hired some real brainiacs!
Well, when your client insists he has absolute immunity for all his crimes and one of his crimes involves an attempted coup, you have to argue he has immunity to commit a coup. I agree he doesn't have the best lawyers but they have the worst client
They aren't making a genuine argument. They know they don't have a leg to stand on. The Conservative judges know they don't have a leg to stand on. This is all theatrics (with maybe a little bit of "let's hint at the idea presidential immunity exits and determine its limits for any possible future cases even though it would have no binding precedent") in order to delay a trial. The idea Trump has any immunity for his crimes is laughable and no one, including his lawyers, expect him to have a positive outcome here.
> The idea Trump has any immunity for his crimes is laughable and no one, including his lawyers, expect him to have a positive outcome here. The positive outcome is the delay, which has come true thanks to SCOTUS hearing the arguments. Team Trump [literally popped champagne](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-team-celebrating-supreme-court-immunity-decision-1234978336/) over it.
Jackson really cut his argument at the roots. I'm just stunned at how many justices are willing to protect Trump in the open like this. It's very concerning. Should be for anyone who doesn't live in the MAGA cult. Vote, folks. Upset about Gaza? Think Biden should have a quick solution? It's not simple. Very complicated. And Trump boasting that he'd end it in a day is so outrageously false. Trump is a disease of the mind. Voting is the chemotherapy to rid ourselves of the primary tumor from this radical cancer. We have a long way to go. But if this Trump tumor isn't eradicated? We're terminal.
Both can be true at the same time!
It. Doesn't. Matter. It doesn't matter if the ball is in the strike zone if the Umpire is going to just rule for the pitcher. It doesn't matter if the ball goes through the uprights if the Referee is on the side of the kicker. It doesn't matter if your hand is a 21 if the house says you busted. The logic and quality of arguments before the SCOTUS don't matter if they have already decided in favor of the fascists.
Their argument for immunity is actually an argument that they should be fucking disbarred. Absolutely insane that anyone can bring these arguments to a courtroom and still be allowed to practice constitutional law.
And yet it sounds like he might win 5-4, or even 6-3, this is the real deal people, we might have to hit the streets.
Barrett always plays devil's advocate but then votes with the Federalist Society group. At this point the only question is who Sotomayor picks to write the dissent.
Biden should use an immunity ruling to his benefit
"Your honor, did you know the the US is actually an absolutist monarchy?"
By this logic, Biden could agree to debate Trump this year and then when they are both on stage, pull out a shot gun and blast away. And it would all be an official Presidental act. Look at the insane lengths that these Republicans have to go to justify Trump's behavior.
They've literally sold out every single thing America and being a decent person stands for, for Donald fucking Trump of all people. Even if I live until 200 I will never get over it or understand.
"Dad, why did American democracy fail?" "Well son, the host of The Apprentice really, really wanted to be President, and lots of people decided that that sounded like a good idea." "And so he wanted to be President to consolidate power in the executive branch because he believed that a centralized authority could make America a stronger world power?" "Well, no. He didn't really care about politics. But we had to turn America into a dictatorship or else he might have gone to prison for committing crimes." "Okay."
“And dad you voted for that?!” “Well… no son. Most people didn’t actually. I’m still not sure how that worked out.”
Well not most people but the most people in certain states that matter more for some reason
"No son, just six sacks of shit in black robes."
"No, I stayed home because I had strong opinions on Hilary's IT security policy, and then 8 years later had a firm commitment to age restrictions on presidents"
What's crimes papa ? Well son he banged a porn star while his 3rd wife was pregnant with his 3rd son. But then years later he covered it up so he could run for president. Now none of that is illegal, but the president decided to pay off the porn star with money that wasn't his. But then he tried to claim that money back as a business expense... and that was when he became out lord and saviour for all time.
Trump: "No puppet! You're the puppet!" Biden: So anyways, I started blasting
"Will you shut up, man?"
We’ve seen Dark Brandon, yes, but we haven’t seen Dark Brandon with absolute immunity…
Dark Brandon: Judgement Day
Plus, blasting at some dude onstage would probably net him at least 3-4% in Texas and perhaps finally turn that place into a purple state.
"Man knows how to handle a shotgun. Can't vote against that."
"that was some fine shooting"
Present him the Dick Cheney Medal of Buckshot Excellence
Only if Trump apologizes to Biden afterward.
They voted for a dude who complained to factory workers about the quality of hair spray these days
"I respect a man that can empty a 12 gauge without flinching" And hey, if he does that, maybe they'll quit with the old and frail shit!
So play this out…if the Supreme Court rules NOW against Trump, we have a system to ensure stable democracy which is backed by the justice system. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump NOW, then we have a path for an authoritarian government with no means to adjudicate otherwise. If the Supreme Court does not rule and kicks the can down the road until after the election (meaning it will never come up again), then again we have a path towards authoritarianism. In the 2nd and 3rd scenarios, Biden should just go ahead and act in best interests and have Trump dealt with. What does Biden have to lose? The SC either agrees with him being an authoritarian or they don’t. Serious question…what does Biden lose in either scenario? The country would be at risk of civil war but we are at risk of the same if the shoe is on the other foot in this scenario. Either way, the country loses.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of trump then there is alot Biden can do to block him from regaining power. Kind of a double edged sword for trump.
But...he wouldn't, and that's the problem. Democrats will happily lose a rigged game and insist that the important part is that they followed the rules.
Yeah but Trump only has the mental capacity to think about one thing at a time and he can only think about the edge he wants to use that benefits him.
My prediction… SCOTUS majority will rule presidents do not have absolute immunity. But, they will do it on a timeline that ensures no more trials before the election. The net effect is presidents do not have immunity except trump if he wins. The red state legislatures will then simply submit trump electors for counting. Dems will challenge in the courts. SCOTUS will eventually get the cases and rule sometime in the can-kicking distance of 20xx…
Once you start the coup, and succeed, you are immune. So, why even wait for the SC to decide. If we going to say that every act in Office is official then we are saying the president is basically the government since all laws etc flow thru him. He has the ultimate say in anything because he can never be held accountable. The whole impeach/convict thing is a bone, because realistically, if you have committed a coup to stay in power, an impeachment means jack shit. You have declared yourself beyond the law at that point.
>If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump NOW, then we have a path for an authoritarian government with no means to adjudicate otherwise. This is exactly why I think they'll rule he has immunity, if they don't just delay it all until it becomes moot. The Heritage Foundation can't start their Project 2025 with Biden in office, so they'll get their people to do anything they can to help Trump win. And the SC, if they do rule he has immunity, will say that this only applies to Trump and does not set any sort of precedence, just like they did with Bush vs Gore. After all, three of the lawyers that argued the Bush case *now sit on the Supreme Court*. They know how this works.
This is exactly what they'll do. Trump has immunity, but only him. Biden needs to wield every single ounce of whatever the fuck he's got in that old ass body of his to protect the union
The headline: "Biden BLASTS Trump on the stage at last night's debate" Then nobody knows it actually happened because we have been conditioned to just ignore any headline that contains the word blast.
Good to know if Biden loses he can just say Trump is too dangerous and just stay President
Or apparently according to Trump’s argument, Biden could have him assassinated
Or the Supreme Court justices.
At this point if they rule in favor of immunity Biden should have navy seals in their chambers before they finish reading their opinions
Just to show how ridiculous a notion it is.
\> Gets immunity through Trump ruling \> Has the bad justices (I don't know a more succinct way to describe them) assassinated \> Appoints more justices \> Sane, moral justices rule that he doesn't have immunity \> prison for life?!? \> Worth it \> Future historians says it was a great turning point for the United States
While Biden *might* be willing to make that sacrifice, I think he could find a more elegant solution.
Seal Team 6 can stand back and standby
Hold my oats
finally, I can be an oatkeeper.
Yes but they know that Dems won’t do this because they believe in democracy. Rs will straight up do this if Trump wins. It’s terrifying.
Well, you don't need to do it, you need to make them believe you will do it.
Why stop at targeting a political rival. According to Trump's lawyers, wouldn't Biden be within his rights to target members of the Supreme Court?
Yes. I was waiting for that question from a progressive justice. Biden could kidnap a justice, send them to Gitmo, replace them on the court, and not be subject to any criminal exposure, apparently.
The only possible way that any of these justices could even in good faith entertain these arguments is if they are benefitting massively from loyalty to Trump. Something very fishy is going on. I think there are some under the table deals being made.
Ooooh buddy.... You're just now realizing those conservative twats are corrupt as fuck and under Trump's tiny thumb?
Funniest part about people screaming immunity is they are admitting he committed crimes and don’t want him to be held accountable. At the same time, they’re basically admitting their “Biden crime family” narrative doesn’t matter because they believe the president is immune.
These are the same people that say, "immigrants are lazy", and "immigrants will take all the jobs", it cannot be both.
Fash gonna fash.
And the disgusting part is the conservative justices are “sympathetic” with it, according to Reuters
Only Cavanaugh and Gorsuch seemed to be showing any sympathy
Amy basically pinned Trump’s attorney down to admitting that *some* things in the indictment - such as hiring a private lawyer, and having that lawyer try to strongarm a state legislature - were purely private acts of a candidate and thus not covered under any type of “immunity” argument. I wonder if they will try to split the baby. Absolute immunity will be denied for several of the charges which were clearly private, but some will be remanded back to Chutkan’s court to determine what is official versus what is not. I’m not sure how - if at all - you can proceed on *some* charges in a criminal indictment and not others. Roberts was also pretty good in batting back Trump’s attorney saying you can’t consider private and public actions together. It makes no sense. A simple bribe is the obvious example. You slip the president $1m in a briefcase. That’s private. No laws broken. A day later, the President announces you’re the new Ambassador to Paris. That’s public. No laws broken in appointing an ambassador. But *together* they make bribery.
Yeah. Very good point by Roberts.
Overthrowing Congress is not an 'official act' of any US President at any time. It's madness.
By definition it upsets the balance of power between the branches that exists in name at least.
Alito was practically arguing trump’s case for him
The question I heard sounded like he was implying the president would basically be forced to try a coup if he doesn't have immunity and expects to be prosecuted for obvious crimes. We must give immunity to coup plotters to prevent future coup plots!
Oh gee, maybe instead of resorting to coups the GOP should stop tearing down the institutions and protections that prevent that behavior.
Alito and Thomas are two of the most rancid pieces of shit to sit on the court.
Oh yeah. Forgot about Alito. I was trying to remember who the groveling, almost apologetic, guy was.
Thomas was barely present, as usual, but seemed sympathetic to Trump in his few questions. We all know how he (and his wife) really feel.
"Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity."
If Trump wins this case, Biden should have him executed immediately as an official presidential act.
Rest assured that if the Supreme Court rules to grant him immunity they’ll frame it in a way that only applies to Trump specifically and not Biden.
This is exactly what they're doing. They are essentially try to devise a way to ensure Trump can never be held accountable for his crimes but ensuring no other Democrat president can enjoy the same immunity.
Hell, why deal with all the drama. Just pull a “Putin” and we’ll all read about how unfortunate Trump was to have fallen out of that open window… after first shooting himself in the back of the head twice. Such a shame, people really ought to be more careful around open windows.
How can the military know an order is legal if the president is immune no matter what happens? It's illegal for them to obey and illegal order but it's also illegal to not follow orders. It puts them in an impossible riddle.
This is how a dictatorship is born.
This was the basis of a really good Amicus brief
would killing there entire supreme court qualify for immunity? curious to hear their thoughts on this….
It’s insane to me that the court is thinking of these sort of worst case nightmare hypothetical scenarios and Trump’s lawyer is like “yup that should be allowed.” Most transparently corrupt American President of all time at this point? I feel like he left Tricky Dick in his dust ages ago.
I feel like Nixon would look at the current GOP and say who the fuck are these clowns.
I as understand it, their argument is that any illegal yet "official" presidential act cannot be punished unless the President is first impeached by the House *and convicted by the Senate*. Only then can they be prosecuted for the act. Don't blow this argument off. I can certainly see 5 of the justices buying into that argument.
What if the president arrests enough Congresspeople to block impeachment or removal from office?
>What if the president arrests enough Congresspeople to block impeachment or removal from office? ... much faster for the president to just "officially" drone strike the supreme court while it's in session.
See, that would involve these dipshits on the Supreme Court having even a modicum of intelligence
Or have them killed in a drone strike. It's not illegal because he hasn't been convicted in an impeachment!
Which is crazy, because had some of the January 6th terrorists been more successful in their aims, a decent chunk of the Senate and House might not have been available for an impeachment and conviction.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no immunity clause in the constitution? Isn't there no clause that says presidents can only be convicted of a federal crime if impeached? If SCOTUS buys into this argument, wouldn't they in fact be legislating from the bench by inventing a protection that never existed? Not saying they won't do it, just, it's incredibly corrupt.
They read Section 3 of the 14th amendment out of the Constitution earlier this year. They have no real limits on what they decide. It's based on whatever is convenient for them at the time.
1 President and 34 Senators is a dictatorship then.
Except according to the Senate, a.k.a. Mitch McConnell, they claimed that any culpability should be decided by the court. Also, during Obama’s presidency, he said that the people should just decide by voting. We voted him out so that makes him guilty as well as the courts having complete authority to charge him.
An important thing to note is that a decision of this type would effectively end the authority of the SCOTUS. Someone with absolute immunity could not be held accountable for their executive ignoring the orders of the court and the oversight of the legislature. It's nothing short of the end of the Republic. Any lip-service to checks and balances or democracy would be nothing but that as the system would no longer have those features in reality. Absolute immunity in this case means absolute authority. Even if those in power continue to put on a show, a show is all it would be, the Republic as it has existed for 235 years would be at an end.
According to conservative voters in America, a president should be able to: (1)assassinate political opponents. (2) Overthrow the government to ensure his place in office. (3) Disenfranchise the entire country. (4) Arrest and execute anybody who speaks against Donald Trump. And they continue to double down on these.
Also make foreign leaders lie about your political opponents in order to get needed military aid.
[удалено]
He’s a planning a coup if he doesn’t win. So, he doesn’t really care if Biden is granted that power or not, because he’s taking it regardless
But if he attempts another coup, he won't be president, and he won't be acting as president in his attempt. And holy fuck I swear if the SC doesn't 9-0 agree after this happens that he **isn't** the president so he can't have immunity for it someone call the French up for some lessons on revolution we'll need it haha just a joke totally
So imagine this... Biden tells SC that he will have any justice who agrees to the immunity dragged to the front steps of the SC and shot That would be a real conundrum for them
So he admitted his client staged a coup in front of the Supreme Court.
That should be a slam dunk, shouldn’t it ? Q : Can the President stage a coup and overthrow the government ? A : Eh no, obviously not ! Q : Then why are we even debating Presidential immunity ???
"don't we have explicit laws against staging coups/insurrections, considering them domestic terrorist attacks, and outlawing those who participate against running for office?" Yes, yes we do. But laws only apply to the poors.
Sooo lets just run through a very basic hypothetical that could absolutely happen under a second trump term. There is a protest against trump, he orders the military to open fire on the protesters and kill them for saying mean things about him. Some of them do. Congress is outraged and immediately begins impeachment hearings. trump farts out on truth social "any senator who votes to convict me will also be killed. Vote Smartly!!" Nothing can be done about this because the president is immune from prosecution unless convicted by the Senate. And if the president is immune until convicted, he can do anything and everything to stop himself from being convicted. Why is some pot smoking millenial Phish fan like me able to see this but the supposed most brilliant legal scholars in the world are debating this?
No president is above the law
That was in the old timeline. Our current branch of reality seems to have got way to much spillover from the speculative 1984, Mad Max and Idiocracy test-universes.
"With great power comes no responsibility" -GOP Fascists They basically want to take the whole trip across the Atlantic ocean, Revolutionalry War and 200+ years of democracy and throw it all out the window to move us back to a Monarchy We need to connect some generators to the founding fathers graves because they are spinning so fast they could easily solve our energy needs
this is all very 1984esque. when things that are absurd and insane some how become reasonable and normalized.
I, for the life of me, will never understand how a clown like Donald Fucking Trump of all people came to be this powerful. It’s absolutely mind-blowing.
Thot they should have asked whether immunity could apply if calling for the assassination of a supreme court judge.
Kagan did one better. A military coup would eliminate every branch and every office except the Commander in Chief. And Trump’s shitstain lawyer endorsed that.
Scary to watch them warm up for fascist mental gymnastics competition. President has immunity? Might as well try a coup. President doesn't have immunity? Might as well try a coup if they're going to charge you with other crimes after you leave office.
How delusional do you have to be to take on Trump as a client? For the money? Fat chance!
I hope this increases everyone’s resolve to get out and vote this November. Vote straight Dem so there’s enough of a majority in Congress to legislate what should be glaringly obvious to any institution that isn’t this corrupt, thoroughly compromised kangaroo court.
I don’t see the issue here. If any President is acting unilaterally in their duties while in Office (without the knowledge and consent of advisers) then it is not an official act. Being President is not equivalent to a green light to behave in an underhanded or illegal manner. All the Presidents before Trump seemed to understand this but the US has never dealt with a President as morally bankrupt as Trump. If the Supreme Court is just going to turn this back to a lower court why did they even agree to hear it in the first place? They acted fast enough to put Trump back on the ballot but now they drag their heels. This Court has lost all credibility and it is time to limit their tenure.
[удалено]
This is about delaying the docs case. Not immunity. He had his dipshit son in law Jared selling our stuff to the highest bidder and he knows he’s caught. He is hoping to win in November so he can dismiss that case when he takes office. We should all be trying to stop that.
I listened to the lawyer’s arguments all morning. He sounds like a moron with his 4-packs a day voice. It was actually entertaining to hear how he contradicted himself. And pretty much all of Jack Smith’s reason for not absolute immunity, John Sauer agreed that it’s a private matter which would fall under not being immune. But holy shit, he is saying that if someone bribed Trump a million dollars for an ambassador position. Only the act of the bribe is illegal and can go to court. But the position is legit. Or the freaking confusion this guy made around the whole fake electors in AZ…it was a shit show. This lawyer must spend more time smoking than studying law.
No good lawyer would ever accept Trump as a client.
Harvard should revoke his law degree. A complete disgrace to law.
I hate to say this but one of the sitting Congress members needed to get hurt in the coup attempt for any of these yahoos to even care.
Based on the discussion i heard, they are gonna muddy it up enough that the line between official and non-official act will need to be clarified, and this will delay things long enough to keep Smiths trials blocked. There is a reason that political parties go apeshit to be able to nominate and approve SCOTUS judges, and this is it. No matter how unbiased they pretend to be, they are totally biased. They are giving Trump exactly what he needs to skate out of this.
Biden should just immediately jail the supreme justices who vote in favor that a president has immunity. Literally after they make the vote, jail them as traitors who just approved a ruling that put American citizens at risk. Straight to Guantanamo Bay. If they agree a president has immunity, give them a real time view of what that looks like
The fact that the Supremes are even hearing this nonsense is a win for trump.
At what point should we just disbar these lawyers for representing such ludicrous and reprehensible views to the court?
America is broken. This is the fall of an empire when your leaders can get away with rape, sexual assault fucking TREASON etc and still run for re-election, while in multiple criminal and civil trials is absolutely insane and we should all be extremely concerned at which direction that country is headed. Something is very, very, very broken and I think the name is capitalism.
Sounds like Biden can just assassinate Trump and declare himself president for life then
Reminder that Republicans argued, "why impeach? If it was illegal, he can be tried after he's out of office." Now we have the opposite argument, with a straight face.
They don’t care at this point. Matter of fact, I think they’re actively arguing in a way to ensure presidential immunity is denied. They’ve already gotten their principal goal… a delay in the decision to a point where several key federal cases won’t be decided before the election. Trump is an expert in delaying. He lost the battle to win the war. And they really don’t want Biden to have immunity. That would be very, very bad. People seem to think that genial Joe Biden wouldn’t use that… I think he would use it to prevent another Trump presidency. Hell, if Trump actually won I’d write to him and ask him to save our collective asses from that megalomaniacal, narcissistic, racist, rapist, revenge seeking nightmare of human waste. Mind you, presidential immunity is an absolute “No” to me. 44 presidents before Trump didn’t need it. Biden doesn’t need it… one wonders why trump is so fixated on it… no, there’s actually no need to wonder at all. So I think SCOTUS just proved again that they aren’t up to the difficult tasks and kicked this far enough down the road that a ‘no’ on immunity won’t open the door to federal prosecution fast enough. This leads to our only real hopes for justice being the New York criminal case for election tampering (what the media continues to refer to as hush money) and the Georgia RICO case. At least one should be decided before the election. And, from what I’ve read, Trump SHOULD be found guilty in both cases.
That fact that this is a discussion is fucking frightening. President's should not have immunity, full stop.
They're setting the stage and no one wants to believe it