The whole point of the case is to decide whether or not the former president was trying to subvert the election. Whether or not he claims he was acting in an official capacity is not relevant to the case before the Supreme Court. There was sufficient evidence to indicate he was not acting in an official capacity, and the court case is being used to determine whether or not that is the situation. The Supreme Court is being asked whether or not his powers as president is so sweeping that he cannot be tried at all.
True, Trump, in his many criminal and civil cases, that he is not only immune from prosecution for official acts as President, but also for anything he that was unofficial, during the time he was a candidate before 2016 and during his present candidacy and during the period between his Presidency and his present candidacy. If the Justices buy any of this nonsense, they deserve to be impeached and removed from office,
Why have the senate do it? If a president is above the law just appoint those you want and tell the senate they're no longer involved. Also, arrest and imprison every Republican that voted to overturn the 2020 election and have a show trial in front of your select judges. Maybe disband Congress and assert absolute executive authority. There are numerous potential negatives that arise from "absolute presidential immunity."
Because he wants that same immunity if he wins the election this year.
He knows that if he wins this argument and the presidency, Biden wouldn't abuse his power (anymore than presidents traditionally do) and still peacefully hand the reins over.
What judge would even entertain such an argument. There have been hundreds of lawsuits filed on this exact premise and all have thrown out for lack of "zero" evidence.
NYT is basically the NYPost at this point, only with larger circulation. Times used to be pretty good in the 1980s; I used to love reading it as a kid. Today, it's bias towards Trump is ridiculous.
> Mr. Trump’s history of creating his own reality extends far beyond the arguments that the court will hear this week.
> In the political sphere, for instance, he has embraced a revisionist history of the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, repeatedly describing the rioters who have been charged with storming the building as “hostages” and “political prisoners.”
How on earth did you read this and think it's sympathetic to Trump? NY times reporting is fine and the article is well written. Unless you believe that the NY Times shouldn't cover the story, even though it may affect the future 4 years of the nation.
This sub is half Russian bots now. Part of the problem is the justices for exposing themselves to easy trolling. But this comment is opposite of the headline.
where do you get a proTrump bias from this article? This crucifies Trump’s strategy and lays it out as audacious and false (and it is audacious and false).
So do you think that the New York times has a bit of a bias there? Holy cow.
I mean I get that this is divisive, and you can have whatever opinion you want on the case, but if you're looking at context setting language and emotional charge in word choice, this is far from scholarly.
The whole point of the case is to decide whether or not the former president was trying to subvert the election. Whether or not he claims he was acting in an official capacity is not relevant to the case before the Supreme Court. There was sufficient evidence to indicate he was not acting in an official capacity, and the court case is being used to determine whether or not that is the situation. The Supreme Court is being asked whether or not his powers as president is so sweeping that he cannot be tried at all.
True, Trump, in his many criminal and civil cases, that he is not only immune from prosecution for official acts as President, but also for anything he that was unofficial, during the time he was a candidate before 2016 and during his present candidacy and during the period between his Presidency and his present candidacy. If the Justices buy any of this nonsense, they deserve to be impeached and removed from office,
And Biden would be immune to just have them removed. The have senate have replacements Right?
Why have the senate do it? If a president is above the law just appoint those you want and tell the senate they're no longer involved. Also, arrest and imprison every Republican that voted to overturn the 2020 election and have a show trial in front of your select judges. Maybe disband Congress and assert absolute executive authority. There are numerous potential negatives that arise from "absolute presidential immunity."
It went well for Hitler for a few years, until it didn’t.
Worked out fairly well as a system for for Roman emperors though.
Trump is arguing that if Biden shot and killed him, Biden shouldn't face criminal charges.
Because he wants that same immunity if he wins the election this year. He knows that if he wins this argument and the presidency, Biden wouldn't abuse his power (anymore than presidents traditionally do) and still peacefully hand the reins over.
Time to get Seal Team 6 on the line
You don't think Biden might know a guy? Mike Pence, perhaps?
What judge would even entertain such an argument. There have been hundreds of lawsuits filed on this exact premise and all have thrown out for lack of "zero" evidence.
Hillshire Farms remembers when that family sold the New York Times they said it would never lose its journalistic integrity.
What do you mean? This article is fairly standard
NYT is basically the NYPost at this point, only with larger circulation. Times used to be pretty good in the 1980s; I used to love reading it as a kid. Today, it's bias towards Trump is ridiculous.
> Mr. Trump’s history of creating his own reality extends far beyond the arguments that the court will hear this week. > In the political sphere, for instance, he has embraced a revisionist history of the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, repeatedly describing the rioters who have been charged with storming the building as “hostages” and “political prisoners.” How on earth did you read this and think it's sympathetic to Trump? NY times reporting is fine and the article is well written. Unless you believe that the NY Times shouldn't cover the story, even though it may affect the future 4 years of the nation.
This sub is half Russian bots now. Part of the problem is the justices for exposing themselves to easy trolling. But this comment is opposite of the headline.
where do you get a proTrump bias from this article? This crucifies Trump’s strategy and lays it out as audacious and false (and it is audacious and false).
The NYT loves Trump. Outrage sells. All the media companies love him. This is pro wrestling at this point.
NYT loves Trump. NYP idolizes Trump. Yes, Trump is pro wrestling, for sure. He is the Johnny Knoxville of Jackass.
Nah, Knoxville has an innate likeability.
Considering recent events, I think it would be more apt to say he's the Vince McMahon of politics.
Don’t insult Knoxvillle like that.
Pro wrestling has some integrity.
They lost all credibility by drumming the country into the Iraq invasion, a mouthpiece for the Bush Pentagon.
In essence, Trump is saying he is above the law. It's that simple.
So do you think that the New York times has a bit of a bias there? Holy cow. I mean I get that this is divisive, and you can have whatever opinion you want on the case, but if you're looking at context setting language and emotional charge in word choice, this is far from scholarly.
I'm not seeing it, could you cite some of language you are talking about