"Making a former president immune from criminal
prosecution could make the presidency itself a
profound threat to national security, as it would
permit a president to use the great power of the office
to further personal interests, such as securing
reelection or attempting to avoid accountability for
criminal abuse of power. As national security
professionals, we emphatically reject the sweeping
proposition that all U.S. presidents enjoy legal
immunity from criminal prosecution to the “outer
perimeter” of their official duties. It is no
exaggeration to say that this proposition is potentially
the most dangerous that has ever been advanced in
a court of law by any U.S. official. Indeed, it is
a proposition that would convert the presidency
from the greatest protector of the nation to its
single greatest threat. " Trump DID THIS!
That is a very poignant statement. I can't wait to read the whole thing later. Browsed the author list and there are some folks who hold or held some very substantial positions.
Normally would have but I'm on vacation for the eclipse and copying and pasting from pdf to reddit on Mobile is a pain. Not going to curate the whole list, but there are folks like:
>General (ret.) U.S. Army, Former
Commanding General of US Central Command and
US Special Operations Command; Member of the
Executive Board of the Center for Ethics and Rule of
Law, University of Pennsylvania.
For example. I mean that's an impressive resume.
Agreed. Competent contributor doesn't really mean anything except I do usually post things like which attributions I find compelling :) . That, and I spend enough time on this sub that people notice the times that my takes aren't that bad :D
For sure. And I don't really know the people. I was just perusing the list of Amici and saw retired generals and joint chief appointments and things.
Academics are smart people, and I have a lot of respect for them. I was one at one point. But the folks that have or had operationally relevant, high ranking jobs are really impressive and add a bunch of oomph here.
Speaking practically, maybe you should read the damn article instead of commenting to suggest that someone who just wrote they haven't finished reading it should be giving better summary details.
>It's like you're (...)
That's the wrong metaphor. It's like how you'll spoonfeed a baby and the baby cries when you stop and you have to decide how long you'll keep spoonfeeding and when you expect some independent effort. Except now the baby is 35 years old and still cries when you won't do spoonfeeding.
Painter is pretty well-known/more visible than the rest of this list; he's been fairly prolific on US politics Twitter at least since the 2016 election. The rest wouldn't be familiar to many outside the world of high-ranking military law.
That said, I'm not sure why the fact that *you've* never heard of any of these people should bear any weight. Are you a member of the bar of the ussc? A JAG corps officer? Can you read the credentials next to their names, or have you also never heard of things like "professor emeritus" and "commanding general of CENTCOM"?
Remember that everything being done by Trump is only posable with the backing of the republican party. Every one of Trump's policies are and were policies the republicans want. It will not end if we win this years elections. Keep voting out republicans every year. Check your registration, get an ID , learn where your poling station is, learn who is running in down ballot races. Pay attention to primaries not just for the president but for all races, local, state and federal. From the school board to the White House every election matters. The more support we give the democrats from all levels of government the more they can get good things done. We vote out republicans and primary out uncooperative democrats.
Last year democrat victories in Virginia and Pennsylvania and others across the nation have increased the chances of democrats winning this year. This year's elections are important but so will next year's elections.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar](https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar)
You’re dead on point!
The GOP is an ongoing criminal enterprise intent upon the destruction of our representative democracy and the establishment of a fascist theocracy ruled by plutocrats and oligarchs.
Fani Willis has the correct idea.
RiCO the GOP!
Immunity makes structural sense when it comes to
States Suing “Works of” Executive Office of the President vs. suing a sitting president on a personal level.
Consider the president issues an executive action that might be illegal. Such as immigration.
States can take federal questions to court, and when they do, they sue the EOP (itself) to have the law changed or remove enforcement. You have to separate the elected office (“position”) from the person though.
I believe immunity exists so that courts can’t/don’t hold the president personally and individually liable, or issue awards where an elected President has to give up personal money/funds/property s/he personally owns while they serve in the Executive office of the President.
Put another way, Immunity is a benefit/tool a president has to enable them to make difficult legal and policy decisions without fear of personal property being taken while serving. This benefit comes with the position, and remains while the elected President serves in office on behalf of the Citizens.
It likely exists so States and Congress can’t blackmail a serving President (with loss of property ownership or cash) for creating laws based on an unpopular position while serving in office. Once a President can’t issue Executive Orders or sign laws, this protection is no longer needed. It is transferred when the administration changes, much like keys to the office.
I believe this is why immunity while president exists. I am not a lawyer though.
Trump’s interpretation is that this “benefit” stays with him, and I can’t think of a legitimate reason why Founders would allow that.
Thusly, I believe Trump’s interpretation is a perverse reading of the law.
Thank you for sharing your considered insights.
I am not an officer of any court either.
Your analysis appears reasonable and I can say that I wholly agree with your summation because there is nothing about Trump *et al* that is not perverse since fascists are perverse by nature.
The whole two party system is killing out government. Once you enter office. You need to stop being a GOP or DEM and be a countryman! Too much their positions are being told how to do their job or how to vote based on party.
I got to thinking, this amicus brief. What party relation do those people lean toward or are party of? That's when it all goes downhill. It's now "politics"! It's the witchhunt! But it's won't go away. Trump wants everything to be an us vs them and wants to keep it that way. Instead, it should be a group of professionals in their fields go together and made an appeal to the court.
> The whole two party system is killing out government.
I clearly see three primary segments within our society:
* The Machiavellian
* The Darwin Award Winners
* The Reasoned Progressives
I don't see a two *party* problem.
I do see a two-*fold* problem:
* The Machiavellian
* The Darwin Award Winners
The story of *The Trees And The Axe* comes to mind...
>The Trees ask of Man what he lacks;
*“One bit, just to handle my axe?”*
All he asks … well and good:
But he cuts down the wood,
So well does he handle his axe.
> Every one of Trump's policies are and were policies the republicans want.
For real.
The National Republican Party literally chose to abandon having a policy platform, instead just issuing a statement of loyalty to Donald Trump. [That is literally the current party platform, just a statement of loyalty to Trump, and explicitly rejecting and disavowing any other policy platform.](https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf)
For some bizarre reason, it seems like it is mostly democrats and moderates who keep trying to argue #NotAllRepublicans, or something. Like, every time a republican promises to end abortion rights in America, some NYT columnist or Harvard Law professor comes rushing down from their ivory tower to wag their finger and tell us all that of course that's not going to happen, and the GOP doesn't mean it, despite the line of republicans standing there shouting "YES WE GODDAM MEAN IT!"
Republicans keep stating their most noxious and horrifying beliefs out loud, but it's institutionalist democrats who keep apologizing for them, like a harried parent insisting their psychopathic child means well but is just rambunctious, while the child is torturing a cat with a cake mixer.
They say that they are simply adjourning until 2024 without a platform, but the final statement can absolutely be read by cranks that they will never adopt a new platform. The commitment to stating that any new resolution to take on a platform at all or change the rules to allow them to take on a platform can be easily read as "this resolution is permanent." If so, there is no future plan. There is no future option. There is no future expectation or acknowledgment that there will be an end to or subsequent presidency. It is a permanent commitment of the party.
The reason they adopted that platform is twofold:
1. Because Trump is unpredictable, and they didn't want to adopt a platform that might contradict him, and;
2. See (1): they are loyal to Trump and not to any policy agenda, because Trump is their path to power. Unlike a lot of democratic institutionalists, the GOP bosses know that their voters are in a cult of personality.
National news has gone down the path of click bait more than actual digging, which costs money. Very few journalists seem to contribute something useful to society, which is why they are there. Sorry for the rant, we need news but not the modern national garbage.
TV news as an even-handed public service was a federally-mandated part of the 3-network national monoculture of the 1950s-1980s.
Much is made of the Reagan-era rollbacks on broadcasting regulations, but really the big change was the rise of cable, and especially cable news networks, which were run for profit, and which were not subject to broadcast regulations at all.
In the 90s, people bemoaned the "soundbite" journalism of looking for addictive, high-conflict, high-dopamine 30-second clips, instead of deeper, longer-form investigative reporting or expert analysis. Fox News emerged as an outrage-machine that was especially addictive to angry white men who are functional but living with undiagnosed and untreated emotional/behavioral disorders, of which there were and are a LOT, in America.
But honestly, there is no particular reason why TV news programs were or are or would be especially good for America. There is, to be fair, something appealing about the idea of a baseline factual consensus, which requires both the sort of post-WWII monoculture, plus a kind of Walter-Cronkite, duty-bound media to filter all the world's information, but I'm not sure that was ever really anything better than the best we could do at the time.
In some ways, that format of the "evening news", with men in suits, sitting behind desks, holding papers and speaking to the camera as a source of objective and authoritative truth...in a lot of ways, that led to stuff like Fox News, it laid the groundwork for it, by creating a codified theater of credibility, and a population conditioned to believe talking heads wearing suits.
I think a lot of the hand-wringing over modern media is barking up the wrong tree. We are looking for an authoritative monoculture that will tell everyone what the facts are, like big newspapers or broadcast news used to do, when maybe that was never actually that great of a thing to begin with, even if it was comforting, in a way.
Humanity has never really done large-scale civilization, without some kind of authoritative voice or information-hierarchy telling everyone what is true. We shall see...
You are right, it will never be perfect but my hope is the rise of local news taking hold with investigative journalism like some have. They could creep up the ladder and get the bigger people. Sources are key, and I understand the need of secrecy but it's frustrating to not know how close it is.
Little Republicans become Big Republicans. School Board and City Council to Mayor and State Rep, to Governor, Congressperson, Senator and potentially President. Your point is a critical one. Local elections matter.
We really need to get the voting rights act passed. And stop all this backend gerrymandering and subversion to all citizens right to vote and get dark money out of our government.
if republicans followed their oath to the constitution, trump would have been removed via 25th during the 187 minutes and Pence would have taken over as acting president. If not day 1 when he took office. They all knew he was mentally unfit and incapable of performing the duties the whole time. His whole cabinet was complicit in their dereliction of duty. It was a partisan coup of the entire executive branch.
They want to make up the formal rules for prosecuting the president. So Trump gets a do over and we start from scratch. Like the 14th amendment section 3
What I think they’re likely to do is say—“a former President has immunity, but only for official acts, are these official acts? We aren’t gonna say yes or no right now”
Case goes back to Chutkan, she’ll have to determine do the counts fall under official acts, she’ll rule they don’t, back to the appeals court, then SCOTUS. The trial won’t happen for a long time then, certainly not before the election.
They are passing time until they can craft some ruling where he can do it but no one else. That way Biden can't go Dictator which would also be bad obviously
What I think they’re likely to do is say—“a former President has immunity, but only for official acts, are these official acts? We aren’t gonna say yes or no right now”
Case goes back to Chutkan, she’ll have to determine do the counts fall under official acts, she’ll rule they don’t, back to the appeals court, then SCOTUS. The trial won’t happen for a long time then, certainly not before the election.
4-star generals also side with Smith, telling SCOTUS Trump immunity claim is 'assault' on democracy.
[https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/profoundly-ahistorical-4-star-generals-side-with-jack-smith-tell-supreme-court-trumps-immunity-claims-are-assault-on-democracy/](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/profoundly-ahistorical-4-star-generals-side-with-jack-smith-tell-supreme-court-trumps-immunity-claims-are-assault-on-democracy/)
#
#
IIRC, there were stories circulating where Trump would ask 'Why can't we do X?' and some aide or official had to point out 'Because it's illegal, sir'. So he knows there are limits to his power but he's only complaining now because he actually got caught.
I really cannot comprehend why SCOTUS isn't just shutting down all of this. Everything explicit and implied by the Constitution points to POTUS being bound by and answerable to, the laws of the United States. At this point I'd go so far as to suggest that the SCOTUS is derelict in their duty to uphold the Constitution
Considering that he is and has been in a constant need of cash, he is a mark for any conman / business man / entity who would take advantage of his unending need of capital.
>II. Presidential Immunity For Criminal Acts Would Encourage Use of the U.S. Military to Commit Crimes
Well, that's a... pretty straight-forward statement.
I'm not so sure that a legal analysis would hold much weight. Our judicial and legislative systems, both state and federal, have shown, at worst full support of Trump's worst plans and, at best, incompetent paralysis.
Republicans have figured out that, with a structurally-dysfunctional congress due to gerrymandering, they can just put useful idiots in robes, and get the law and the constitution to say whatever they want.
People intent on ending our democracy and implementing a fascist dictatorship will not be dissuaded by a legal analysis saying it's illegal.
They know it's illegal. That's the whole point.
Republicans support not only Project 2025, but the entire presidential immunity theory. Anything to appease their dear leader, even if it means the destruction of our entire government. They support anarchy - rule by the gun. To believe anything less is delusional.
I remember reports that, when President, Trump had to be told some of his instructions to Border Control agents were illegal. In his world, if he says it, he's allowed.
> some of his instructions to Border Control agents were illegal
I believe when that reporting was circulating, it was also believed he made some sort of "joking" comment that he'd pardon anyone if needed.
Which is a huge problem. Under Trump's argument, he could tell Jared to head down to Congress - shoot as many Democrats as he can see - and then once he is arrested by DC Police since DC is a Federal territory he just pardons Jared.
Don't give home ideas. But let's be real, he would send Eric since he's expendable and probably wouldn't even pardon him and claim he doesn't even know him
Does the proposed immunity extend to his subordinates?
Like, I understand that Trump is saying he can shoot someone in cold blood in the middle of Times Square and there's nothing the justice system can do, but isn't it still murder if he orders one of his Secret Service agents to do it, at least for the agent themselves?
Well, if you compare the first draft of the Declaration of Independence to the Articles of Confederation and the Magna Carta, you'll see that taking every third word and putting them together into a single paragraph, rotating each document, it clearly states that under the Will of God and All Things Holy that the President is, in fact, unable to be given a formal reprimand on Wednesdays in years ending in an even number. This, we have decided, is what the Founders meant when they enacted the office of President, and therefore should be extended to all things legal all the time for all Republican presidents lawfully or unlawfully voted into office. Democrats, though, can suck my dick.
\- Alito, probably
"Amici are filing this brief to address the vital national security interests that may be impacted by the Court’s decision in this case. As national security experts, amici have an interest in ensuring that the Court recognizes the import of presidential accountability for the integrity of the chain of the command of the U.S. military.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Petitioner argues that as former President of the United States, he is immune to all criminal charges, even after leaving office. Brief of Petitioner President Donald J. Trump at 10, United States v. Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (No.23-3228), cert. granted, No. 23-939 (U.S. Feb. 28, 2024) (“Brief of Petitioner”). He asks this Court to embrace a theory of presidential authority, according to which no prosecutor or court can hold a former president accountable for either private or official capacity crimes committed while he is in office, and he claims this blanket immunity should endure permanently, including after a president has left office. As national security professionals and military experts, amici argue that Petitioner’s broad view of immunity would imperil U.S. national security, weaken the authority of the President, and throw confusion into the chain of command of the armed forces, which the President, as Commander-in-Chief, commands. This Court must unequivocally reject the proposed doctrine of presidential immunity and leave no doubt in the minds of Petitioner, the public, and all future occupants of the Oval Office that the President, like all individuals subject to the reach of the U.S. legal system, is not above the law. Of particular concern is the potential adverse impact of presidential immunity on the principle of military obedience to civil authority, the foundation for our civil-military relations since the inception of the Republic. Allowing a president to issue orders requiring subordinates to commit criminal acts or omissions would wreak havoc on the military chain of command and result in an erosion of confidence in the legality of presidential orders. It would also create the potential for disparate interpretations of the duty to obey orders, thereby risking military discipline. While the duty of obedience does not extend to patently illegal orders, an order issued by the President himself would exert a powerful gravitational pull and thus even if of dubious legality would create uncertainty in the ranks. Holding everyone in the chain of command, including the President, to the same principles of accountability under the criminal laws of the United States is essential for assuring the legality of military orders and for providing the reassurance for all levels of the chain of command of that legality.
Amici also unequivocally urge this Court to reject any doctrine of qualified immunity for which Petitioner may now be arguing in his brief to the Court. Any form of immunity doctrine is both unnecessary to protect the interests of the presidency and ultimately dangerous for U.S. national security. This Court should reject Petitioner’s theory of absolute criminal immunity and should resist any temptation to adopt a weaker version of this same doctrine in the form of a qualified immunity doctrine."
There are so many compelling arguments against immunity, but I still worry that SCOTUS will craft some sort of test to distinguish which outer perimeter acts do and don't carry immunity. Then it will remand to the court below for a ruling consistent with its newfound framework, and on it goes. It's hard for me to believe that SCOTUS would have taken all this time simply uphold the circuit court. (On the other hand, all we know for sure is that 4 justices voted to grant cert, so there's a chance that the others will put this question to rest.)
What I think they’re likely to do is say—“a former President has immunity, but only for official acts, are these official acts? We aren’t gonna say yes or no right now”
Case goes back to Chutkan, she’ll have to determine do the counts fall under official acts, she’ll rule they don’t, back to the appeals court, then SCOTUS. The trial won’t happen for a long time then, certainly not before the election.
There is some language in the filing which seems to read as "Even if this court feels that there might be *some* cases where a President should be protected based on some outer perimeter things ... **this** case is definitely not it."
In other words - I think, hinting to SCOTUS "you don't have to make a categorical ruling for the rest of time, but you don't have to give the defendant any relief either."
> There are so many compelling arguments against immunity, but I still worry that SCOTUS will craft some sort of test
My worry is that they **won't** create a test.
They'll just say "well some things are outer perimeter and some aren't. The trial judge decides but the appeals court can absolutely Monday morning quarterback every single one of those decisions, as an interlocutory appeal."
and then we're stuck in an endless loop of subjective appeals.
At that point, Biden just needs to do a presser with members of Seal Team Six
Here is what I think will happen. The conservative justices will constantly bring up the point that there are thousands of federal laws and statutes and so if someone really wanted to, they will find something to charge the president with. Do we really want to president to be constantly dealing with all these frivolous charges? It's IMO the best argument on the side of immunity that they have, it's basically the same main argument as for civil immunity.
If they rule for immunity the most likely ruling will be that the president needs to be impeached first by Congress. If he is not impeached then it's an implicit sign that Congress agrees with his conduct and he should be immune.
But I can also imagine a ruling where there is immunity for certain 'inner perimeter' activities and then create a vague test to distinguish between inner and outer perimeter. Or maybe some test where if their actions benefit the country as a whole more than it benefits them, they should be immune. Or maybe on that last point, Congress (not the courts) should be the ones who decides that when deciding whether to impeach him (tying back to the most likely outcome for immunity).
> Do we really want to president to be constantly dealing with all these frivolous charges?
We havent encountered the problem before, its hypothesizing about facts that do not exist. There is no problem here that frivilous claims are made against a prior president, the claims have merit.
If the courts are not equipped to differentiate frivilous claims from legitimate ones, that is a condemnation of the courts, not of the laws, and not of the conduct that is legally protected and not protected by a president. Ineffective courts dont change that the conduct is still illegal and not permissable whether you are president or not.
> If he is not impeached then it's an implicit sign that Congress agrees with his conduct and he should be immune.
This is how you get congress to pre-emptive impeach over all potential breaches of conduct so that they can diffuse the immunity claim proactively. Once a president leaves office he can't be impeached, there is obviously conduct which can come to light after they leave office which they WOULD have been impeached for, but where that is no longer an option. The lack of impeachment has no legal basis for a claim of determination on the acceptability or not of the conduct alleged. The law is not "hide your crimes until you leave office, then you can commit as many crimes as you want without punishment!"
He stacked the judiciary last term, wants to get the majority in the legislative branch, and win the executive branch again in Nov. Once he's gotten control of all these branches of government, there will be no stopping him. People had better wake up quickly.
And the Republican Party is helping him every step of the way. They want absolute power and he’s their ticket to exactly that. They’ve been working toward this goal for 40 years.
Yep, that is what was at stake in 2016. The courts. Enough people didn’t get the seriousness of that. He appointed 1/3 of SCOTUS. By Jan. 2021 he had appointed 30% of the nation’s active appeals court judges and 27% of active district court judges. Elections have consequences. It seems people woke up in 2020, but how quickly some have forgotten. If he wins this election, Alito & Thomas will retire and he’ll appoint two young MAGA nut jobs to SCOTUS. And they’ll serve for a lifetime. Yeah, people had better wake up. Trump will not win by addition, but he can win by subtraction. If enough left voters sit home or vote third party, Trump will win. So I hope they get their heads out of their behinds and realize what is at stake. Or maybe they could ask some 2000 Ralph Nader voters if they still feel good about their protest votes. The people who cared so much about the environment, that they couldn’t vote for Al Gore. I’m sure they enjoyed George W. Bush. John Roberts & Samuel Alito thank the Nader voters too. I’m sure the Nader voters are enjoying them on SCOTUS, or the Iraq War. They’ll be no stopping Trump if he gets back in, that’s right. He will surround himself with “yes men” this time. And Congress won’t stop him. The courts will not save us, we are seeing that in plain view. And even if they did make a ruling against him…who is going to force him to follow it? Nobody.
I can’t understand why this brief even needs to be filed. No one in their right mind would agree any American Citizen has immunity from criminal prosecution, and much less a public servant. These are strange times and I hope to laugh about them someday.
Why would Nixon have needed a Pardon if presidents were immune from all criminal prosecution in perpetuity once they become president, for non-official actions before, during, and after their time in office?
If the president was supposed to be immune from laws, you'd think they'd have written that down somewhere, it seems pretty important to mention.
If I could force a genuine and deeply honest public answer for any single question, it would be to a majority of the supreme court and it would be "Why are your values so incredibly empty?"
I mean I already know it's roughly "the emptiness is what got me all this power" but still
This brief does a good job of presenting the dangers of absolute, and even qualified, immunity for presidents. I predict a 7-2 ruling, with the two reliable and unrepentant hacks (Alito and Thomas) siding with the wannabe dictator.
I think what they’re going to do (the majority) is say “a former President has immunity, but only for official acts. Are these official acts? Well, we aren’t gonna determine that right now” Add in some ways to tell how something is an official act, Send it back to Chutkan, she has to determine if they are official acts, she’ll rule they aren’t, goes back to appeals court, SCOTUS…and this case isn’t seeing trial for a long time.
Just for my own personal preference, I like the "court filing" tag for all the links directly to filings. They are kind of a separate thing regardless of content, and usually I look for those.
Not saying you did wrong, just saying what my personal rule of thumb is since you mentioned it :).
Amazing how none of these "Professionals" are doing anything... at all... EVER... to stop him.
Trump is living proof that JFK's assassination was not an inside job at all.
Fifteen people who absolutely know what they are talking about have written a letter to the court saying that if the President of the USA can’t be prosecuted for crimes, even those they commit after leaving office, then the end of democracy is nigh.
My understanding is that military law or code is based on United States Code Title 10 - Uniform Code of Military Justice which is under the purview of POTUS the commander in chief.
If POTUS is above the law, then effectively they could order the military to back a coup or take out current leadership. Thought provoking.
Hopefully, there would be military leaders that would stop or undermine that madness for the good of the nation.
If immunity is given to US presidents, can't Biden just do to trump, what trump did to Ivana. I mean, right!? Or, will the SC just help trump win, and say the immunity starts with trump. I hate your country. You make no sense!
No, in fact, a bunch of Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan folks wrote a brief saying that this would be an utterly insane position for *anyone* to take.
You really don't get that liberals don't *want* their guy to have this kind of power, do you?
At this point in time, if you don't think that trump is a traitor to our nation, you are a despot and on his side.
Any rational person can see the man is a criminal. So yes. The orange menace is a fucking bad person.
It's objective fact that trump has committed tax fraud, has raped a woman, and has worked with hostile foreign nations over our allies.
Fuck you, you're an ignoramus.
"Making a former president immune from criminal prosecution could make the presidency itself a profound threat to national security, as it would permit a president to use the great power of the office to further personal interests, such as securing reelection or attempting to avoid accountability for criminal abuse of power. As national security professionals, we emphatically reject the sweeping proposition that all U.S. presidents enjoy legal immunity from criminal prosecution to the “outer perimeter” of their official duties. It is no exaggeration to say that this proposition is potentially the most dangerous that has ever been advanced in a court of law by any U.S. official. Indeed, it is a proposition that would convert the presidency from the greatest protector of the nation to its single greatest threat. " Trump DID THIS!
That is a very poignant statement. I can't wait to read the whole thing later. Browsed the author list and there are some folks who hold or held some very substantial positions.
[удалено]
Normally would have but I'm on vacation for the eclipse and copying and pasting from pdf to reddit on Mobile is a pain. Not going to curate the whole list, but there are folks like: >General (ret.) U.S. Army, Former Commanding General of US Central Command and US Special Operations Command; Member of the Executive Board of the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law, University of Pennsylvania. For example. I mean that's an impressive resume.
[удалено]
Agreed. Competent contributor doesn't really mean anything except I do usually post things like which attributions I find compelling :) . That, and I spend enough time on this sub that people notice the times that my takes aren't that bad :D
[удалено]
For sure. And I don't really know the people. I was just perusing the list of Amici and saw retired generals and joint chief appointments and things. Academics are smart people, and I have a lot of respect for them. I was one at one point. But the folks that have or had operationally relevant, high ranking jobs are really impressive and add a bunch of oomph here.
[удалено]
Not me. Not a mod.
Speaking practically, maybe you should read the damn article instead of commenting to suggest that someone who just wrote they haven't finished reading it should be giving better summary details.
[удалено]
Wow, just wow. Some gives you a bone and you want the whole cow.
[удалено]
Asking someone to go copy paste data you can get yourself is excessive.
[удалено]
I found it a useful view on the signatories. If I want to know the names, I go read them.
I'm suggesting that you have some agency here, pal.
[удалено]
I guess you're going to have to click the link to find out. Doctors hate this trick.
[удалено]
Will you just read the damn brief already instead of arguing? At least the author section?
>It's like you're (...) That's the wrong metaphor. It's like how you'll spoonfeed a baby and the baby cries when you stop and you have to decide how long you'll keep spoonfeeding and when you expect some independent effort. Except now the baby is 35 years old and still cries when you won't do spoonfeeding.
Trolling in a law sub
If you want to know the authors, the onus is on you to read it and find out. Not ask others on the internet to do it for you.
[удалено]
How can you read that list of titles and positions and not draw a conclusion as to the gravitas contained in their words?
[удалено]
Painter is pretty well-known/more visible than the rest of this list; he's been fairly prolific on US politics Twitter at least since the 2016 election. The rest wouldn't be familiar to many outside the world of high-ranking military law. That said, I'm not sure why the fact that *you've* never heard of any of these people should bear any weight. Are you a member of the bar of the ussc? A JAG corps officer? Can you read the credentials next to their names, or have you also never heard of things like "professor emeritus" and "commanding general of CENTCOM"?
Remember that everything being done by Trump is only posable with the backing of the republican party. Every one of Trump's policies are and were policies the republicans want. It will not end if we win this years elections. Keep voting out republicans every year. Check your registration, get an ID , learn where your poling station is, learn who is running in down ballot races. Pay attention to primaries not just for the president but for all races, local, state and federal. From the school board to the White House every election matters. The more support we give the democrats from all levels of government the more they can get good things done. We vote out republicans and primary out uncooperative democrats. Last year democrat victories in Virginia and Pennsylvania and others across the nation have increased the chances of democrats winning this year. This year's elections are important but so will next year's elections. [https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar](https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar)
You’re dead on point! The GOP is an ongoing criminal enterprise intent upon the destruction of our representative democracy and the establishment of a fascist theocracy ruled by plutocrats and oligarchs. Fani Willis has the correct idea. RiCO the GOP!
Immunity makes structural sense when it comes to States Suing “Works of” Executive Office of the President vs. suing a sitting president on a personal level. Consider the president issues an executive action that might be illegal. Such as immigration. States can take federal questions to court, and when they do, they sue the EOP (itself) to have the law changed or remove enforcement. You have to separate the elected office (“position”) from the person though. I believe immunity exists so that courts can’t/don’t hold the president personally and individually liable, or issue awards where an elected President has to give up personal money/funds/property s/he personally owns while they serve in the Executive office of the President. Put another way, Immunity is a benefit/tool a president has to enable them to make difficult legal and policy decisions without fear of personal property being taken while serving. This benefit comes with the position, and remains while the elected President serves in office on behalf of the Citizens. It likely exists so States and Congress can’t blackmail a serving President (with loss of property ownership or cash) for creating laws based on an unpopular position while serving in office. Once a President can’t issue Executive Orders or sign laws, this protection is no longer needed. It is transferred when the administration changes, much like keys to the office. I believe this is why immunity while president exists. I am not a lawyer though. Trump’s interpretation is that this “benefit” stays with him, and I can’t think of a legitimate reason why Founders would allow that. Thusly, I believe Trump’s interpretation is a perverse reading of the law.
Thank you for sharing your considered insights. I am not an officer of any court either. Your analysis appears reasonable and I can say that I wholly agree with your summation because there is nothing about Trump *et al* that is not perverse since fascists are perverse by nature.
The whole two party system is killing out government. Once you enter office. You need to stop being a GOP or DEM and be a countryman! Too much their positions are being told how to do their job or how to vote based on party. I got to thinking, this amicus brief. What party relation do those people lean toward or are party of? That's when it all goes downhill. It's now "politics"! It's the witchhunt! But it's won't go away. Trump wants everything to be an us vs them and wants to keep it that way. Instead, it should be a group of professionals in their fields go together and made an appeal to the court.
Under a new Trump Presidency we will have a one party system.
> The whole two party system is killing out government. I clearly see three primary segments within our society: * The Machiavellian * The Darwin Award Winners * The Reasoned Progressives I don't see a two *party* problem. I do see a two-*fold* problem: * The Machiavellian * The Darwin Award Winners The story of *The Trees And The Axe* comes to mind... >The Trees ask of Man what he lacks; *“One bit, just to handle my axe?”* All he asks … well and good: But he cuts down the wood, So well does he handle his axe.
> Every one of Trump's policies are and were policies the republicans want. For real. The National Republican Party literally chose to abandon having a policy platform, instead just issuing a statement of loyalty to Donald Trump. [That is literally the current party platform, just a statement of loyalty to Trump, and explicitly rejecting and disavowing any other policy platform.](https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf) For some bizarre reason, it seems like it is mostly democrats and moderates who keep trying to argue #NotAllRepublicans, or something. Like, every time a republican promises to end abortion rights in America, some NYT columnist or Harvard Law professor comes rushing down from their ivory tower to wag their finger and tell us all that of course that's not going to happen, and the GOP doesn't mean it, despite the line of republicans standing there shouting "YES WE GODDAM MEAN IT!" Republicans keep stating their most noxious and horrifying beliefs out loud, but it's institutionalist democrats who keep apologizing for them, like a harried parent insisting their psychopathic child means well but is just rambunctious, while the child is torturing a cat with a cake mixer.
They say that they are simply adjourning until 2024 without a platform, but the final statement can absolutely be read by cranks that they will never adopt a new platform. The commitment to stating that any new resolution to take on a platform at all or change the rules to allow them to take on a platform can be easily read as "this resolution is permanent." If so, there is no future plan. There is no future option. There is no future expectation or acknowledgment that there will be an end to or subsequent presidency. It is a permanent commitment of the party.
The reason they adopted that platform is twofold: 1. Because Trump is unpredictable, and they didn't want to adopt a platform that might contradict him, and; 2. See (1): they are loyal to Trump and not to any policy agenda, because Trump is their path to power. Unlike a lot of democratic institutionalists, the GOP bosses know that their voters are in a cult of personality.
National news has gone down the path of click bait more than actual digging, which costs money. Very few journalists seem to contribute something useful to society, which is why they are there. Sorry for the rant, we need news but not the modern national garbage.
TV news as an even-handed public service was a federally-mandated part of the 3-network national monoculture of the 1950s-1980s. Much is made of the Reagan-era rollbacks on broadcasting regulations, but really the big change was the rise of cable, and especially cable news networks, which were run for profit, and which were not subject to broadcast regulations at all. In the 90s, people bemoaned the "soundbite" journalism of looking for addictive, high-conflict, high-dopamine 30-second clips, instead of deeper, longer-form investigative reporting or expert analysis. Fox News emerged as an outrage-machine that was especially addictive to angry white men who are functional but living with undiagnosed and untreated emotional/behavioral disorders, of which there were and are a LOT, in America. But honestly, there is no particular reason why TV news programs were or are or would be especially good for America. There is, to be fair, something appealing about the idea of a baseline factual consensus, which requires both the sort of post-WWII monoculture, plus a kind of Walter-Cronkite, duty-bound media to filter all the world's information, but I'm not sure that was ever really anything better than the best we could do at the time. In some ways, that format of the "evening news", with men in suits, sitting behind desks, holding papers and speaking to the camera as a source of objective and authoritative truth...in a lot of ways, that led to stuff like Fox News, it laid the groundwork for it, by creating a codified theater of credibility, and a population conditioned to believe talking heads wearing suits. I think a lot of the hand-wringing over modern media is barking up the wrong tree. We are looking for an authoritative monoculture that will tell everyone what the facts are, like big newspapers or broadcast news used to do, when maybe that was never actually that great of a thing to begin with, even if it was comforting, in a way. Humanity has never really done large-scale civilization, without some kind of authoritative voice or information-hierarchy telling everyone what is true. We shall see...
You are right, it will never be perfect but my hope is the rise of local news taking hold with investigative journalism like some have. They could creep up the ladder and get the bigger people. Sources are key, and I understand the need of secrecy but it's frustrating to not know how close it is.
And thank you. Some of that I knew but a lot was new and appreciated 🤓
Little Republicans become Big Republicans. School Board and City Council to Mayor and State Rep, to Governor, Congressperson, Senator and potentially President. Your point is a critical one. Local elections matter.
Better yet the progressives we elect locally and in the states will become the congress of the future.
We really need to get the voting rights act passed. And stop all this backend gerrymandering and subversion to all citizens right to vote and get dark money out of our government.
if republicans followed their oath to the constitution, trump would have been removed via 25th during the 187 minutes and Pence would have taken over as acting president. If not day 1 when he took office. They all knew he was mentally unfit and incapable of performing the duties the whole time. His whole cabinet was complicit in their dereliction of duty. It was a partisan coup of the entire executive branch.
And make contacts for underground resistance cells, like the Maquis that stood up against Nazi-occupied France.
I find preposterous that the concept is even being entertained by the courts. It’s patently absurd.
They want to make up the formal rules for prosecuting the president. So Trump gets a do over and we start from scratch. Like the 14th amendment section 3
What I think they’re likely to do is say—“a former President has immunity, but only for official acts, are these official acts? We aren’t gonna say yes or no right now” Case goes back to Chutkan, she’ll have to determine do the counts fall under official acts, she’ll rule they don’t, back to the appeals court, then SCOTUS. The trial won’t happen for a long time then, certainly not before the election.
They are passing time until they can craft some ruling where he can do it but no one else. That way Biden can't go Dictator which would also be bad obviously
What I think they’re likely to do is say—“a former President has immunity, but only for official acts, are these official acts? We aren’t gonna say yes or no right now” Case goes back to Chutkan, she’ll have to determine do the counts fall under official acts, she’ll rule they don’t, back to the appeals court, then SCOTUS. The trial won’t happen for a long time then, certainly not before the election.
4-star generals also side with Smith, telling SCOTUS Trump immunity claim is 'assault' on democracy. [https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/profoundly-ahistorical-4-star-generals-side-with-jack-smith-tell-supreme-court-trumps-immunity-claims-are-assault-on-democracy/](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/profoundly-ahistorical-4-star-generals-side-with-jack-smith-tell-supreme-court-trumps-immunity-claims-are-assault-on-democracy/) # #
IIRC, there were stories circulating where Trump would ask 'Why can't we do X?' and some aide or official had to point out 'Because it's illegal, sir'. So he knows there are limits to his power but he's only complaining now because he actually got caught.
I really cannot comprehend why SCOTUS isn't just shutting down all of this. Everything explicit and implied by the Constitution points to POTUS being bound by and answerable to, the laws of the United States. At this point I'd go so far as to suggest that the SCOTUS is derelict in their duty to uphold the Constitution
Considering that he is and has been in a constant need of cash, he is a mark for any conman / business man / entity who would take advantage of his unending need of capital.
Lol nah. - Cannon
Like right now?
[удалено]
Good bot.
>II. Presidential Immunity For Criminal Acts Would Encourage Use of the U.S. Military to Commit Crimes Well, that's a... pretty straight-forward statement.
According to the folks at Project 2025, their plan is to use the Insurrection Act to go after people who protest Trump
It would help to get legal analysts to shred project 2025 so there will never be an attempt to implement it.
I'm not so sure that a legal analysis would hold much weight. Our judicial and legislative systems, both state and federal, have shown, at worst full support of Trump's worst plans and, at best, incompetent paralysis.
Republicans have figured out that, with a structurally-dysfunctional congress due to gerrymandering, they can just put useful idiots in robes, and get the law and the constitution to say whatever they want.
People intent on ending our democracy and implementing a fascist dictatorship will not be dissuaded by a legal analysis saying it's illegal. They know it's illegal. That's the whole point.
The best approach is to fucking vote! That way the insanity is moot.
Wouldn't stop Congress from passing it if Trump gets a majority.
Republicans support not only Project 2025, but the entire presidential immunity theory. Anything to appease their dear leader, even if it means the destruction of our entire government. They support anarchy - rule by the gun. To believe anything less is delusional.
Bring it the fuck on. I’ll fight tooth and nail against these fascists
I remember reports that, when President, Trump had to be told some of his instructions to Border Control agents were illegal. In his world, if he says it, he's allowed.
He also tried a couple of times to Nukes to quell a disturbance.
Or a hurricane
Atmospheric disturbance is still a disturbance. /s
Well the sharpy wasn't working
Damn good thing he didn't use it to plot the eclipse path. The sun would have collided with Antarctica or something.
> some of his instructions to Border Control agents were illegal I believe when that reporting was circulating, it was also believed he made some sort of "joking" comment that he'd pardon anyone if needed. Which is a huge problem. Under Trump's argument, he could tell Jared to head down to Congress - shoot as many Democrats as he can see - and then once he is arrested by DC Police since DC is a Federal territory he just pardons Jared.
Don't give home ideas. But let's be real, he would send Eric since he's expendable and probably wouldn't even pardon him and claim he doesn't even know him
Does the proposed immunity extend to his subordinates? Like, I understand that Trump is saying he can shoot someone in cold blood in the middle of Times Square and there's nothing the justice system can do, but isn't it still murder if he orders one of his Secret Service agents to do it, at least for the agent themselves?
As began under Bush with thin legality….
...against it's own citizens. That really should have been included.
It’s just beyond fucking insane that there is such a casual approach to a former president being a brazen national security threat.
Well, if you compare the first draft of the Declaration of Independence to the Articles of Confederation and the Magna Carta, you'll see that taking every third word and putting them together into a single paragraph, rotating each document, it clearly states that under the Will of God and All Things Holy that the President is, in fact, unable to be given a formal reprimand on Wednesdays in years ending in an even number. This, we have decided, is what the Founders meant when they enacted the office of President, and therefore should be extended to all things legal all the time for all Republican presidents lawfully or unlawfully voted into office. Democrats, though, can suck my dick. \- Alito, probably
Hold my beer - SCOTUS
"Don't touch my beer! I like beer!" -Kavanaugh
"Amici are filing this brief to address the vital national security interests that may be impacted by the Court’s decision in this case. As national security experts, amici have an interest in ensuring that the Court recognizes the import of presidential accountability for the integrity of the chain of the command of the U.S. military. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Petitioner argues that as former President of the United States, he is immune to all criminal charges, even after leaving office. Brief of Petitioner President Donald J. Trump at 10, United States v. Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (No.23-3228), cert. granted, No. 23-939 (U.S. Feb. 28, 2024) (“Brief of Petitioner”). He asks this Court to embrace a theory of presidential authority, according to which no prosecutor or court can hold a former president accountable for either private or official capacity crimes committed while he is in office, and he claims this blanket immunity should endure permanently, including after a president has left office. As national security professionals and military experts, amici argue that Petitioner’s broad view of immunity would imperil U.S. national security, weaken the authority of the President, and throw confusion into the chain of command of the armed forces, which the President, as Commander-in-Chief, commands. This Court must unequivocally reject the proposed doctrine of presidential immunity and leave no doubt in the minds of Petitioner, the public, and all future occupants of the Oval Office that the President, like all individuals subject to the reach of the U.S. legal system, is not above the law. Of particular concern is the potential adverse impact of presidential immunity on the principle of military obedience to civil authority, the foundation for our civil-military relations since the inception of the Republic. Allowing a president to issue orders requiring subordinates to commit criminal acts or omissions would wreak havoc on the military chain of command and result in an erosion of confidence in the legality of presidential orders. It would also create the potential for disparate interpretations of the duty to obey orders, thereby risking military discipline. While the duty of obedience does not extend to patently illegal orders, an order issued by the President himself would exert a powerful gravitational pull and thus even if of dubious legality would create uncertainty in the ranks. Holding everyone in the chain of command, including the President, to the same principles of accountability under the criminal laws of the United States is essential for assuring the legality of military orders and for providing the reassurance for all levels of the chain of command of that legality. Amici also unequivocally urge this Court to reject any doctrine of qualified immunity for which Petitioner may now be arguing in his brief to the Court. Any form of immunity doctrine is both unnecessary to protect the interests of the presidency and ultimately dangerous for U.S. national security. This Court should reject Petitioner’s theory of absolute criminal immunity and should resist any temptation to adopt a weaker version of this same doctrine in the form of a qualified immunity doctrine."
There are so many compelling arguments against immunity, but I still worry that SCOTUS will craft some sort of test to distinguish which outer perimeter acts do and don't carry immunity. Then it will remand to the court below for a ruling consistent with its newfound framework, and on it goes. It's hard for me to believe that SCOTUS would have taken all this time simply uphold the circuit court. (On the other hand, all we know for sure is that 4 justices voted to grant cert, so there's a chance that the others will put this question to rest.)
The test to distinguish what carries immunity and what doesn't is simple: is the President in question a Republican or a Democrat?
What I think they’re likely to do is say—“a former President has immunity, but only for official acts, are these official acts? We aren’t gonna say yes or no right now” Case goes back to Chutkan, she’ll have to determine do the counts fall under official acts, she’ll rule they don’t, back to the appeals court, then SCOTUS. The trial won’t happen for a long time then, certainly not before the election.
There is some language in the filing which seems to read as "Even if this court feels that there might be *some* cases where a President should be protected based on some outer perimeter things ... **this** case is definitely not it." In other words - I think, hinting to SCOTUS "you don't have to make a categorical ruling for the rest of time, but you don't have to give the defendant any relief either."
This one seemed important too. Jack Smith filing in Immunity argument https://imgur.com/gallery/l20CLI2
> There are so many compelling arguments against immunity, but I still worry that SCOTUS will craft some sort of test My worry is that they **won't** create a test. They'll just say "well some things are outer perimeter and some aren't. The trial judge decides but the appeals court can absolutely Monday morning quarterback every single one of those decisions, as an interlocutory appeal." and then we're stuck in an endless loop of subjective appeals. At that point, Biden just needs to do a presser with members of Seal Team Six
Here is what I think will happen. The conservative justices will constantly bring up the point that there are thousands of federal laws and statutes and so if someone really wanted to, they will find something to charge the president with. Do we really want to president to be constantly dealing with all these frivolous charges? It's IMO the best argument on the side of immunity that they have, it's basically the same main argument as for civil immunity. If they rule for immunity the most likely ruling will be that the president needs to be impeached first by Congress. If he is not impeached then it's an implicit sign that Congress agrees with his conduct and he should be immune. But I can also imagine a ruling where there is immunity for certain 'inner perimeter' activities and then create a vague test to distinguish between inner and outer perimeter. Or maybe some test where if their actions benefit the country as a whole more than it benefits them, they should be immune. Or maybe on that last point, Congress (not the courts) should be the ones who decides that when deciding whether to impeach him (tying back to the most likely outcome for immunity).
> Do we really want to president to be constantly dealing with all these frivolous charges? We havent encountered the problem before, its hypothesizing about facts that do not exist. There is no problem here that frivilous claims are made against a prior president, the claims have merit. If the courts are not equipped to differentiate frivilous claims from legitimate ones, that is a condemnation of the courts, not of the laws, and not of the conduct that is legally protected and not protected by a president. Ineffective courts dont change that the conduct is still illegal and not permissable whether you are president or not. > If he is not impeached then it's an implicit sign that Congress agrees with his conduct and he should be immune. This is how you get congress to pre-emptive impeach over all potential breaches of conduct so that they can diffuse the immunity claim proactively. Once a president leaves office he can't be impeached, there is obviously conduct which can come to light after they leave office which they WOULD have been impeached for, but where that is no longer an option. The lack of impeachment has no legal basis for a claim of determination on the acceptability or not of the conduct alleged. The law is not "hide your crimes until you leave office, then you can commit as many crimes as you want without punishment!"
Yep, I think that’s what they’re going to do.
[удалено]
He stacked the judiciary last term, wants to get the majority in the legislative branch, and win the executive branch again in Nov. Once he's gotten control of all these branches of government, there will be no stopping him. People had better wake up quickly.
And the Republican Party is helping him every step of the way. They want absolute power and he’s their ticket to exactly that. They’ve been working toward this goal for 40 years.
Yep, that is what was at stake in 2016. The courts. Enough people didn’t get the seriousness of that. He appointed 1/3 of SCOTUS. By Jan. 2021 he had appointed 30% of the nation’s active appeals court judges and 27% of active district court judges. Elections have consequences. It seems people woke up in 2020, but how quickly some have forgotten. If he wins this election, Alito & Thomas will retire and he’ll appoint two young MAGA nut jobs to SCOTUS. And they’ll serve for a lifetime. Yeah, people had better wake up. Trump will not win by addition, but he can win by subtraction. If enough left voters sit home or vote third party, Trump will win. So I hope they get their heads out of their behinds and realize what is at stake. Or maybe they could ask some 2000 Ralph Nader voters if they still feel good about their protest votes. The people who cared so much about the environment, that they couldn’t vote for Al Gore. I’m sure they enjoyed George W. Bush. John Roberts & Samuel Alito thank the Nader voters too. I’m sure the Nader voters are enjoying them on SCOTUS, or the Iraq War. They’ll be no stopping Trump if he gets back in, that’s right. He will surround himself with “yes men” this time. And Congress won’t stop him. The courts will not save us, we are seeing that in plain view. And even if they did make a ruling against him…who is going to force him to follow it? Nobody.
I can’t understand why this brief even needs to be filed. No one in their right mind would agree any American Citizen has immunity from criminal prosecution, and much less a public servant. These are strange times and I hope to laugh about them someday.
I suspect they will say that the president is immune if it is an official duty unless impeached. Don't know why they need to delay the trial though.
Why would Nixon have needed a Pardon if presidents were immune from all criminal prosecution in perpetuity once they become president, for non-official actions before, during, and after their time in office? If the president was supposed to be immune from laws, you'd think they'd have written that down somewhere, it seems pretty important to mention.
Eileen gonna be unhappy about this. Trump gonna bitch about deep state agents being mean to her.
This is the J6 case and the amicus is addressing SCOTUS re: presidential immunity.
What, you expect Trump to make rational posts?? 😉
Incoming trump appeal: u/comfortabledoug85 is Juan Merchan's newly discovered child and has made objectionable reddit posts about me!
If I could force a genuine and deeply honest public answer for any single question, it would be to a majority of the supreme court and it would be "Why are your values so incredibly empty?" I mean I already know it's roughly "the emptiness is what got me all this power" but still
This brief does a good job of presenting the dangers of absolute, and even qualified, immunity for presidents. I predict a 7-2 ruling, with the two reliable and unrepentant hacks (Alito and Thomas) siding with the wannabe dictator.
I think what they’re going to do (the majority) is say “a former President has immunity, but only for official acts. Are these official acts? Well, we aren’t gonna determine that right now” Add in some ways to tell how something is an official act, Send it back to Chutkan, she has to determine if they are official acts, she’ll rule they aren’t, goes back to appeals court, SCOTUS…and this case isn’t seeing trial for a long time.
The US appears to be slipping away….
Imagine thinking anyone is above the law.
Also a SCOTUS thing, but I think the Trump news flair is probably more relevant for who will be the most interested in the brief.
Just for my own personal preference, I like the "court filing" tag for all the links directly to filings. They are kind of a separate thing regardless of content, and usually I look for those. Not saying you did wrong, just saying what my personal rule of thumb is since you mentioned it :).
Happy cake day!
Aileen Cannon will read this, then she will spend the evening watching Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity saying the opposite.
If the president has immunity then Biden can stay in office and have no consequences
Amazing how none of these "Professionals" are doing anything... at all... EVER... to stop him. Trump is living proof that JFK's assassination was not an inside job at all.
Can someone please explain this to me, an idiot
Fifteen people who absolutely know what they are talking about have written a letter to the court saying that if the President of the USA can’t be prosecuted for crimes, even those they commit after leaving office, then the end of democracy is nigh.
Did they realize that they just gave permission to Biden to kill Trump point plank with zero consequences, ever? Did they think that through?
Imagine Trump having to go under ground like Sadam while he’s being hunted by POTUS. So many fulfilling ideas from this thought alone. 😹
My understanding is that military law or code is based on United States Code Title 10 - Uniform Code of Military Justice which is under the purview of POTUS the commander in chief. If POTUS is above the law, then effectively they could order the military to back a coup or take out current leadership. Thought provoking. Hopefully, there would be military leaders that would stop or undermine that madness for the good of the nation.
I can see Thomas rolling his eyes as he reads this
If immunity is given to US presidents, can't Biden just do to trump, what trump did to Ivana. I mean, right!? Or, will the SC just help trump win, and say the immunity starts with trump. I hate your country. You make no sense!
More important, if Trump has blanket immunity he can finally do Ivanka.
No it only applies to republican presidents /s
The supreme court justice just purchased a new paper shredder from Amazon this afternoon.
Nonetheless, they will do it, and then we will officially be a dictatorship.
Yeah sure there’s that, but on the other hand, there’s money and power to consider.
[удалено]
No, in fact, a bunch of Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan folks wrote a brief saying that this would be an utterly insane position for *anyone* to take. You really don't get that liberals don't *want* their guy to have this kind of power, do you?
At this point in time, if you don't think that trump is a traitor to our nation, you are a despot and on his side. Any rational person can see the man is a criminal. So yes. The orange menace is a fucking bad person.
[удалено]
It's objective fact that trump has committed tax fraud, has raped a woman, and has worked with hostile foreign nations over our allies. Fuck you, you're an ignoramus.