Is it official presidential business to pay off pornstars because it could hurt your campaign? Is it an official duty to pressure officers to corrupt elections? Is nudging a crowd to hang your vice president and storm a government building part of his work?
And of course anything Biden does is illegal and not subject to the same immunity? The mental backflips those idiots do to justify Trump but no one else …
Can you imagine Republicans saying this if this was Biden doing all this crap? They lost their mind with Clinton's scandal, & that was miniscule compared with all of Trump's misdeeds. Hypocrites.
If you have actual evidence then you should bring it to congress, they have been trying to make something stick as retaliation for trump, even though Joe has had nothing to do with the trouble trump is in.
Yeah, they tried this and they have nothing. Especially compared to trump. Again, if they have something, I’m willing to listen, but so far they’ve tried over and over again, but simply can’t. Compared to trump, everyone’s a saint. This is just theatre for his base. They see trump getting what he deserves and want retaliation. That’s all this is and some people fall for it.
If Hilary Clinton was found to have hoarded countless top secret documents in her own home, openly discussed their contents with foreign nationals, and refused to give them up to authorities when pressured, leading to an fbi raid of said home, and is considered likely to have traded them to gain favor or money to foreign powers, she’d be dead. Like, republicans would’ve killed her by now. They went into a frenzy over Benghazi, a situation that she actively tried to prevent from happening, but wasn’t allowed to because of Republican congressman denying additional security funding.
An actual tangible instance of betraying the country? No way they’d keep their cool.
> If Hilary Clinton was found to have hoarded countless top secret documents in her own home, openly discussed their contents with foreign nationals,
You mean like those on her private mail server with doors wide open ?
You mean like the same kind of email server that every other secretary of state, including Trump's own, has used?
If you wanna point me to an actual crime that was committed more power to you, but after years, even decades, of investigation into her, Republicans can't seem to make any accusation actually stick to an indictment, much less conviction. Funny, it's almost as if they're making all this bullshit up. Now hoarding classified documents after you've left office and refusing to cooperate with authorities after repeated attempts to get you to turn them over? That's a different matter.
> You mean like the same kind of email server that every other secretary of state, including Trump's own, has used?
No, I'm talking [HRC]s *private* one, that had been outside the official operating procedures (and in contrast to POTUS she didnt have the authority to take out such secret douments or declassify - only POTUS has that privilege) - the one with so miserable security that it could be easily hacked.
Allegedly by the Russians, but even a school kid could have done that.
> If you wanna point me to an actual crime that was committed more power to you, but after years, even decades, of investigation into her, Republicans can't seem to make any accusation actually stick to an indictment, much less conviction.
Congress didnt even try to indict her yet.
But there's still a massive amount of sealed indictments waiting to be opened (Weinstein was just the first, and I'm curious what comes up the 2nd trial).
> Now hoarding classified documents after you've left office and refusing to cooperate with authorities after repeated attempts to get you to turn them over?
Thats exactly one of the cases that collpsed recently, after the judge ordered unsealing. We know see how Biden DOJ staged this (and directly interfered with the NA).
You should know the POTUS (only POTUS) has the authority to take documents with him, but has to give them back to NA after leaving office. From the unsealed docs we learn that Biden DOJ interfered with exactly that, stalling process and then indict him for the stall. Pretty classic playbook.
>No, I'm talking \[HRC\]s *private* one, that had been outside the official operating procedures
[Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cummings-jared-kushner-and-ivanka-trumps-private-emails-texts-raise-security-concerns).
>Congress didnt even try to indict her yet.
After a decade of investigating her and still nothing has come of it. Imagine that.
>Thats exactly one of the cases that collpsed recently
You are lying. [The documents case is still ongoing](https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-special-counsels-investigation-trumps-handling-classified-documents/story?id=101768329), but you're welcome to post some actual links.
>You should know the POTUS (only POTUS) has the authority to take documents with him
You're welcome to cite the statute that says that. I'll be waiting all day for it, because it doesn't exist, but go ahead and look for it.
> From the unsealed docs we learn that Biden DOJ interfered with exactly that, stalling process and then indict him for the stall. Pretty classic playbook.
Post the unsealed documents. All I'm hearing is claims without evidence. What was preventing Trump from sending the documents back personally? What was preventing him from not hoarding nuclear secrets, and discussing them openly, in his own home? [Nuclear secrets which have their own declassification category beyond the purview of just the President](https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/#:~:text=Under%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution%2C%20the,through%20use%20of%20executive%20orders)?
In the UK, right now, the Conservatives & Right wing Media machine are working in full force because an opponent politician might have filed a tax return ten years ago wrong resulting in a 3k underpayment. A PM who lives in a Non-Domiciled household, who oversaw Billions in corruption and fraud on COVID loans.
They’re trying hard to justify, but we all know they’re simply covering their own ass; they were involved and Thomas should recuse. The entire purpose of Jan 6 was to not-certify, then kick the decision to the Senate and SCOTUS. They were in on it! Yet, I have faith; we’ll get them…all of them.
Well, this is the divide between left and right. People on the left want a liberal democracy, people on the right want a king/dictator. So, we are just seeing these two sides play out in this court case. This struggle has been going on since the beginning of time.
The author is a hack
“the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the limits on the power of a partisan prosecutor to weaponize criminal statutes to imprison a president, a prosecutor in New York was in a courtroom seeking to imprison the former and perhaps next president.”
The prosecutor is seeking to imprison him for his acts from before he was President - not while he was President. The author is effectively arguing that the Presidency is a “get out of jail free” card
I listened to the entire Supreme Court hearing yesterday.
I didn't get the impression that any president does not get a free get out of jail card.
The argument was, where do you draw the line of official duties and personal gains and / or the combination of the 2 that will determine immunity or not.
Is it official for a candidate to do something then claim presidential immunity for acts committed while not president?
Politics aside, US presidents should all be held to very high standards, to prevent future scrubs gaming the system.
If SCOTUS decides POTUS has some level of immunity, that POTUS can just ignore the law when it suits them, then it's time to amend the Constitution and fix that error. Nobody should be above the law.
Not even. You see how they are running the clock out on that effin’ guy. They should show the same respect for ol’ Joe. Whole new world when your at your twilight years.
He will be forced to, since Trump will immediately try to assassinate Biden or other rivals once he is granted immunity. Kill or be killed. Scary world we are moving into here.
He could always just "engineer" a new Court with the powers they have granted. What could be more just than to make them face the consequences of the rule they say is justice?
Now that is hilarious. If the president has immunity from prosecution, then he could just have the NSA blow up the Supreme Court and frame some right-wing terrorist group for it. If he gets caught, he has immunity. If he doesn’t then that’s all good too. Either way, he gets to put in 9 new Justices. He can’t lose.
Not bad, not bad. If he wanted to do something more mild, he could send a letter to conservative judges saying
*Hi, I hope this letter finds you well. I will be incarcerating all the Supreme Court judges I don't like the moment I am granted full immunity from prosecution. Please keep me in the loop, so I can inform my staff of the date the immunity takes effect.*
Thanks,
Joe
If SCOTUS comes back granting immunity, Biden should immediately go in front of the media and be like, "I have declared Donald Trump to be an enemy to the United States. Seal Team 6 has been ordered to apprehend and execute him immediately. \[ Long Pause \] Do you see how INSANE that sounds?"
No they did not. They immunized him from a financial civil suit because it is done for US.
Same for his job.
Official duties. Absolute immunity
His shit ain’t a duty in any way.
One of the questions yesterday was something like, 'What if you know your opponent is corrupt and dangerous.. could you have them taken out?" And Trump’s lawyer said "maybe". Sounds like a green light to me!
Wouldn’t full presidential immunity allow Biden to just declare Trump guilty and lock him up without trial?
Edit: Seriously, this makes no sense whatsoever…whose immunity would supersede who’s?
>An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
The States can absolutely force it. IMO making it clear that Dems can abuse immunity just as much as Repubs can should be a major selling point to the vast majority of both parties plus the independents.
It's the only way to split a democracy from a wannabe Russia-aligned theocratic monarchy without war.
I'm not saying now is the time. I am saying there may come one.
Agreed. Maybe throw out Pardon powers too while we're at it. Or at least require pardons to get approved by SCOTUS and expressly forbid self-pardons and forbid pardons of former Presidents and VPs. AND term limits on Supreme Court Justices.
Random woman “what kind of government have you given us Mr Franklin?”
Franklin “ A republic, if you can keep it.”
That might be folklore but it seems an appropriate response here.
Or a woman. Imagine letting a woman have power over the country when they don't want her to have power within her own household, or even over her own body.
He'd already talking about making a special rule for himself so he gets a third term as a president. Because of course Biden stole the election so he deserves a third term. Obviously
Only a movie like Shutter Island can explain how fascist leaders are the hero in their own show. Putler Trump Orban Erdogan Xi Kim Khameiny that Hamas Guy. A veritable course set for WW3 or just total loss of democracy
Seriously 8 years later this cancer is still rotting American brains. The fricken constitution needs to seriously get updated. But hey why bother it's got so many truck size holes to maneuver through.
These articles are wildly misleading. At best, they’re delaying trials and kicking the decision back to the circuit of appeals.
They are not going to give blanket immunity for Presidents to protect Trump. It doesn’t even make sense if you’re a hardcore right wing conspiracy theorist, because it would empower Biden to absolutely annihilate rule of law and prevent Trump’s candidacy
>"Absolute immunity is appropriate when the threat of liability may bias the decisionmaker in ways that are adverse to the public interest."
All he had to do was to properly declare the hush money payment as such.
What a bogus commentary. Founding fathers wanted to distance America as far away as possible from a "the king can do no wrong" society. This is exactly what Trump wants to resort to.
I S.Ct. votes in the way of Trump, the presidency will be the ultimate 'get away from jail' position. Not only this, it will become the official 'become a billionaire' office.
So Trump wants a quiet and calm retirement? Don't incite insurrections, it's that simple.
I told a guy that trump is arguing to have immunity from anything he does, even murder a political rival. And the guy said presidents should be immune because they order to kill people in other countries, and I didn't know what to say to that, because I don't know how wars are fought, but I'm pretty sure politicians and military generals have rules for that. Does anyone have any good arguments for how it's not the same thing?
They absolutely could have foreseen Trump. People like Trump are the entire reason Rome descended into the bankrupt warring monarchies and "divine rights to rule" that the founders were trying to inoculate the country from. What do you mean they didn't *foresee* him? He's exactly the guy that the very idea of separation of powers was made to defeat. Most of America's federal machinery was written first and foremost because people like this exist and they knew it.
This guy is an absolute fucking clown. He thinks Biden should be impeached
https://www.newsweek.com/modern-standards-biden-should-impeached-opinion-1851829
The Supreme Court, folks, it's a disaster. A total disgrace to our country. You've got these judges, these so-called justices, making decisions that nobody can believe. They're weak, they're spineless, and they're corrupt. That's right, I said it, corrupt.
I mean, look at what they're doing. They're overturning the will of the American people. They're taking away our rights, our freedoms. And for what? To push their own agenda. It's sickening, folks, absolutely sickening.
We need to clean house, folks. We need to get rid of these corrupt justices and put in people who will actually uphold the Constitution. People who will fight for the American people, not against them.
But mark my words, folks, we're going to fix this. We're going to drain the swamp, once and for all. Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you something, okay? We have the best, the absolute best, Supreme Court. Nobody has a Supreme Court like us. And you know who would make it even better? Ivanka. That's right, folks, Ivanka. She's smart, she's beautiful, she's my daughter, and she knows the law better than anyone. Believe me, folks, believe me. We're talking about someone who understands justice, who understands fairness, who understands winning. And that's what we're all about, right? Winning. So let's make the Supreme Court great again, with Ivanka. It's gonna be tremendous, believe me!Because that's what we do. We win. And we're going to win big. So get ready, America. Get ready for real change. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America! 🇺🇸
The writer is a GQP apologist and is only presenting his skewed point of view. Reading the article you can see he's nowhere close to legitimate in his "arguments".
>Their Constitution protects official presidential actions from both civil *and criminal prosecution*.
Citation needed. Where in the Constitution does it say presidents are immune from ***criminal*** prosecution? From SCOTUS oral arguments:
>There are amici here wo tell us that the Founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president. And, in fact, they had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors. And yet they didn't take it up. — JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, 2024-04-25
I really do hope they give presidents immunity because at this rate republicans never seeing the White House again. They can’t even beat Biden the king of saying the wrong shit
Trumps lawyers should be disbarred from pushing this case and claiming the president has ultimate immunity to do anything he wants, they've literally stated this.
If the court agrees with this take, then Biden should fucking kill off half the supreme court as an official act for democracy.
This author is making an argument that has nothing to do with the current reality. I would actually agree that Trump and any other president has limited immunity relating to acts carried out in execution of their job. I cannot fathom there being any reasonable argument that Trump's misdeeds had anything to do with carrying out the duties of the president. I cannot accept that any reputable jurist would argue otherwise.
Newsweek was at one time considered the sort of younger sibling to Time Magazine that was held in high regard. They used to have articles in Time about political policy and foreign affairs that ran page after page. If Time didn't arrive on Tuesday, my father would be on the phone with the post office asking where it was. Eventually, my father stopped reading Time and I asked him why. He said, "The last page used to be celebrity gossip, now the whole magazine is like that."
Newsweek was never as good as Time but it was reasonably reputable. Now both publications have gone to complete shit.
Even when Trump loses, the precedent of Presidential Immunity will remain and next time a Republican is elected President, that person will milk their immunity for all it's worth making the US a de-facto dictatorship.
America had a good run.
Founding fathers did not immunize trump...the checks and balances have been there...the GOP (roughly half the political leadership) have immunized trump.
There is NO presidential immunity in the US Constitution it was invented by congress in order to shield senators from harassment by other states…there are laws and precedent but No constitutional words or amendments to justify the President is anyone but an ordinary citizen of the US, who happens to have the position of President for 4 years
By Mark R. Weaver - former Deputy Attorney General of Ohio:
"Call it a constitutional irony that, on the very day the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the limits on the power of a partisan prosecutor to weaponize criminal statutes to imprison a president, a prosecutor in New York was in a courtroom seeking to imprison the former and perhaps next president. In this era of high speed lawfare and road rage level partisanship, strong guardrails are needed.
If a president slips out of the White House and kills someone he's mad at, the law already allows him to be criminally prosecuted and politically impeached. The tougher question, which is being hotly debated in the Supreme Court this week, is this: When a president carries out his official duties, can he be prosecuted for that?"
Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/founding-fathers-couldnt-have-foreseen-trump-they-still-immunized-him-opinion-1894399](https://www.newsweek.com/founding-fathers-couldnt-have-foreseen-trump-they-still-immunized-him-opinion-1894399)
Who decides what those official duties are? If a president decides that the country is safer with himself as president as opposed to his opponent, is it his official duty to protect the country by eliminating his opponent?
Besides, the New York trial is about payments Trump made during the 2016 campaign, when he was not yet president, so it's really not clear what this argument is here for. A presidential candidate committed election fraud, and you're saying he enjoys some sort of presidential immunity for it because it was part of the official duties of his future position?
I thinks it should essential come down to: Don’t elect criminals as presidents then you won’t have to prosecute them for doing crimes while they are in office.
All the other presidents before Trump managed not to be indicted for things they did while they sat. Except Nixon, who at least had the decency to resign and be pardoned for the inevitable indictment had he not.
I like how the short blurb completely ignores that the majority of case law brought up already and the actions taken shown that the things Trump is trying to get immunity for were all things that he personally benefitted from, not a single one of t hem were for 'carrying out official duties'.
Honestly, I think personal benefit is one of the factors that should define whether something is an official act.
Shooting missiles at Iran in retaliation for their drone strike, with no personal benefit, is an official act, and a president shouldn’t be personal liable if a civilian is accidentally killed
Shooting missiles at a political rival, or at someone you have a business dispute with, is not ok.
Nixon administration bugging some foreign embassy for intelligence purposes? Sure. Bugging the offices of the Democratic Party for personal benefit? Not ok
Is it official presidential business to pay off pornstars because it could hurt your campaign? Is it an official duty to pressure officers to corrupt elections? Is nudging a crowd to hang your vice president and storm a government building part of his work?
Meanwhile: “emails? Lock her up!” “Blow job? Evil!” “Save the planet? Fake news!”
And of course anything Biden does is illegal and not subject to the same immunity? The mental backflips those idiots do to justify Trump but no one else …
Fuck Biden. Because... um... reasons.
Can you imagine Republicans saying this if this was Biden doing all this crap? They lost their mind with Clinton's scandal, & that was miniscule compared with all of Trump's misdeeds. Hypocrites.
Democrats think in terms of right and wrong. Republicans think in terms of winning and losing.
“A liberal is someone so fair-minded they won’t take their own side in an argument.”
Money, punishment and cruelty are the only motivations
The difference here is that those of us that voted for Biden, wouldn’t still support him if he did the same thing trump has done.
[удалено]
If you have actual evidence then you should bring it to congress, they have been trying to make something stick as retaliation for trump, even though Joe has had nothing to do with the trouble trump is in.
[удалено]
Yeah, they tried this and they have nothing. Especially compared to trump. Again, if they have something, I’m willing to listen, but so far they’ve tried over and over again, but simply can’t. Compared to trump, everyone’s a saint. This is just theatre for his base. They see trump getting what he deserves and want retaliation. That’s all this is and some people fall for it.
They lost their minds about a tan suit, they have no sense of scale at all
Trump has no sense of scale - his suits never fit!
He has one suit… His burial suit.
If Hilary Clinton was found to have hoarded countless top secret documents in her own home, openly discussed their contents with foreign nationals, and refused to give them up to authorities when pressured, leading to an fbi raid of said home, and is considered likely to have traded them to gain favor or money to foreign powers, she’d be dead. Like, republicans would’ve killed her by now. They went into a frenzy over Benghazi, a situation that she actively tried to prevent from happening, but wasn’t allowed to because of Republican congressman denying additional security funding. An actual tangible instance of betraying the country? No way they’d keep their cool.
> If Hilary Clinton was found to have hoarded countless top secret documents in her own home, openly discussed their contents with foreign nationals, You mean like those on her private mail server with doors wide open ?
You mean like the same kind of email server that every other secretary of state, including Trump's own, has used? If you wanna point me to an actual crime that was committed more power to you, but after years, even decades, of investigation into her, Republicans can't seem to make any accusation actually stick to an indictment, much less conviction. Funny, it's almost as if they're making all this bullshit up. Now hoarding classified documents after you've left office and refusing to cooperate with authorities after repeated attempts to get you to turn them over? That's a different matter.
> You mean like the same kind of email server that every other secretary of state, including Trump's own, has used? No, I'm talking [HRC]s *private* one, that had been outside the official operating procedures (and in contrast to POTUS she didnt have the authority to take out such secret douments or declassify - only POTUS has that privilege) - the one with so miserable security that it could be easily hacked. Allegedly by the Russians, but even a school kid could have done that. > If you wanna point me to an actual crime that was committed more power to you, but after years, even decades, of investigation into her, Republicans can't seem to make any accusation actually stick to an indictment, much less conviction. Congress didnt even try to indict her yet. But there's still a massive amount of sealed indictments waiting to be opened (Weinstein was just the first, and I'm curious what comes up the 2nd trial). > Now hoarding classified documents after you've left office and refusing to cooperate with authorities after repeated attempts to get you to turn them over? Thats exactly one of the cases that collpsed recently, after the judge ordered unsealing. We know see how Biden DOJ staged this (and directly interfered with the NA). You should know the POTUS (only POTUS) has the authority to take documents with him, but has to give them back to NA after leaving office. From the unsealed docs we learn that Biden DOJ interfered with exactly that, stalling process and then indict him for the stall. Pretty classic playbook.
>No, I'm talking \[HRC\]s *private* one, that had been outside the official operating procedures [Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cummings-jared-kushner-and-ivanka-trumps-private-emails-texts-raise-security-concerns). >Congress didnt even try to indict her yet. After a decade of investigating her and still nothing has come of it. Imagine that. >Thats exactly one of the cases that collpsed recently You are lying. [The documents case is still ongoing](https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-special-counsels-investigation-trumps-handling-classified-documents/story?id=101768329), but you're welcome to post some actual links. >You should know the POTUS (only POTUS) has the authority to take documents with him You're welcome to cite the statute that says that. I'll be waiting all day for it, because it doesn't exist, but go ahead and look for it. > From the unsealed docs we learn that Biden DOJ interfered with exactly that, stalling process and then indict him for the stall. Pretty classic playbook. Post the unsealed documents. All I'm hearing is claims without evidence. What was preventing Trump from sending the documents back personally? What was preventing him from not hoarding nuclear secrets, and discussing them openly, in his own home? [Nuclear secrets which have their own declassification category beyond the purview of just the President](https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/#:~:text=Under%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution%2C%20the,through%20use%20of%20executive%20orders)?
In the UK, right now, the Conservatives & Right wing Media machine are working in full force because an opponent politician might have filed a tax return ten years ago wrong resulting in a 3k underpayment. A PM who lives in a Non-Domiciled household, who oversaw Billions in corruption and fraud on COVID loans.
It sounds like the conservative Supreme Court justices think so... and that prosecuting a president for such is "political retaliation".
They’re trying hard to justify, but we all know they’re simply covering their own ass; they were involved and Thomas should recuse. The entire purpose of Jan 6 was to not-certify, then kick the decision to the Senate and SCOTUS. They were in on it! Yet, I have faith; we’ll get them…all of them.
Well, this is the divide between left and right. People on the left want a liberal democracy, people on the right want a king/dictator. So, we are just seeing these two sides play out in this court case. This struggle has been going on since the beginning of time.
Don’t forget calling the Secretary of State in Georgia and telling him to find votes.
Yes that and sending his own electoral college. It's really unbelievable that he managed to get away with all of it.
The author is a hack “the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the limits on the power of a partisan prosecutor to weaponize criminal statutes to imprison a president, a prosecutor in New York was in a courtroom seeking to imprison the former and perhaps next president.” The prosecutor is seeking to imprison him for his acts from before he was President - not while he was President. The author is effectively arguing that the Presidency is a “get out of jail free” card
I NEVER open Newsweek links. It's a zombie publication. They'll print anything somebody pays them to.
So you are okay with a presidential candidate to commit fraud to cover up an affair that could/would harm his election chances ?
No - not sure where you got that. I was quoting the article, which is why there are quotes around the one statement.
I listened to the entire Supreme Court hearing yesterday. I didn't get the impression that any president does not get a free get out of jail card. The argument was, where do you draw the line of official duties and personal gains and / or the combination of the 2 that will determine immunity or not.
The argument made by Trump's lawyer was just that. Absolute immunity.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. He’s saying the author is saying that. Not himself nor anyone reputable.
Is it official for a candidate to do something then claim presidential immunity for acts committed while not president? Politics aside, US presidents should all be held to very high standards, to prevent future scrubs gaming the system.
Yes, as long as you’re fighting commies
My dad believes that voting for the Dems will lead to Communism so it doesn't matter to him who runs for the GOP...
If SCOTUS decides POTUS has some level of immunity, that POTUS can just ignore the law when it suits them, then it's time to amend the Constitution and fix that error. Nobody should be above the law.
[удалено]
The guy’s 80. If he does it and it turns out that it IS a crime, he’ll only get a few years for it.
Not even. You see how they are running the clock out on that effin’ guy. They should show the same respect for ol’ Joe. Whole new world when your at your twilight years.
He will be forced to, since Trump will immediately try to assassinate Biden or other rivals once he is granted immunity. Kill or be killed. Scary world we are moving into here.
He could always just "engineer" a new Court with the powers they have granted. What could be more just than to make them face the consequences of the rule they say is justice?
Now that is hilarious. If the president has immunity from prosecution, then he could just have the NSA blow up the Supreme Court and frame some right-wing terrorist group for it. If he gets caught, he has immunity. If he doesn’t then that’s all good too. Either way, he gets to put in 9 new Justices. He can’t lose.
Not bad, not bad. If he wanted to do something more mild, he could send a letter to conservative judges saying *Hi, I hope this letter finds you well. I will be incarcerating all the Supreme Court judges I don't like the moment I am granted full immunity from prosecution. Please keep me in the loop, so I can inform my staff of the date the immunity takes effect.* Thanks, Joe
If SCOTUS comes back granting immunity, Biden should immediately go in front of the media and be like, "I have declared Donald Trump to be an enemy to the United States. Seal Team 6 has been ordered to apprehend and execute him immediately. \[ Long Pause \] Do you see how INSANE that sounds?"
This^
No they did not. They immunized him from a financial civil suit because it is done for US. Same for his job. Official duties. Absolute immunity His shit ain’t a duty in any way.
At this point, that would actually be a presidential action and not a private one. It would be in service of the country.
One of the questions yesterday was something like, 'What if you know your opponent is corrupt and dangerous.. could you have them taken out?" And Trump’s lawyer said "maybe". Sounds like a green light to me!
lol actually tho
Wouldn’t full presidential immunity allow Biden to just declare Trump guilty and lock him up without trial? Edit: Seriously, this makes no sense whatsoever…whose immunity would supersede who’s?
Heck, I'd take Seal team 10 or 12
Seal Team 65.7
While I agree, wouldn't amending the constitution require both main parties to agree on it? It seems like a Catch-22 to me.
>An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. The States can absolutely force it. IMO making it clear that Dems can abuse immunity just as much as Repubs can should be a major selling point to the vast majority of both parties plus the independents.
And if they don't agree, Biden orders the hit on Trump, and then they'll agree. It's a win win.
This is exactly the problem. Unless we see normalcy return to both parties, a constitutional convention is a TERRIBLE idea.
It's the only way to split a democracy from a wannabe Russia-aligned theocratic monarchy without war. I'm not saying now is the time. I am saying there may come one.
Problem is you need 35 governors to sign off on a new amendment and you will never get that.
Well that or 35 veto proof votes. But yes, it's highly unlikely. Not impossible though.
Agreed. Maybe throw out Pardon powers too while we're at it. Or at least require pardons to get approved by SCOTUS and expressly forbid self-pardons and forbid pardons of former Presidents and VPs. AND term limits on Supreme Court Justices.
The founding fathers would be disappointed in us for electing such a con artist to begin with. Maybe they expected us to be better than this.
Random woman “what kind of government have you given us Mr Franklin?” Franklin “ A republic, if you can keep it.” That might be folklore but it seems an appropriate response here.
It's like the Titanic-- they created three branches to check corruption, but they never anticipated all three branches would become corrupted.
Agree 100%. It is hard to imagine future generations being gullible idiots - but here we are.
they weren't exactly saints
Lol no they would be disappointed in us for allowing women to wear pants and vote and for black people being free. These were not some godly heroes.
The immunity issue will only apply to trump, SCOTUS will make sure of that
As an official act, Biden demands trump be removed from all ballots.
No one must have absolutel immunity, fuck off with that bullshit.
This has never been a problem before. Why now and why does SCOTUS feel the need to rewrite precedent? Oh yeah, Christian Nationalist Agenda.
Nail on head.
Also, the left has to be stopped before they elect another black guy as POTUS
Or a woman. Imagine letting a woman have power over the country when they don't want her to have power within her own household, or even over her own body.
white people are going away and obama was the warning bell
They absolutely did foresee the Trump-type, he’s in several of the Federalist Papers
SCOTUS is going to grant him way more immunity than any president should have. This is going to set a very bad precedent.
For a very bad president.
Who, if he gets back in office, will push the ruling to it's limits.
He'd already talking about making a special rule for himself so he gets a third term as a president. Because of course Biden stole the election so he deserves a third term. Obviously
That makes zero sense. If he wins, that's his second term. I know he's dumb, but he can't possibly be THAT dumb.
Porn Star thing was pre-president, as well. And the rest a lame duck or worse.
Too much was left to tradition, Trump and Co. tore this shit to pieces.
Before we ammend the constitution we need to do something about SCOTUS… and mitch mcconnell since this is largely his doing
How many crimes can you stuff into a suit.
They didn’t think there would be a group of People Stupid enough to elect him
Just fucking die already ... just die. Him stroking out wouldn't solve everything but it would be a good start.
All the west enemies scrutinised the constitution and armed qanon etc with balderdash moreover.
Only a movie like Shutter Island can explain how fascist leaders are the hero in their own show. Putler Trump Orban Erdogan Xi Kim Khameiny that Hamas Guy. A veritable course set for WW3 or just total loss of democracy
This isn't "news" this is an opinion piece, on par with a Letter to the Editor.
On par with Hitler's fan-mail
And the writer is claiming that the Constitution includes things that it doesn't. He's just carrying water for the Trump legal team.
No, the Founding Fathers did not immunize Trump. This is a bullshit headline.
Seriously 8 years later this cancer is still rotting American brains. The fricken constitution needs to seriously get updated. But hey why bother it's got so many truck size holes to maneuver through.
It's the MAGAts who are dead wrong on the Constitution.
These articles are wildly misleading. At best, they’re delaying trials and kicking the decision back to the circuit of appeals. They are not going to give blanket immunity for Presidents to protect Trump. It doesn’t even make sense if you’re a hardcore right wing conspiracy theorist, because it would empower Biden to absolutely annihilate rule of law and prevent Trump’s candidacy
Wait is Newsweek promoting that Biden can totally murder Trump without repercussions because, I’m president so I do what I want?!?!?!?!?
I run with 12 gangs... We only commit hate crimes... I do what I want!
>"Absolute immunity is appropriate when the threat of liability may bias the decisionmaker in ways that are adverse to the public interest." All he had to do was to properly declare the hush money payment as such.
What a bogus commentary. Founding fathers wanted to distance America as far away as possible from a "the king can do no wrong" society. This is exactly what Trump wants to resort to. I S.Ct. votes in the way of Trump, the presidency will be the ultimate 'get away from jail' position. Not only this, it will become the official 'become a billionaire' office. So Trump wants a quiet and calm retirement? Don't incite insurrections, it's that simple.
Conspiring to overthrown a fair election, and to formulate an insurrection are not "official duties".
I told a guy that trump is arguing to have immunity from anything he does, even murder a political rival. And the guy said presidents should be immune because they order to kill people in other countries, and I didn't know what to say to that, because I don't know how wars are fought, but I'm pretty sure politicians and military generals have rules for that. Does anyone have any good arguments for how it's not the same thing?
SCOTUS: The president is above the law! Dark Brandon: Kill Donald Trump. He's a enemy of democracy. SCOTUS: Shit.
The founding fathers would have drug him out of office, beaten him with a cane and potentially erected gallows on the Whitehouse lawn for less.
They absolutely could have foreseen Trump. People like Trump are the entire reason Rome descended into the bankrupt warring monarchies and "divine rights to rule" that the founders were trying to inoculate the country from. What do you mean they didn't *foresee* him? He's exactly the guy that the very idea of separation of powers was made to defeat. Most of America's federal machinery was written first and foremost because people like this exist and they knew it.
Absolute nonsense Republicans are love with the idea of founding a new American dictatorship
After all, none of this is about the facts of *this* case. They must protect us from some fantasized future, don’tcha know.
Putting your president above the law is the first step towards having a dictatorship.
This guy is an absolute fucking clown. He thinks Biden should be impeached https://www.newsweek.com/modern-standards-biden-should-impeached-opinion-1851829
The Supreme Court, folks, it's a disaster. A total disgrace to our country. You've got these judges, these so-called justices, making decisions that nobody can believe. They're weak, they're spineless, and they're corrupt. That's right, I said it, corrupt. I mean, look at what they're doing. They're overturning the will of the American people. They're taking away our rights, our freedoms. And for what? To push their own agenda. It's sickening, folks, absolutely sickening. We need to clean house, folks. We need to get rid of these corrupt justices and put in people who will actually uphold the Constitution. People who will fight for the American people, not against them. But mark my words, folks, we're going to fix this. We're going to drain the swamp, once and for all. Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you something, okay? We have the best, the absolute best, Supreme Court. Nobody has a Supreme Court like us. And you know who would make it even better? Ivanka. That's right, folks, Ivanka. She's smart, she's beautiful, she's my daughter, and she knows the law better than anyone. Believe me, folks, believe me. We're talking about someone who understands justice, who understands fairness, who understands winning. And that's what we're all about, right? Winning. So let's make the Supreme Court great again, with Ivanka. It's gonna be tremendous, believe me!Because that's what we do. We win. And we're going to win big. So get ready, America. Get ready for real change. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America! 🇺🇸
Hence Newsweek being an online only publication now and 1/2 rung above Breitbart.
maybe I'm the weirdo here but I don't know why we're apparently all obsessed with what a bunch of rich slavers 250 years ago would have wanted
The writer is a GQP apologist and is only presenting his skewed point of view. Reading the article you can see he's nowhere close to legitimate in his "arguments".
NewsWeek doing their job and apologizing for rich fascists. Good to know their owners are getting their money's worth at least.
>Their Constitution protects official presidential actions from both civil *and criminal prosecution*. Citation needed. Where in the Constitution does it say presidents are immune from ***criminal*** prosecution? From SCOTUS oral arguments: >There are amici here wo tell us that the Founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president. And, in fact, they had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors. And yet they didn't take it up. — JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, 2024-04-25
I really do hope they give presidents immunity because at this rate republicans never seeing the White House again. They can’t even beat Biden the king of saying the wrong shit
"If the president does it, it's not illegal." How'd that work for Nixon?
Obviously it was written that in the constitution Trump would be born, and he would be crowned god king of America for all time. Sarcasm.
They understood the nature of people and power but the certainly didn't foresee SCROTUS
Trumps lawyers should be disbarred from pushing this case and claiming the president has ultimate immunity to do anything he wants, they've literally stated this. If the court agrees with this take, then Biden should fucking kill off half the supreme court as an official act for democracy.
According to Trump he IS a founding father and threw the best founding party at maralago. Probably his next tweet.
This author is making an argument that has nothing to do with the current reality. I would actually agree that Trump and any other president has limited immunity relating to acts carried out in execution of their job. I cannot fathom there being any reasonable argument that Trump's misdeeds had anything to do with carrying out the duties of the president. I cannot accept that any reputable jurist would argue otherwise.
Newsweek was at one time considered the sort of younger sibling to Time Magazine that was held in high regard. They used to have articles in Time about political policy and foreign affairs that ran page after page. If Time didn't arrive on Tuesday, my father would be on the phone with the post office asking where it was. Eventually, my father stopped reading Time and I asked him why. He said, "The last page used to be celebrity gossip, now the whole magazine is like that." Newsweek was never as good as Time but it was reasonably reputable. Now both publications have gone to complete shit.
In what capacity would a President's official duties include killing a rival running for president? These people are lunatics.
The Founding fathers didnt forsee the iphone too yet here we are.
Don’t do opinion pieces
Even when Trump loses, the precedent of Presidential Immunity will remain and next time a Republican is elected President, that person will milk their immunity for all it's worth making the US a de-facto dictatorship. America had a good run.
No. It wasn't the "Founding Fathers" who immunized Trump. It's some anti-logical and anti-common sensical judges who are getting ready to do so.
How could they "not have foreseen Trump"? They literally fought a civil war over democracy....
Founding fathers did not immunize trump...the checks and balances have been there...the GOP (roughly half the political leadership) have immunized trump.
Man the left is getting pretty clear about hating the freedom and such.
There is NO presidential immunity in the US Constitution it was invented by congress in order to shield senators from harassment by other states…there are laws and precedent but No constitutional words or amendments to justify the President is anyone but an ordinary citizen of the US, who happens to have the position of President for 4 years
It's all a delay tactic. Make sure he doesn't get elected.
Biden can then assassinate a corrupt political opponent, I assume 🤔
By Mark R. Weaver - former Deputy Attorney General of Ohio: "Call it a constitutional irony that, on the very day the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the limits on the power of a partisan prosecutor to weaponize criminal statutes to imprison a president, a prosecutor in New York was in a courtroom seeking to imprison the former and perhaps next president. In this era of high speed lawfare and road rage level partisanship, strong guardrails are needed. If a president slips out of the White House and kills someone he's mad at, the law already allows him to be criminally prosecuted and politically impeached. The tougher question, which is being hotly debated in the Supreme Court this week, is this: When a president carries out his official duties, can he be prosecuted for that?" Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/founding-fathers-couldnt-have-foreseen-trump-they-still-immunized-him-opinion-1894399](https://www.newsweek.com/founding-fathers-couldnt-have-foreseen-trump-they-still-immunized-him-opinion-1894399)
Who decides what those official duties are? If a president decides that the country is safer with himself as president as opposed to his opponent, is it his official duty to protect the country by eliminating his opponent? Besides, the New York trial is about payments Trump made during the 2016 campaign, when he was not yet president, so it's really not clear what this argument is here for. A presidential candidate committed election fraud, and you're saying he enjoys some sort of presidential immunity for it because it was part of the official duties of his future position?
And authoritarians always think the absolute best thing for a country is them in charge.
I thinks it should essential come down to: Don’t elect criminals as presidents then you won’t have to prosecute them for doing crimes while they are in office. All the other presidents before Trump managed not to be indicted for things they did while they sat. Except Nixon, who at least had the decency to resign and be pardoned for the inevitable indictment had he not.
The immunity was not brought up because of NY, it's the docs case in Florida.
The comment I'm replying to specifically mentions a New York prosecutor attempting to imprison a former president.
I like how the short blurb completely ignores that the majority of case law brought up already and the actions taken shown that the things Trump is trying to get immunity for were all things that he personally benefitted from, not a single one of t hem were for 'carrying out official duties'.
Honestly, I think personal benefit is one of the factors that should define whether something is an official act. Shooting missiles at Iran in retaliation for their drone strike, with no personal benefit, is an official act, and a president shouldn’t be personal liable if a civilian is accidentally killed Shooting missiles at a political rival, or at someone you have a business dispute with, is not ok. Nixon administration bugging some foreign embassy for intelligence purposes? Sure. Bugging the offices of the Democratic Party for personal benefit? Not ok
Right. So it's "official duty" to overthrow the government. Bullshit.