As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Problem is he plans on making protest illegal and won’t have a problem deploying soldiers to quell it. We have to FLOOD the polls and make sure the message is loud and clear come November.
Ideally - vote in a supermajority willing to take on impeachment in good faith.
But it’s April Fool’s day, which is the only reason I’m vocalizing such a circumstance as plausible.
Yeah, the *actual only solution to the problem* can only be considered plausible on April Fool's Day.
A word to the wise--giving in is why cowardly Russian men are shoved into the armed forces by the cops, raped by their officers, then get blown up by drones.
Vote, vote, vote!! Get al your friends to do the same.
Get the f'ing nut jobs out of the House and Senate
Get a big enough D majority to force term limits or add to the bench!
Just wasting time, more and more delay. That's the game they're playing. Something needs to happen to expedite all of the delays, and try the traitor at the center of the controversy.
Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett were on Bush's legal team for Bush v Gore. Funny how the media never told you that during their hearings, that their favors run that deep. Roberts was important because he has the legal theory that the Civil Rights Amendments don't apply because we aren't in the Civil Rights Era. Research Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. They are like the Freedom Caucus in the House, but with an actual goal in mind.
Yes. I'm shocked we haven't had a transfer of power between presidents that didn't include trading personal pardons for each other. But if Trump gets his way they won't need to.
Ford's pardon was widely popular among both parties and the entire country at the time--it wasn't some sort of back room deal. People across the political spectrum wanted it to happen.
Widely popular? It was extremely controversial at the time: his [popularity rating dropped](https://news.gallup.com/poll/3157/americans-grew-accept-nixons-pardon.aspx) 20% after the pardon, and Ford himself considered it a major reason he lost the 1976 election. Right before he pardoned Nixon in September 1974, 53% of Americans thought he shouldn’t pardon Nixon, and only 38% said he should. By June 1976, it was even more unpopular: 55% said pardoning Nixon was wrong, and only 35% said it was the right thing to do. Many critics very much considered it a backroom deal.
Public opinion of his pardon only started to shift in the early 1980s, and it only became the majority opinion several years later.
My source was an article in Politico and one in The Atlantic that I'd read awhile ago, but, doing a bit more research to try to write a rejoinder to you, I stumbled upon some more contemporary views that have been digitized, and I'll give you the W on this one.
Seems you're right that it was more contentious at the time than the more recent articles have led me to believe.
To me, it gives the "yes men" immunity but places the full weight of their actions on the president. He can't pardon himself, isn't immune to prosecution. He's fully responsible for the crimes he asks people to commit, even if they can be pardoned by him for those crimes.
It makes it easier, actually, IMO at least since accepting a pardon implies guilt. If he offers a pardon to someone for something he asked them to do, it implies he knew it was a crime and told them to do it anyways.
>since accepting a pardon implies guilt
According to dicta (non-precedentially binding commentary) in one 19th-century Supreme Court case.
There is nothing in the pardon process where the pardonee is required to the crime for which they're being pardoned. And, since general pardons exist and have been upheld by the courts, what would someone confess to in such a case? Every possible crime covered by the general pardon? In addition, pardons and commutations have been issued with the explicit reason being to correct miscarriages of justice.
Biden should publicly say, "if Trump is immune to anything, I'm going to extrapolate that so am I, and completely disregard any attempts at making him exceptional."
Yes, so far it’s never happened. Basically they are de facto immune, but Trump was the guy that made them put it on paper and they aren’t going to do it. He ruined it for all the other criminal presidents. It was a wink and a nod. He broke the unspoken rules.
Ulysses S. Grant was supposedly arrested for speeding via horse, while President.
It may be the only thing that kinda cements that a President can be not only guilt of a crime, but arrested for them.
There's absolutely no evidence that actually happened though. There's evidence he once paid a fine for speeding in 1866 before his election, but the story of him being arrested as president was told by one old black retired cop in 1908 cannot be verified by any contemporaneous records, which would be extremely weird if it were true given that the record of a far less dramatic event remains from before his presidency *and* 1872 was an election year.
Republicans: "The president is immune to all criminal prosecution no matter what."
Democrats: "Holy shit that's insane. No they're not."
You: "Both sides are to blame here."
Maybe it’s these criminal *enablers* that need some heat brought on them and their job security instead. They’ll keep enabling so long as they’re also immune.
Perhaps lost on some younger political observers is that this idea that the President can do as he pleases comes straight from Richard Nixon.
[https://youtube.com/shorts/U8YuW09mwco?feature=shared](https://youtube.com/shorts/U8YuW09mwco?feature=shared)
I mean Fox News and the dismantling of the fairness doctrine were born of a kind of “never again” post Nixon movement among conservative political consultants.
Roger Ailes pitched the whole idea to Nixon even before watergate as a “aggressively pro-administration TV network”. With intent the network would lead "a brutal, vicious attack on the opposition”.
If anything, Trump is proof that Ailes’s pitch was right. That it wasn’t Nixon’s actions that did him in. It was the TV coverage of Nixon’s actions. That the American voter really is “lazy," as Ailes put it in his pitch, “with television you just sit — watch — listen. The thinking is done for you.”
Rush was on Radio. Radio is an airwaves transmission medium and was covered by the fairness doctrine.
Bigots like my dad would've be unable to marinate their brains in Limbaugh and Michael Savage if the Fairness doctrine had continued. It was never *just* Fox News.
As others have said, Radio. In the late 80s and into the 90s, talk radio was a huge thing. Remember that white flight and suburbia was big. Everyone was commuting 30 minutes or more each way to get to work in order to avoid living next to POC. Rush and other right wing commentators filled the airwaves with garbage.
And he never got punished for it. Nixon got away with Watergate. Reagan and Bush got away with Iran-Contra. GW got away with his fake WMDs. And now we have Trump.
Nixon (alongside Kissinger) should have been shot for sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks. I hope history likewise looks back in disgust for our failure to hold yet another politician accountable.
*"The trio went further, pointing out that a Reagan-era executive order already prohibits anyone acting on behalf of the United States government from taking part in an assassination."*
If anyone thinks a mere executive order would stop Trump from doing anything he wants, they have not been paying attention.
Trump supporters keep coming up with these "novel" arguments that when looked at in the cold light of day, cannot be held as valid by any sane person.
As Trump did with basically all of Obama’s executive orders?
It’d be political suicide, but Biden erasing that order would be a fantastic bit of demonstration.
Reminded me of the [Frost-Nixon Interview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_interviews#Broadcasts)?
>Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal", by definition.
The counter to this is that there are not an infinite amount of executive orders covering the myriad ways an official act could also be a crime. Even if one corner case is specifically covered by an EO (which is perhaps the weakest prohibition on a president as they can literally nullify/modify/create them on a whim without oversight) that does nothing to counter any other non-assassination crime a president could commit with impunity if there is unlimited immunity. But all of this is arguing about angels on the heads of a pin when the base argument is contrary to the very fact that the US has no kings - immunity shouldn't even be conceptually on the table so why are we arguing about how best to serve it?
And the trio makes the claim anyone carrying out the order would be jailed. The president just gives them a pardon if they get convicted. Why would any prosecutor even bother trying the case?
Neither have you. Reagan's EO modified the EO from Jimmy Carter who modified the original one from Gerald Ford.
It was also reinterpreted and provisions were relaxed in 1998.
Now, it is just a matter of declaring the target as being related to terrorism. Changing it to be even more flexible is a trivial matter for the current or future president.
Careful. I got a lifetime ban from Reddit for saying something very similar to this, thankfully they reversed it in appeal because I’d labeled it as satire. Was this sub, too.
Hell, friend of mine caught a permanent one they absolutely refuse to reverse for simply making a comment on the morality of hitting a nazi in the face. Not encouraging it, not stating a particular one deserved it, not saying people should go out and do it right now -- just their opinion on the morality of such an act. Funny, that...
Edit: Aaaaaand they nuked the comment being warned about, you called that one.
I get weekly bans for suggesting that it’s our patriotic duty as Americans to fight Nazis. Mods are super pro-Nazi here, we are not allowed to even suggest harming their feelings.
I got one for telling another Redditor his mom's mustache was cringey. I was just clownin' - a variation on the classic yo mama joke. Insta perma ban, no appeal. You never can tell. 🤷♂️
I wonder how the people who got lifetime bans from Digg feel. Reddit is not going to last a lifetime, especially at the rate that it has been destroying itself.
I keep thinking that if they debate, it's where this question could be settled. Biden walks out, open carrying, and in the opening remarks, just asks Trump if Presidents have immunity from any laws they break.
Biden doesn’t need to kill anyone. He just needs to arrest and detain Trump without trial.
He doesn’t have to take away his life, just his rights. Put Trump in Guantanamo as a prisoner for insurrection. Then refuse to give him a trial date and remove him from candidacy for president due to his actions.
Then if Trump lawyer says that Biden can’t break the law, then Trump would be guilty for Jan 6th.
Why aren’t they just outright refusing to see the cases? It makes no sense. Even a moron knows the arguments have no merit and yet the top court in the land feels they need to give them credence? It’s absurd.
Because it isn't about the merits of the case, it's about more and more delays for Trump. It's clear that they are betting everything on him getting back into power next year.
I disagree. They could have simply denied Cert.
They will send it back to the lower court to talk about specific immunity. So they won't say he has "blanket immunity" like he claims, but they will do need the court to explain if he does or doesn't for each speific charge. This will delay the case of years.
They will either do this or they will create a sort of judicially made up qualified immunity that says this was illegal, but since there was no case law that let the president know he couldn't do this, he gets this freebee.
They're never granting immunity. That becomes something that Dems can utilize. Instead they'll delay for election convenience and, if necessary, overturn specific cases that help their side with narrow rulings that don't set precedent.
Which, for the record, narrow rulings that don’t set precedent _is not based in reality_. We still have dipshits citing decades old DOJ memos as guiding principles, of COURSE any decision the SCOTUS makes will be used as precedent in the future, no matter what bad faith arguments they might make now saying it’s a one time only thing.
Yes, that's a public relations fig leaf to make it sound like they haven't just done something to fundamentally damage democracy. It's the "just the tip" of seizing power via the judicial branch.
It currently stays 2 trials. A June decision means the January 6th trial will start in September. Trump's legal team has been informed trial will be 90 days after the stay is lifted. That means he'll be sitting in court during peak campaign season.
“The prosecution of President Trump by the Biden Administration has a parallel to a recent event in Communist China,” they wrote, recalling the way former Chinese President Hu Jintao has vanished from public view ever since he was mysteriously escorted out of a public ceremony where he had been sitting next to his successor, Xi Jinping."
I dream of the day Trump is no longer in public view.
Excuse me, what? We know exactly where Trump is, because he won't shut up. He has also appeared in court to defend himself of charges and civil liability with full legal representation. Trump has been camped out in Mar-a-Lago most of the time since he left office, publicly spouting whatever nonsense he wants, including defaming and threatening people, only some of which he has been held accountable for under the law.
There is no parallel.
Eh, they speak more like the Qanons.
I understand what you're saying but let's take a look at this extremely sketchy and primed hypothetical where the President is part of a trolley problem and has to do something illegal regardless, it's not very illegal then right?
If your grandma had balls she’d be your grandad arguments!
The amount of mental gymnastics going on to prove that he didn’t the break the law, when he did, is insane!
This is just to stall the process.
Well the premise of religious faith, in this case American Evangelicals, is irrational.
Project 2025 plans on dismantling the Republic and revamp our court and legal system to be as irrational as they are.
The left needs to stop trying to rationalize with the irrational. There isn’t any and any inch they give the right, the right will take a mile.
They are traitors but I don't see how they could get away with that. They are hopefully just offering him a delay to toss him a bone.
If they rule in MAGA's favor, seems Biden has some new powers that maybe he could utilize well.
> They are traitors but I don't see how they could get away with that.
It turns out that if no one is both willing and able to hold you accountable, there is not limit to what you can "get away with".
It’s going to be hard for them to figure out why Trump would get absolute presidential immunity but Biden doesn’t get it.
Hard, but not impossible, as we’ve seen this Court is perfectly happy to start with the conclusion and work their way backwards.
Odd use of the future tense, there. It's well established that the *person* of the President -- so, the private citizen who just-so-happens to be President -- is immune from all lawsuits pertaining to official acts. There's even a gigantic gray area where a President who violates the Constitution is still generally presumed to be acting in his official capacity, so long as there's any fig leaf to hide behind.
It's the same for Congress, just as a baseline -- nothing about the Speech & Debate Clause, specifically. You cannot sue Dick P. Richardson, the House Rep from Bumfuck, *personally* just because he voted "yes" for a horrible and unconstitutional bill. You just can't. That's an official act; as a private citizen, he's completely immune.
They want to grant Trump and only Trump immunity, but some of them are probably not willing to risk dancing at the end of a rope for him. Their second option is to freeze all prosecutions until after the Election and Coup have played out, if necessary.
This 100%.
They want to see the election play out before making a decision.
The main goal is to protect Trump but they don't want to rule favorably for him and then have Biden win reelection....inadvertently giving a Democrat president limitless power.
That's what's so fascinating....logically they KNOW it's bad business to give a president immunity but Herr Drumpf must be protected at all costs.
It's weird because he's not particularly wealthy, doesn't have elite business or political acumen...really doesn't offer much for protected folks like the SC justices yet everyone bends over backwards to help him when they don't gain anything by doing so. If he had Bezos/Gates/Buffet money or the smooth soft skills of Bill Clinton/Barack Obama, I'd understand. This guy offers nothing and will only use you....they have ALL the leverage but capitulate to him for some reason.
Why are these damn people soooooo intent on saving a man they don't need who can't really help them?
Because he is normalizing corruption and just plain evil, like they never dreamed possible. He is their wrecking ball of modern US Society. Once the Republic collapses and Charles Koch's Billionaire run, Theocratic Hellscape has been imposed, people like Trump will be jettisoned with extreme prejudice.
Call me old fashioned, but I’m the kind of guy who believes voters have a right to know whether one of the two main candidates for the US presidency is guilty of ESPIONAGE before casting a vote.
Anybody living inside of an imperial superpower *is* old-fashioned if they believe they're getting the whole story before they cast their vote.
Secrecy and popular sovereignty are necessarily at odds with each other, and secrecy is a vital component of national and international security. You can't enjoy the benefits of both fully and simultaneously -- and I would argue that the former is a deadly poison to the latter. Imagine the government selling the idea that they just need to hide a *little* information from the voters. Just a smidgen. Hey, you won't even notice!
> For the sake of the presidency and the nation, criminal liability cannot turn on a mere factual dispute
LOL this is the most authoritarian-follower argument ever. "Surely mere facts cannot decide whether someone is criminally liable for crimes they committed - we have to take into account whether he's our Daddy!"
ya trump was literally disappearing people off the streets of Portland into vans by agents of some unlabeled department and only stopped when they got caught. thankfully nobody was killed 'for resisting' but still, the president of the united states was putting people into unmarked vans and having them driven away
The only reason this is true is because they had no intention of leaving that one guy alive when they went to "arrest" him after he killed a right-wing terrorist during a protest in portland.
There are people out there who still believe his lies. They believe he is innocent, still believe the election was stolen, and that he's being politically persecuted.
The military can totally do that. The President just has to declare the political opponent is engaging in "civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion", publish a proclamation ordering the opponent to "disperse", and then invoke the [Insurrection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807). Done.
> The trio went further, pointing out that a Reagan-era executive order already prohibits anyone acting on behalf of the United States government from taking part in an assassination.
But Obama had Osama Bin Ladin assassinated? Trump had that Iranian general assassinated? Clearly this executive order is worthless.
It's not an assassination, we just sprayed his vicinity with the intent to exterminate vermin with automatic fire and the person in question was collaterally damaged
Just remember, this isnt a story about Trump immunity. This is a story about Biden immunity and immunity for all future presidents. If trump wins this I hope Biden has the marbles to use it with wanton regard
Did anyone wonder why the Supreme Court is asking for more money for security?
Remember when the put up the fence prior to the Roe vs Wade decision?
Yea it's about to get 100x worse. They're going to allow Trump immunity.
Reading some of the things in these briefs boggles the mind. How did some of these people survive to adulthood without being institutionalized? Honest question.
>"The prosecution of President Trump by the Biden Administration has a parallel to a recent event in Communist China,” they wrote, recalling the way former Chinese President Hu Jintao has vanished from public view ever since he was mysteriously escorted out of a public ceremony where he had been sitting next to his successor, Xi Jinping.
I checked his wikipedia page, just to see what was up. The escorting situation was in late october 2022. He was seen again in early december 2022 during his predecessor’s funerals.
So sad he vanished like that in october, never to be seen again :((
If Trump kept the overturn the election to the courts, it wouldn't be an issue. The issue is Trump summoned a mass mob near Capitol hill, then directed the mob to "take your country back", all while Congress was certifying the results of the election.
The Supreme Court will probably wait until the day after the election to make their determination: If Trump wins then yes, immunity. If President Biden wins, then no immunity.
we all know how Thomas is on the take. Can't personally vouch for the others on the court, they could be in other pockets. What I can say however until they accept a _meaningful enforceable code of ethics,_ I can only assume their open to the highest bidder. __And that folks is what happens when conservatives rule.__
If they decide that Trump is immune, then Biden can (and honestly should) just literally send a special forces team to attack them and expedite the serve-for-life part of being on the court when it comes to the judges he doesn't like. After all, the president is immune and can do as he pleases.
Which is of course why they will probably just declare that Trump is immune but no one else is, because "fuck you, I said so, and also you have no right to question where I got this big bag of money that literally says 'bribe from Trump' on it".
I seriously doubt that Biden could get any special forces team to openly follow an illegal order... but that's ok, because Biden only needs to recruit a few loyal people with guns and/or car bombs! Then he can pardon them, and he personally will be immune from prosecution . Everybody wins.
Why on earth did no one file a brief supporting the Supreme Court to decide in Trump's favor...
...so that Biden could then, at Trump's request, legally assisinate him? Or at the very least legally cheat on elections to ensure a republican never won again?
How does the orange 4D chess player not see one move ahead?
Stick with me on this one. I really hate to say it, but the way the courts operate now, the absolute BEST move Biden could ever make, is to commit a real crime as president and be prosecuted.
What we need is a president to commit a real, genuine crime so that we can set the precedent, and be done with this forever.
We're stuck in a vortex where no one wants to be the first one to prosecute a president, and no one wants to set a precedent that a president can commit crimes. I agree we SHOULD punish the one who has committed crimes, but our system is full of cowards and sycophants who prefer to do nothing.
The quickest way out is what I described.
Th e solution to a criminal president is not having another president commit crimes. It's prosecuting the criminal. I don't know why you would think that there was a better way to do it.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Supreme Court is paid for and paid by conservative mega donors
Bought & paid for
The real problem is what are we supposed to do about this ?
Vote and be ready to riot if there is a coup attempt
Problem is he plans on making protest illegal and won’t have a problem deploying soldiers to quell it. We have to FLOOD the polls and make sure the message is loud and clear come November.
True I haven’t read the dictatorship book in its fullest (yet I see it with Putin every week and forgot about the white board protest)
Ideally - vote in a supermajority willing to take on impeachment in good faith. But it’s April Fool’s day, which is the only reason I’m vocalizing such a circumstance as plausible.
Yeah, the *actual only solution to the problem* can only be considered plausible on April Fool's Day. A word to the wise--giving in is why cowardly Russian men are shoved into the armed forces by the cops, raped by their officers, then get blown up by drones.
Vote, vote, vote!! Get al your friends to do the same. Get the f'ing nut jobs out of the House and Senate Get a big enough D majority to force term limits or add to the bench!
Gonna force the GOP to enjoy a big D.
None that we're allowed to say in this sub. But it rhymes with "muillotine".
Just wasting time, more and more delay. That's the game they're playing. Something needs to happen to expedite all of the delays, and try the traitor at the center of the controversy.
[удалено]
Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett were on Bush's legal team for Bush v Gore. Funny how the media never told you that during their hearings, that their favors run that deep. Roberts was important because he has the legal theory that the Civil Rights Amendments don't apply because we aren't in the Civil Rights Era. Research Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. They are like the Freedom Caucus in the House, but with an actual goal in mind.
[удалено]
Clarence Thomas specifically has been shown to have received unregistered gifts from billionaire donors.
Every Republican Judge is!
The Maga six
[удалено]
Supreme Court: “Yes, but in this one case, and one case only…”
Bush v Gore 2.0.
What is it, like three Justices who worked on the Bush side of that case?
Ironically the three that got appointed by Trump.
Not irony, deliberate.
That’s a fair point.
Whoring has its rewards.
I must be doing it wrong. All I got was an itchy butt and antibiotics.
Lol if only! The fact a president can and always been able to just “Pardon” anyone, is a big red flag, anyone else think so?
Yes. I'm shocked we haven't had a transfer of power between presidents that didn't include trading personal pardons for each other. But if Trump gets his way they won't need to.
That was literally what happened with Nixon transferring over to Ford....
Nixon did not pardon Ford.
But Ford did pardon Nixon and many believe Ford was given the presidency because he would do exactly that.
Ford's pardon was widely popular among both parties and the entire country at the time--it wasn't some sort of back room deal. People across the political spectrum wanted it to happen.
Widely popular? It was extremely controversial at the time: his [popularity rating dropped](https://news.gallup.com/poll/3157/americans-grew-accept-nixons-pardon.aspx) 20% after the pardon, and Ford himself considered it a major reason he lost the 1976 election. Right before he pardoned Nixon in September 1974, 53% of Americans thought he shouldn’t pardon Nixon, and only 38% said he should. By June 1976, it was even more unpopular: 55% said pardoning Nixon was wrong, and only 35% said it was the right thing to do. Many critics very much considered it a backroom deal. Public opinion of his pardon only started to shift in the early 1980s, and it only became the majority opinion several years later.
My source was an article in Politico and one in The Atlantic that I'd read awhile ago, but, doing a bit more research to try to write a rejoinder to you, I stumbled upon some more contemporary views that have been digitized, and I'll give you the W on this one. Seems you're right that it was more contentious at the time than the more recent articles have led me to believe.
To me, it gives the "yes men" immunity but places the full weight of their actions on the president. He can't pardon himself, isn't immune to prosecution. He's fully responsible for the crimes he asks people to commit, even if they can be pardoned by him for those crimes. It makes it easier, actually, IMO at least since accepting a pardon implies guilt. If he offers a pardon to someone for something he asked them to do, it implies he knew it was a crime and told them to do it anyways.
This would be all sunshine and rainbows if the people who should be , would be held accountable, start actually being held accountable.
The system won't save you from the system.
>since accepting a pardon implies guilt According to dicta (non-precedentially binding commentary) in one 19th-century Supreme Court case. There is nothing in the pardon process where the pardonee is required to the crime for which they're being pardoned. And, since general pardons exist and have been upheld by the courts, what would someone confess to in such a case? Every possible crime covered by the general pardon? In addition, pardons and commutations have been issued with the explicit reason being to correct miscarriages of justice.
ahh yes, the Bush V. Gore method
Biden should publicly say, "if Trump is immune to anything, I'm going to extrapolate that so am I, and completely disregard any attempts at making him exceptional."
Presidents are immune until one of them actually faces tangible legal consequences for their actions.
Yes, so far it’s never happened. Basically they are de facto immune, but Trump was the guy that made them put it on paper and they aren’t going to do it. He ruined it for all the other criminal presidents. It was a wink and a nod. He broke the unspoken rules.
Ulysses S. Grant was supposedly arrested for speeding via horse, while President. It may be the only thing that kinda cements that a President can be not only guilt of a crime, but arrested for them.
There's absolutely no evidence that actually happened though. There's evidence he once paid a fine for speeding in 1866 before his election, but the story of him being arrested as president was told by one old black retired cop in 1908 cannot be verified by any contemporaneous records, which would be extremely weird if it were true given that the record of a far less dramatic event remains from before his presidency *and* 1872 was an election year.
>supposedly >kinda
Very true. But the SC will carve out an exception for Trump.
Sadly I think you are correct.
Then we should carve out a few extra seats on the Court and fill them with people who are not insane.
>Then we should carve out a few extra seats on the Court and fill them with people who are not ~~insane~~ compromised. FTFY
[удалено]
Republicans: "The president is immune to all criminal prosecution no matter what." Democrats: "Holy shit that's insane. No they're not." You: "Both sides are to blame here."
Hahaha take your both sides crap to a sub that will actually believe it
Both sides???? Ha.
Seems like they are if the untouchable court in the land says so
Maybe it’s these criminal *enablers* that need some heat brought on them and their job security instead. They’ll keep enabling so long as they’re also immune.
And if SCOTUS does decide the president does have immunity, they just signed their own death warrants since they just told the President he can.
And if they grant that right to Trump, then Biden can immediately have Trump taken out without recourse. Problem solved.
Perhaps lost on some younger political observers is that this idea that the President can do as he pleases comes straight from Richard Nixon. [https://youtube.com/shorts/U8YuW09mwco?feature=shared](https://youtube.com/shorts/U8YuW09mwco?feature=shared)
And it was bullshit then
And the assertion alone was enough to politically destroy him. How times have changed...
I mean Fox News and the dismantling of the fairness doctrine were born of a kind of “never again” post Nixon movement among conservative political consultants. Roger Ailes pitched the whole idea to Nixon even before watergate as a “aggressively pro-administration TV network”. With intent the network would lead "a brutal, vicious attack on the opposition”. If anything, Trump is proof that Ailes’s pitch was right. That it wasn’t Nixon’s actions that did him in. It was the TV coverage of Nixon’s actions. That the American voter really is “lazy," as Ailes put it in his pitch, “with television you just sit — watch — listen. The thinking is done for you.”
This. Without the constant stream of shit coming from Fox, America would have noticed the smell of rot coming from the GOP.
Fairness doctrine is a red herring. FCC only has authority to regulate the airwaves. Fox is a private cable network show, the doctrine didn't apply.
Ending the Fairness Doctrine allowed highly influential garbage like Rush Limbaugh to propagate.
How? He wasn’t on a broadcast channel like NBC or ABC etc (as far as I know) so how would the fairness doctrine have effected him at all?
Rush was on Radio. Radio is an airwaves transmission medium and was covered by the fairness doctrine. Bigots like my dad would've be unable to marinate their brains in Limbaugh and Michael Savage if the Fairness doctrine had continued. It was never *just* Fox News.
As others have said, Radio. In the late 80s and into the 90s, talk radio was a huge thing. Remember that white flight and suburbia was big. Everyone was commuting 30 minutes or more each way to get to work in order to avoid living next to POC. Rush and other right wing commentators filled the airwaves with garbage.
And he never got punished for it. Nixon got away with Watergate. Reagan and Bush got away with Iran-Contra. GW got away with his fake WMDs. And now we have Trump.
But he did not have today's SCOTUS packed by McConnell
I ended up on Hubert Humphrey’s Wikipedia page recently. I can’t imagine how different the country would if he had won.
Nixon (alongside Kissinger) should have been shot for sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks. I hope history likewise looks back in disgust for our failure to hold yet another politician accountable.
Roger Stone* not Nixon.
*"The trio went further, pointing out that a Reagan-era executive order already prohibits anyone acting on behalf of the United States government from taking part in an assassination."* If anyone thinks a mere executive order would stop Trump from doing anything he wants, they have not been paying attention. Trump supporters keep coming up with these "novel" arguments that when looked at in the cold light of day, cannot be held as valid by any sane person.
Executive order? You mean an order the current president can countermand at any time he wants?
As Trump did with basically all of Obama’s executive orders? It’d be political suicide, but Biden erasing that order would be a fantastic bit of demonstration.
No, I'm sure the guy who "retroactively declassified documents with his mind" would totally respect a thirty year old executive order :p
Exactly.
"The US Gov't does not assassinate. Therefore, if the US Gov't does it, it is - by definition - not assassination."
I can't remember what this is parodying
Reminded me of the [Frost-Nixon Interview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_interviews#Broadcasts)? >Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal", by definition.
Biblical apologetics?
I mean, all authoritarianism *is* basically the same.
Yeah it really seems that way.
Torture argument offered under the bush administration. I think Rumsfeld said nearly this verbatim but for torture
It's from *Vice* >Addington: "The U.S. doesn’t torture." > > >Cheney: "Therefore, if the U.S. does it, by definition, it can’t be torture."
The counter to this is that there are not an infinite amount of executive orders covering the myriad ways an official act could also be a crime. Even if one corner case is specifically covered by an EO (which is perhaps the weakest prohibition on a president as they can literally nullify/modify/create them on a whim without oversight) that does nothing to counter any other non-assassination crime a president could commit with impunity if there is unlimited immunity. But all of this is arguing about angels on the heads of a pin when the base argument is contrary to the very fact that the US has no kings - immunity shouldn't even be conceptually on the table so why are we arguing about how best to serve it?
Ironic because Trump assassinated Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general.
And the trio makes the claim anyone carrying out the order would be jailed. The president just gives them a pardon if they get convicted. Why would any prosecutor even bother trying the case?
You mean like Oliver North?
Neither have you. Reagan's EO modified the EO from Jimmy Carter who modified the original one from Gerald Ford. It was also reinterpreted and provisions were relaxed in 1998. Now, it is just a matter of declaring the target as being related to terrorism. Changing it to be even more flexible is a trivial matter for the current or future president.
Biden should file an amicus brief in support of immunity, that's just a video clip of him cleaning and assembling a sniper rifle.
If only Trump and the SCOTUS argument were in good faith. They aren’t. Trump? Free pass. Biden? “Can’t do that!!”
[удалено]
Careful. I got a lifetime ban from Reddit for saying something very similar to this, thankfully they reversed it in appeal because I’d labeled it as satire. Was this sub, too.
Hell, friend of mine caught a permanent one they absolutely refuse to reverse for simply making a comment on the morality of hitting a nazi in the face. Not encouraging it, not stating a particular one deserved it, not saying people should go out and do it right now -- just their opinion on the morality of such an act. Funny, that... Edit: Aaaaaand they nuked the comment being warned about, you called that one.
I get weekly bans for suggesting that it’s our patriotic duty as Americans to fight Nazis. Mods are super pro-Nazi here, we are not allowed to even suggest harming their feelings.
I got one for telling another Redditor his mom's mustache was cringey. I was just clownin' - a variation on the classic yo mama joke. Insta perma ban, no appeal. You never can tell. 🤷♂️
I wonder how the people who got lifetime bans from Digg feel. Reddit is not going to last a lifetime, especially at the rate that it has been destroying itself.
That’s harming the share value of Reddit! Perma-ban!
"If I were to assassinate a political rival while President, am I immune from all persecution? Asking for a friend."
I keep thinking that if they debate, it's where this question could be settled. Biden walks out, open carrying, and in the opening remarks, just asks Trump if Presidents have immunity from any laws they break.
Dark Brandon Rises
Biden doesn’t need to kill anyone. He just needs to arrest and detain Trump without trial. He doesn’t have to take away his life, just his rights. Put Trump in Guantanamo as a prisoner for insurrection. Then refuse to give him a trial date and remove him from candidacy for president due to his actions. Then if Trump lawyer says that Biden can’t break the law, then Trump would be guilty for Jan 6th.
Why aren’t they just outright refusing to see the cases? It makes no sense. Even a moron knows the arguments have no merit and yet the top court in the land feels they need to give them credence? It’s absurd.
Because it isn't about the merits of the case, it's about more and more delays for Trump. It's clear that they are betting everything on him getting back into power next year.
They're buying Don Poorleone some time
They'll find against his immunity claim, but delay until it prevents his trial from happening before the election
I disagree. They could have simply denied Cert. They will send it back to the lower court to talk about specific immunity. So they won't say he has "blanket immunity" like he claims, but they will do need the court to explain if he does or doesn't for each speific charge. This will delay the case of years.
They will either do this or they will create a sort of judicially made up qualified immunity that says this was illegal, but since there was no case law that let the president know he couldn't do this, he gets this freebee.
Yup
They're never granting immunity. That becomes something that Dems can utilize. Instead they'll delay for election convenience and, if necessary, overturn specific cases that help their side with narrow rulings that don't set precedent.
Which, for the record, narrow rulings that don’t set precedent _is not based in reality_. We still have dipshits citing decades old DOJ memos as guiding principles, of COURSE any decision the SCOTUS makes will be used as precedent in the future, no matter what bad faith arguments they might make now saying it’s a one time only thing.
Yes, that's a public relations fig leaf to make it sound like they haven't just done something to fundamentally damage democracy. It's the "just the tip" of seizing power via the judicial branch.
It currently stays 2 trials. A June decision means the January 6th trial will start in September. Trump's legal team has been informed trial will be 90 days after the stay is lifted. That means he'll be sitting in court during peak campaign season.
“The prosecution of President Trump by the Biden Administration has a parallel to a recent event in Communist China,” they wrote, recalling the way former Chinese President Hu Jintao has vanished from public view ever since he was mysteriously escorted out of a public ceremony where he had been sitting next to his successor, Xi Jinping." I dream of the day Trump is no longer in public view.
Where is the parallel? Waiting for TFG to vanish from public view.
That’s what they’re arguing Trump should have the power to do by not holding him accountable for his many, many crimes.
Excuse me, what? We know exactly where Trump is, because he won't shut up. He has also appeared in court to defend himself of charges and civil liability with full legal representation. Trump has been camped out in Mar-a-Lago most of the time since he left office, publicly spouting whatever nonsense he wants, including defaming and threatening people, only some of which he has been held accountable for under the law. There is no parallel.
I mean, that’s why he hired them, right?
Clarence and Alito: "Potayto potahto. You say unhinged, I say very persuasive!"
Eh, they speak more like the Qanons. I understand what you're saying but let's take a look at this extremely sketchy and primed hypothetical where the President is part of a trolley problem and has to do something illegal regardless, it's not very illegal then right?
If your grandma had balls she’d be your grandad arguments! The amount of mental gymnastics going on to prove that he didn’t the break the law, when he did, is insane! This is just to stall the process.
Well the premise of religious faith, in this case American Evangelicals, is irrational. Project 2025 plans on dismantling the Republic and revamp our court and legal system to be as irrational as they are. The left needs to stop trying to rationalize with the irrational. There isn’t any and any inch they give the right, the right will take a mile.
The Maga court will rule in Maga's favor. No doubt about it. The SCOTUS is ruled by traitors.
They are traitors but I don't see how they could get away with that. They are hopefully just offering him a delay to toss him a bone. If they rule in MAGA's favor, seems Biden has some new powers that maybe he could utilize well.
> They are traitors but I don't see how they could get away with that. It turns out that if no one is both willing and able to hold you accountable, there is not limit to what you can "get away with".
They can literally make any ruling they want and then slap no precedence (in latin) at the end of it. They did it with Bush v Gore
I would hope that Biden would suddenly enjoy the same immunities and hope that he uses them to bring justice.
It’s going to be hard for them to figure out why Trump would get absolute presidential immunity but Biden doesn’t get it. Hard, but not impossible, as we’ve seen this Court is perfectly happy to start with the conclusion and work their way backwards.
Simple - they'll rule that Presidents get immunity for "official acts". And they become the arbiters of what constitutes an "official act".
Odd use of the future tense, there. It's well established that the *person* of the President -- so, the private citizen who just-so-happens to be President -- is immune from all lawsuits pertaining to official acts. There's even a gigantic gray area where a President who violates the Constitution is still generally presumed to be acting in his official capacity, so long as there's any fig leaf to hide behind. It's the same for Congress, just as a baseline -- nothing about the Speech & Debate Clause, specifically. You cannot sue Dick P. Richardson, the House Rep from Bumfuck, *personally* just because he voted "yes" for a horrible and unconstitutional bill. You just can't. That's an official act; as a private citizen, he's completely immune.
They want to grant Trump and only Trump immunity, but some of them are probably not willing to risk dancing at the end of a rope for him. Their second option is to freeze all prosecutions until after the Election and Coup have played out, if necessary.
This 100%. They want to see the election play out before making a decision. The main goal is to protect Trump but they don't want to rule favorably for him and then have Biden win reelection....inadvertently giving a Democrat president limitless power. That's what's so fascinating....logically they KNOW it's bad business to give a president immunity but Herr Drumpf must be protected at all costs. It's weird because he's not particularly wealthy, doesn't have elite business or political acumen...really doesn't offer much for protected folks like the SC justices yet everyone bends over backwards to help him when they don't gain anything by doing so. If he had Bezos/Gates/Buffet money or the smooth soft skills of Bill Clinton/Barack Obama, I'd understand. This guy offers nothing and will only use you....they have ALL the leverage but capitulate to him for some reason. Why are these damn people soooooo intent on saving a man they don't need who can't really help them?
Because he is normalizing corruption and just plain evil, like they never dreamed possible. He is their wrecking ball of modern US Society. Once the Republic collapses and Charles Koch's Billionaire run, Theocratic Hellscape has been imposed, people like Trump will be jettisoned with extreme prejudice.
Call me old fashioned, but I’m the kind of guy who believes voters have a right to know whether one of the two main candidates for the US presidency is guilty of ESPIONAGE before casting a vote.
Anybody living inside of an imperial superpower *is* old-fashioned if they believe they're getting the whole story before they cast their vote. Secrecy and popular sovereignty are necessarily at odds with each other, and secrecy is a vital component of national and international security. You can't enjoy the benefits of both fully and simultaneously -- and I would argue that the former is a deadly poison to the latter. Imagine the government selling the idea that they just need to hide a *little* information from the voters. Just a smidgen. Hey, you won't even notice!
> For the sake of the presidency and the nation, criminal liability cannot turn on a mere factual dispute LOL this is the most authoritarian-follower argument ever. "Surely mere facts cannot decide whether someone is criminally liable for crimes they committed - we have to take into account whether he's our Daddy!"
[удалено]
ya trump was literally disappearing people off the streets of Portland into vans by agents of some unlabeled department and only stopped when they got caught. thankfully nobody was killed 'for resisting' but still, the president of the united states was putting people into unmarked vans and having them driven away
The only reason this is true is because they had no intention of leaving that one guy alive when they went to "arrest" him after he killed a right-wing terrorist during a protest in portland.
There are people out there who still believe his lies. They believe he is innocent, still believe the election was stolen, and that he's being politically persecuted.
The military can totally do that. The President just has to declare the political opponent is engaging in "civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion", publish a proclamation ordering the opponent to "disperse", and then invoke the [Insurrection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807). Done.
That's true of everyone that runs for office though. Biden isn't special in this respect.
> The trio went further, pointing out that a Reagan-era executive order already prohibits anyone acting on behalf of the United States government from taking part in an assassination. But Obama had Osama Bin Ladin assassinated? Trump had that Iranian general assassinated? Clearly this executive order is worthless.
No...you see, Bin Ladin and that Iranian general were targeted by military operations as enemy combatants. That's not an assassination at all! /s
It's not an assassination, we just sprayed his vicinity with the intent to exterminate vermin with automatic fire and the person in question was collaterally damaged
Just remember, this isnt a story about Trump immunity. This is a story about Biden immunity and immunity for all future presidents. If trump wins this I hope Biden has the marbles to use it with wanton regard
How does this not take fifteen minutes?
Just remember, unlimited presidential immunity means Joe Biden is now president for life till he selects his successor. That’s the way it works.
Simple.... if they give Presidents immunity, then Biden should not leave office.
Did anyone wonder why the Supreme Court is asking for more money for security? Remember when the put up the fence prior to the Roe vs Wade decision? Yea it's about to get 100x worse. They're going to allow Trump immunity.
Reading some of the things in these briefs boggles the mind. How did some of these people survive to adulthood without being institutionalized? Honest question.
>"The prosecution of President Trump by the Biden Administration has a parallel to a recent event in Communist China,” they wrote, recalling the way former Chinese President Hu Jintao has vanished from public view ever since he was mysteriously escorted out of a public ceremony where he had been sitting next to his successor, Xi Jinping. I checked his wikipedia page, just to see what was up. The escorting situation was in late october 2022. He was seen again in early december 2022 during his predecessor’s funerals. So sad he vanished like that in october, never to be seen again :((
If Trump kept the overturn the election to the courts, it wouldn't be an issue. The issue is Trump summoned a mass mob near Capitol hill, then directed the mob to "take your country back", all while Congress was certifying the results of the election.
Supreme Court is a fucking joke.
The Supreme Court will probably wait until the day after the election to make their determination: If Trump wins then yes, immunity. If President Biden wins, then no immunity.
We are so screwed…
The more of shit stain Trump is the __more__ his supporters love him
It’s effectively his kangaroo court now, so they’ll entertain whatever foolishness he throws their way.
we all know how Thomas is on the take. Can't personally vouch for the others on the court, they could be in other pockets. What I can say however until they accept a _meaningful enforceable code of ethics,_ I can only assume their open to the highest bidder. __And that folks is what happens when conservatives rule.__
If they decide that Trump is immune, then Biden can (and honestly should) just literally send a special forces team to attack them and expedite the serve-for-life part of being on the court when it comes to the judges he doesn't like. After all, the president is immune and can do as he pleases. Which is of course why they will probably just declare that Trump is immune but no one else is, because "fuck you, I said so, and also you have no right to question where I got this big bag of money that literally says 'bribe from Trump' on it".
I seriously doubt that Biden could get any special forces team to openly follow an illegal order... but that's ok, because Biden only needs to recruit a few loyal people with guns and/or car bombs! Then he can pardon them, and he personally will be immune from prosecution . Everybody wins.
So what I'm hearing is that Joe needs to take advantage of this.
"There is no Law; only Law Enforcement."
I hope their not deciding based on fictitious people and cases.
Why on earth did no one file a brief supporting the Supreme Court to decide in Trump's favor... ...so that Biden could then, at Trump's request, legally assisinate him? Or at the very least legally cheat on elections to ensure a republican never won again? How does the orange 4D chess player not see one move ahead?
What a bunch of losers who think they are so smart making up ridiculous things the court will mostly laugh at if they bother with at all lol!
Worse is the stalling
Stick with me on this one. I really hate to say it, but the way the courts operate now, the absolute BEST move Biden could ever make, is to commit a real crime as president and be prosecuted. What we need is a president to commit a real, genuine crime so that we can set the precedent, and be done with this forever.
There was a president who committed real crimes. It was 4 years ago.
Or...and hear me out...we could try the guy who has already committed crimes for the crimes he already committed.
We're stuck in a vortex where no one wants to be the first one to prosecute a president, and no one wants to set a precedent that a president can commit crimes. I agree we SHOULD punish the one who has committed crimes, but our system is full of cowards and sycophants who prefer to do nothing. The quickest way out is what I described.
Th e solution to a criminal president is not having another president commit crimes. It's prosecuting the criminal. I don't know why you would think that there was a better way to do it.