Yes, I'm aware, but it's also not what I'm worried about. And I doubt it's what anyone who is alarmed by this ruling is worried about. I dream of a world where the biggest concern we have is a president doing something illegal and then giving up the most powerful office in the land to avoid consequences. Does anyone think that Nixon would have resigned if this happened in 2024?
Nixon resigned because he was going to be impeached, and convicted in the impeachment, and he couldn't stop it. The House committee (whichever one originates such things) had already voted to impeach. It was then going to go to the full House, which would have voted to impeach, but Nixon resigned first.
To show what a different world it was then, the chair of the House committee, a Democrat, called his wife to tell her "we voted to impeach", *and then started crying" because it was horrible that it had come to that, and that the president had done such things. Today they would have been cheering.
Trump has already proven himself to be more corrupt and sociopathic than Nixon. He was impeached and convicted and didn't resign. He is now a convicted felon and continues to pursue a second term. This is a different world.
He was impeached, and every single politician voted on party line, the whole GOP is 100% corrupt (if you agree he clearly did do it)
impeachment is not a useful tool in this situation.
> Seven Republican senators joined all Democratic and independent senators in voting to convict Trump, the largest bipartisan vote for an impeachment conviction of a U.S. president or former U.S. president. After the vote on the acquittal, Mitch McConnell said, "There's no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day." but he voted against conviction due to his interpretation of the United States Constitution.
It's worth noting that the Supreme Court ruling here probably disagrees with McConnell's interpretation of the Constitution in a way that should have changed his vote.
Not necessarily. SILTs and RILTs are options for case disposition, but the accused does not have the power to execute one unilaterally. It's a form of plea deal, usually for military-specific offenses.
Maybe not the current ones but as Commander in Chief he absolutely can form Seal Team 7, secretly have them swear complete loyalty to him, and then assassinate whomever he wants. I think you’re sincerely thinking logically about this within the confines of a working democracy, if Trump wins and with this SCOTUS decision, that all goes out the window.
Thanks for the citation. There's no language in that law that restricts the President's ability to directly appoint members to the military who are loyal to him. All it does is establishes a commission, chosen by the President, that can appoint members to the military. But it does not restrict the President from doing so. In fact the President is free to fire them all and let it languish.
Can you cite any other law or precedent that would restrict him from doing so?
The President is not capable of appointing members to the military unilaterally. Congress has sole power "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide and maintain a Navy." The President's role in accessions under title 10 exists only because Congress put it there.
There are 2 million people in the military. All the president would need to do is find a handful of existing personnel and organize them. He doesn't need to "raise" or "provide" anyone.
This is exactly how Trump organized the legislative coup within the White House. He went through the ranks of the DOJ to find someone who would draft a letter to send to all the states implying that fraud had been found (a lie) and DOJ was investigating (also a lie). No one at the DOJ would do this except for Jeffry Clark, a low ranking official who was promised the role of AG if he were to carry out Trump's scheme.
Donald Trump doesn't give a fuck about any civil service act. He never has, and never will.
He will do as he pleases, and a GOP led congress will simply let him, laws and precedent be damned (and the Supreme Court will comply). A DEM led congress will throw up their hands in uproar, and then refuse to actually do anything.
How is that not nothing? He continued to remain in Office until the end of his term and even attempted to prolong his stay. If those impeachments were worth more than the paper the Constitution is written on, that would never have happened.
Only the Senate can remove the president. The House can only introduce articles of impeachment and vote on whether or not they go through.
This, I believe, was originally set forth because the Senate was modeled as an “upper house” not subject to the whims of popular agitation (6 year terms vs 2 year terms. Appointment/selection by States vs direct election by district constituencies). The House, having more direct connections to the people is given the power to investigate and impeach a president, hopefully as a reflection of the public. The Senate, being composed of elder statesmen and slightly removed from the direct consequences of local constituents, is to be a check on potential rash impeachments.
So I’d dare say the impeachments were worth the paper the constitution was written on. The House impeached. The Senate tried, and acquitted him.
Parent comment specifically called out a "DEM led congress" refusing to do anything. An impeachment vote is the full extent of their power in getting rid of a president. And they did it twice in one term.
> that would never have happened.
What never would have happened? Some bizarre unknown chain-of-events which led to Trump staying in office? The occurrence which DEMs are somehow taking the heat for is the GOP outnumbering them and outvoting them in the senate to keep Trump in.
They must refuse to follow unlawful orders. They never get a choice. They always must follow the law. Refusing a lawful order is a crime, and following an unlawful order is a crime. But they never get a choice.
When someone can pardon you of the crime immediately after you do it, it doesn’t really matter much, especially is you are 100% dedicated to the cause.
Citation needed. Now on, we understand that powers granted the President by the Constitution are official. Actions even marginally associated with those powers cannot produce evidence in a court of law.
The judgement says that the President has immunity (in certain narrow cases). It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order.
It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity.
It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity.
What do you think the odds are for this Supreme Court to declare e.g. that shredding official documents (or moving them to the president's private property) is an official act?
Only the President can decide what happens to his records and documents. This has been made clear under Navy v. Egan. Congress can pass no laws regarding classification or record keeping. The Presidential Records Act has a caveat where the "personal records" of the President belong exclusively to him, and it's the President who decides what is personal or not.
That's a fascinating interpretation of PRA, which establishes public ownership of all Presidential records. Specifying if a record is private is the responsibility of his/her staff and done at the time of filing. Of course, Trump has tried to quote from the PRA, but he's not charged with any PRA violations, but under the Espionage Act.
Read the judgement. It's literally in the first pages.
> No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit.
A President can't pardon non-federal crimes or overturn the a conviction through impeachment as it would remove power from Congress and the Senate, which a President can't remove.
> It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem.
Believing that ordering the assassination of elected officials would be considered lawful by judges is just so insane that it makes Alex Jones look like a legal scholar.
> Read the judgement. It's literally in the first pages.
I read it. I read that it's absolute immunity in core function, which seems pretty damn broad to me. Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"?
> A President can't pardon non-federal crimes
He won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties. Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS.
> Believing that ordering the assassination of elected officials would be considered lawful by judges is just so insane that it makes Alex Jones look like a legal scholar.
The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are!
Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers.
That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones.
> read that it's absolute immunity in core function, which seems pretty damn broad to me
It's limited in scope, and still subject to impeachment, which immunity comes from because otherwise going through impeachment would be pointless.
> Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"?
The President can't just kill anyone he wants, it's just a power he doesn't have. The President is not judge, jury and executioner. Having control doesn't mean you can do what you want with it.
> e won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties.
You're beginning to understand
> Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS.
And?
> The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are!
These same legal scholars were fine with not charging the last 4 presidents with war crimes and other atrocities. Because it was always the case, nothing has changed except limiting the scope of presidential immunity.
> Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers.
If the armed forces are killing politicians then at this point the Constitution is a mere piece of paper and no amount of super-majority or SCOTUS rulings is going to make a difference.
> That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones.
Sotomayor is an emotional militant judge and not taken seriously outside left leaning political militant circles. The oral hearings over the vaccine mandates is a good example: "but there are millions of dead children" she said crying. Yes, she did that. This is JFK assasination level conspiracy theory whether you like it or not.
Okay but the entire DOJ and military is a huge freaking scope, so what's the real limit here? We're talking about absolute nonreviewable control of the most powerful army and the biggest law firm on the planet.
> still subject to impeachment
This might be reassuring if we didn't go through two egregious examples of impeachment that didn't result in removal. In the first one, Trump attempted to us federal dollars to extort a bribe from a from the Ukrainian President. At the impeachment trial, Trump via Alan Dershowitz argued this conduct was okay because it was taken to increase his electoral chances, and Trump viewed his own election as benefitting America, therefore his actions were to benefit America and not grounds for removal. Because after all how can you be removed for doing what you think is best? From the trial:
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment”
The Senate AGREED with that argument and acquitted him on the charges. So even in the case of extorting a bribe, impeachment is not operable as long as the executive claims the extortion and bribe were for the good of the country. The supreme court in their latest ruling seems to agree with this perspective.
In the second impeachment, Trump attempted to stay in power by orchestrating a coup. Mitch McConnell all but voted to impeach, but fell short because in his view, the impeachment happened after POTUS left office and there was a criminal justice system to hold him accountable.
On the first part, well that just means the period between an election and inauguration is a now a crime-spree zone for any lame duck POTUS. They can commit any crimes they want using the DOJ and military during that period, and we know the Senate won't impeach because there's too little time for the impeachment to happen, and now we know the DOJ will probably not be able to prosecute due to this ruling hamstringing the types of evidence and charges that can be brought.
On the second part, we have yet to see whether the system of justice can hold him accountable for the coup. To date, it has not worked and it's been 3.5 years. So it's not clear the federal system of justice can hold any former executive accountable for any criminal conduct whatsoever. States have proven to be more effective at charging and trying criminal conduct, but we have yet to see if it results in any accountability.
So no, impeachment doesn't fix this system. This is a huge exploit. Since it was added intentionally we might call it a back door.
> The President can't just kill anyone he wants, it's just a power he doesn't have. The President is not judge, jury and executioner. Having control doesn't mean you can do what you want with it.
Who is going to stop him though? That's the thing people don't understand about executive power. Before the thing stopping that conduct was the thought it was illegal and he would be prosecuted for it after he left office. But now? Now as long as the act was "official", good luck proving it without evidence. Good luck even charging it.
How did people end up in Guantanamo Bay without trial? Tortured? Imprisoned for years without charges or a trial. Who stopped that from happening? What makes you think you're safe from the same treatment now?
> And?
Well that's a pretty big hole in your argument since you're trying to convince me the powers are limited. If the limits of the powers are currently unbounded and the bounds are left up to the people who just gave POTUS sweeping immunity over the DOJ and military, then what are the actual limitations? Neither you nor I nor the SCOTUS judges actually know, so your insisting that the powers are limited is not really true.
> These same legal scholars were fine with not charging the last 4 presidents with war crimes and other atrocities. nothing has changed except limiting the scope of presidential immunity.
The ones I had listened to had predicted some limited immunity around things like the military and DOJ, especially the DOJ.
> If the armed forces are killing politicians then at this point the Constitution is a mere piece
I mean... yes? The point is to raise the alarm before it gets that dire by pointing out the ways we can go from here to there. Are you suggesting that it's impossible the armed forces would kill politicians in America? Doesn't that happen elsewhere in the world? Hasn't there already been a civil war here?
> Sotomayor is an emotional militant judge and not taken seriously outside left leaning political militant circles.
Lol I wouldn't even say the same things about the right leaning justices, glad to see where your extreme biases are.
The citation is the Supreme Court ruling itself, which I had assumed people participating in this discussion were familiar with. It grants "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution [only] for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority".
That is a narrow standard. The only acts in this case which met that standard were discussions with Justice Department officials.
Everything else in this case was in fact remanded, and it remains within the power of the lower courts to deny Trump immunity on all other aspects of the case.
Thank you for the citation (citations are not limited to documents, but often and especially in a large document of hundreds of pages, direct one to specific passages, as you did did here).
Your citation is exactly the bit that makes the President immune for directing Seal Team 6 to execute a political rival -- directing the military is within the President's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". According to the Supreme Court, such a direction is now "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution".
But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant, or have them arrested in the name of national security, and their private records are now inadmissible.
> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30-32.
Trump's influencers work around that in a different way: by singling out individuals for military tribunals[1], he is not using the pardon power to deprive them of due process, or excuse someone else from doing so. The military tribunal deprives them of due process. But trying a civilian in a military tribunal is only constitutional if a civilian court is unavailable, which happens out of convenience in places like Guantanemo Bay.
It's pretty much a truism that one should never rely on a dissent's characterization of what the majority opinion says. Especially if the dissent writer is Sotomayor or Alito, frankly.
Murdering political rivals isn't a core constitutional duty of the President with automatic immunity. If he orders Seal Team 6 to do it, it's an official act, for which he has a rebuttable presumption of immunity. That means the prosecution has to prove he hasn't got immunity.
Roberts at least strongly hints in the majority opinion that Trump's immunity for trying to coerce Pence to commit crimes on Jan. 6 should be rebuttable. If that's the bar then ordering Seal Team Six to kill people will definitely get a president sent to prison the day he leaves office, whether the regular way or by impeachment.
Immunity before impeachment has pretty much been the position of the Justice Department (I think wrongly btw) with regard to current presidents for decades, including the Biden justice department. This isn't as big of a change as it makes sense for the Democrats to make it out to be.
Personal preference admittedly, but I much prefer Kagan and so far, Jackson. Sotomayor, like Alito and sometimes Thomas but generally not the rest, strikes me as purely results-oriented. The Chief justice is results-oriented in a different way. I think the reasoning matters more than the outcome, but I understand that not everyone does.
I've listened to her during the vaccine mandates oral arguments.
She was emotional during all the hearing and made blatantly false emotion based statements such as "think of all the millions of dead children".
SEAL Team 6 can just keep killing any one who would charge them with a crime, until they reach the final boss level i.e. SCOTUS who have X-Men like powers and attack all at once. It’s a toss-up at that point, it comes down to which side can successfully recruit Chuck Norris (both a member of Delta Force and an accomplished legal scholar.)
This remains a constructive problem though because the U.S. Congress is either variously outright dysfunctional or captured by self-interested parties.
Which we need to fix regardless, but in the interim it’s hard to conclude that the federal government isn’t starting to crumble under the combined weight of that problem and the general, concerning erosion of trust in expertise and institutions, and the rise of populism. The Supreme Court is very efficiently pouring gas on that fire.
That assumes that it occurs under a demoratic and moral president, all he has to do is blanket pardon them. It’s an easy problem to solve for the President. Circular logic is often just fine in legal circles.
Well, if they don't, it shows how evil they are. Same if it went the other way.
However, I don't believe they would. Not after the crap the Uniparty have done for my lifetime. Any president part of the uniparty will be protected and any president against it will be persecuted. We already have seen that.
Many Republicans have shown themselves to be unabashedly evil. What has happened to them? Apart from being reelected and getting more veto power? And what has happened to the principled ones who put country before party? Apart from losing or being pushed to retire?
One single indiscutable example: Trump is a draft-dodger. How many troop-supporting, valor-praising Republicans support him?
Oh, another one: Trump is a liar and a filanderer. How many Republican "values-first" voters and officials have refused to vote for him?
I think it's arguable that it's political persecution of the opposition when they are literally breaking into the White House and stabbing its guards with flags, but you do you.
No what I mean is, why is it that Democrats, those of the '68 Chicago riots, sit-ins, Occupy Wallstreet, etc., are the ones saying "Nobody is above the law"? That was always Republicans when I was a kid.
You can't blame Kagan or Sotomayor or Brown for persecuting the opposition, they haven't been a part of whatever you're talking about. They're just the ones saying that they don't want the president to be a king.
And this is good no matter what party you like best. There are three branches, they're supposed to be a check against each other so that no one branch one can attain supreme power. Congress has already abdicated so much power[1] [2] to the Executive branch that honestly the Judicial is our last chance to restore those checks. And they're failing.
And if you think political persecution of the opposition will be over once Trump is re-elected I recommend reading some of what he's said about exactly that topic, then think about how it relates to this Supreme Court decision.[3]
It's funny. You can replace every word to be the other way, and it's even more accurate. E.g:
Many Democrats have shown themselves to be unabashedly evil. What has happened to them? Apart from ballot stuffing to win and using exective power to target political opponents? And what has happened to the principled ones who put country before party? Apart from losing or being pushed to retire?
One single indiscutable example: Biden is a racist. How many diversity-supporting, inclusive-praising Democrats support him?
Oh, another one: Biden is a liar and a pedophile. How many Democrats who focus so much on calling out lies voters and officials have refused to vote for him after his perpetual lieing?
> Well, if they don't, it shows how evil they are. Same if it went the other way.
See, the problem is some of us don't want to get to the point where we derive petty satisfaction of definitively knowing how evil someone can be. That's why we have (had) checks and balances: to prevent us from knowing -- in the most real way -- how evil someone can be. A significant check on presidential power was removed yesterday.
Where once the president was bound by law and constitution, now he is bound only by his ambition and personal moral compass.
I'm not an American, but I would assume so? Or wouldn't they?
If not so, is there a reason why not? "Murdering an oppositional politician in your own country" seems quite clean-cut bad and unjustified. I know your political system is very much "they vs us", but it can't be that bad?
Part of the ruling was that the conversations between the Department of Justice, the main law enforcement arm of the US federal government, and the President -- which are among his "official duties" -- cannot be entered into a criminal proceeding as evidence against him. Part of the criminal case brought against Trump regarding his attempted coup on January 6 relied on evidence and testimony from conversations where he requested unlawful things or showed an unlawful motive, but he did so within the framework of his official duty as President. The case now returns to a lower court and the prosecutor must prove it without that evidence.
So henceforth from this Supreme Court ruling, the President can call up the Attorney General ("official duties," remember) and say, "find a reason to investigate and arrest my political opponent."
That act, that conversation is now protected. And that action will be carried out, and there is no legal recourse, at least not long after much damage has been done.
At many junctures, not only the January 6 capitol riot, but many others, Trump was only prevented from disastrous anti-democratic actions by principled staff and officials around him. This time around, Trump (or any other dictatorial pretender) will not make the mistake of filling their administration with anyone but sycophants. Trump installed many federal judges. Even leaving it up to the courts to decide if something is an "official" or "unofficial" act, after the fact, is now left to fiat.
It's even worse than that. The Supreme Court says prosecutors can't even question the motive for that corrupt action, meaning that essentially all conversations between a President and his AG are de jure assumed to be above board.
We must assume the President opened an investigation into his opponent because he had a good reason to do so. Otherwise we might restrict his ability to take
bold and decisive action, according to the court.
The problem is, the way things have been for the last couple of decades, many of us are not absolutely certain that the Senate would ever convict a sitting president unless it was 2/3rds of the opposite party -- which is pretty rare.
Probably, if a sitting president (regardless of party) assassinated a political rival, the Senate would convict. Probably.
They are almost certainly hyper-partisan Senators (of both parties) who would not convict a president from their own party no matter what.
The reasons for that would be multiple... greed, fear, a weird sense of loyality to the person, or even just a warped view of reality.
For example, if you thought Trump was Hitler 2.0 coming to take over the government and hunt down minorities and LGBTQ people, then you might feel justified in doing anything possible to prevent that -- including assassination.
What’s happening in the U.S. isn’t politics. It’s a quasi-religious schism that goes to fundamental beliefs about the nature of human society, how government should work, etc.
It doesn’t map on in obvious ways to what you see in Europe. In Denmark, for example, immigration was a political issue. When it turned out the people wanted to restrict immigration, the left of center government supported “far right” immigration restrictions.
In America, a large part of the left sees immigration as a moral issue, not a political one. When Trump was first inaugurated, the left refused to even accept Trump as legitimate because of his opposition to immigration. Hilary Clinton called his supporters “deplorables” and said he was “illegitimate.” This was long before any of the bad things he did.
> This was long before any of the bad things he did.
The reason Trump is now a convicted felon is due to conduct that happened while he ran for office.
Are we not allowed to call into question the legitimacy of someone who commits crimes to get elected, and then uses his position to cover up for those crimes?
Then you should have just asked that. My knowledge about the convictions comes from the court proceedings, not the debate. If you need info about the the charges you should read the transcripts.
What crimes did he commit to get elected? Trump is a crook but his crimes are almost all sleazy real estate and tax fraud. He didn't commit any crimes to get elected before his first term.
Did you follow the trial? He committed election fraud by paying a porn star hush money in order to buy her silence, an expense which he didn't report, lied about, and then covered up with business fraud. For this he was charged and convicted with 34 felonies.
Moreover, the payments should have been reported as a campaign expenses, but they were not because doing so would have defeated their purpose. So the payments were fraudulently misrepresented to be lawyer fees, and when it was discovered, Trump lied about the scheme.
> the payments should have been reported as a campaign expenses
You have it exactly backward. The law is clear that "campaign expenses" cannot have any personal component. That makes sense, because the focus of the law is to prevent candidates from calling things "campaign expenses" that are actually for personal benefit. John Edwards was prosecuted for using campaign funds to keep his mistress silent because hiding an affair has a personal component in addition to a political component.
If Trump had been charged with a campaign-finance violation, his straightforward defense under well-established precedent would be that paying off Stormy Daniels had a personal component (avoiding personal embarrassment and his wife finding out), in addition to whatever effect it had on the campaign. The prosecution would have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's marriage was so dysfunctional that the only reason he would have paid off Stormy Daniels was the election.
That's why prosecutors didn't charge him with a campaign finance violation.
Whatever you're trying to say here is lost in the weeds.
You also can't have your personal lawyer take out a loan and spend it on expenses for your campaign and not report that as a campaign expense.
If you're running for public office, you can't commit fraud to hide things from the electorate because you don't want them to find out. That can't be allowed in free and fair elections. If you get elected doing that, people have every reason to question your legitimacy. If you get caught and lie about it, expect people not to trust you. If you get charged with a crime related to that conduct, don't be surprised when a jury finds you guilty, because it's shady af. This is all very straightforward stuff.
> Whatever you're trying to say here is lost in the weeds.
No, I’m talking about the law. You’re wrong about what you think campaign finance law says.
> You also can't have your personal lawyer take out a loan and spend it on expenses for your campaign and not report that as a campaign expense.
The law is the exact opposite. You cannot call something a “campaign expense” if it is an expense you would incur “irrespective of the campaign.” (That’s the magic phrase in FEC regulations.) If you pay off your mistress and call it a campaign expense, you’ll be prosecuted for campaign finance violations, because the prosecutor would say that you could have non-campaign reasons to do that. John Edwards was prosecuted for doing exactly that.
The New York federal prosecutor (SDNY) investigated the exact theory you are talking about: charging Trump with a campaign finance violation. They didn’t bring the case because all Trump would have to do is prove that he would have paid off Stormy Daniels “irrespective of the campaign.”
And? Like I said you’re lost in the weeds. I think you’re focused too much on being coy, rather than what I’m saying.
> The law is the exact opposite.
As far as I know if you spend money on a campaign you have to report it. If you get someone to spend money for you, you have to report it.
Seems like what you're trying to say is he didn't have to report it because arguably it had a personal component. Okay but that apparently wasn't the case; after the trial it is clear the payments were mostly for the campaign and not to save his relationship or himself of personal embarrassment. If you're trying to say "well he wasn't charged that way so it can't be election fraud" then again, I think you're missing my point.
Either way, I'm left at trying to guess your point because you haven't been clear in making it.
> They didn’t bring the case because
And?? Leaving aside you don’t know why any prosecutor didn’t bring a case, what are you implying? Make your point instead of dancing around it for 2 days.
Whether a prosecutor thinks they can prove that at trial is a different matter. That he was charged under a different law doesn’t make the underlying conduct okay from an elections perspective whether or not some federal prosecutor decided to charge that.
Either way what he did was he committed fraud and lied about it as POTUS, committing some of those crimes in the Oval Office, all to increase the chances of being elected. That is not okay. That makes one arguably (and definitely in my mind) illegitimate as a public servant. Apparently it’s also a felony.
If you think that conduct is okay because of whatever technicalities you can come up with, you’re missing my entire point.
How could it be about "campaign funds" when the charge was about the Trump organization's business records? What you're describing is a straightforward campaign finance violation, which he could have been charged with if it were true.
34 felonies for paying someone not to talk about something? That sounds like the mundane, everyday activity I can possibly imagine at the highest level of politics.
Meanwhile we’re sending billions of dollars to obliterate a people in the Middle East which is a crime that will someday result in violence on our doorstep. Bill Clinton is on record flying to Epsteins island, and I could go on about the insane things our government has got away with.
I dont know anything about politics but that’s my reaction when people bring up “34 felonies”.
>This was long before any of the bad things he did.
You haven't been paying attention for long, have you?
Donald Trump was known as a fraudster and a genuine piece of shit since the 1980s at a minimum.
I grew up in a very wealthy suburb of NYC in the 90s and early 00s and was well aware of Donald Trump being a sideshow joke and a wannabe rich dude about 20 years before he was elected. Nobody in my hometown that had real money thought Donald Trump was anything besides a lawsuit-happy wannabe with midget hands.
None of that changes what parent's points you're trying to respond to. The a partisan divide in the US is so bad now that neither side accept the results of elections being legitimate. Or court rulings for that matter. There's no nuance, and everything is a partisan conspiracy to take over the country, or wreck it.
None of that changes the parent's points you're trying to respond to. The a partisan divide in the US is so bad now that neither side accept the results of elections being legitimate. Or court rulings for that matter. There's no nuance, and everything is a partisan conspiracy to take over the country, or wreck it. Trump is lousy and shouldn't be president, true. But he's a symptom or result of the ongoing partisanship and failed politics.
Yes they (democrats) would, they’ve yet to support a coup or overthrow of the government or criminality by former or current presidents. So yeah I think they would.
Immune from judicial prosecution.
Not immune from Congressional prosecution.
---
This isn't a unique concept.
For example, if SEAL Team 6 improperly kills someone on a mission, they aren't prosecuted in criminal court; they are court-martialed.
There is accountability, but due to the unique nature of the profession, it has a specialized venue.