The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:President is not above the law if impeached and convicted in the senate of said crime

That's exactly what it comes down to with today's SC ruling. If something is done by a POTUS with THE INTENTION as part of his official duties OR the outer perimeter of his official duties, he can't be criminally charged. It would be up to Congress to discipline the POTUS via the power of impeachment & conviction.

The dissenting justices are absolutely correct in their example of Seal Team 6 so long as the POTUS believed doing so was within in official duties.

Today's ruling elevates the POTUS to a god, not a king.

That's not what the opinion said. Their official/unofficial line, which sounds good on paper but is a bit silly once you think about it, basically means that really really bad actions by the president do not get immunity. Sort of bad actions probably get absolute immunity. But really really bad actions don't.

Well, if "seal team 6" and fomenting a coup or a fake elector scheme aren't really bad actions, if stealing classified documents and sharing them with our enemies aren't crimes, then what are?

I thought the people talking about moving to Canada were crazy. They are looking less crazy by the day. I'm not in the mood to live in a Trump dicatorship. Are you?

A trump dictatorship? Hell no. If SCOTUS just decided this should be a dictatorship than it is a Biden dictatorship and he sure better engineer a better successor than trump.

Trump will be fine with it. It is what he wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

The ruling only means Biden can't be criminally charged for doing so. It doesn't mean Trump, in this scenario, loses his right to challenge those decisions in court.

Go ahead and challenge. So what. There is no enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

Except DoJ would have to file a Motion with the Court and only the Court would have that kind of authority.

However, the actions you mentioned come under the jurisdiction of Federal Courts and we all know what happens with Federal Court rulings - they get appealed to the SCOTUS.

Shit out of luck. HAHAHAHAHAH.

[Anonymous]

Fascinating that the framers forgot to write this sweeping presidential immunity into the constitution even though they remembered to put legislative immunity in there. Or perhaps the “textialists” on SCOTUS found it written in invisible ink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

The ruling only means Biden can't be criminally charged for doing so. It doesn't mean Trump, in this scenario, loses his right to challenge those decisions in court.

Yes but Biden could arrest any judge who rules in favor of Trump and Trump’s lawyers can be arrested on the same charges. Though the best way would be to arrest Trump, move him to Guantanamo and say federal judges have no authority to act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

The ruling only means Biden can't be criminally charged for doing so. It doesn't mean Trump, in this scenario, loses his right to challenge those decisions in court.

Yes but Biden could arrest any judge who rules in favor of Trump and Trump’s lawyers can be arrested on the same charges. Though the best way would be to arrest Trump, move him to Guantanamo and say federal judges have no authority to act.

Seriously. Taking action like this might be the only way to get the Supreme Court to put any limits on a future President's power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

The ruling only means Biden can't be criminally charged for doing so. It doesn't mean Trump, in this scenario, loses his right to challenge those decisions in court.

Yes but Biden could arrest any judge who rules in favor of Trump and Trump’s lawyers can be arrested on the same charges. Though the best way would be to arrest Trump, move him to Guantanamo and say federal judges have no authority to act.

Seriously. Taking action like this might be the only way to get the Supreme Court to put any limits on a future President's power.

Can they just be arrested as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

The ruling only means Biden can't be criminally charged for doing so. It doesn't mean Trump, in this scenario, loses his right to challenge those decisions in court.

So let him take the same 4 years that the DOJ and state AG's have taken to prosecute the matter.

[Anonymous]

this seems so quaint in hindsight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

The ruling only means Biden can't be criminally charged for doing so. It doesn't mean Trump, in this scenario, loses his right to challenge those decisions in court.

Yes but Biden could arrest any judge who rules in favor of Trump and Trump’s lawyers can be arrested on the same charges. Though the best way would be to arrest Trump, move him to Guantanamo and say federal judges have no authority to act.

Seriously. Taking action like this might be the only way to get the Supreme Court to put any limits on a future President's power.

Can they just be arrested as well?

Biden wouldn't do it, but the door is open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

The ruling only means Biden can't be criminally charged for doing so. It doesn't mean Trump, in this scenario, loses his right to challenge those decisions in court.

Yes but Biden could arrest any judge who rules in favor of Trump and Trump’s lawyers can be arrested on the same charges. Though the best way would be to arrest Trump, move him to Guantanamo and say federal judges have no authority to act.

Seriously. Taking action like this might be the only way to get the Supreme Court to put any limits on a future President's power.

Can they just be arrested as well?

Biden wouldn't do it, but the door is open.

That's the thing. Only a totally immoral and corrupt president would take advantage of this....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this seems so quaint in hindsight

Just change the not immune part to immune and it is fine.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this seems so quaint in hindsight

You can't see, but he had his fingers crossed under the podium so it doesn't count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this seems so quaint in hindsight

Schumer should call up this vote again since the prior one was based on false legal premises. McConnell's rationale was parroted by a couple dozen republicans who voted against conviction.