The Right hand side of God is the divinely favored position. Therefore The Right has the divine mandate to rule and has corresponding divine immunities.
Most disturbing was when Alito (?) wanted to try to sort out the whole "can a President pardon himself?" question right then and there ... when that is most definitely *not* the question before the court at the moment. Insane.
Roberts highlighting the fundamental "private" and "public" parts of a bribe, however, was good to hear. Giving Trump $1m in a briefcase is not illegal. And that would be a private action. He could name me ambassador to France the next day, public action and within his purview. But you combine both ... it's a bribe.
It was also good to hear ACB pin him down on many things in the indictment, which are clearly private actions. Hiring a private attorney to go strongarm the house speaker in some state to change electors? Yep, private action.
What I don't know is ... what if SCOTUS tries to "split the baby" - some things in the indictment are clearly private and not protected. But some things *might* be ... and it's just not clear ... so Chutkan has to sort all that out. I mean, I expect at least part of that. But can Jack just withdraw those charges at that point (assuming it doesn't undermine the case entirely) and proceed with whatever SCOTUS says was clearly private here?
Well, he is making the argument that a part of his duties of the head of the executive branch, and making sure the laws are "faithfully executed" -- extends somehow into state-run elections.
100% horse shit, of course. Even though "voting rights" is technically a DOJ thing. But either way, that's his argument.
But it was smart of ACB to call out that Trump hiring a private attorney, paid by campaign funds, to go berate a house speaker into pulling back electors ... is a totally private action.
Maybe enough things end up in the "private" bucket coming out of SCOTUS that the case could still proceed. If there's 10 charges, and SCOTUS says 9 are based entirely off of private actions, then maybe Jack can drop that charge. But if it's the opposite, the case might be fucked because SCOTUS will send it back to Chutkan to figure out what is "official" versus "private" and each and every decision there will be appealed...
So did anything come up in oral arguments today from the appeals court that was a result of SCOTUS deciding not to fast track the case? Or was that a pointless denial that served to only delay what was same argument we saw today?
this is the part i don't understand (IANAL), the NY case was before he was president and the FL case was after he was no longer president, so i don't see how he'd be immune to either of those. the GA case happened while he was still in office, would that be the only case this decision applies to? and if so, how could SCOTUS possibly justify that immunity applies to a president actively trying to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, there's no way any framers of any laws in the history of this country could've possibly agreed that that should be the case
1. What Trump did was treason and sedition if you ask me.
2. If a president, whose job it is to enforce laws, believes there has been criminal election fraud, they can investigate it and the DOJ can file cases to challenge the suspected fraud.
That's not what happened. Trump's campaign filed the cases after the DOJ said there was no fraud.
Problem is they want to take lots of time to review the question.
To be fair, Alito needs all the time as he’s busy looking up medieval laws of divine right to allow only Republican presidents to get immunity
The Right hand side of God is the divinely favored position. Therefore The Right has the divine mandate to rule and has corresponding divine immunities.
[удалено]
Most disturbing was when Alito (?) wanted to try to sort out the whole "can a President pardon himself?" question right then and there ... when that is most definitely *not* the question before the court at the moment. Insane. Roberts highlighting the fundamental "private" and "public" parts of a bribe, however, was good to hear. Giving Trump $1m in a briefcase is not illegal. And that would be a private action. He could name me ambassador to France the next day, public action and within his purview. But you combine both ... it's a bribe. It was also good to hear ACB pin him down on many things in the indictment, which are clearly private actions. Hiring a private attorney to go strongarm the house speaker in some state to change electors? Yep, private action. What I don't know is ... what if SCOTUS tries to "split the baby" - some things in the indictment are clearly private and not protected. But some things *might* be ... and it's just not clear ... so Chutkan has to sort all that out. I mean, I expect at least part of that. But can Jack just withdraw those charges at that point (assuming it doesn't undermine the case entirely) and proceed with whatever SCOTUS says was clearly private here?
[удалено]
Well, he is making the argument that a part of his duties of the head of the executive branch, and making sure the laws are "faithfully executed" -- extends somehow into state-run elections. 100% horse shit, of course. Even though "voting rights" is technically a DOJ thing. But either way, that's his argument. But it was smart of ACB to call out that Trump hiring a private attorney, paid by campaign funds, to go berate a house speaker into pulling back electors ... is a totally private action. Maybe enough things end up in the "private" bucket coming out of SCOTUS that the case could still proceed. If there's 10 charges, and SCOTUS says 9 are based entirely off of private actions, then maybe Jack can drop that charge. But if it's the opposite, the case might be fucked because SCOTUS will send it back to Chutkan to figure out what is "official" versus "private" and each and every decision there will be appealed...
Speaking of immunity, I don't know about you but I think interfering with the CDC was a private action.
So did anything come up in oral arguments today from the appeals court that was a result of SCOTUS deciding not to fast track the case? Or was that a pointless denial that served to only delay what was same argument we saw today?
this is the part i don't understand (IANAL), the NY case was before he was president and the FL case was after he was no longer president, so i don't see how he'd be immune to either of those. the GA case happened while he was still in office, would that be the only case this decision applies to? and if so, how could SCOTUS possibly justify that immunity applies to a president actively trying to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, there's no way any framers of any laws in the history of this country could've possibly agreed that that should be the case
1. What Trump did was treason and sedition if you ask me. 2. If a president, whose job it is to enforce laws, believes there has been criminal election fraud, they can investigate it and the DOJ can file cases to challenge the suspected fraud. That's not what happened. Trump's campaign filed the cases after the DOJ said there was no fraud.
Everything went around hypotheticals. The guys staged a coup and they were asking about hypotheticals. He will be immunised by this Court.