Trump wins immunity

[JoeWeber 2,539]

Fine then. If Biden wants to show some cojones he should round up the first 10 drag queens the secret service can find and by executive appointment give them at will appointments to the Supreme Court. And that's just minute one with the entire rest of the first day waiting.

[ryoder 1,538]

And BIden can order the Secret Service detail assigned to Trump, to confine him to house arrest, and take away all communication devices.

[normiss 722]

Project 2025 has begun.

[nigel99 283]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

Project 2025 has begun.

Well it solves the problem of Bidens debate performance. Time for Seal Team 6 to be given orders regarding the Orange problem.

[JerryBaumchen 1,252]

1 minute ago, nigel99 said:

Well it solves the problem of Bidens debate performance. Time for Seal Team 6 to be given orders regarding the Orange problem.

Hi Nigel,

IMO it is the only way Biden can win in Nov.

Hope in one hand, shit in the other.  Wait 5 minutes & see what you got.

Jerry Baumchen

[GeorgiaDon 350]

First off, with the Chevron decision (plus eliminating the statute of limitation for lawsuits) they castrate the ability of government agencies to protect the public interest, and give carte blanche to big corporations to do whatever.  In the process they install themselves as arbitrators of every government function.  Then today they make the president above the reach of the law.  Project 2025 indeed.  Roberts, Thomas, Alito et al must be very proud of their handiwork.

[normiss 722]

“Project 2025” openly demands, for example, that the president “Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.”

I have to ask the religious types why do they hate their own god's work? They despise gay people and jebus just keeps making them.

[nigel99 283]

3 hours ago, normiss said:

“Project 2025” openly demands, for example, that the president “Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.”

I have to ask the religious types why do they hate their own god's work? They despise gay people and jebus just keeps making them.

I feel very sad for you Mark. I know you take great pride in your nation and served in the military defending it. It must be heartbreaking to see the fall of a once great nation.

Over the past 10 years the US has fallen from a leading democracy to quite possibly the leader of banana republic’s. 

I once worked for a conman who was good at it but not as artful as Trump. What I learned from Glenn is that conmen are surrounded by confusion and by confidently lying they get away with it as we are all too polite and shocked to confront it. Glenn was eventually undone as some journalists held him to account for a single lie and refused to drop it. It drove him crazy and he unraveled. That is how Trump needs to be dealt with. Pick a single lie, something that can’t be blamed on others - it should be something small, defined and entirely within his sphere is influence. Then everyone should harass him until he acknowledges the lie - his Truth social account should be flooded with it, every media appearance. From personal experience I predict he will unravel and his insanity will be exposed for the Maga die hards

[JerryBaumchen 1,252]

Hi folks,

This decision, based upon what I know about from news sources today, does not surprise me.  In fact, I would have been surprised with any other verdict; especially from this court.

This no different than the 'immunity' I had while working as a civilian employee of the federal gov't for 30 yrs.  As long as I did what I was directed to do by my supervisory chain or it was something in my Position Description; I was immune.

It will all now come down to what are Official Acts.  

The devil is in the details.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  de Tocquevillle said, all decisions in America will ultimately be decided in the courts.

Edited July 2 by JerryBaumchen

[JoeWeber 2,539]

Just now, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

This decision, based upon what I know about from news sources today, does not surprise me.  In fact, I would have been surprised with any other verdict; especially from this court.

This no different than the 'immunity' I had while working as a civilian employee of the federal gov't for 30 yrs.  As long as I did what I was directed to do by my supervisory chain or it was something in my Position Description; I was immune.

It will all now come down to what are Official Acts.  

The devil is in the details.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  de Tocquevillle, said that all decisions in America will ultimately be decided in the courts.

In the decision, if I am clear on it, there can be little or no inquiry into a Presidents motive. The devil then is that there can be little to no inquiry into the details. Also, the President no longer has a supervisor. This is very different, I think.

[JerryBaumchen 1,252]

51 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

In the decision, if I am clear on it, there can be little or no inquiry into a Presidents motive. The devil then is that there can be little to no inquiry into the details. Also, the President no longer has a supervisor. This is very different, I think.

Hi Joe,

I disagree.  There can be a LOT of inquiry into a Presidents motive.

A few months ago, in SE Oregon, a US Forest Service employee did a preventive burn in an effort to reduce the possibility of a future wild fire.  His preventative burn got away & created a wild fire.  A local DA had him arrested on charges [ details I do not remember ].  After some court efforts, the fed was released.  What he was doing was within his Official Duties.

That is how it will work.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I can always sue you; what will happen I cannot control.

Edited July 2 by JerryBaumchen

[JoeWeber 2,539]

Just now, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

I disagree.  There can be a LOT of inquiry into a Presidents motive.

A few months ago, in SE Oregon, a US Forest Service employee did a preventive burn in an effort to reduce the possibility of a future wild fire.  His preventative burn got away & created a wild fire.  A local DA had him arrested on charges [ details I do not remember ].  After some court efforts, the fed was released.  What he was doing was within his Official Duties.

That is how it will work.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I can always sue you; what will happen I cannot control.

Jerry,

From page 18 of the decision, attached, "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives."

Immunity ruling.pdf

[grimmie 179]

Sunrise in Costa Rica looks better every morning.

I’m from Pittsburgh just like Mr. rogers.

”Won’t you be my neighbor”

 

Before home prices here go through the roof!

 

[Phil1111 1,068]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Jerry,

From page 18 of the decision, attached, "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives."

Immunity ruling.pdf 518.58 kB · 0 downloads

Ahhhhh! the golden banana. Mr. trump did you receive $1 trillion from a Panama bank account for withdrawing from NATO and giving Russia the locations of every Ukrainian armed forces depo?

Trump: I don't have to answer that question because it goes to my motives.

Besides bribery is now legal:The US supreme court just basically legalized bribery

Amazing how Trump managed to craft the court in his own image in only one term. Imagine what he can do with another play at the slots.

[JoeWeber 2,539]

Just now, Phil1111 said:

Ahhhhh! the golden banana. Mr. trump did you receive $1 trillion from a Panama bank account for withdrawing from NATO and giving Russia the locations of every Ukrainian armed forces depo?

Trump: I don't have to answer that question because it goes to my motives.

Besides bribery is now legal:The US supreme court just basically legalized bribery

Amazing how Trump managed to craft the court in his own image in only one term. Imagine what he can do with another play at the slots.

That's the point entirely. All of this good and bad, right and wrong, but it's not what the founders intended crap is now over. What remains is not that Biden is the doddering old fool he most obviously is but whether he has the nuts to put in a ball at the rim of the cup, even if the world he believes in is gone, and do what Trump will do if he doesn't. For my money, I think if Biden resigns Kamala will: she won't let Trump win. She'll put his fat ass in the can.

[BIGUN 1,229]

13 hours ago, normiss said:

“Project 2025” openly demands, for example, that the president “Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.”

Morning, Marc. 

After reading your post with quotes last night; I decided to verify what was written. I understand these are not your words, but a quote." Nor, could I find the source of your quote. But, I decided to go right to the source of which you reference and downloaded the Project 2025 "Mandate for Leadership" and just finished all 871 pages. 

I could not find your quote by reading, nor with using the "find" function. Side note: Is anyone on here aware that this "Mandate for Leadership" started in 1979 by the Heritage Foundation and was presented every four years after an election - no matter which side was in office. It was and has been a recommendation document. 

As I read thru it - there are a couple of important concerns for Democrats, 1) Women's Abortion Rights, and 2) Climate Control.

Before everyone starts quoting what others have wrote about Project 2025; I would suggest reading the actual document, copying those areas that cause concern, pasting them with the page number on here. There are things you may agree with and things you don't. I didn't agree with all of it.  I'm surprised the Democratic party does not have a similar document - perhaps if they did, both sides of the aisle could sit down and interlace what is good for the nation as a whole rather than partisan screaming points - by those who interpret it for others.  

Nigel mentioned your military service and "heartbreaking." I served under every President between Nixon and Bush v.1. We'll survive. Personally, I'm proud to be in a nation where we can at least have this kind of dialogue - not a luxury that many other of the 195 countries on this planet have. A Banana Republic damn sure would not have this kind of dialogue.      

[kallend 1,819]

So after 248 years the Supreme Court has decided that we really need a king after all.

[ryoder 1,538]

Last night's letter from Heather Cox Richardson, is a good read.

Letters from an American July 1, 2024

Edited July 2 by ryoder

[Phil1111 1,068]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Morning, Marc. 

.... We'll survive. Personally, I'm proud to be in a nation where we can at least have this kind of dialogue - not a luxury that many other of the 195 countries on this planet have. A Banana Republic damn sure would not have this kind of dialogue.      

Yes, America will survive. That is an excellent post and you're reading the entire document reinforces my attitude that you're the only intelligent republican in this forum.

Dialogue? The nomination hearings of the Trump SC appointees shed no light on their current string of outrage upon the state. Roe v Wade, Chevron and presidential immunity have completely upended law and precedent. Stare decisis was promised by all and immediately thrown in the trash by the new appointees.

Last night Trump posted on Truth Social that there should be military tribunals to try Liz Cheney for treason. A concept thats completely unhinged. So where would the constraints on his actions be during a second presidency?

[BIGUN 1,229]

48 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Last night's letter from Heather Cox Richardson, is a good read.

Except her lead statement of, "It decided that the president of the United States, possibly the most powerful person on earth, has “absolute immunity” is incorrect.  The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have at least some immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” in office, no matter their “politics, policy, or party,” but stipulated that that protection doesn't cover everything. 

Chief Justice Roberts laid out three different categories of presidential acts:

Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which “immunity must be absolute”

Official actions “within the outer perimeter” of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity

Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-mean-for-trump-6-questions-answered#:~:text=In a historic decision%2C the,protection doesn't cover everything.

 

[BIGUN 1,229]

23 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Last night Trump posted on Truth Social that there should be military tribunals to try Liz Cheney for treason.

According to CNN, he did not write it; someone else did. He just "amplified" it. Whatever. He just can't keep his Twitter thumbs off the keyboard.  Having said that, I'm not defending Trump in any form. My position on abstaining from the Presidential vote this year remains the same. 

Thank you for the compliment. 

[Phil1111 1,068]

20 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

According to CNN, he did not write it; someone else did. He just "amplified" it. Whatever. He just can't keep his Twitter thumbs off the keyboard.  Having said that, I'm not defending Trump in any form. My position on abstaining from the Presidential vote this year remains the same. 

Thank you for the compliment. 

You're welcome. Yes democracies will survive from election to election. The whole trump episode in US history reminds me of the American politician, Frederic R. Coudert, who quipped in 1939.” 'May you live in interesting times."

[GeorgiaDon 350]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Except her lead statement of, "It decided that the president of the United States, possibly the most powerful person on earth, has “absolute immunity” is incorrect.  The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have at least some immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” in office, no matter their “politics, policy, or party,” but stipulated that that protection doesn't cover everything. 

Chief Justice Roberts laid out three different categories of presidential acts:

Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which “immunity must be absolute”

Official actions “within the outer perimeter” of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity

Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-mean-for-trump-6-questions-answered#:~:text=In a historic decision%2C the,protection doesn't cover everything.

 

Yes, and no.  The ruling so hamstrung any possible prosecution that it is difficult to see how it would even be possible.  It is now forbidden to seek testimony from, or even to interview, anyone in the administration.  It is also forbidden to raise any issue regarding the president's motive for an act.  How could a prosecutor even establish if an act falls under the "official" or "unofficial" category under such circumstances?  As an example of the situation we now have, imagine Trump announces on the White House social media feed that he will sell pardons for $1,000,000, and then he actually does so.  Issuing pardons and communicating to the public on official White House channels are part of his official duties, so neither of those things could be used as evidence.  His motive for issuing the pardons also cannot be raised.  So all we would have is the payment, which could easily be disguised as a donation to a PAC, from which he could legally use the money for personal purposes.  So, in practice the Supreme Court has just legalized bribing the President.  Similar arguments could be raised for all manner of other acts that would be criminal for you and me, but now not for the President.

Perhaps someone could argue that a President could still be impeached and removed from office for such conduct.  Leaving aside the glaring fact that virtually no Republican in Congress would vote for that (so the Democrats would have to control the House and over 60% of the Senate to actually remove a Republican President), yesterday's SC decision means that if the President does such things they are not illegal.  So what is left that might qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors"?  With this decision, the SC effectively neutered the possibility of impeaching and convicting a President as well.  The President is now indeed our King.  The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

This decision by the Supreme Court qualifies in every meaningful way, except perhaps in name, as a constitutional amendment, making the President the modern day incarnation of King George.

[billvon 2,691]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

As an example of the situation we now have, imagine Trump announces on the White House social media feed that he will sell pardons for $1,000,000, and then he actually does so.  Issuing pardons and communicating to the public on official White House channels are part of his official duties, so neither of those things could be used as evidence.  His motive for issuing the pardons also cannot be raised.  So all we would have is the payment, which could easily be disguised as a donation to a PAC, from which he could legally use the money for personal purposes.

And if the payment was made AFTER the pardon, a separate ruling from the SC has stated that it would not be considered a bribe.

[kallend 1,819]

Clearly there are flaws in the Constitution that no-one realised until Trump & Co exposed and exploited them.

It's like a metastable physical system that appears to be perfectly stable and running well  until one particular trigger sets off a major instability.