It's so annoying to see this meander through the justice system as if it's even a question. Illegal should be illegal no matter who you are or what responsibility you hold.
It's so annoying to see this meander through the justice system as if it's even a question. Illegal should be illegal no matter who you are or what responsibility you hold.
Agreed, but when you have millions to spend on lawyers, you can waste a whole lot of time with motions and other tactics designed to grind the progress a case makes to a halt. On the other hand,...
Agreed, but when you have millions to spend on lawyers, you can waste a whole lot of time with motions and other tactics designed to grind the progress a case makes to a halt.
On the other hand, while I didn’t think we needed a court to explicitly say that the president wasn’t above the law, it is a good thing in the long run.
I wouldn’t put anything past this current pack of whackos, but I cannot imagine the legal loopholes and twisting they’d have to say the president is above the law. If they set that precedent,...
I wouldn’t put anything past this current pack of whackos, but I cannot imagine the legal loopholes and twisting they’d have to say the president is above the law. If they set that precedent, what’s to stop the next president from literally just killing all his opponents to stay in power?
This was literally the line of questioning from the judge. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/us/politics/trump-immunity-prosecution-assassination.html
what’s to stop the next president from literally just killing all his opponents to stay in power?
This was literally the line of questioning from the judge.
“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Pan said. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no. He explained that prosecution would only be permitted if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
"A president should be given immunity," Trump asserted at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday. "Otherwise, Truman would not have dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
According to this article Trump has until February 12 to appeal to the Supreme Court https://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/trump-is-not-immune-from-prosecution-in-his-2020-18650991.php
According to this article Trump has until February 12 to appeal to the Supreme Court
True, but if they decline to hear it, then they are de facto saying they agree with the lower court ruling and there is no need to hear the case. That’s not quite as powerful as the full court...
True, but if they decline to hear it, then they are de facto saying they agree with the lower court ruling and there is no need to hear the case. That’s not quite as powerful as the full court hearing and ruling on the case, but it’s a pretty big signal on what they think.
Exactly. The thing to watch here is if they do take it up and slow walk it. That would be the conservative justices giving Trump another tactical win with another delay.
Exactly. The thing to watch here is if they do take it up and slow walk it. That would be the conservative justices giving Trump another tactical win with another delay.
Alright, serious question because I can't keep all this stuff straight: Are there any legal actions in progress that could possibly invalidate Trump's candidacy before election day? Or have we...
Alright, serious question because I can't keep all this stuff straight: Are there any legal actions in progress that could possibly invalidate Trump's candidacy before election day? Or have we given up on that possibility?
The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
...
The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.
Colorado’s Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ruled last month that Trump should not be on the Republican primary ballot. The decision was the first time the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.
Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.
Be careful not to solve the Republican's problems for them. Right now the great pumpkin is their ultimate albatross, since they can't win a primary without him, and can't win a general election...
Be careful not to solve the Republican's problems for them. Right now the great pumpkin is their ultimate albatross, since they can't win a primary without him, and can't win a general election with him. He's effectively neutralized them by pitting multiple factions inside the RNC against each other, and he's giving the democrats a priceless opportunity to pick up other groups inside that party and bring them on board with the DNC.
Neutering Trump so he can't run feels like justice, but remember it also opens up the republican primary again. The entire reason Haley is staying in is because if a lawsuit takes out the pumpkin, she's instant frontrunner for the nomination. That will put Biden into a more serious fight than he'd have with Trump, and I say that knowing next to nothing at all about Haley. The mere fact that the RNC would then be backing a woman for president in that situation is maximum cheese. I will feel embarrassed for the progressives if the regressive party locks down the first woman president by accident. That's bizarro-world territory.
Ideally the pumpkin should not be jailed until after the election, to avoid rocking the boat. That way Biden avoids the fight. Normally I'm the guy who wants to see the field shaken up and enjoy the fight, but not while we're staring down a firestorm that could start a world war, where the incumbent president is handling diplomancy rather well in my opinion. Just imagine where we would be right now if Trump were still in office. That was our dictator moment and we dodged a bullet.
There's a time to fuck around and this is not it. Save it for 2028 and mean it, and let's hope we get that far without losing any more of the tracks this train depends on.
He's managed a solid start towards economic recovery and kept the peace as best as he can, and he didn't drop dead from old age or stress doing it on day one like some republican caricature of...
He's managed a solid start towards economic recovery and kept the peace as best as he can, and he didn't drop dead from old age or stress doing it on day one like some republican caricature of reality. He put people in charge to handle things where he could not. That's a pretty decent display of leadership from a lifelong civil servant who has spent twelve years in the white house. He's the 'stability' choice in this election, and right now stability is mighty appealing to a lot of people who don't usually go in for politics in the first place.
Those people know Trump is not the stable choice. They will hold their noses and vote for Biden even though they badly want a better choice. They are not voting for Biden, they are voting against Trump. I'll remind you that Trump already lost one election to Biden, and he'll lose this one by a much larger margin.
Trump's bullshit has been on display long enough now that everyone can smell the rat. He doesn't gain suppoters. He only loses them.
I really want to see this happen. I wonder how many hardcore MAGA people will vote for a female candidate who's also a first generation immigrant (Nimarata Randhawa) just to spite Biden.
The entire reason Haley is staying in is because if a lawsuit takes out the pumpkin, she's instant frontrunner for the nomination. That will put Biden into a more serious fight than he'd have with Trump, and I say that knowing next to nothing at all about Haley.
I really want to see this happen. I wonder how many hardcore MAGA people will vote for a female candidate who's also a first generation immigrant (Nimarata Randhawa) just to spite Biden.
Maximum popcorn right now while Trump hides from Haley's requests to debate him. I guess there are limits to his affinity for the camera. He thinks that she is going to kick his ass, and he...
Maximum popcorn right now while Trump hides from Haley's requests to debate him. I guess there are limits to his affinity for the camera. He thinks that she is going to kick his ass, and he believes it enough to give up the camera, kinda his core reason for living. He's a lot less confident in his own ability to win than the people in this thread are. I don't believe a thing he says, but his behavior I do believe.
I haven't looked at Haley myself. It's like a christmas present under the tree that has no label and I've no idea where it came from. I'm expecting coal, possibly even a bomb. I'd like to find myself in the 'pleasantly surprised' category after opening it, but I just don't trust that party at all anymore.
Most of the Trump voters I know aren't "hardcore MAGA people", but juet diehard GOP voters. I can maybe see her gender and background affecting her performance in the primaries, but I see most...
Most of the Trump voters I know aren't "hardcore MAGA people", but juet diehard GOP voters. I can maybe see her gender and background affecting her performance in the primaries, but I see most Republicans being loyal in the general.
I would like to believe you are right, however I don't think we have good knowledge about how sexist people are. (And in Haley's case racism could also be a factor). In my life I have observed...
I would like to believe you are right, however I don't think we have good knowledge about how sexist people are. (And in Haley's case racism could also be a factor).
In my life I have observed that women political leaders are more likely to rise to the top in parliamentary systems where leaders are chosen by people who know them, (party insiders), then in presidential systems where the candidate inevitably must ask strangers to choose them as the top contender.
I think you're absolutely right in terms of general trends. I just think that Republicans as a whole are pretty loyal in the general regardless of their sexism (and maybe racism), so I wouldn't...
I think you're absolutely right in terms of general trends. I just think that Republicans as a whole are pretty loyal in the general regardless of their sexism (and maybe racism), so I wouldn't rely on that to handicap Haley if she gets the nomination.
Nope. It's just guaranteeing Biden an easy win. If you want to make things a hell of a lot harder for Biden and for the democratic party by giving the republicans an actual shot at winning, go...
Nope. It's just guaranteeing Biden an easy win. If you want to make things a hell of a lot harder for Biden and for the democratic party by giving the republicans an actual shot at winning, go right ahead and take Trump off the board. The RNC will thank you for that, because it's something they just can't manage to do. In fact the only risk leaving him in the race that seems plausible is if Trump is on the ballot and some kind of health issue takes Biden off the board before the election.
Meanwhile, as long as he's a potential candidate with the RNC, he's going to keep their factions infighting. I doubt a single soul on this site understands the level of damage he's inflicted on their process. He can't even raise money anymore, he drove most of the RNC's business interests over to the democratic party already. He's a fatal cancer to that party as long as he's on the board.
Sure, you could take him off the board, and let the republicans all fall in line behind someone else, but then you're swapping automatic victory over Trump for a new situation that hasn't got that ironclad outcome. I'd be especially wary about a woman nominee winning the RNC, because she can and will pull legions of women to vote for her that would never ever vote for Trump. She gets a free pass to attack Biden on his health and age, too, which Trump doesn't because he's almost as old as Biden.
So, putting Trump in jail before the election is the absolute worst possible kind of fucking around. It's dangerous as hell with Haley waiting to take over for him in an instant, which stops all republican infighting, and gets them back in the raising money business. They will give you all whiplash with how fast they start paying lip service to feminine issues, and they'll pretend that they've always supported those issues. That's going to get them better results than Trump could ever hope to deliver.
What's more important to you? Jailing Trump this year instead of next year, or having a second term for the Biden administration during wartime?
H. Clinton's campaign pied Piper strategy in 2016 was based on similar logic. As far as I am concerned, upholding the tradition that we have the rule of law and not an autocrat in the presidency...
H. Clinton's campaign pied Piper strategy in 2016 was based on similar logic.
As far as I am concerned, upholding the tradition that we have the rule of law and not an autocrat in the presidency is more important than giving Biden an easier win.
Trump in office again would be a unique disaster unlike the risk of any other candidate. He could win and we can't afford that as a country.
I can respect hating Trump so much that one isn't willing to take the chance. If that's the play, start preparing to deal with Haley right now (or whoever else it is) because people are going to...
I can respect hating Trump so much that one isn't willing to take the chance. If that's the play, start preparing to deal with Haley right now (or whoever else it is) because people are going to take a long, hard look at that person. The republicans will play the 'reinventing ourselves' card once Trump is gone, because their base has a very short memory.
Trump taking office again doesn't worry me as much as someone not experiencing consequences for standing up in front of an angry mob and inciting them to use force to overthrow the results of a...
Trump taking office again doesn't worry me as much as someone not experiencing consequences for standing up in front of an angry mob and inciting them to use force to overthrow the results of a fair election.
Trump isn't going to be around forever, but letting that slide will establish a precedent that insurrection is a viable political strategem. Compared to that, I don't give two liquid shits about Joe fucking Biden's future political prospects.
I haven't disagreed with you, except maybe your reasoning for why Trump should be prosecuted and removed from the ballot. I'm not the guy you've been debating. I just wanted to chime in and assert...
I haven't disagreed with you, except maybe your reasoning for why Trump should be prosecuted and removed from the ballot. I'm not the guy you've been debating.
I just wanted to chime in and assert that Trump, loathsome as he is, isn't the biggest danger here.
I want him to face those consequences, and I've looked over the lawsuits, they are coming. He is in very deep trouble. I'm just not in a hurry. Jailing him after Nov. 5th is much the same to me as...
I want him to face those consequences, and I've looked over the lawsuits, they are coming. He is in very deep trouble. I'm just not in a hurry. Jailing him after Nov. 5th is much the same to me as doing it tomorrow, with a bonus prize of pure republican catastrophe for the wait.
It'd be even better if he got bumped out of just enough primaries by state supreme court action that he can never hope to win under the republican's own rules. All it'll take is some of the key states to ban him from their ballots, and they can do that. Trump will pick up plenty of write-in votes, but it will hurt his results big time. It's enough to bleed Trump's delegate numbers down, and give the other factions and candidates some bargaining chips which they will use against Trump.
Republican caucuses are really weird, it'll wreck their process completely. The republican convention may turn into a steel cage match where no candidate has enough delegates for anyone to cross the finish line. Normally at that point it's 'let's make a deal' time, and they bargain between delegates for concessions to get their votes in exchange for favors and changes to planks in the party platform. They are so gridlocked internally right now that those deals aren't going to happen like normal. Trump's wing won't compromise because the pumpkin will say not to, and the rest want Trump gone, won't trust him to honor any deals, and so are in no mood to compromise to him either.
Only reason I know this stuff is because the Liberty Forest crew (Ron Paul's fan club) broadcast every one of those conventions live in spite of the republican party. The various state conventions look and sound more like a WWE match loosely constrained by Robert's Rules than they do a town hall meeting. That was in '08. I think tempers within that party are just a tiny bit higher now.
I'm still waiting for a single good reason why Trump vs Biden rematch won't result in a second Trump knockout. Biden's up in the numbers and Trump is down. The gap is wider, and there are no...
I'm still waiting for a single good reason why Trump vs Biden rematch won't result in a second Trump knockout. Biden's up in the numbers and Trump is down. The gap is wider, and there are no numbers, polls, or evidence I can find that indicate Trump has ever even made a dent in that gap. I'd expect the rematch to be the widest victory we've seen in politics in decades. I'd place a bet that the margin of victory is double digits.
I envy your optimism and admit that my position is founded in fear, even as a non-US citizen. I'll add that I am aware, too, that I have an overdeveloped sense of justice that runs through my...
I envy your optimism and admit that my position is founded in fear, even as a non-US citizen. I'll add that I am aware, too, that I have an overdeveloped sense of justice that runs through my perspective.
2016 got me real jaded, but I'll concede that Biden is much less disliked than H. Clinton and that almost every political contest in the country has gone blue since 2020.
No matter how many times I tell myself these things, I'm still scared <shrug>
I can respect that too, as our recent political history has been far less rational and more fear-driven than it has ever been in the lifetimes of most people, myself included. I try to tune that...
I can respect that too, as our recent political history has been far less rational and more fear-driven than it has ever been in the lifetimes of most people, myself included. I try to tune that stuff out and keep an eye on the numbers, though polls must always be taken with some salt. Biden's lead is larger than the weaknesses in the data to my eye, which is why I'm pretty optimistic. That can surely change, but it'll take some kind of unforseen shakeup to get there. I also admit I'm having a bit of a schadenfreude overdose watching Trump tear the guts out of the RNC from within. They deserve it, and frankly they've needed a reason to change for a long time.
Points about overconfidence leading to voter complacency are well taken, but even there I see a reason to be optimistic. People are pissed enough at their congresscritters right now to hit the voting booth over that alone, and then with the tension from all of the ongoing wars, I think we're going to see a solid turnout. Those issues should help hold back the apathy a bit. I'd still campaign like life depended on it, though. Take nothing for granted, just leave room for a little optimism.
Yes, there's some common ground for us: people are (justifiably) pissed at Congress, Biden could really spin up the campaign any day now, like maybe yesterday, and turn it up to 11, and one should...
Yes, there's some common ground for us: people are (justifiably) pissed at Congress, Biden could really spin up the campaign any day now, like maybe yesterday, and turn it up to 11, and one should always leave room for optimism. On that much we can agree.
One last good sign I can see is that Biden is raising plenty of money. The business interests don't care at all which party they support or about politics. They care only that their support buys...
One last good sign I can see is that Biden is raising plenty of money. The business interests don't care at all which party they support or about politics. They care only that their support buys favors. Trump's uncontrollable nature has prevented them from cashing in on it for some time now inside the RNC, so they are happy to hop over to Biden's camp this time around. Biden's coming into this flush with cash, and money is mother's milk when it comes to campaigning.
I think that what many may fear is something like a confluence of complacency/apathy on the part of blue voters and voter disenfranchisement by trump-aligned states and localities resulting in...
I think that what many may fear is something like a confluence of complacency/apathy on the part of blue voters and voter disenfranchisement by trump-aligned states and localities resulting in Biden losing.
In that scenario it’d make sense to not want to risk it and preclude the possibility of trump winning altogether.
It's complicated. There's nothing actually that would prevent you from being a criminal, and President, or running for President. In fact, there was actually a Presidential candidate that ran from...
It's complicated. There's nothing actually that would prevent you from being a criminal, and President, or running for President. In fact, there was actually a Presidential candidate that ran from jail before, so we know that's fine.
However, there is a clause in the 14th amendment that says that people who were part of an insurrection against the united states cannot hold public office. This is not about a specific crime - the point was to remove the ability for people from the Confederacy to hold office. They were not all charged with treason or anything, they were just... part of an insurrection.
So it's not about a specific criminal trial - Trump can still be President, and in prison at the same time. But it is about the interpretation of a law.
There are no serious ones. People don't like that answer but there's no way in hell any court is going to uphold removing a presidential candidate from a ballot without a conviction. The...
There are no serious ones. People don't like that answer but there's no way in hell any court is going to uphold removing a presidential candidate from a ballot without a conviction. The convictions and legal systems take time, until that occurs Trump will be on the ballot (and it won't occur until after the election).
I'm aware the supreme court is seeing this case, but I don't think there's a court in history that would do anything else. I could be wrong, but all the experts are expecting the same.
The Colorado and Maine supreme courts already made or upheld similar rulings. The 14th specifically does not state you need to be convicted of insurrection, the way the 13th for example does say...
The Colorado and Maine supreme courts already made or upheld similar rulings. The 14th specifically does not state you need to be convicted of insurrection, the way the 13th for example does say you must be duly convicted of a crime in order to be punished with slavery for it.
Yep I'm aware of both those things, but I'm only referring to the federal supreme court because there's no way removing a major political candidate and previous president from the ballot winds up...
Yep I'm aware of both those things, but I'm only referring to the federal supreme court because there's no way removing a major political candidate and previous president from the ballot winds up anywhere else.
While it may not say it requires a conviction, that does not mean a court will decide that it's too unclear to move forward without one, and again, that's generally the opinion of just about every legal expert i've read or spoken too.
Ignoring the current courts potential bias towards Trump (or even potential bias against trump depending on what you think they prioritize) if there's a remotely sane ruling coming out of this it's going to be that without a substantial amount of clarity and evidence, you cannot remove a serious political candidate from the ballot.
Trump, at this point, has not been convicted of anything close to insurrection, which would make the courts decision easier, having a clear example of him being confirmed to have done as such, and has not started a civil war that killed 2% of the population, having a clear example of the previous case when something like this was used (Ku Klux Klan act and Amnesty Act being relevant.). There's also a question of if the court has standing to make the decision or if it's a congress thing, although I forget the details on that part of it.
But it's not like the court's only 2 options are to remove him as a candidate everywhere, or overturn the rulings in Colorado and Maine forcing him to be on the ballot everywhere. They could also...
But it's not like the court's only 2 options are to remove him as a candidate everywhere, or overturn the rulings in Colorado and Maine forcing him to be on the ballot everywhere. They could also allow states to decide for themselves.
Allowing states to decide for themselves is also extremely unlikely for a slew of reasons, the least of which is that it's functionally the same as removing him from the ballot everywhere as now...
Allowing states to decide for themselves is also extremely unlikely for a slew of reasons, the least of which is that it's functionally the same as removing him from the ballot everywhere as now the entire election will be fought in the courts of the swing states and voting will be a formality.
I personally think the SC will decline to hear this on appeal, probably with Alito and Thomas at least dissenting. It’s such a clear cut bogus claim that I can see them wanting to avoid getting...
I personally think the SC will decline to hear this on appeal, probably with Alito and Thomas at least dissenting. It’s such a clear cut bogus claim that I can see them wanting to avoid getting involved, which would also why they could have declined to expedite this when requested. It’s not that I think the court has any integrity, but I do think they can be pragmatic at times and waves hands this is probably not something the pragmatic ones will want to touch.
Is it insane to anyone else that they're arguing that a president is immune from all law breaking? Like, I'm not taking crazy pills right? Our country was founded on "no kings", and yet they want...
Is it insane to anyone else that they're arguing that a president is immune from all law breaking? Like, I'm not taking crazy pills right? Our country was founded on "no kings", and yet they want to make it so a president is now a King above reproach. I'm glad that cooler head are prevailing, but anxious about what would happen if he were to actually be reelected.
Insane that they’re arguing it? To me, no, because Trump will do and say anything to save his own skin. I truly believe he has little to no interiority and no foundational beliefs. If the courts...
Insane that they’re arguing it? To me, no, because Trump will do and say anything to save his own skin. I truly believe he has little to no interiority and no foundational beliefs. If the courts were taking the argument seriously I would find it insane but thankfully — thankfully! — none seem to be.
I am not surprised that Trump is arguing it. I am surprised that he has found lawyers to argue it. Trump would argue that oranges are purple if he thought it would benefit him. But I can't imagine...
I am not surprised that Trump is arguing it. I am surprised that he has found lawyers to argue it.
Trump would argue that oranges are purple if he thought it would benefit him. But I can't imagine any respectable constitutional lawyer arguing that a president has complete immunity with a straight face. But at this point, I guess all his lawyers aren't respectable, which is why he keeps losing cases.
Most of the things the pumpkin does make perfect sense once you understand that inside his own head, he is the star of the Donald J. Trump Show, and it is the greatest show in the world, where...
Most of the things the pumpkin does make perfect sense once you understand that inside his own head, he is the star of the Donald J. Trump Show, and it is the greatest show in the world, where everyone else on that show is just an extra. The only thing he cares about is getting in front of that camera so he can put out another episode.
The truly insane bit is that they can't fathom the effects if presidents were immune to ALL laws. Biden could just walk up to Trump and shoot him in the face, because he has immunity. Or he could...
The truly insane bit is that they can't fathom the effects if presidents were immune to ALL laws.
Biden could just walk up to Trump and shoot him in the face, because he has immunity. Or he could throw him in the deepest dark site to be tortured, because he's immune to all laws.
They really can't understand that the law would apply to ALL presidents, current and future. And they don't like the current president.
I'm not saying everyone, who you'd ask, who thinks Trump should be immune as President, has thought it all the way through. But some have. And they're in favor of it for a specific reason. What...
I'm not saying everyone, who you'd ask, who thinks Trump should be immune as President, has thought it all the way through. But some have. And they're in favor of it for a specific reason.
What you do, is you get your guy (Trump) in and include stuff like this immunity. Then your guy does stuff like arrest or kill off opposition. And the immunity, and anything you've managed to cram in under a similar "color of law", however dubious, serves to delay and confuse objectors.
Right now, if any President ordered mass arrests, or had a (Federal Armed Unit) carry out executions or anything remotely similar, the outrage would be pretty instantaneous and widespread. Shock and "you can't do that" would be the predominant reaction. Even in some "conservative" states, some "conservative" government officials, would shake their heads and go into opposition.
But with something like Presidental Immunity established, it gives people pause. They think "well, Presidents are allowed do things like that." It won't matter that Trump has gestapo kicking in doors, dragging out political opponents, disappearing them into jails where they never emerge from. At least, not initially.
Which would be enough delay to take over many of the key levels of government power across the country.
Trump is probably not smart enough to pull it off. Most dictators that didn't flame out immediately were either somewhat intelligent/clever/devious, or had people like that advising them and outlining plans. Trump is deeply stupid.
But there are elements of MAGA that want a dictatorship. As long as it's "one of ours", they want it. So it's not at all surprising there are lawyers willing to stand up and argue something like this.
These lawyers would go absolutely apeshit, like coronary event, if the Biden administration went before a court and tried to argue it. Why? Because he's not one of theirs. But Trump, he's a good one. He's the head of the MAGA movement. Of course Trump should be immune. He's Trump!
The only saving grace in all this is Trump is too narcissistic to listen to advisors. Bush W had Karl Rove, who is an evil, slimy, conniving manipulator with a deeply expansive resume of pulling evil, slimy shit off successfully. Bush apparently wasn't nearly as mentally challenged as he liked to play, but Rove is exactly the kind of guy who would seize upon unilateral presidential immunity to clear the decks of all opposition and take total control.
Of course there's no good, valid, just reason for a President, for anyone in government, to have immunity. Members of the military, for example, can be held accountable for following illegal orders. The situations would be tried, and considered closely, but just because the President walked up to a Marine and said "shoot that guy on the sidewalk", no one believes the Marine would be innocent just because, after pulling the trigger, the Marine says "the President told me to."
But if your goal is autocracy? Removing democracy? Then arguing for this bullshit is an essential step in the plan. Ensure he has the power, ensure he wins (fairly or not, legally or not, as long as it looks like he won) the election, and then start executing and jailing people.
If they pull it off, if they can manage to distract Trump for about a month, they could have the US wrapped up in a dark age before Feb25 is finished. There are a lot of MAGA lawyers who would love it. And behind them are a bunch of MAGA rank and file who would love it too. The entire movement is built on othering anyone who's not MAGA.
They don't intend this to apply to all presidents, just "their" presidents. If they successfully argued for immunity and a future Democrat were implicated in some crime, the exact same people...
They don't intend this to apply to all presidents, just "their" presidents. If they successfully argued for immunity and a future Democrat were implicated in some crime, the exact same people would be shamelessly arguing for prosecution even if impeachment failed, in blatant contradiction of what they're saying now. They're not stupid, they're fascists (or craven fascist enablers) who think power is their right and that the rule of law shouldn't apply to them. For people like that, the hypocrisy is the point -- an exercise of raw power and impunity.
It's extra crazy because they're inventing crimes Biden "committed" and using whataboutisms to make it seem like democrats would make excuses for Biden the same way. Like if Biden tried to lead a...
It's extra crazy because they're inventing crimes Biden "committed" and using whataboutisms to make it seem like democrats would make excuses for Biden the same way. Like if Biden tried to lead a rebellion against the government, I would be just as outspoken about him as I am about Trump.
The old saying "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" has really been turned on its head in the last few years. I have no loyalty to Biden, if he committed a crime, he should face consequences. But very few Trump "fans" will say that. And that's what's disturbing about this whole situation. They're arguing he can do whatever he wants, as long as he isn't impeached. When Senate Republicans said in 2020 "we're not going to impeach him, if he broke the law, charge him with a crime".
My personal theory is that the Federalist Society and the justices got everything they wanted from Trump already with his and McConnell's judge nominations. Why would they encourage a drama filled...
My personal theory is that the Federalist Society and the justices got everything they wanted from Trump already with his and McConnell's judge nominations. Why would they encourage a drama filled presidency where he has promised policies that will clog court dockets with litigation?
But I could be wrong. However, Trump is not the only transactional self interested actor in politics or the courts. He is super good at and predictable about betraying former allies, but these justices also have their own motives that are separate from Trump's best interests.
The Republican Establishment can't possibly want Trump. Why not? Because he's not controllable. They want someone who's drunk enough of the Kool-aid to listen, who they can manage, but not so much...
The Republican Establishment can't possibly want Trump. Why not? Because he's not controllable. They want someone who's drunk enough of the Kool-aid to listen, who they can manage, but not so much that they're actually drunk with power.
Trump is not manageable. Trump (and some other MAGA adherents) are wildly self-directed, and reluctant or incapable of listening to the Republican Brain Trust.
They can't have that. But ... they can't be seen openly, by the MAGA base that has become the Republican base, to be plotting Trump's downfall. Their best outcome is for Trump to go away, be that of his own volition (unlikely with Trump's narcissism), death (somewhat likely, due to his age and poor lifestyle habits), or forcibly (imprisonment in one or more of the cases).
A complicating factor is the MAGA base is becoming increasingly virulent. Extremist. They truly, truly, do believe their way is the one and only way, and any other is a disaster of biblical proportion. There's a not insignificant faction of the MAGAs who are willing to employ violence to get their way.
So really, only Trump's death is probably safe. The base would mourn, but there's no obvious inflammatory inciting incident. Unless one of the other MAGA "leaders" decides to turn Trump into a martyr, and whip the base toward that violence again. Which, presumably, the Republican Establishment would not be in favor of. But since so many of the MAGA leaders have direct, unfettered access to the base via social media, it might still happen.
The country is in the early stages of a dark chapter of history. All the people who might be able to walk us back from the cliff edges are just egging the masses toward them. Like those MAGA "leaders" who only double, and double, and double down again on extremism and divisiveness and othering any non-MAGAs.
What happens if Trump wins? Very probably civil war, unless he was somehow kidding in some of the shit he's said. If he starts arresting judges and prosecutors (along with Democrats, Lefties, the people who keep suing him, etc), ordering federal agents to into courtrooms and homes ... what happens?
They either do it, people object, and we're to the point where violence has to intervene to resolve the issue. What happens in New York if the state's national guard blocks federal agents (be they agents or troops) from entering courtrooms or houses to obey Trump's arrest orders?
Or the Federal agents don't obey those orders, and we have a Constitutional Crisis where not just a significant portion of non-MAGA, but now a notable amount of the Federal Government will be openly demonstrating they've lost faith in the president.
If Trump doesn't win, there's a non-zero chance the MAGAs are going to escalate in a direct, more confrontational and violent fashion.
And that's to say nothing of the stuff swirling around the insurrection court cases. More than a few MAGAs are getting it in their heads that states are allowed to unilaterally control the election in that state. What happens if most of the Midwest, and South (from coast to coast) decides to just up and remove the non-MAGA candidates from their ballots? Effectively declaring "there won't be an election, there'll just be a big celebration where the MAGA people automatically win."
Who thinks the country is going to stand for that? Will the left just shrug and say "whatever, their choice?" Will Congress go along with it? What happens if California, or New York, say "fuck it, until rule of law returns we're no longer participating in the Federal Government." What happens if Federal troops are ordered into a state that (more or less) withdraws from the Union? Do the troops go? What if they don't? What if they do?
Extremism is driving the country to the edge. There's not a lot of signs we're not going over. Violence is the base decider. It might not be pretty, or civilized, but it is what settles things. "Civilization" is when we all agree to fight with words not weapons. When the words have been twisted, or ignored, beyond any sort of agreement, violence is what's left. That's where all this bullshit with Trump is pushing us.
And the Republican Establishment seems quite content to just let it happen. They could've convicted him in the Senate. They could've orchestrated his removal from the party, weathered the "hit from their base" before now. They could pull strings to move the court cases along so he's jailed. There are lots of things they could've done, that they haven't. They're letting the entire country careen out of control just because they either want that, or they don't care. Either is bad.
The billionaires and millionaires willing to back Trump have forgotten or never knew how leaders like Hitler or Caligula could turn quickly against supporters based on perceived slights or simple...
The billionaires and millionaires willing to back Trump have forgotten or never knew how leaders like Hitler or Caligula could turn quickly against supporters based on perceived slights or simple mood or self interest.
The rule of law is a very important safety net and people in the US have forgotten or never knew what happens when we don't have it.
And this is why every home should have a shotgun. When some self-appointed MAGA viglante comes knocking at your door, it's gonna be a pretty one-sided affair if only they have one.
If Trump doesn't win, there's a non-zero chance the MAGAs are going to escalate in a direct, more confrontational and violent fashion.
And this is why every home should have a shotgun. When some self-appointed MAGA viglante comes knocking at your door, it's gonna be a pretty one-sided affair if only they have one.
If someone wants a firearm for self-defense, they should choose one they are comfortable using. It could be a shotgun, a handgun, or a rifle. Politics aside, I’ve seen a lot of praise for...
If someone wants a firearm for self-defense, they should choose one they are comfortable using. It could be a shotgun, a handgun, or a rifle. Politics aside, I’ve seen a lot of praise for AR-platform rifles as HD guns. Handguns are also still popular, plus you can CC them. And the venerable pump shotgun has a place, but the recoil may not be ideal for small shooters (and it has a limited magazine capacity).
Eh, I learned to shoot shotguns at the ripe old age of 10. While practice is required, a simple 20 gauge isn't gonna be knocking anyone taller than 4ft down, provided a modicum of training. Way I...
Eh, I learned to shoot shotguns at the ripe old age of 10. While practice is required, a simple 20 gauge isn't gonna be knocking anyone taller than 4ft down, provided a modicum of training.
Way I see it, odds are average joe isn't gonna get more than 1 shot if they miss. The hope is that you'll take one out with ya.
Incidentally why I propose returning to flintlock muskets for home defense. :)
In that eventuality, perhaps the CIA could use what they learned about crack in the Black community to place some strategically-located caches of fentanyl around the trouble spots and wait for the...
If Trump doesn't win, there's a non-zero chance the MAGAs are going to escalate in a direct, more confrontational and violent fashion.
In that eventuality, perhaps the CIA could use what they learned about crack in the Black community to place some strategically-located caches of fentanyl around the trouble spots and wait for the problem to solve itself.
I've read that if he can keep delaying the federal trial until after he's won the presidency, then he can't be prosecuted. So this might be all for naught.
I've read that if he can keep delaying the federal trial until after he's won the presidency, then he can't be prosecuted. So this might be all for naught.
It's so annoying to see this meander through the justice system as if it's even a question. Illegal should be illegal no matter who you are or what responsibility you hold.
Agreed, but when you have millions to spend on lawyers, you can waste a whole lot of time with motions and other tactics designed to grind the progress a case makes to a halt.
On the other hand, while I didn’t think we needed a court to explicitly say that the president wasn’t above the law, it is a good thing in the long run.
If it plays out that way, I begrudgingly agree that it's necessary. There is always the possibility that the wrong precedent is set though.
I wouldn’t put anything past this current pack of whackos, but I cannot imagine the legal loopholes and twisting they’d have to say the president is above the law. If they set that precedent, what’s to stop the next president from literally just killing all his opponents to stay in power?
This was literally the line of questioning from the judge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/us/politics/trump-immunity-prosecution-assassination.html
Utterly insane argument
If you thought that was crazy, how about this
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/01/22/japan/politics/trump-cites-atomic-bombs/
totally non-serious reply, but your hypothetical reminded me of Frank Reynolds 😂
According to this article Trump has until February 12 to appeal to the Supreme Court
https://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/trump-is-not-immune-from-prosecution-in-his-2020-18650991.php
Great. Expedite this absolute waste of resources.
The Supreme Court has no obligation to hear the case at all, but they are free to take it.
True, but if they decline to hear it, then they are de facto saying they agree with the lower court ruling and there is no need to hear the case. That’s not quite as powerful as the full court hearing and ruling on the case, but it’s a pretty big signal on what they think.
Exactly. The thing to watch here is if they do take it up and slow walk it. That would be the conservative justices giving Trump another tactical win with another delay.
Alright, serious question because I can't keep all this stuff straight: Are there any legal actions in progress that could possibly invalidate Trump's candidacy before election day? Or have we given up on that possibility?
Yes,
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24
...
Be careful not to solve the Republican's problems for them. Right now the great pumpkin is their ultimate albatross, since they can't win a primary without him, and can't win a general election with him. He's effectively neutralized them by pitting multiple factions inside the RNC against each other, and he's giving the democrats a priceless opportunity to pick up other groups inside that party and bring them on board with the DNC.
Neutering Trump so he can't run feels like justice, but remember it also opens up the republican primary again. The entire reason Haley is staying in is because if a lawsuit takes out the pumpkin, she's instant frontrunner for the nomination. That will put Biden into a more serious fight than he'd have with Trump, and I say that knowing next to nothing at all about Haley. The mere fact that the RNC would then be backing a woman for president in that situation is maximum cheese. I will feel embarrassed for the progressives if the regressive party locks down the first woman president by accident. That's bizarro-world territory.
Ideally the pumpkin should not be jailed until after the election, to avoid rocking the boat. That way Biden avoids the fight. Normally I'm the guy who wants to see the field shaken up and enjoy the fight, but not while we're staring down a firestorm that could start a world war, where the incumbent president is handling diplomancy rather well in my opinion. Just imagine where we would be right now if Trump were still in office. That was our dictator moment and we dodged a bullet.
There's a time to fuck around and this is not it. Save it for 2028 and mean it, and let's hope we get that far without losing any more of the tracks this train depends on.
yeah...I wouldn't be too optimistic about this
I'm not just optimistic, I'm certain of it. He's lost the independents and without that, you do not win an election.
Biden has also lost the independents at this point.
He's managed a solid start towards economic recovery and kept the peace as best as he can, and he didn't drop dead from old age or stress doing it on day one like some republican caricature of reality. He put people in charge to handle things where he could not. That's a pretty decent display of leadership from a lifelong civil servant who has spent twelve years in the white house. He's the 'stability' choice in this election, and right now stability is mighty appealing to a lot of people who don't usually go in for politics in the first place.
Those people know Trump is not the stable choice. They will hold their noses and vote for Biden even though they badly want a better choice. They are not voting for Biden, they are voting against Trump. I'll remind you that Trump already lost one election to Biden, and he'll lose this one by a much larger margin.
Trump's bullshit has been on display long enough now that everyone can smell the rat. He doesn't gain suppoters. He only loses them.
I am not nearly as confident about this as you are.
I really want to see this happen. I wonder how many hardcore MAGA people will vote for a female candidate who's also a first generation immigrant (Nimarata Randhawa) just to spite Biden.
Maximum popcorn right now while Trump hides from Haley's requests to debate him. I guess there are limits to his affinity for the camera. He thinks that she is going to kick his ass, and he believes it enough to give up the camera, kinda his core reason for living. He's a lot less confident in his own ability to win than the people in this thread are. I don't believe a thing he says, but his behavior I do believe.
I haven't looked at Haley myself. It's like a christmas present under the tree that has no label and I've no idea where it came from. I'm expecting coal, possibly even a bomb. I'd like to find myself in the 'pleasantly surprised' category after opening it, but I just don't trust that party at all anymore.
A detail: Haley is a second-generation immigrant. First-generation immigrants were born outside the country and are ineligible to be President.
Most of the Trump voters I know aren't "hardcore MAGA people", but juet diehard GOP voters. I can maybe see her gender and background affecting her performance in the primaries, but I see most Republicans being loyal in the general.
I would like to believe you are right, however I don't think we have good knowledge about how sexist people are. (And in Haley's case racism could also be a factor).
In my life I have observed that women political leaders are more likely to rise to the top in parliamentary systems where leaders are chosen by people who know them, (party insiders), then in presidential systems where the candidate inevitably must ask strangers to choose them as the top contender.
I think you're absolutely right in terms of general trends. I just think that Republicans as a whole are pretty loyal in the general regardless of their sexism (and maybe racism), so I wouldn't rely on that to handicap Haley if she gets the nomination.
So letting a person who has engaged in insurrection and says he'd be a dictator on day one is not fucking around?
Nope. It's just guaranteeing Biden an easy win. If you want to make things a hell of a lot harder for Biden and for the democratic party by giving the republicans an actual shot at winning, go right ahead and take Trump off the board. The RNC will thank you for that, because it's something they just can't manage to do. In fact the only risk leaving him in the race that seems plausible is if Trump is on the ballot and some kind of health issue takes Biden off the board before the election.
Meanwhile, as long as he's a potential candidate with the RNC, he's going to keep their factions infighting. I doubt a single soul on this site understands the level of damage he's inflicted on their process. He can't even raise money anymore, he drove most of the RNC's business interests over to the democratic party already. He's a fatal cancer to that party as long as he's on the board.
Sure, you could take him off the board, and let the republicans all fall in line behind someone else, but then you're swapping automatic victory over Trump for a new situation that hasn't got that ironclad outcome. I'd be especially wary about a woman nominee winning the RNC, because she can and will pull legions of women to vote for her that would never ever vote for Trump. She gets a free pass to attack Biden on his health and age, too, which Trump doesn't because he's almost as old as Biden.
So, putting Trump in jail before the election is the absolute worst possible kind of fucking around. It's dangerous as hell with Haley waiting to take over for him in an instant, which stops all republican infighting, and gets them back in the raising money business. They will give you all whiplash with how fast they start paying lip service to feminine issues, and they'll pretend that they've always supported those issues. That's going to get them better results than Trump could ever hope to deliver.
What's more important to you? Jailing Trump this year instead of next year, or having a second term for the Biden administration during wartime?
H. Clinton's campaign pied Piper strategy in 2016 was based on similar logic.
As far as I am concerned, upholding the tradition that we have the rule of law and not an autocrat in the presidency is more important than giving Biden an easier win.
Trump in office again would be a unique disaster unlike the risk of any other candidate. He could win and we can't afford that as a country.
I can respect hating Trump so much that one isn't willing to take the chance. If that's the play, start preparing to deal with Haley right now (or whoever else it is) because people are going to take a long, hard look at that person. The republicans will play the 'reinventing ourselves' card once Trump is gone, because their base has a very short memory.
Trump taking office again doesn't worry me as much as someone not experiencing consequences for standing up in front of an angry mob and inciting them to use force to overthrow the results of a fair election.
Trump isn't going to be around forever, but letting that slide will establish a precedent that insurrection is a viable political strategem. Compared to that, I don't give two liquid shits about Joe fucking Biden's future political prospects.
We agree on this point.
I haven't disagreed with you, except maybe your reasoning for why Trump should be prosecuted and removed from the ballot. I'm not the guy you've been debating.
I just wanted to chime in and assert that Trump, loathsome as he is, isn't the biggest danger here.
Got it. I have not spelled out the several reasons I am in favor of this outcome. For the moment, we wait.
I want him to face those consequences, and I've looked over the lawsuits, they are coming. He is in very deep trouble. I'm just not in a hurry. Jailing him after Nov. 5th is much the same to me as doing it tomorrow, with a bonus prize of pure republican catastrophe for the wait.
It'd be even better if he got bumped out of just enough primaries by state supreme court action that he can never hope to win under the republican's own rules. All it'll take is some of the key states to ban him from their ballots, and they can do that. Trump will pick up plenty of write-in votes, but it will hurt his results big time. It's enough to bleed Trump's delegate numbers down, and give the other factions and candidates some bargaining chips which they will use against Trump.
Republican caucuses are really weird, it'll wreck their process completely. The republican convention may turn into a steel cage match where no candidate has enough delegates for anyone to cross the finish line. Normally at that point it's 'let's make a deal' time, and they bargain between delegates for concessions to get their votes in exchange for favors and changes to planks in the party platform. They are so gridlocked internally right now that those deals aren't going to happen like normal. Trump's wing won't compromise because the pumpkin will say not to, and the rest want Trump gone, won't trust him to honor any deals, and so are in no mood to compromise to him either.
Only reason I know this stuff is because the Liberty Forest crew (Ron Paul's fan club) broadcast every one of those conventions live in spite of the republican party. The various state conventions look and sound more like a WWE match loosely constrained by Robert's Rules than they do a town hall meeting. That was in '08. I think tempers within that party are just a tiny bit higher now.
It's going to be an interesting election cycle.
Yeah I just disagree with you. I don't buy your hypotheticals and I don't think the risks (losing to Trump vs losing to Haley) are equivalent.
I'm still waiting for a single good reason why Trump vs Biden rematch won't result in a second Trump knockout. Biden's up in the numbers and Trump is down. The gap is wider, and there are no numbers, polls, or evidence I can find that indicate Trump has ever even made a dent in that gap. I'd expect the rematch to be the widest victory we've seen in politics in decades. I'd place a bet that the margin of victory is double digits.
I envy your optimism and admit that my position is founded in fear, even as a non-US citizen. I'll add that I am aware, too, that I have an overdeveloped sense of justice that runs through my perspective.
2016 got me real jaded, but I'll concede that Biden is much less disliked than H. Clinton and that almost every political contest in the country has gone blue since 2020.
No matter how many times I tell myself these things, I'm still scared <shrug>
I can respect that too, as our recent political history has been far less rational and more fear-driven than it has ever been in the lifetimes of most people, myself included. I try to tune that stuff out and keep an eye on the numbers, though polls must always be taken with some salt. Biden's lead is larger than the weaknesses in the data to my eye, which is why I'm pretty optimistic. That can surely change, but it'll take some kind of unforseen shakeup to get there. I also admit I'm having a bit of a schadenfreude overdose watching Trump tear the guts out of the RNC from within. They deserve it, and frankly they've needed a reason to change for a long time.
Points about overconfidence leading to voter complacency are well taken, but even there I see a reason to be optimistic. People are pissed enough at their congresscritters right now to hit the voting booth over that alone, and then with the tension from all of the ongoing wars, I think we're going to see a solid turnout. Those issues should help hold back the apathy a bit. I'd still campaign like life depended on it, though. Take nothing for granted, just leave room for a little optimism.
Yes, there's some common ground for us: people are (justifiably) pissed at Congress, Biden could really spin up the campaign any day now, like maybe yesterday, and turn it up to 11, and one should always leave room for optimism. On that much we can agree.
One last good sign I can see is that Biden is raising plenty of money. The business interests don't care at all which party they support or about politics. They care only that their support buys favors. Trump's uncontrollable nature has prevented them from cashing in on it for some time now inside the RNC, so they are happy to hop over to Biden's camp this time around. Biden's coming into this flush with cash, and money is mother's milk when it comes to campaigning.
Yep, that's definitely a positive sign, cynical as it is.
Sigh. OK I guess I'll hope. But I blame you if I'm disappointed!
/s obv
I think that what many may fear is something like a confluence of complacency/apathy on the part of blue voters and voter disenfranchisement by trump-aligned states and localities resulting in Biden losing.
In that scenario it’d make sense to not want to risk it and preclude the possibility of trump winning altogether.
It's complicated. There's nothing actually that would prevent you from being a criminal, and President, or running for President. In fact, there was actually a Presidential candidate that ran from jail before, so we know that's fine.
However, there is a clause in the 14th amendment that says that people who were part of an insurrection against the united states cannot hold public office. This is not about a specific crime - the point was to remove the ability for people from the Confederacy to hold office. They were not all charged with treason or anything, they were just... part of an insurrection.
So it's not about a specific criminal trial - Trump can still be President, and in prison at the same time. But it is about the interpretation of a law.
It's fuzzy, like usual.
There are no serious ones. People don't like that answer but there's no way in hell any court is going to uphold removing a presidential candidate from a ballot without a conviction. The convictions and legal systems take time, until that occurs Trump will be on the ballot (and it won't occur until after the election).
I'm aware the supreme court is seeing this case, but I don't think there's a court in history that would do anything else. I could be wrong, but all the experts are expecting the same.
The Colorado and Maine supreme courts already made or upheld similar rulings. The 14th specifically does not state you need to be convicted of insurrection, the way the 13th for example does say you must be duly convicted of a crime in order to be punished with slavery for it.
Yep I'm aware of both those things, but I'm only referring to the federal supreme court because there's no way removing a major political candidate and previous president from the ballot winds up anywhere else.
While it may not say it requires a conviction, that does not mean a court will decide that it's too unclear to move forward without one, and again, that's generally the opinion of just about every legal expert i've read or spoken too.
Ignoring the current courts potential bias towards Trump (or even potential bias against trump depending on what you think they prioritize) if there's a remotely sane ruling coming out of this it's going to be that without a substantial amount of clarity and evidence, you cannot remove a serious political candidate from the ballot.
Trump, at this point, has not been convicted of anything close to insurrection, which would make the courts decision easier, having a clear example of him being confirmed to have done as such, and has not started a civil war that killed 2% of the population, having a clear example of the previous case when something like this was used (Ku Klux Klan act and Amnesty Act being relevant.). There's also a question of if the court has standing to make the decision or if it's a congress thing, although I forget the details on that part of it.
But it's not like the court's only 2 options are to remove him as a candidate everywhere, or overturn the rulings in Colorado and Maine forcing him to be on the ballot everywhere. They could also allow states to decide for themselves.
I think it's worth reading Trump's defense in the Colorado case and this amicus brief written by constitutional scholars and historians
Allowing states to decide for themselves is also extremely unlikely for a slew of reasons, the least of which is that it's functionally the same as removing him from the ballot everywhere as now the entire election will be fought in the courts of the swing states and voting will be a formality.
I personally think the SC will decline to hear this on appeal, probably with Alito and Thomas at least dissenting. It’s such a clear cut bogus claim that I can see them wanting to avoid getting involved, which would also why they could have declined to expedite this when requested. It’s not that I think the court has any integrity, but I do think they can be pragmatic at times and waves hands this is probably not something the pragmatic ones will want to touch.
Is it insane to anyone else that they're arguing that a president is immune from all law breaking? Like, I'm not taking crazy pills right? Our country was founded on "no kings", and yet they want to make it so a president is now a King above reproach. I'm glad that cooler head are prevailing, but anxious about what would happen if he were to actually be reelected.
Insane that they’re arguing it? To me, no, because Trump will do and say anything to save his own skin. I truly believe he has little to no interiority and no foundational beliefs. If the courts were taking the argument seriously I would find it insane but thankfully — thankfully! — none seem to be.
I am not surprised that Trump is arguing it. I am surprised that he has found lawyers to argue it.
Trump would argue that oranges are purple if he thought it would benefit him. But I can't imagine any respectable constitutional lawyer arguing that a president has complete immunity with a straight face. But at this point, I guess all his lawyers aren't respectable, which is why he keeps losing cases.
Most of the things the pumpkin does make perfect sense once you understand that inside his own head, he is the star of the Donald J. Trump Show, and it is the greatest show in the world, where everyone else on that show is just an extra. The only thing he cares about is getting in front of that camera so he can put out another episode.
The truly insane bit is that they can't fathom the effects if presidents were immune to ALL laws.
Biden could just walk up to Trump and shoot him in the face, because he has immunity. Or he could throw him in the deepest dark site to be tortured, because he's immune to all laws.
They really can't understand that the law would apply to ALL presidents, current and future. And they don't like the current president.
I'm not saying everyone, who you'd ask, who thinks Trump should be immune as President, has thought it all the way through. But some have. And they're in favor of it for a specific reason.
What you do, is you get your guy (Trump) in and include stuff like this immunity. Then your guy does stuff like arrest or kill off opposition. And the immunity, and anything you've managed to cram in under a similar "color of law", however dubious, serves to delay and confuse objectors.
Right now, if any President ordered mass arrests, or had a (Federal Armed Unit) carry out executions or anything remotely similar, the outrage would be pretty instantaneous and widespread. Shock and "you can't do that" would be the predominant reaction. Even in some "conservative" states, some "conservative" government officials, would shake their heads and go into opposition.
But with something like Presidental Immunity established, it gives people pause. They think "well, Presidents are allowed do things like that." It won't matter that Trump has gestapo kicking in doors, dragging out political opponents, disappearing them into jails where they never emerge from. At least, not initially.
Which would be enough delay to take over many of the key levels of government power across the country.
Trump is probably not smart enough to pull it off. Most dictators that didn't flame out immediately were either somewhat intelligent/clever/devious, or had people like that advising them and outlining plans. Trump is deeply stupid.
But there are elements of MAGA that want a dictatorship. As long as it's "one of ours", they want it. So it's not at all surprising there are lawyers willing to stand up and argue something like this.
These lawyers would go absolutely apeshit, like coronary event, if the Biden administration went before a court and tried to argue it. Why? Because he's not one of theirs. But Trump, he's a good one. He's the head of the MAGA movement. Of course Trump should be immune. He's Trump!
The only saving grace in all this is Trump is too narcissistic to listen to advisors. Bush W had Karl Rove, who is an evil, slimy, conniving manipulator with a deeply expansive resume of pulling evil, slimy shit off successfully. Bush apparently wasn't nearly as mentally challenged as he liked to play, but Rove is exactly the kind of guy who would seize upon unilateral presidential immunity to clear the decks of all opposition and take total control.
Of course there's no good, valid, just reason for a President, for anyone in government, to have immunity. Members of the military, for example, can be held accountable for following illegal orders. The situations would be tried, and considered closely, but just because the President walked up to a Marine and said "shoot that guy on the sidewalk", no one believes the Marine would be innocent just because, after pulling the trigger, the Marine says "the President told me to."
But if your goal is autocracy? Removing democracy? Then arguing for this bullshit is an essential step in the plan. Ensure he has the power, ensure he wins (fairly or not, legally or not, as long as it looks like he won) the election, and then start executing and jailing people.
If they pull it off, if they can manage to distract Trump for about a month, they could have the US wrapped up in a dark age before Feb25 is finished. There are a lot of MAGA lawyers who would love it. And behind them are a bunch of MAGA rank and file who would love it too. The entire movement is built on othering anyone who's not MAGA.
And others aren't human.
They don't intend this to apply to all presidents, just "their" presidents. If they successfully argued for immunity and a future Democrat were implicated in some crime, the exact same people would be shamelessly arguing for prosecution even if impeachment failed, in blatant contradiction of what they're saying now. They're not stupid, they're fascists (or craven fascist enablers) who think power is their right and that the rule of law shouldn't apply to them. For people like that, the hypocrisy is the point -- an exercise of raw power and impunity.
It's extra crazy because they're inventing crimes Biden "committed" and using whataboutisms to make it seem like democrats would make excuses for Biden the same way. Like if Biden tried to lead a rebellion against the government, I would be just as outspoken about him as I am about Trump.
The old saying "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" has really been turned on its head in the last few years. I have no loyalty to Biden, if he committed a crime, he should face consequences. But very few Trump "fans" will say that. And that's what's disturbing about this whole situation. They're arguing he can do whatever he wants, as long as he isn't impeached. When Senate Republicans said in 2020 "we're not going to impeach him, if he broke the law, charge him with a crime".
My personal theory is that the Federalist Society and the justices got everything they wanted from Trump already with his and McConnell's judge nominations. Why would they encourage a drama filled presidency where he has promised policies that will clog court dockets with litigation?
But I could be wrong. However, Trump is not the only transactional self interested actor in politics or the courts. He is super good at and predictable about betraying former allies, but these justices also have their own motives that are separate from Trump's best interests.
The Republican Establishment can't possibly want Trump. Why not? Because he's not controllable. They want someone who's drunk enough of the Kool-aid to listen, who they can manage, but not so much that they're actually drunk with power.
Trump is not manageable. Trump (and some other MAGA adherents) are wildly self-directed, and reluctant or incapable of listening to the Republican Brain Trust.
They can't have that. But ... they can't be seen openly, by the MAGA base that has become the Republican base, to be plotting Trump's downfall. Their best outcome is for Trump to go away, be that of his own volition (unlikely with Trump's narcissism), death (somewhat likely, due to his age and poor lifestyle habits), or forcibly (imprisonment in one or more of the cases).
A complicating factor is the MAGA base is becoming increasingly virulent. Extremist. They truly, truly, do believe their way is the one and only way, and any other is a disaster of biblical proportion. There's a not insignificant faction of the MAGAs who are willing to employ violence to get their way.
So really, only Trump's death is probably safe. The base would mourn, but there's no obvious inflammatory inciting incident. Unless one of the other MAGA "leaders" decides to turn Trump into a martyr, and whip the base toward that violence again. Which, presumably, the Republican Establishment would not be in favor of. But since so many of the MAGA leaders have direct, unfettered access to the base via social media, it might still happen.
The country is in the early stages of a dark chapter of history. All the people who might be able to walk us back from the cliff edges are just egging the masses toward them. Like those MAGA "leaders" who only double, and double, and double down again on extremism and divisiveness and othering any non-MAGAs.
What happens if Trump wins? Very probably civil war, unless he was somehow kidding in some of the shit he's said. If he starts arresting judges and prosecutors (along with Democrats, Lefties, the people who keep suing him, etc), ordering federal agents to into courtrooms and homes ... what happens?
They either do it, people object, and we're to the point where violence has to intervene to resolve the issue. What happens in New York if the state's national guard blocks federal agents (be they agents or troops) from entering courtrooms or houses to obey Trump's arrest orders?
Or the Federal agents don't obey those orders, and we have a Constitutional Crisis where not just a significant portion of non-MAGA, but now a notable amount of the Federal Government will be openly demonstrating they've lost faith in the president.
If Trump doesn't win, there's a non-zero chance the MAGAs are going to escalate in a direct, more confrontational and violent fashion.
And that's to say nothing of the stuff swirling around the insurrection court cases. More than a few MAGAs are getting it in their heads that states are allowed to unilaterally control the election in that state. What happens if most of the Midwest, and South (from coast to coast) decides to just up and remove the non-MAGA candidates from their ballots? Effectively declaring "there won't be an election, there'll just be a big celebration where the MAGA people automatically win."
Who thinks the country is going to stand for that? Will the left just shrug and say "whatever, their choice?" Will Congress go along with it? What happens if California, or New York, say "fuck it, until rule of law returns we're no longer participating in the Federal Government." What happens if Federal troops are ordered into a state that (more or less) withdraws from the Union? Do the troops go? What if they don't? What if they do?
Extremism is driving the country to the edge. There's not a lot of signs we're not going over. Violence is the base decider. It might not be pretty, or civilized, but it is what settles things. "Civilization" is when we all agree to fight with words not weapons. When the words have been twisted, or ignored, beyond any sort of agreement, violence is what's left. That's where all this bullshit with Trump is pushing us.
And the Republican Establishment seems quite content to just let it happen. They could've convicted him in the Senate. They could've orchestrated his removal from the party, weathered the "hit from their base" before now. They could pull strings to move the court cases along so he's jailed. There are lots of things they could've done, that they haven't. They're letting the entire country careen out of control just because they either want that, or they don't care. Either is bad.
The billionaires and millionaires willing to back Trump have forgotten or never knew how leaders like Hitler or Caligula could turn quickly against supporters based on perceived slights or simple mood or self interest.
The rule of law is a very important safety net and people in the US have forgotten or never knew what happens when we don't have it.
In short, I agree with you.
And this is why every home should have a shotgun. When some self-appointed MAGA viglante comes knocking at your door, it's gonna be a pretty one-sided affair if only they have one.
If someone wants a firearm for self-defense, they should choose one they are comfortable using. It could be a shotgun, a handgun, or a rifle. Politics aside, I’ve seen a lot of praise for AR-platform rifles as HD guns. Handguns are also still popular, plus you can CC them. And the venerable pump shotgun has a place, but the recoil may not be ideal for small shooters (and it has a limited magazine capacity).
Eh, I learned to shoot shotguns at the ripe old age of 10. While practice is required, a simple 20 gauge isn't gonna be knocking anyone taller than 4ft down, provided a modicum of training.
Way I see it, odds are average joe isn't gonna get more than 1 shot if they miss. The hope is that you'll take one out with ya.
Incidentally why I propose returning to flintlock muskets for home defense. :)
Four ruffians break into my house and something something...
In that eventuality, perhaps the CIA could use what they learned about crack in the Black community to place some strategically-located caches of fentanyl around the trouble spots and wait for the problem to solve itself.
I've read that if he can keep delaying the federal trial until after he's won the presidency, then he can't be prosecuted. So this might be all for naught.
Georgia is still waiting for him. But if he isn't declared ineligible, it's time to campaign as hard as possible.
It's already that time. Better safe than sorry.