Delay, delay, delay. It's Trump's plan, and his SC soldiers know who they work for, and it's the orange man.
It's a corrupt court. Corrupt in every sense of the word from basic grifts to foundational beliefs. Anyone expecting a thorough defense of the rule of law from this court has not been paying attention. Political results are the guiding principle here. Plus, rumor is Thomas and Alito want to retire soon. If Trump does not win, they must wait at least four more years or until they die. They will give him every advantage they can.
I caught some of Mitch McConnell’s Meet the Press appearance this morning. He again reiterated that he doesn’t think a president can be impeached and convicted after leaving office. Trump’s lawyer has repeatedly said that any prosecution requires impeachment and vote to convict. Under they and McConnell’s logic a president in their last term essentially could commit any crime right before they leave office as it’s very unlikely Congress can rapidly impeach and then vote to convict.
Correct. Trumps own attorney is asking for immunity that would give president Biden immunity from being charged for assassinating Trump before the election, and he could threaten the Senate with assassination too if they dare impeach him. So yeah we are one vote away from SCOTUS allowing Joe Biden to become a dictator if he so chooses. Do you want Joe Biden to become a dictator?
Question for Right-leaning posters. Many of y’all have insisted that Biden has committed crimes and is abusing his power. The impeachment effort of Biden has failed. Whenever Biden is out of office do you believe he should be immune from prosecution?
We begin today with the former associate White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan, Alan Charles Raul, writing for The Hill that if the notion of “presidential immunity” was not invoked for the Iran-contra affair, then it should not be invoked now. After listening to two and half hours of oral argument in the Donald Trump immunity case, it is perfectly clear what the Supreme Court should decide: namely, as little as possible. [...] In what’s known as the Iran-Contra affair, conduct involving unmistakable official foreign policy powers of the president was subjected to intense criminal scrutiny; that affair actually concerned selling arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages as part of a presidentially authorized covert action as well as funding the Nicaraguan Contras to carry out a key element of President Reagan’s anti-Marxist foreign policy agenda. Invoking presidential immunity was off the table in Iran-Contra — both in the public mind and in the White House. Success for White House lawyers was ending up with a client who was neither impeached nor indicted — which is how it turned out. In contrast, it notably did not work out well for prior, politically motivated president who invoked presidential immunity to avoid producing tape recordings from the Oval Office: Nixon in Watergate. He failed in the Supreme Court, where the justices famously rejected his claim to an “absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” So, why should the Supreme Court now engage in minute parsing of various hypothetical circumstances that might or might not warrant plenary or partial presidential immunity?
