Members of FDR’s administration and the US military still could’ve been held liable and to my knowledge none were. For that matter many here and other places have accused Obama of being criminal liable for the assasination of Al Alaki and since Dick Cheney is back in the news GW Bush and members of that administration for detention and torture of even American citizens. None of them are being held liable and this ruling shuts off any possibility of criminal prosecution or even investigation of them. and again I’ll point out that even in a concurring opinion it’s stated that this opinion is so vague as accepting bribes could be an official action. So we have both the actual history of Presidents unlawfully detaining individuals and suffering no legal consequences and we have a concurring opinion that says the standard is vague enough to allow corrupt activity as official actions.
That really should have been a clue to you that this decision was not at all radical. Of course you cannot arrest the President for prosecuting a war for which he has congressional authorization. Concurring opinions do not carry the force of law. The majority opinion said nothing about bribes being an official act. Moreover, Justice Barret specifically said that accepting bribes would not be an official act and would not be immune, but rather that the actions taken in service of the bribe would be immune (per her reasoning, though I believe she is incorrect to suggest that "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to as assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune." None of that follows from the majority opinion. There is no Presidential authority to assassinate a political rival, organize a military coup to hold on to power, or accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon. The last she had specifically said was not immune paragraphs earlier, so her writing seems a bit confused her. Because he died before the decision was made. That seems an important caveat. Concurring opinions do not carry the force of law.
Except you know that not all actions carried out during war are considered legal and the detentions and tortures under most laws of war are not considered legal. This was the argument behind creating Gitmo that it was essentially a lawless area that wasn’t under the sovereignty of the US. Rasul v Bush and Hamdi v Rumsfeld did find that prisoners at Gitmo were held in violation of US constitutional rights. concurring opinions may not have the force of law but they do illuminate the issues and in this case they point out that the majority opinion does have problems with the vagueness of the opinion. Last I checked GW Bush was still alive. The concurring opinion raised the potential of a problem that bribes could be legally accepted without the possibility of even investigating. The main point is that the ruling is very vague regarding what are official acts and whether even if those acts could be even investigated.
Please make this make sense ... Trump accepts key endorsement from police union while celebrating sentencing delay on felony charges CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Donald Trump accepted a key endorsement from one of the nation’s most influential law enforcement lobbies on Friday by offering a sweeping indictment of the U.S. legal system that has convicted him of almost three dozen felony counts and indicted him in three other pending cases. The Fraternal Order of Police convention in the battleground state of North Carolina was billed as a way for Trump to pitch himself as a law-and-order figure and cast his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor and California attorney general, as weak. But in between remarks about crime and law enforcement, the former president and Republican nominee celebrated a New York judge’s decision earlier in the day to postpone his sentencing on 34 felony counts in a business fraud case until after Election Day. He repeated his false assertions that the U.S. election system is rife with massive voter fraud and that his 2020 defeat was rigged — arguments rejected in dozens of state and federal courts. He promised to crack down on “Marxist prosecutors,” and he seemed to suggest that domestic police forces could more actively prevent voter fraud because people are scared of them.
You know, and this is actually been proven, police departments do not want to hire cops who have a higher IQ. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
Not all police are supporting Trump. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4865127-law-enforcement-endorse-kamala-harris/
trump seems desperate or he is having cognitive issues, and I don't say that lightly, IMO the thought of losing and then facing charges is the real punch in the gut. Tuesday night will be a good chance for him to show the world that he is OK and can function in a debate, or he has a Biden moment and the whole thing goes off the rails. He is already starting to give excuses why he might lose, same playbook as last time...................rinse and repeat
Just another failed Trump business venture where his investors got screwed. Trump has lost $4 billion in Truth Social wipeout https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/09/09/business/trump-stock-truth-social
There will be plenty of blatant lies and fake promises. I'd put money on that. He will feel all emboldened being taller than Kamala, but we all know he has tiny little hands.
This isn’t that hard. The guy wants dictatorial power if he takes office. If he loses he wants a riot and challenge that can get Congress and the courts to allow him to take power unelected and then again… be a dictator. He simply wants his people pissed off and primed for a dictatorship because they’ve given up on democracy.
What’s with the viral hoax about migrants eating cats? Vance posted about it, and Musk is amplifying it.
I hear what you're saying, but I kind of disagree. He kind of lives in an off-the-rails M.O. and while he's a lot less sharp than in 2016, he was still very weird and random at that point. The bluster and word salad -- hallmarks of his public life for decades -- probably serve to effectively hide cognitive decline. Trump is to political speaking what Yoko Ono is to music. Who would ever know if she'd lost a step?
