Trump did all of the following. It isn't debatable. Put forward an atrempt to put forward fake electors in an effort to not have the legitimate vote not certified. Put forward the idea of having military seize voting machines Put forward the idea having General Milley executed. Promised to be a dictator on day 1 Urged followers he knew were armed to the capitol and not be weak on Jan. 6th. Has praised the rioters who threatened to hang his Vice President as patriots. Has advocated using his DOJ as a tool for revenge to punish political rivals Sought to use his position as President to persuade other nations to issue false statements in effort to damage his political opponents. Has members of his own administration saying that he doesn't understand or is against the constitution of the United States. He has already done all of those things. You have the option to ignore and minimize those things, you shouldn't be surprised that others believe that Trump will, in a second term, choose people who will indulge his authoritarian tendencies over those with knowledge that are faithful to the constitution. It literally seems like you made your mind up without actually looking at his actions and the evidence, and that once your mind was made up, you didn't bother to look at the evidence and the record.
you making inferences about me, my mind, and what I've read, considered, and concluded? it is actually pretty hilarious.
I just mentioned the way it reads to me. It goes back to the J6 hearings when you mentioned you weren't really paying too much attention becauase it seemed like a partisan show. But most of the witnesses were Republican and even Trump allies and administration members. The testimony was sworn, etc. So you mentioned that you had an idea and weren't really following the evidence.
It seems like you would think my bet is easy money with a Trump victory. Why not take me up on it? I'll even let you back out if Trump is not elected this year.
Oh, I bet anyone $1,000 that no matter who was elected in 2024, we would still have essentially the same form of government and another election in 2028. Essentially, that claims this election would be the end of the United States, the end of democracy in the United States, etc. are total nonsense.
Many people have differing opinions on what we call "The end of Democracy" My wife thinks banning abortion is the end of Democracy I think having NY state tell me i have to have an electric stove instead of gas is the end of democracy. My musician son thinks 15.3% tax on every payout he gets for gigs is the end of Democracy. He also thinks people that play Ibanez guitars will lead to the fall of Western culture. So, there is that.
That's why I gave an easily tested definition. Essentially the same form of government (so adding a state or eliminating the Department of Education or something would not be sufficient to be a different form of government, so long as we still have 3 branches of government, a bicameral legislature, elected representatives, etc.), and have a Presidential election in 2028.
to return to the Trump immunity question . . . I think part of what I was driving at with the "unlawful orders" point is that a president cannot act alone--he or she must have subordinates who are willing to do what a corrupt president might order. And while a president may enjoy the protection of immunity (in some circumstances), those subordinates do not. This is the argument being made here: Even if the President is Immune, His Subordinates are Not, by Zachary S. Price https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/even-if...-his-subordinates-are-not-by-zachary-s-price/ Price writes: Such dependence on subordinates helps maintain the rule of law because subordinate officers may resist unlawful directives—and when personal integrity and reputational concerns fail to induce such resistance, legal restraints on such officers create an important backstop. Indeed, as Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her Trump dissent, even civil officers such as judges and prosecutors who are absolutely immunity from civil damages may still be subject to criminal prosecution, and unlawful government actions may sometimes violate criminal laws. In particular, one landmark statute, the Antideficiency Act, makes it a crime to willfully disburse or even obligate federal funds without a supporting appropriation from Congress. Because the Court’s decision in Trump v. United States relates only to the Presidency itself, it creates no immunity for these officers with respect to such forms of accountability. Accordingly, even when the President is immune (and Trump carries significant ambiguities about the scope of that immunity), he or she will often be able to take unlawful action only if subordinate officers are willing to risk personal legal jeopardy or career damage by doing so. These constraints should alleviate some of gravest risks predicted by the dissenters in Trump. For example, even if attempting a coup somehow counted as an “official act” carrying at least presumptive immunity for the President under the decision, anyone who aided the President’s efforts could be guilty of murder, treason, or other crimes (including state offenses that the President cannot pardon). Ditto for any attempted assassination of political rivals. This was the argument being made above by Elizabeth Robbins, and it is basically what I was trying to convey however imperfectly. more at the link
Sure we could still have an election in 2028 and a bicameral legislation. That doesn’t mean that our Constitutional Republic will be just fine. Russia has elections and a legislature. Even Rome under the emperors still had a Senate.
Except the President has pardon powers and can de facto grant immunity to subordinates on the promise of pardon. We know that Trump while president pardoned aids like Manafort, Flynn and Brannon. Further even before this ruling we know from history many have carried out illegal orders. For that matter John Yoo who is involved in Project 2025 while working for the GW Bush Admin argued that the Executive Branch could operate beyond the purview of the judicial when it came to national security.
Right, no one else is immune except the POTUS. I said it before: most with ethical and moral standards will resign before acting illegally. But it takes just a few shady characters with low standards. And with a leader who has disregard for norms, standards, laws, and very low morals and ethics, they often attract characters that have low standards, as evidenced by Trump's former associates who have been convicted (Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, Peter Navarro, George Papadopoulos, Allen Weisselberg, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Michael Cohen, ...). A POTUS with low ethics and morals attracts bad characters A large number of characters that such a POTUS attracts have been convicted and events like January 6 also show that subordinates will act illegally Such a POTUS has pardoned some of these convicted associates and promised to pardon others in the future, providing further incentive to act illegally As an aside, "in some circumstances" can be taken as limited. It's not limited. The POTUS has almost absolute immunity for all official acts, and for unofficial acts, prosecutors are greatly handicapped. This protection extends to former POTUSes for actions taken during their term in office.
I made the same point the last article that @Os Trigonum posted. I doubt you’ll get a response. Good luck relying on political / social norms as a check on Trump and those he surrounds himself with.
He likes people who will lie, cheat, break the law, or con people for him, and back him regardless of what illegal acts he commits. It's obvious by the company he keeps, the criminals he pardons to do his dirty work, and the criminals he lures with his pardon for favors power, or promised high positions in government. He's as dirty, unethical, and conniving as they come, and so are his justices on the Supreme Court.
https://thehill.com/opinion/4771547-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-rule/ Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity is more limited than it appears by Adam Cohen, opinion contributor 07/15/24 8:30 AM ET The Supreme Court’s new presidential immunity rule, announced in Trump v. United States, seems on its face to cut against the grain of the court’s recent jurisprudence. This court has deliberately curtailed executive power, has shown a strong preference to decide only questions before it and no more, and has strong institutionalist and textualist leanings. A new, broad presidential immunity rule, which is how many commentators understand its ruling in the Trump case, seems inconsistent with these principles. Something does not add up. Lazy and thoughtless pundits have tried to resolve the contradiction by declaring the court hypocritical or in the tank for Trump. But I have a rule that has served me well in my legal practice. When something seems contradictory, I assume there is a good chance that I have understood it wrong and should try to understand it better. Here, then, is the better interpretation of Trump v. United States, which fits comfortably within the court’s judicial philosophy. The new rule of “absolute immunity” states that when the Constitution grants the president “conclusive and preclusive” power — meaning that the Constitution delegates a specific government function to the executive branch alone — the legislative branch cannot make any laws, including criminal laws, to restrict him. So the president cannot be prosecuted for a veto or an appointment, for example. The president is also “presumptively immune” for “official acts” if a prosecution would intrude on executive branch power. To demonstrate that this rule is narrow, evaluate the argument proposed by the dissenting justices that a president who stages a coup, assassinates a rival, or takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon would now be immune from prosecution. None of these hypothetical fact patterns would qualify for "absolute immunity," because each involves competing Constitutional powers. In such cases, the president’s acts would not be “conclusive and preclusive.” Each would also involve unofficial conduct, which remains fully prosecutable. Presumptive immunity would be overcome for the same reasons. The specific holdings in the Trump ruling underscore this view. For example, the court held Trump immune for threatening to remove his attorney general if he did not comply with unlawful acts. Although this sounds disconcerting at first blush, the court decided only whether Trump is immune for alleged discussions with his own attorney general. The court did not hold, however, that a president would be immune for exercising the fearsome powers of the Department of Justice to extort state officials into corruptly overturning an election (the equivalent of a coup). Suppose the attorney general had gone along with Trump’s plan. Or suppose that Trump had used the military to stage a coup or assassinate a rival. In any of those cases, the court would not be assessing only the president’s removal power or his commander-in-chief power, but whether competing Constitutional duties, such as those involving elections and the peaceful transfer of power, were “conclusive and preclusive” powers of the executive. They are not. And the court could also find in those instances that Trump acted in his “unofficial” capacity as a candidate, not as president. The outcome of the case would thus turn against Trump. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote last year, “Other cases presenting different allegations and different records may lead to different conclusions." Likewise with selling pardons. The Constitution limits the president’s pardon power by listing bribery as an impeachable offense and stating that any party impeached and convicted by the U.S. Senate “shall” be subject to criminal prosecution. And the majority opinion in the Trump ruling wrote that accepting a bribe is unofficial conduct — meaning it can be prosecuted. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to spell this out clearly, choosing instead to be strategically ambiguous. He clearly worries that Trump, who leads in the polls and is being prosecuted under current President Biden, will follow through on his threats of retribution. Roberts wrote that the greater threat facing the nation is not a tyrannical presidency (for which there are other judicial remedies), but “an executive branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next.” Roberts is nothing if not consistent. Twelve years ago, as the fifth vote to save the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius, he wrote “t is not our job to save the people from the consequences of their electoral choices.” It is clear he still feels that way, and he is right. Ultimately, it is up to us to make better electoral choices if we want to get out of this mess. But make no mistake: the chief justice left plenty of room for a future court to distinguish the Trump ruling and hold a corrupt or treasonous president subject to criminal prosecution. Adam Cohen is a partner at Walden Macht Haran and Williams and was recently named to Lawdragon X’s Next Generation List of attorneys to watch.
U.S. begins dropping Jan. 6 obstruction charges for some Proud Boys, others The Supreme Court’s June ruling narrowing use of an obstruction charge for Jan. 6 defendants is leading to misdemeanor plea deals for some Capitol riot defendants. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/16/jan-6-defendants-obstruction-charges-drop/
