Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review of the presidential immunity question, but set an expedited schedule for the review of the question with oral argument scheduled for April. Former president Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity.” As I mentioned last night in the coverage, legal scholars are hardly doing a conga line in celebration. Indeed, this morning had the usual voices attacking the Court as “craven” and partisan for granting review in the case. Despite the Court (including three Trump appointees) repeatedly ruling against Trump and conservative causes in past cases, the same voices declared that the Court was a cabal of politically compromised lickspittles.
MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow was outraged on the air and denounced “the cravenness of the court.” She noted that the Court took a whole two weeks to consider the question, ignoring the usual schedule of months of such deliberation. She added:
“Obviously, pushing all of the cases that they can push to a point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases. Got it. It is the timing…This is BS, and you are doing this as a tactic to help for political friend, partisan patron. For you to say that this is something the court needs to decide because it is unclear in the law is fragrant bullpucky and they know it and don’t care that we know it. That is disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court.”
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner dismissed the review as a political effort to do Trump “an enormous favor.” Kirschner also said that it was “clear” the court “sold American democracy down the river” to help Trump.
Mary Trump, the niece of the former president, declared that “the Supreme Court of the United States just reminded us with this corrupt decision that the insurrection did not fail–it never ended.”
In other words, the Supreme Court itself is now part of the “insurrection.” It is that easy. Once you start to remove people from the ballot by declaring a riot an insurrection, even courts become insurrectionists by allowing for a review of lower court rulings.
This is the type of rhetoric that enrage viewers, particularly when they hear no alternative views.
For years, liberal law professors and pundits have filled the media with dire predictions that the Supreme Court was about to carry out a long-planned “coup” and “power grab” — one even wrote that the court could be on the brink of establishing “one-party rule” in the United States. These commentators often ignore the countervailing cases where conservative justices voted against conservative causes and immediately return to these sensational claims whenever the Court is seen as a hinderance of their agenda, even in the simple act of granting review of a long-debated constitutional question.
Just in case you wanted to read this insurrectionist order, here it is:
The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.
The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024.
There are a variety of reasons why the Court could have put this on the calendar for further argument. While I still believe that Trump will not be able to secure a majority on his sweeping immunity theory, some justices may be concerned over the D.C. Circuit opinion and the lack of clarity on when a president is protected for actions taken in office. It is possible to uphold the lower court in its outcome but change the rationale or analysis.
The Court has not been particularly eager to reenter this area of constitutional law, but it may now be prepared to lay down new precedent and bring greater clarity for future presidents.
Oh no! Oh no! It seems that the 91 charges against Trump will have to wait until after the election. Polls have shown that if Trump is convicted voters might decide not to vote for him. The leftist are outraged because the one hold card that they had left must now be buried until after the election. They want a quick trial for Trump to happen but they had no desire for a quick trial for the people who were arrested on January six. They let them rot in jail waiting for justice. It’s obvious that they would prefer that the election could be influenced by Lawyerafacation without consent. Keep your rape kit at the ready.
I would not presume to rely on the polls on this.
Polls can only ask simple questions.
10% of democrats polled after the election said they would not have voted for Biden had the NY Post story been broadly reported.
I do think that story would have flipped the election.
But I do not think that more than 1% of democrats would have flipped their vote or not voted.
Thus far the lawfare against Trump is backfiring. It is making him into a martyr, and it is making those going after him look desparate, lawless and foolish.
The damage that Wade/Willis have done to democrats is enormous. It does not matter if the case proceeds. Further it has both raised questions and tainted the other cases.
The Willis/Wade mess strongly suggests that Willis’s motivation was both political and for personal profit.
It also makes it clear that Willis does not give a Schiff about the law.
She is the epitomy of a person that should NOT be a prosecutor or hold government power at all.
Oh yes. Here we have that word again. “Insurrectionist”. If you didn’t believe the Russia Hoax you were an insurrectionist. If you didn’t believe that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation you were an insurrections. If you didn’t believe Joe Biden when he said he didn’t have anything to do with Hunter’s business partners you were an insurrectionist. Simply put, if you didn’t believe this things you were a traitor to your nation. The question that must be answered is, are you a traitor to your nation or are the people who foisted these conspiracy theories on the nation in order to stay in power insurrectionist? It’s not a hard question to answer.
Really classy calling our president names. You are obviously of very low intelligence.
yeah, really classy calling our SCOTUS craven and insurrectionist.
be thankful Biden’s paid troll did not call you are a lying dog-faced pony soldier.
🤠
Where did he call Biden a name?
His comment was spot on.
Presidents are called names – especially by the left all the time.
That said where did TiT call the president names ?
Leftist’s here have shortest memories I’ve ever seen. Prosecuter SMITH petitioned the Supreme Court first. Prior to that, DOJ WAITED THREE YEARS to charge a single former president for past ALLEDGED illegal activiy. SMITH requested the issue of Presidential immunity be decided BEFORE Trump could appeal any guilty verdict. HE was shot down without his case ever being heard by the group he petitioned to request clarity. Today, the Court hasn’t heard any evidence, researched any precident, nor rendered an opinion, and has only agreed to HEAR SMITH’S original petition. Yet every Leftist is setting their own hair on fire for what again, exactly(?), granting a hearing to decide presidential immunity limits for actions taken while in office, while concurrently shreiking to anyone who’ll listen: “OH, THE HUMANITY!!” I know of no other political class who whines and screams longer and louder AFTER getting exactly what they asked for. Oy vey.
That other political class would be you trumpturd. No wonder our country is having such a hard time it’s because of people like you with super negative thought of the OTHER party.
Our thoughts are ruining the nation, not the wokesters with their arm up puppet FJB’s ass running the show.
The OTHER party, the Blob(TM), the Swamp(TM) whatever you call it that is killing innocents all over eastern Europe and the Middle East while holding open the floodgates to illegal immigrants from around the world and sprinkling in the decisive lawfare, environmental, and social policies promoted by obamma and hillary have nothing to do with the state of affairs, it is OUR THOUGHTS!
The reality is that you and your ilks’ lack of THOUGHTS is what is ruining the nation. Just like they ruin every place they get power, detroit, b’more, memphis, etc etc etc.
The left has NEVER made a good place better and always makes anyplace they are worse – ALWAYS.
They’ve EARNED those super negative thoughts of mine.
…you trumpturd. No wonder our country is having such a hard time it’s because of people like you with super negative thought of the OTHER party. — Anon-10:38
ROTFLMAO… Thanks for the laugh.
We would not have “super negative thought of the OTHER party.” if the OTHER party was not the party of pornography in elementary schools, for the mutilation of children, for pro-Hamas, a open Southern border, illegals and allowing them to kill nursing students, defunding the police and all those soft on crime DAs, no cash bail, using lawfare as a means of election interference, changing the SOL laws just to “Get Trump,” what else have I left out?
If the Democrat party were not so bent on the destruction of democracy in order to save it, we might have a positive thought about them.
Do massive numbers of people have a super negative view of “the other party” – certainly.
Republicans have their problems -= but their ideology is not corrupt.
The political left is corrupt at its core.
That is why it can not get on the right side of any issue.
And yes people have a nagative view – as a result of a long history of left wing failures.
Millions of people are trying to enter the US illegally – the vast majority are fleeing failed left wing paradises.
The left is in a bind. This is an obviousl political prosecution. The objective is to influence the election – outside of courtrooms the left makes no secret of that. Inside the courts they must hide from and deny those claims – because the presecution seeking to push forward in order to influence an election is grounds to do the opposite or even kill the case entirely.
Conversely Trump is entitled to require every element of the due process afforded him – for whatever reason he may wish. The right to due process is not conditioned on ones motives.
Trump is free to argue to SCOTUS that this case should not be sped up to influence the election, while Jack Smith can NOT argue that it can not be slowed to thwart influencing an election.
‘Left being in a bind’, implies they have some level of integrity and might one day suspect their actions today will haunt them later. As I see it, there aren’t any signs they have any intregity at all which makes them not the least bit concerned how their own lawfare today will play against them when the inevitable political power-flip happens and they find themselves in the minority in every branch of federal power. Like you said, they know they’re interfering with election law traditions. They know WE know they’re doing it. They, like legacy media and the Swamp of Unaccountable to Anyone crowd in every Blue jurisdiction, simply don’t care. Instead, they’re doing their very best to “incite” a hot war over political differences, as dumb as an idea as that is, with their clearly stated goal being one-party, THEIR party, rule over the masses.
I’m always amused at the politically-Left’s criticism of Trump’s appointment of three justices to SCOTUS (a number equal to that of MANY former presidents).
Perhaps Rachel Maddow should openly admit–on her televised show, for all to see, –that it was the tried-and-true Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt who appointed and got eight or nine Justices to the Supreme Court. I am forever thankful that Garland did not get there.
AG Garland has proven that Judge Garland did not belong on the supreme court.
We dodged a bullet.
It looks like duck, walks like a duck but the SCOTUS will rule not a duck in Trump’s case. There’s a good chance they will pull another decision that rules for one man, and only one man. Remember Bush v Gore?
What is your issue with Bush v. Gore? Or, is it only Democrats entitled to equal protection under the Constitution?
Bush V. Gore is a perfect example of a badly thought out rushed supreme court decision.
While I think BvG was correct in outcome, its reasoning was poor. There were 4 votes at the time for what is now called ISL – the Independent state legislature position – that has a constitutional foundation.
Regardless, it should be clear from BvG and the 2020 election and several other elections that our election process and the ability to challenge it is deeply flawed. That political parties being what they are will try to weaponize it, and that the courts can easily get drug into that politics.
We have a major constitutional political problem in the US – that the courts need to address – it goes far beyond elections.
Our govenrment is structured such that the political decisions regarding what the law is rest with the legislature.
The executive – is responsible for implimenting those decisions and the court is responsible to constraint he legislature to constitutional laws, and constrain the executive to the law and constitution as written.
Politics pervades everything – but by design our courts and executive are NOT supposed to be political – political questions are the domanin of the legislature.
But the left has mangled our structure such that control of one branch of government allows them to do whatever they wish politically.
It is not the job of either the executive or the courts to decide what the law SHOULD be – that is the role of the legislature alone.
The only thing bush v gore did was to somewhat shield the Swamp’s infiltration of the DNC for an election cycle or two. That and to keep an abject moron and climate snake oil salesman out of office. LOL, climate catastrophe, lolololol.
BvG was not the wrong outcome, but it was a poorly reasoned decision.
The situation in FL exposed weaknesses in our elections – we have left and right arguing over disenfranchising millions.
But by the arguments made by BOTH half the country is disenfranchised in every election.
The core problem that BvG exposed was how to establish trust as elections get increasingly closer.
BvG did NOT solve that problem it just decided the 2000 election.
We have had the same issue again and again since – with more and more close elections at every level.
In 2020 the left rants that dozens of court cases solved the problem – but just like 2000, they did not solve anything, the courts merely decided the outcome – rather brazenly.
We have a clear problem and we need to address it. Frankly though the court could do alittle – ISL is NOT a solution to the prblem, but it does confine the problem to legislatures where it belongs.
But real answers require constitutional changes. We must specify or clarify in strong terms how we conduct elections so that they can be trusted and how we resolve conflicts which will be inevitable.
What did Gore v Bush get wrong.
Keeping in mind, Florida Supreme Court ordered a state wide recount. Fishy, please use your encyclopedic knowledge of law to explain how an appellate court, with no case before it, issued their order for recount
It did not answer trhe question of how we resolve close elections, and how we establish trust in elections.
BvG decided the outcome, that is all. The decision provides no direction as to how to address similar problems in the future.
FishAnus, feckless Soviet Democrat Marxist Useful Idiot and election denier, tried this in hopes normal Americans don’t have memories:
“Remember Bush v Gore?”
Oh, we do! The Florida court – Democrats all at that time – kept allowing specific recount after specific recount, while the Democrats kept attempting to find the right combination of districts where the recounts would add up to victory. They WOULDN’T allow recounts of the entire state – just the ones the Democrats wanted recounted.
And finally, SCOTUS essentially said “that’s enough”.
Of course, I’m reasonably sure FishAnus never actually read Bush v. Gore, then or now after referring to it.
BTW, FishAnus, Gore was never, at any point, ahead of Bush in vote totals in any of those districts before SCOTUS put an end to the ongoing machinations.
I absolutely agree with you that a SCOTUS decision in BvG was necescary and that the BvG “thats enough, this has to stop” conclusion is correct.
The problem with BvG is that it did not address how we re-establish trust in close elections.
It did not address the problem of the courts role in elections or that of the executive.
A minority of justices at the time endorse ISL – which is the constitutional approach.
I would note that ISL does NOT prevent elections from being politically weaponized or biased or make them trust worthy,
It merely attempts to confine the politicization of government to the legislature where it belongs.
I think there is atleast a 50:50 chance they kick the case to next term.
Contra the left, this is not a slam dunk either way. I am honestly surprised they did not kick the case back to DC for reconsideration.
The DC court of appeals ruling essentially said “Trump is not immune, because we says to” it offered an unspecified balancing test.
Scotus should have simply remanded back to the DC appealate court for further development, directing them thatan unspecified balancing test was NOT sufficient.
Contra the left – the DC appealte court found every single argument Trump made for presidential immunity correct.
But they decided based on unspecified balancing tests that Trump did not have immunity.
SCOTUS should have told the DC courts that their decision had to be based on existing law and constitution and that if they were going to create a rule for a case of first imprewssion that they needed to do so much more clearly.
“Contra the left – the DC appealte court found every single argument Trump made for presidential immunity correct.”
Huh? No they didn’t. They did the exact opposite. You don’t cite the ruling supporting that assumption.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagen, and Brown-Jackson might want to reflect carefully on this issue in case old Lunch Box Joe is charged with massive asylum fraud after leaving office for his open border disaster. You can bet that they will be in favor of granting immunity then Jonathan.
I think there is about a 0% chance that SCOTUS says former presidents have no immunity for their acts as president.
I think SCOTUS in this decision framed the question incorrectly.
The question is not “do former presidents have immunity” that is absolutely the case, if you do not have immunity as a former president for all practical matters you do not as president, and presidents are subject to political blackmail with threats of later prosecutions.
The core question is how is it that we constitutionally define the limits of presidential criminal immunity
And what is the process for overcoming claims of presidential immunity ?
Those are NOT answered questions.
The DC appelate court actually fully accepted Trumps immunity arguments – they had to.
They proposed that immunity is overcome by courts, and that the courts do so by balancing interests.
The odds of that flying with SCOTUS are tiny.
I beleive that Trump is arguing that to overcome presidential immunity requires impeachment, and conviction by the senate.
I think that is a good argument. I think that is problably how it SHOULD be. But it is not clear that is what the constitution requires.
This is actually a difficult and important question.
I have little doubt that Presidents often violate criminal law. Much of what the CIA does in its covert action arm is illegal, and traces back to the President. More generally, what often is argued to be legal may not be, and is known not to be — just look at any number of Biden’s violations of the constitution.
Do we want a regime where Presidents of one party are routinely indicted by their successors of another party? For 230 years we did not have that, and then Biden broke the norm, and stretched the criminal law to do so. It is very unfortunate that this reckless move put the judiciary into the position of having to decide whether a President can be held criminally accountable for his actions.
The D.C. circuit’s decision is sweeping, saying that even a President’s official acts are not immune from criminal prosecution. This departed from Fitzgerald, which found immunity for official acts in the civil context. The Supreme Court could now overrule this judgment, and remand the case for a hearing on whether Trump’s actions were official or personal, or decide that question itself. The better way would be to remand.
Distinguishing official from personal acts is itself a hard thing to do. One question is whether you should limit the inquiry to the acts themselves, or get into the purpose of the acts. If it goes this way, the Court would have to define the standards for making this distinction. Not easy.
Daniel,
Well said, great comment and excellent legal analysis.
“Much of what the CIA does in its covert action arm is illegal, and traces back to the President.”
I would rephrase that (a variation your theme):
Much of what the Presidential Advisors (Think Tanks, Langley, and the Pentagon) does in its covert action arm is illegal, and reverts back to the President as the Commander in Chief.
Now the question becomes: Is there a distinction between: ‘Presidential Immunity’ and that of ‘Commander in Chief’s Immunity’
(Immunity of the ‘Commander in Chief) ?
You are correct.
And this question directly applies.
Everything the executive does – CIA, DOJ, FBI, DHS, … is the excercise of executive – presidential power.
When a drone pilot puts a Hellfire missle up an alleged terrorists ass – the reason that he is not a murderer is because he is activing with authority that flows from the president.
If that Drone operator exceeds the delegated authority given to him – or someone int he chain of command exceeds the executive authority deligated to them, they can be prosecuted – possibly criminally.
But so long as they are acting within the delegated authority of the president, and the acts is not so obviously a violation of human rights that it is obviously illegal, all subordinates are protected from criminal prosecution by presidential immunity.
Can a president be held accountable for an official act that is criminal ? Absolutely.
But no without overcoming that immunity first.
The question is NOT does presidential immunity exists – that is a no brainer.
The question is what are the limits of that immunity and what is the process for establishing those limits and/or for overcoming presidential immunity.
President Obama can be prosecuted for Droning Al Anwari. President Biden can be prosecuted for drowning civilians in Afghanistan.
President Trump can be prosecuted for alleged election interferance in 2020.
But they ALL START with presidential immunity from prosecution. And that immunity must be overcome FIRST.
SCOTUS can decide that presidential immunity can be overcome by the decisions of judges in the courts. Or it can decide that overcoming immunity requires impeachment and conviction by the senate.
The easier SCOTUS decides presidential immunity is to overcome – the more weaponization of executive power against past presidents and their administration we will see in the future. The harder we make it the more powerful we make presidents.
But pretending this is an easy question is stupid.
Maybe, just maybe, they’ve realized that if the Court rules a former president doesn’t have immunity, some of their lot’s acts while in office may come under scrutiny.
Biden shouldn’t have immunity EITHER.
. . he has practical immunity because he is a Democrat. If Hillary was not charged, no Democrat will ever be.
Yeah, Sen. Menendez wasn’t charged, right? /s
. . . not for political crimes. He is simply corrupt in the old fashioned sense. The issue here is using the law to punish political acts.
Pelosi and her cronies had the chance to punish Mr Trump after 1/6/2021 and blew it by running through a snap impeachment. He was acquitted. The FBI even conducted an investigation after the fact and found nothing to charge. The issue is not just presidential immunity, which president’s should have, just like judges and congress, in the performance of their duties. It is also that congress had their chance to remove him and failed. The present attempt to charge and convict Mr Trump is a do-over, to try to set straight the Pelosi screwup of 1//2021. The only problem with that is it now has become a double jeopardy issue. They hate Trump so much that, in their rush to bring him down, they made multiple errors that, in essence destroy their own case.
A rational person would say, why not presidential immunity? The president has to make decisions every day that will piss someone or some group off and could be charged.
FDR-incompetence in management of US forces in the Pacific leading to PearL Harbor. Failed to declare war on Germany after an American Destroyer was sunk by a German U-Bout prior to Dec 7. Imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese origin and on and on
Truman-nationalized the railroads with no such power
JFK-withdrawing missiles from turkey and Iran in order to secure the removal of Russian missiles from Cuba
LBJ-total incompetence in the management of the Vietnam War, including false premesis for intervening in the war
Nixon-for Watergate
Ford-for pardoning Nixon
Carter-total screwup of the Iran hostage rescue
Reagan-Iran Contra
H.W. Bush-premature ending of the Gulf War 1 when Saddam was totally on the Ropes
Bill Clinton-???????
W. Bush-?????
Obama-Killing American citizens with drone strikes and no trial, shipping billions of $’s to Iran and aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States
Trump-under discussion
Biden-Stupidity, incompetence, allowing a southern border invasions and giving drug cartels a secure landing zone in the US. Shipping billions of $’s to Iran,
Do you really want a trial after every presidential changeover. I think not, democrat or republican. Every thing you do in Politics and can turn around and bite you in the Ass.
People forget that.
Lastly, Do you really think Trump supporters, states, and others will idly stand by and see their candidate imprisoned. I think not.
I think Rachel Maddow and her democratic friends believe themselves to be avenging angels when, in fact, they are more like maddened harpies and furies ripping at the fabric of America.
And why do they think Trump is where he is right now-because of a run amuck Obama administration and the Clinton election people tried to run a soft coup operation to smear and destroy Trump. If they had simply accepted their medicine of a defeat and performed as a loyal opposition, the whole nation would have been better off. Maybe they should sit back and contemplate that.
Maybe Trump is the Avenging Angel, and I would be terrified of that because of what all has gone before. The Dims laid the groundwork, now they have to deal with what they built. Trumps people will never accept this if they use Lawfare to eliminate him from running. The SCOTUS may give them a graceful exit plan.
Judges and Congress do not get criminal immunity.
When was the last time a Congressman or Senator was prosecuted for leaking or taking classified documents?
Err maybe…
They have immunity when they are acting in their capacity as a judge.
But they don’t have immunity when they are outside of the courtroom.
Its less about criminal more about civil.
So a judge can be sued for sexual harassment or wrongful termination. But can’t be sued if they are in their capacity as a judge in a courtroom.
Take Trump’s case.
Engoron violated the same law that James used against Trump.
Engoron lied when he stated Trump’s Mar a Largo had a market value of 18M which is over an order of magnitude off its true market value.
So a future AG could sue him… except that he has immunity because he was acting in his capacity as a judge.
But that’s a civil lawsuit not a criminal one.
-G
Judges can not be sued for sexual harrassment in the courtroom.
Yes they do. Please read the constitution. They ALL have immunity for “official acts”.
It is rare for judges and legislators to have the oportunity to violate laws as part of their “official acts” – but it does happen.
While executive power includes the ability to assassinate people. Therefore we are far more likely to see prosecutions.
Regardless republican legislators in various states said and did much the same as Trump in 2020. None of those are being prosecuted for conducting inquiries into the election. For trying to “”overturn the election”
Why ? Because like the president that is within their domain of power, and because they can not be prosecuted for official acts.
The judges that ruled that there was no fdraud – with actually conducting any inquiry when there was myriads of indica of fraud – can not be prosecuted. Nor can the few brave enough to conduct hearings on election fraud.
GEB, 10 House Republicans voted for Pelosi’s “snap impeachment” & 7 Republican Senators voted to convict Trump for inciting an insurrection. Romney said some Republican Senators told him they wanted to vote to convict, but didn’t because they feared for the safety of their families. McConnell said “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.”
GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson warned that single-party impeachments will only further divide the country, but House Republicans just impeached Mayorkas strictly on a single party basis. If House Republicans decide to try to impeach Biden, we will soon see whether they will as many crossover votes as Pelosi’s snap impeachment received from Republicans.
Romney said some Republican Senators told him they wanted to vote to convict, but didn’t because they feared for the safety of their families. McConnell said “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.”ALL Meaningless twaddle.
So your claim is that because some republicans int he past were wrong, we should beleive something stupid.
The problem with McConnells statement is that it is arrogant and false.
The J6 protest was legitimate – and Trump is practically and morally responsible for that protest.
That it got a bit out of control is a different issue. One that the left has greatly exagerated.
The right to protest, the right to assemble the right to petition govenrment are all in the first amendment.
They are fundimentally important.
We do not want to stop [protests.
We do not want to thwart Pro-Hamas protests – even though they are inarguably immoral and wrong. Just because they are often violent.
We do not want to stop BLM protests – even though Floyd was a sad drug adict and petty criminal who overdoesed himself and the conviction of Chauvin was a miscarraige of justice that has knock on consequnces that are going to cost lives and property for years into the future.
Nor because many of those protests turned violent.
I find it weird – as discussed here recently that the left went Apeschiff when Sen. Cotton proposed using the NG to protect the WH.
and yet Trump is purportedly demonized for not sending the NG to the capitol faster.
The left litterally demanding he do what they said he was not allowed to do because now it was Democrats who could not endure protests.
We prosecute those who engage in actual violence in protests – and ONLY those.
Further where there is a legitimatge excercise of free speech involved, we make sure that the punishment is diminutive – not sufficient to chill free speech but sufficient to deter violence.
Idiotic claims of inssurection merely make those on the left look bat schiff crazy.
We are way past J6 2021. increasingly people se it for what it was – a political protest that got out of control.
Because democrats tried to make it into something more and pushed the false theme that what occcured was intentional, serious inquiry into what caused the loss of control have not occurred.
Instead those ont he left wasted countless effort trying to find an insurrection that was not there.
There were no firearms. The “plan” was to get congress to do its job.
We were starting to see middle aged working class people protest prior to J6.
That has stopped – OBVIOUSLY the J6 prosecutions have had a chilling effect on free speech and therefore inarguably went too far.
We have had numerous acts of political violence over the past several decades – in fact through my entire livetime.
Nearly all have been by the LEFT.
Please cite a recent instances in which someone actually from the right targeted a politician left or right ?
I can cite assault after assault against those not on the left. Actual acts of violence.
The right has villified Chenney, Kinsinger, even Romney, As well as democrats like Schiff, Swallwell, AOC, …
Yet it is Scalise that was nearly killed. It is Rand Paul that was assaulted. It is Kavanagugh that had an assasination attempt.
If elected republicans that buck Trump have to fear for their lives – why is Chenney still alive ?
SCOTUS long ago decided that first amendment rights can only be constrained when there is a “true Threat”.
And Threats that meet that True Threat threshold are rare. Because people threaten others all the time.
Almost none ever act. And nearly all who do are on the left.
Yeah right you are a card carrying republicrat. I’ll bet when President Biden was elected you did NOT coalesce around our new President. You seem to be educated but not in the important things of life. By using terms like “Dims” you are showing your own bias in the things you say. It is because of people like you and turley(who is making his money from faux noise…. Lots of it). What are you going to do when your orange god king loses….. AGAIN
Another feckless Soviet Democrat cowardly Anonymous Birthing Person tried this:
“Yeah right you are a card carrying republicrat. I’ll bet when President Biden was elected you did NOT coalesce around our new President.”
About what you’d expect from one of the Soviet Democrats’ police state fascist Marxist Useful Idiots… the ones who in 2016 showed their idea of “coalescing around our new President” was Mostly Peaceful Rioting And Insurrection in Washington DC on inauguration day.
The coalescing Soviet Democrats who voted for Soviet Democrats promising “We’re gonna impeach that motherf*cker” before he was even inaugurated.
The coalescing Soviet Democrats who paid for and wrote the “Russia Dossier” and then pushed that Clinton/Obama/DNC lie every single year of his presidency.
This is what card carrying police state fascist Soviet Democrat cowardly Anonymous apparatchiks posting here are: as always “one rule for you, a completely opposite rule for us”.
Proving once again, without hypocritical double standards, Soviet Democrats would have no standards at all.
@GEB,
Uhm no.
I posted this in a response to TiT, but the site barfed on my post.
The short verison…
Trump as POTUS could have declared an insurrection on J6 and called out the troops.
OR
Pelosi as SoH could have declared an insurrection on j6 and called out the troops.
Neither happened.
No one was charged under 18 USC 2383 ( I think that’s the right one…) therefore no insurrection.
Congress which has the power under section 5 of the 14th to vote and if 2/3rds of each house determine it was an insurrection, it was an insurrection.
(Yet that didn’t happen either. )
So there was no insurrection.
Pelosi’s impeachment of Trump was already DOA because they couldn’t show that there was first an insurrection and second Trump was part of it.
Had the Dems not voted lock step along party lines… there wouldn’t have been an impeachment.
-G
Rachel Maddow pines for the type of totalitarian regime that historically put people like her in gulags and gas chambers. She deserves was she seeks. She is a despicable serial liar and propagandist.
Rachel is angry because Mitch outplayed Harry. The Court is no longer the exclusive property of the progressive party. It’s unbearable!
Rachel Maddow is angry because she is Rachel Maddow.
Edwardmahl,
I would to.
But then again, most leftists are angry, miserable people.
Just look at all the comments from our leftist friends.
The only joy in their lives is leveling attacks and watching those weaker than themselves suffer. They have no effect on people that ignore them which drives them even madder.
Levels of anxiety and depression have been rising since 2013.
The rates of anxiety and depression are double for 20 somethings what they are for 50 somethings
They are double for women what they are for men.
and they are double for progressives what they are for conservatives.
They are higher among the elites than the elites than the working class.
If you are a white female under 30 progressive – there is a 79% chance you are suffering from anxiety and depression.
If you are a 55 year old conservative working class white male your rates of anxiety and depression are in single digits.
The left is suffering from the woke mind virus.
Coming from a trumpturd that is par for the course.
Another feckless Anonymous cowardly Soviet Democrat Birthing Person posted this in an attempt to get a response:
Par for the course for a Soviet Democrat cowardly Anonymous Birthing Person who gets wood in its pants and voted for Bribery Biden because he got away with raping an intern, had “inappropriate showers” with his teenage daughter resulting in her being ANOTHER drug addict and promiscuous sexual pervert, and kisses and fondles other peoples’ children in public.
Do we call these cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrats pieces of excrement? Or what we’ve always called these kind of people: dangerous sexual perverts.
Somebody should have told this thing’s momma to quit giving it her hair drier and the kitchen toaster as it’s bath toys.
SCOTUS should have upheld the appellate decision without arguments. By allowing Trump to succeed in his delay tactics is just another example of how Trump gets special treatment.
It’s not just “special treatment” It’s rewriting rules and law for the benefit of one man….Kind of like Dubya in 2000.
Fishstick, you mean like changing the SOL law to fit an alleged rape the witness cannot recall the date to include the year of when it happened and claimed the dress she wore when it happened was debunked by the NYT fact checkers as the dress was not made till several years later?
That kind of special treatment?
I disagree but I respect your right to be stupid. And I must say, you are very good at it. Good luck with your problem with reality.
Fishstick, what? Cannot deal with the reality and facts that is exactly what they did to “Get Trump?”
If anyone is stupid, cannot see the facts as they are, then it is you who has a problem with reality.
Did they, or did they not change the SOL laws to “Get Trump?”
FishAnus, rookie Soviet Democrat Marxist Useful Idiot party apparatchik, put his ignorance on display with this:
“It’s rewriting rules and law for the benefit of one man….Kind of like Dubya in 2000.
Kind of like the DoJ/FBI rewriting the rules for Clinton in 2016? Kind of like the DoJ/FBI rewriting the rules for Hunter Biden FOR YEARS, not just 2020? Let me guess: BBBUUTTTT…. MUH DIFFERENT STANDARDS!
I don’t believe for a second that FishAnus ever actually read the decision he’s already referred to twice today: Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000). Let’s give FishAnus a chance to actually do that so he can explain why he claims SCOTUS giving Jack Smith/Lavarentiy Beria what he asked for is exactly the same thing:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/
SCOTUS stopped the Florida’s Democrat Supreme Court which was attempting to change existing Florida election law to allow Gore to have recounts of SELECTED districts – not a recount of all the state’s votes. Some states’ Supreme Court got away with that in 2020… SCOTUS didn’t allow Florida’s Supreme Court to do that back in 2000.
BTW, FishAnus: at no time during the ballot counting was Gore ahead of Bush in total ballots, even after the selective recounts the Florida Supreme Court allowed before SCOTUS finally stepped in and said “Enough”.
By allowing Trump to succeed in his delay tactics
The court is responding to the Motion from Smith. Smith got what he asked for.
Proving that ‘giving them what they want’, is never enough.
Rachel Maddow has always been a fascist stooge with a microphone and most everyone knows that (fellow media stooges excluded from that thinking because….well, they are stooges).
Well you just described yourself! Such hate and animosity from you.
No, you appear to have intentionally misinterpreted the comment. There is no hate or animosity. It only describes Rachel and her fellows. Thus, to turn your statement upon you: Is your hate and animosity is showing? Or perhaps you are part of the media and view and disagreement with your view as “hate and animosity”?
If the answer is yes that a President has absolute immunity while in office, Biden could just have a couple of SCOTUS Justices killed and Trump as well.
But somehow I think the court will find a way to say only Trump has immunity.
“only Trump”? If the SCOTUS is anything, it is an institution that acts mainly by taking into consideration past circumstances, actions and rulings. Therefore, would it not take into consideration the criminal acts of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK and LBJ (among many) that were not prosecuted? Not to mention the prize in such activity won by Barack Obama when he ordered the execution of an American citizen without trial.
Ex Dem,
Thank you for bringing facts to the table to counter our hyper-emotional leftist friends.
This is a major issue with many view points to be taken into consideration.
Daniel makes a good point on it.
But as we can see, our leftist friends are having a meltdown, when they should be asking the Constitutional question of the subject.
But that would require objective thinking.
Biden could just have a couple of SCOTUS Justices killed and Trump as well. </i
You think you are demonstrating absurdity, by being absurd.
You forget Obama sent a drone after a US citizen and had him killed.
You forget Obama enlisted our foreign allies to send their spy agencies to spy on Trumps Presidential Campaign. 4 foreign agencies sent spies to the US to "keep and eye on" the campaign. "bumping" 36 Campaign advisors to Trump. One of those 'bumps" was paying advisor Papadopolous to present a paper at a meeting in London, where the infamous alcohol fueled night in a London Night spot meeting with Australia Sec of State, and the claim of DNC email hack.
You are not hyperbolic, you are just recounting past actions of a President.
When appearing on MSNBC with Nicole Wallace, I thought Michael Luttig was going to break down in tears. Both he and Wallace were so mournful one would think one of their progressive icons had “dropped dead suddenly”. Luttig provided no insight as to the actual issue before SCOTUS, but was more concerned with how the court’s action would effect the “Get Trump” campaign and the November election.
Now that SCOTUS has taken the case, the left wants the Court to craft a narrow ruling applying the “Trump exception” and state that Trump does not have immunity but their ruling does not apply to any other past or future Presidents. Roberts may try to twist that pretzel and give them what they want. It will be interesting to see the path the Court takes to reach their opinion without that ruling applying to Obama or Biden.
WTH we are talking about old bonespurs. He is a crook and deserves jail time.
Another feckless Soviet Democrat Anonymous pervert pimping for Bribery Biden, The Kiddy Fondler In Chief, attempted this:
“WTH we are talking about old bonespurs. He is a crook and deserves jail time.”
Should we be amused that this feckless Anonymous coward apparently doesn’t realize that Bribery Biden, The Big Guy, has more draft deferments than Trump – for childhood asthma – while The Big Guy brags (lies?) of being on the university varsity football team at the same time he got those deferments?
Here we see the Soviet Democrats’ adherence to their favorite communist, Saul Alinsky, and his book ‘Rules For Radicals”. One of those rules being “Accuse the politicians standing in the way of achieving communist government of doing the exact same things that you yourself are doing”.
So, when Bribery Biden brags he leveraged taxpayer money contrary to adminstration policy to get the prosecutor investigating The Biden Bagman Formerly Known As The Crackhead Kid fired, when there are over 150 Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks concerning money laundering from foreign governments during Bribery Biden’s time as Vice President, where Biden suddenly has unaccounted for millions of dollars he didn’t have before becoming vice president…
… the Soviet Democrats send forth their Marxist Useful Idiots to claim that it’s actually Trump that’s the crook. Not The Big Guy that sold America to adversarial nations from first the Vice President’s office, and now the President’s office.
Excellent observations, cfromthewoods.
I get the feeling that they are not interested in the slippery slope of the establishment of “past principles” and are willing to sacrifice any of their own should they ever need the claim of Presidential immunity or access to state primary ballots. We know that they disregard the potential of government spying and restrictions of speech and actions as something that could never be applied to them since they have been indoctrinated to think that a Republican or any other opposition force will ever gain control over what power bases they have established. Hubris and ignorance of their own ignorance are just two of their fatal flaws.
Anyone paying attention to the extent the Democratic party and this administration are going to “save our democracy,” a SCOTUS decision in Trump’s favor will likely be ignored.
True Olly, but the knashing of teeth will always be “theirs”. 😊
Then the 2nd amendment is appropriate
Bother the airy persiflage herein. Joseph Goebbels is alive and well and is supported in the biased media.
I agree with madcow. When Trump is elected, he can pardon himself and the prosecute obama for the capital murder of al-Zawahiri.
al-Awlaki
Both, actually
“It is the timing…This is BS, and you are doing this as a tactic to help for political friend . . .” (Maddow)
*Now* the Left is aflutter about the timing of a court case?!
Five politically motivated “prosecutions” during the election season, all designed to destroy the political opposition, and to help the Left’s “political friend” (JB).
Cry me a river.
The place to start on this issue. Lots of issues before SCOTUS.
The Constitution of the United States is written to Limit the power of the Federal Government. To protect the people from the massive power of the Federal Govt.
What Trump is experiencing is exactly the behavior by the Federal Government, the Constitution specifically seeks to prevent.