When Robert Mueller appointed Andrew Weissmann as one of his top advisers, many of us warned that it was a poor choice. Weissmann seemed intent to prove those objections correct in increasingly unhinged and partisan statements. This week, he ratcheted up the rhetoric even further in claiming that the nation is “one vote away” from the end of democracy if the Supreme Court does not embrace the sweeping claims of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
At the time of his appointment, many Republicans objected to Weissmann’s status as a democratic donor, including his reported attendance of the election night party for Hillary Clinton in 2016. My objection was not to his political affiliations but to his professional history, which included extreme interpretations that were ultimately rejected by courts. Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005.
Weissmann then became a MSNBC analyst and a “professor of practice” at New York University. In his book, he attacked prosecutors for refusing to take on his extreme views. Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation.
Now he is predicting the end of democracy if the Court remand the immunity case for further proceedings.
Weissmann told MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki on Sunday:
I think that it’s important to remember that at the outset, the court had already given Donald Trump the win that he was seeking, which is the delay of the DC trial.
So going into this, this was all upside for him. I mean, I think he had to be thinking, I’m making this really outlandish argument, with ramifications that couldn’t possibly be squared with the text and history. The text of the Constitution or the history of the presidency? So it’s all upside if the court would actually bite on this. And so what was surprising is that there were justices who actually were taking this seriously. And it just was, frankly, shocking.
Remember, going into this, the given was that private conduct was certainly not, immunized from criminal liability. What everyone’s talking about now is, hey, maybe they think that some of this is private and they can go forward, but that was what was given going into this. And the reason people are thinking that is because there seem to be four justices who were really taking Donald Trump’s claim of criminal immunity seriously. And we are.
I mean, I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I think your opening is so correct that we are essentially, as Neil put it, one vote away from sort of the end of democracy as we know it with checks and balances. And to say it’s an imperial presidency that would be created is, it’s frankly saying it would be a king, he would be criminally immune. And that that is what is so shocking is how close we are.
And we are really on the razor’s edge of that kind of result. But for the chief justice.
Just for the record, it sounds less “like hyperbole” than hysteria. The justices were exploring the implications of the sweeping arguments on both sides of the immunity question. What they were not willing to do (as does Weissmann) is simply dismiss any arguments of official status on the part of the accused. That would establish a dangerous ambiguity for the future as prosecutors claim that political statements are private matters for the purpose of prosecution.
Ironically, Weissmann’s lack of concern for the implications of such an interpretation is reminiscent of his prior sweeping arguments as a prosecutor that led to the stinging defeat in the Anderson case.
Of course, there is another possibility is that the justices were not seeking the end of democracy. The Court was honestly trying to get this standard correct not just for this case but future cases. To do so, it will require a record on the underlying actions rather than the categorical threshold judgment made by the district court. The argument showed justices exploring how to avoid a parade of horribles on either extreme with a more moderate approach.
As I previously noted, it has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. That protection applied to acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”
Apparently, that immunity did not endanger democracy.
In United States v. Nixon, the court also ruled a president is not immune from a criminal subpoena. Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal from special counsel Leon Jaworski.
Since then, the court has avoided any significant ruling on the extension of immunity to a criminal case — until now.
There are cliffs on both sides of this case. If the court were to embrace special counsel Jack Smith’s arguments, a president would have no immunity from criminal charges, even for official acts taken in his presidency.
It would leave a president without protection from endless charges from politically motivated prosecutors.
If the court were to embrace Trump counsel’s arguments, a president would have complete immunity. It would leave a president largely unaccountable under the criminal code for any criminal acts.
The first cliff is made obvious by the lower-court opinion. While the media have largely focused on extreme examples of president-ordered assassinations and coups, the justices are clearly as concerned with the sweeping implications of the DC Circuit opinion.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted the DC Circuit failed to make any “focused” analysis of the underlying acts, instead offering little more than a judicial shrug.
Roberts read its statement that “a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws” and noted it sounds like “a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.”
The other cliff is more than obvious from the other proceedings occurring as these arguments were made. Trump’s best attorney proved to be Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — the very personification of the danger immunity is meant to avoid..
Weissmann is not concerned with the clear politicization of the criminal justice system by Bragg just before one of the most consequential elections in our history.
No, the threat is that justices may want to balance the interests over immunity by rejecting the extreme arguments on both sides. They may try to pursue a course that allows for immunity for official acts or functions while rejecting immunity for non-official acts. Some or all of Trump’s actions or statements could well fall into the unprotected category.
The sense of alarm expressed by legal experts is that the Court would not simply sign off on the absolutist arguments of Smith and, most importantly, allow for a trial before the election.
So how will democracy end if the Court adopts a middle road on immunity? It appears to come down to the loss of a possible conviction to influence the outcome of the election.
At the same time, MSNBC guests are also calling, again, for the packing of the Supreme Court. While conservative justices have repeatedly voted with the Biden Administration, it does not matter. They want the Court packed to guarantee outcomes with the appointment of reliable liberal justices. All of this is being defended in the name of democracy, as was ballot cleansing.
The problem with the escalating rhetoric is that there is not much room for further hysterics. Where does Weissmann and others go from here after predicting the imminent death of democracy?
Pundits have now predicted the creation of camps for democrats, killing journalists and homosexuals, the death of the free press, and tyranny. That leaves only systemic mutilations and Roman decimation.
For lawyers to fuel this hysteria is a sad commentary on the state of our country. Whether a true crisis of faith or simple opportunism, it disregards centuries of constitutional history in overcoming every threat and obstacle. We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in the world. To suddenly embrace tyranny would require all three branches, and the citizens as a whole, to shred an elaborate system of checks and balances.
We are better than that . . . and these inflammatory predictions.
Weissmann is spelling it out very plainly about the strategies his ilk uses when it comes to power: violence. We’ve seen this plan since 2016 when they lost against Donald Trump, and now we are their targets. Fidel Castro taught them after admiring him from afar. Now it’s their turn for la revolucíon
The Cookie-Cutter Campus Protests
There must be something in the gene pool of the hard political left in this country. Eventually, the violence arrives.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cookie-cutter-campus-protests-anti-israel-students-dcfdeb9b
Pay attention to this, you foolish and senseless people,
Who have eyes and do not see, who have ears and do not hear”
Book of Jeremiah 5:21
“To suddenly embrace tyranny would require all three branches, and the citizens as a whole, to shred an elaborate system of checks and balances.
We are better than that . . . and these inflammatory predictions.”
I appreciate your optimism and faith in our system, and, to some extent, people. I fear we have a bad habit of chipping away or trying to circumvent our Constitution’s elaborate system of checks and balances.
Machiavellian-types seem to make the best effort along those lines.
In the land of VPN, Wi-Fi waves and sockpuppet accounts screens, where anonymity reigns supreme, there dwells a peculiar creature known as the Gigi. With a diet consisting solely of sarcasm and disdain, Gigi the troll spends xis/xer/it days lurking in the depths of cyberspace, poised to unleash xis/xer/it venom upon individuals with different opinions than Gigi.
At the crack of dawn, our troll emerges as bug, from its lair, a dimly lit basement adorned with empty cocaine baggies and meth pipes. Armed with a keyboard and a surplus of free time,bug embarks on its quest for chaos. Its first target? The comment section of Res Ipsum
With a flurry of keystrokes, bug pounces, ridiculing the author’s intelligence and questioning the legitimacy of their sources. Each insult is carefully crafted to incite maximum outrage, like a maestro conducting a symphony of chaos.
As the day progresses, bug takes on another identity, presently that of Dennis but is the same troll of yesterday, last week, last month, last year, last 5 years, with scores of sockpuppet accounts, due to an appetite for destruction. Dennis ventures into comment boxes, spreading misinformation and sowing discord with reckless abandon. No topic is safe fromDennis’s wrath, whether it be politics, religion, or the latest court ruling on President Donald Trump, the actual US President and not the fake demented old fool aka Joseph R. Biden.
But amidst the chaos, Dennis becomes George in its twisted sense of superiority. Behind the veil of anonymity, it basks in the adulation of its fellow trolls, exchanging memes and sharing war stories of online battles won.
Yet, despite its bravado, George is a prisoner of its own making. Its existence is defined by conflict, its identity consumed by negativity. In the end, it is nothing more than a sad, lonely creature, desperately seeking validation in the void of cyberspace.
And so, the saga of the DNC Trolls LLC continues, a never-ending cycle of outrage and vitriol. But perhaps, deep down, there lies a glimmer of hope – a flicker of humanity waiting to be rediscovered amidst the chaos of the digital world when Donald Trump is elected President once again and exacts revenge on Democrats
I’m a Reagan Republican. Jonathan Turley’s right wing extremist views are on an entirely different planet. The moment anyone tries to defend Trump, who’s morally and ethically equivalent to Larry Flynt, is the moment they’ve identified themselves as a nutcase.
You just identified yourself as the problem.
So you’re saying it’s a problem to be disturbed by Trump’s lack of morals and ethics.
No, it’s a problem that you lack the ability to see evidence in front of you of an extensive organized and illegal conspiracy to destroy Trump, and destroy the legal system and the entire country in the process.
But muh morals….
Like Larry Flynt, who abused 18 year old runaways and the hid behind 1st Amendment rights, Trump is doing essentially the same thing and Turley is abiding by it. Trump is alleged to has broken NY statutes which are clearly spelled out in the indictment. Turley has failed to respond to the statutes, as have you and your fellow Trump enthusiasts. But you provide a lot of misdirection. Your insults don’t count as analysis. Nice try. You’ve got three choices. 1, lay out the statutes and provide an analysis as to why Bragg’s indictments don’t fit. 2, wait for Trump to prove he didn’t violate the law in court, 3, if he’s found guilty take to the streets as the violent Trump supporter you are. Our morgues and prisons have plenty of room.
Trump has done no such thing, but you are perfectly fine with the Get Trump At Any Cost movement, which is doing unfathomable harm to rule of law.
Bragg’s indictments are and were hilariously flawed ab initio, which is why there were originally tossed BY BRAGG HIMSELF. Magically, a Biden DOJ scumbag appears in SDNY, and POOF! the case miraculously reanimates from the dead. Funny that.
The charges are the crime in this case, and Trump is under no obligation to prove innocence to you or any of your other mentally deranged cult prosecutors.
[extensive analysis of Bragg’s bogus case is widely available – do your own work, and start here if you want https://rumble.com/c/RobertGouveia ]
And when Trump is exonerated, I do look forward to you violent leftists taking to the streets to FAFO and wind up in prison, or the morgue. Happy and eager to send you to either, or your preferred choice (full service firm).
“2, wait for Trump to prove he didn’t violate the law in court,”
WHAT? That’s not the way a country of LAWS works, Commie.
ALL political violence comes from the LEFT, Commie.
You spelled Pedo Biden wrong.
It is a problem to beleive that Trump’s relatively narrow moral and ethical problems equate to the borad and egregious moral and ethical problems of the rest of the political domain – such as the Biden’s
Yes, I’m saying it’s a problem for you to be so “disturbed” by Trump’s lack of whatever, when you do not seem to SEE how utterly lacking in “morals” and “ethics” Joe Biden is and has ALWAYS been. And that is on top of all the Biden policies that are utterly DESTRUCTIVE to this country, and creating chaos in the world. What are you deaf, dumb and blind, Mr. Principled Republican?
Look at the POLICIES Trump put forth. Look at the PEACE in the middle east and PROSPERITY here at home that MOST of the country enjoyed under Trump. Look at the policies Trump put forth. Then look at the utter catastrophe that is Joe Biden. Biden’s foreign policy disasters. Biden got us into war in Ukraine. He has NEVER tried to stop it, to negotiate peace. Over 400,000 young Ukrainian mean are DEAD because of Biden’s pointless corrupt war. 13 soldiers are DEAD because of Biden’s reckless, embarrassment of a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Innocent citizens are DEAD because of Joe Biden’s open Border policy. People are being killed BECAUSE of Joe Biden’t incompetence and corruption. We have one vote. Given what is at stake it could not be more clear. So yes, Mr. Principled Republican, I have a problem with your stupid frickin’ reason to not vote FOR Trump.
trump was president when about 1,000,000 people died from COVID. trump did’t understand a briefing where they talked about how UV light and bleach kills the virus. He thought you could just drink bleach, shine a bright light in your body and no more COVID.
trump was an incompetent boob when COVID ran roughshod and killed 1,000,000 people. Yep, let’s get more of that.
Oh how about separating kids from their parents when they cross the border. That is certainly a christian thing to do.
trump doesn’t give a rats ass if you live or die, he just wants your money. Buy more DJT stock now before it goes higher.
You are delusional. Trump had nothing whatsoever to do with “peace in the middle east and prosperity here at home”. Israel took over the West Bank–which is Palestinian territory– and moved in 700,000 Israelis, and it controls the government of Palestine and imprisons thousands of Palestinians–often for no reason and without any trial–which is the reason for the Hamas attack, and even if Hamas goes away, another group will take its place due to these ongoing injustices perpetrated by Israel. Trump had nothing to do with that, and neither did Biden. The Abraham Accords were nothing but trade agreements between Israel, Bahrain and UAE, who were already trading with Israel, which has NOTHING to do with the current conflict in Gaza. Trump enablers are lying when they try to say that Trump had anything to do with so called “peace” when he was stinking up the White House or that the “Abraham Accords” had anything to do with “peace”. There won’t be peace until the Palestinian people have the right to self-governance, free of control of Israel, which, BTW, announced it intends to “annex” more of Palestine–are they just supposed to take it? Then, there’s “proportionality”–1,200 or so Israelis killed versus close to 40,000 Palestinians killed, not to mention women, children and civilians who are starving to death or dying of thirst. Gaza has been bombed back to the Stone Age–there are few to no homes to go to, no hosptials–not much left. These are crimes against humanity, and will lead to ongoing conflict. Biden’s administration has worked tirelessly to get Netanyahu and his right-wing enablers to listen to reason, to accept a 2-state solution and to at least agree to a cease-fire to negotiate for release of hostages.
Trump inherited OBAMA”S booming economy–resurrected from the ashes of the disaster Bush left him, and Trump proceeded to trash it with his utter incompetence–tariffs, trade war with China and lying about COVID, causing the country to have to shut down because of new daily records of deaths and new infections. Schools, businesses closed and no leisure travel because it wasn’t safe. People couldn’t go to church and meetings had to be by telephone or Zoom. Did you forget all of that? How about the refrigerated trucks parked outside of big-city hospitals to handle the morgue overflow while Trump is hogging CDC news conferences and lying about the seriousness of COVID and pushing fake cures like Hydroxychloroquine, bleach and lights? This was the state of affairs when Biden took office–not some “booming economy” fantasy MAGA media lies about. Trump admitted to Bob Woodward that he deliberately lied about the seriousness of COVID because it made him look bad, but disciples like you refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of a leader deliberately lying about a contagious diease for purposes of his own ego.
Biden had nothing to do with Russia invading Ukraine–if anyone in the US bears respon;sibility, it’s Trump–who threatened to pull the US out of NATO and insulted our EU allies, emboldening Putin to believe that Trump had so weakened our relations with our allies the US couldn’t pull together effective resistance. Under Biden, NATO is stronger than ever and Finland and Sweden are joining. Biden’s administration has worked tirelessly to stop the Russian invasion. Biden didn’t start the war, but Republicans delaying approval of aid to Ukraine–at Trump’s direction–has weakened Ukraine–there’s not much Biden could do that he hasn’t done to get Republicans to stop their stupdity and to honor our commitments to allies.
Why on earth would anyone with a brain or soul vote for Trump? Why? He’s proven he is utterly incompetent, dishonest, a womanizing liar and racist, hell-bent on revenge. He tried to start an insurrection because he refuses to accept the results of the 2020 election. He stole classified documents and is on trial for falsifying campaign finance documents to cover up sexual liaisons with women; he lied on loan applications. All he does is lie, lie, lie. He is motivated purely by the needs of his fragile ego–not the best interests of the American people, which is why he intends, if given the chance, to control the DOJ, all federal agencies and to use power to get revenge because he got drummed out of office and his insurrection plot didn’t work. He’s dangerously unfit.
J pontefoir
Never seen your name before, but I smell a sea lion.
A normal person would enter into a discussion about a difference of opinion concerning a specific position expressed by our host. You dont.
So get specific and stay away form the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.
Come on, you can do. Where is one extreme position held by our host.?
Defending Trump.
The Flynt comparison is interesting though over the top. There is no doubt that Trump was a playboy and serially unfaithful.
If those are your criteria andthere is nothing wrong with that – Trump would not be your choice for president.
At the same Time Trump is also the strongest family man who has been president in a long time. He has good to excellent relationships with all of his children who despite growing up in the spotlight have all turned out well. They are decent capable and successful.
There are no stories of Trump showering with pre-teen daughters.
While I suspect that Trump’s children experimented with drugs not one of them has a 1.3M docller a year crack, alcohol and prostitute habbit.
None of them were having affairs with their siblings spouses, none of them have illegitimate children that they have tried to disown.
If you criteria is family values – Not only does Trump obliterate Biden – but frankly he does better than most presidents in my lifetime.
Sometimes Trump is described as a successful business man. But in fact Trump is just Successful.
Absolutely as Dennis points out constantly he has failed on occaision – BTW nearly all succefful people fail on occasion.
Regardless Trump succeeded in Residential Real Estate in NYC,
he succeeded in cutthroat commercial real estate in NYC.
He succeeded in Casino’s and gambling. In Florida high end residential real estate.
In Golf courses, in international real estate, in beauty pagents, in entertainment, in politics and more recently in social media.
Has he succeeded to the degree Musk or Buffet have ? Nope, But there is not a single person in this country – possibly the world who has succeeded in as many different domains as Trump.
You nailed his achilles heal – that he has been serially unfaithful to his wives. And yet despite that he won election – as did Bill Clinton, and he won over the evangelical vote.
Whether you like it or not he is both capable and formidable.
How many people have made their first venture into politics running for president AND WON ?
You challenge his morality and ethics – and I agree with regard to his committment to his wives.
At the same time – people who are not moral or ethical do not succeed in life. They Certainly do not succeed over and over and over in nearly everything they touch. Once in a while we have Bernie Maddoffs – but those events are notable – because they are very rare.
You do not succeed in the world without establishing trust with others. They need not like you. But they MUST beleive you will do what you agreed to do. Trump supporters Trust Trump because he has a track record – before and after running for president of doing what he promisses to the extent that is possible. And mostly he does not make promises he can not keep.
Trump is narciscitic, he is a braggart – though he has a great deal to brag about. He exagerates. All politicians do that. Biden is busy telling us we are racists if we think the economy is not great.
If I had that choice – I would want someone entirely different as president.
But we must pick from the choices we have.
Of the 21st century presidents and candidates, Gore Bush. Kerry. Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, Biden,
Trump is significantly better than all of them.
He is NOT Ronald Reagan, Though in truth he had a very successful presidency.
Even With Covid his economic performance over 4 years – though lackluster compared to reagan and clinton was good compared to Bush, Obama and Biden. and would have been excellent without Covid.
He dealt with Covid badly – and spent too much and knew better, But in truth there was nothing he could have done.
And Biden did worse either knowing he would fail or being so stupid as to not realize that.
Biden has the reverse midas touch – everything he touches turns to schiff.
Biden does NOT appear to be morally and ethically challenged TODAY – primarily because he is too incompetent today. But inarguably he has far more moral and ethical problems than Trump.
John Pontefoir – Wake the eff up, dude. Trump is frickin’ Mother Teresa compared to Joe Biden. If you are going to sit this vote out bc as a “principled” frickin’ Republican you just cannot vote FOR Trump, then you know what you are, right?
Remember when President Biden stood at his podium and told the unvaccinated that we are the problem and that his “patience was wearing thin” with us? And that we should just get the dam shots? And then he tried to ram thru his government mandate via O.S.H.A. that would force (read that word again: FORCE) ~80 million workers to take experimental shots against their own conscience?
And then Biden’s tyrannical mandate was stopped by the Supreme Court. Remember that? Yeah. THAT right there is when I said Oh Hell No to Joe Biden. Not now….not ever again. The man is a demented and totally corrupt tyrant. There is NO WAY he should remain in office. NO WAY. And this is only one instance as to why not. The list is long. Wake the eff up, Mr. Principled Republican. People like you sicken me.
And if you say oh but those 80 million workers had a choice. That choice was to take the experimental shots against thier own conscience OR be subjected to weekly testing and being FORCED to wear a mask. Tyranny either way.
NO FRICKIN’ WAY. NOT IN AMERICA.
You do NOT ever subject healthy people, with no symptoms, to weekly testing and forced masking in a free country — that happens in Communist China. But that is what Biden tried to do. Do you understand this Mr. Principled Republican? I don’t think so.
“It’s the [enemy], stupid!”
– James Carville
__________________
How long did it take America’s Founders to identify and declare the enemy?
Three years after the Boston Tea Party, the Founders issued the Declaration of Independence.
Turley’s assignments today are to : 1. trash Andrew Weissmann and 2. try to defend the worst and most right-wing SCOTUS in history that may be poised to let Trump get away with trying to steal the 2020 election by lying, inducing an attempted insurrection and getting fake electors to falsify Electoral College documents. Then, there’s stealing of classified documents. It bears repeating that Alito is on the bench because Gore was dened even ONE recount in FL, where the vote difference was 800 votes. How many recounts, audits, forensic audits and lawsuits did Trump have? And Gorsuch is on the Court because Obama was denied his choice of SCOTUS nominee by McConnell–who refused to apply the same rule when Barrett was nominated. And Kavanaugh and Barrett are on the Court as Federalist Society vetted picks because Trump was able to cheat his way into office, –he lost the popular vote. The Federalist Society is an ultra right-wing group that wants to force their values and beliefs onto Americans, contrary to the values and views of most of us. Republicans HAVE to cheat and play games to get power.
Turley claims: “If the court were to embrace special counsel Jack Smith’s arguments, a president would have no immunity from criminal charges, even for official acts taken in his presidency.. It would leave a president without protection from endless charges from politically motivated prosecutors.” Uh, Turley, WHY do you suppose that in over 200 years of US history we’ve never had reason to worry about “politically-motivated prosecutors” attempting to prosecute a former President? Could it have something do with the fact that Trurmp, a power-hungry, mentally-ill sociopathic narcissist and chronic habitual liar is uniquely unfit for office–that he had to cheat to get into office, that he lied about losing, that he went on “Stop the Steal ” rallies to try to stir up his fans to prevent Biden from taking office, including efforts to lynch the VP–that he still can’t stop lying? It has never been an issue in our history before–and the reason it’s an issue now is Trump and his unfitness to be the leader of the free world.
And, Turley, how dare you make the outrageous claim: Trump’s best attorney proved to be Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — the very personification of the danger immunity is meant to avoid..” So, it’s “dangerous” for Trump to be tried for the same crimes Michael Cohen was convicted of? Turley, you also KNOW that Trump’s motion to dismiss, based on the same arguments you are making, was DENIED. If the Trump prosecution was meritless, neither of these facts would be true–something else you know.
You also have the gall to claim: “Weissmann is not concerned with the clear politicization of the criminal justice system by Bragg just before one of the most consequential elections in our history.” Yeah, Turley, in addition to the fact that your “politicization of the criminal justice system” argument falls flat because of Cohen’s conviction for the same conduct, it’s nothing but MAGA-bait to claim that this election is “one of the most consequential” in our history”. That statement is calculated to drive the faithful to the polls, which goes along with the argument that real bad things will happen if Biden stays in office. Funny thing is, Biden has done a marvelous job of turning around the disaster Trump left him–unemployment and COVID under control, Infrastructure, Inflation Control and CHIPS Act passed relations with allies mended–but MAGA media lies to the deplorables and tells them America is a “disaster”–which just isn’t true. MAGA media spreads fear–“they’re going after Trump and they’re coming after you next”. Trump is being prosecuted because he broke the law. Turley, you really cannot, in good conscience, defend his theft of classified documents, falsification of election documents, and attempted coup based on the Big Lie.
If it were to come to pass that Trump were to cheat his way back into office–look out. Time Magazine did a piece on Trump’s “goals”, and they are truly frightening–11 million people rounded up and put into concentration camps for deportation (how much would that cost, how would that work, given that immigration law allows them to work while they wait for a hearing, and who would pick our crops, do landscaping, hotel and other work they do if they’re gone?), Also, he would allow a total abortion ban and states would be allowed to monitor womens’ pregnancies, to be certain they don’t get abortions. There would be huge tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations and individuals and more tariffs, which would lead to higher prices and more inflation. A second Trump “presidency” would mean utter disaster. Worse still, as Weissmann points out, would be if the SCOTUS were to somehow invent total presidential immunity–it’s the height of irresponsibility to give power to a narcissistic sociopath who has no fear of the criminal justice system.
Then, there’s the fact that you also KNOW–which is that the SCOTUS is supposted to exercise restraint–to decide ONLY the case or controversy before it based solely on the facts presented and then STOP. Their decision is supposed to be narrowly-tailored to the case at hand. The Court is not supposed to theorize about other factual situations that are not presented and how the law might apply. Gorsuch has the delusional idea that he’s going to write some opinion “for the ages”—totally inappropriate =-which you, as a law professor KNOW. But, you’re trying to pre-defend it if they go to far–which is Weissmannn’s point exactly–AND HE’S RIGHT!
Turley’s bought and paid for by Fox News.
Keep up the good work, cumrade. Soon we will put all Jews in the hands of Hamas and celebrate!
You’ll like that… it’ll being about your wish that Jews won’t replace you.
Stomp your feet harder and yell louder – that will overcome the lack of substance in your whining
well thats a long cut and paste.
Manners say your supposed to credit the author of the work you are cutting and pasting.
Great write up.
Curious to get your opinion about Weismann.
Is he gay as gay can be?
I mean we KNOW he’s married and all, but come one, he’s SO gay, right?
Why not ask woman he’s married to? But, even if he were gay—so what? Are you one of those homophobic dumb access?
No, not homophobic, but the guy comes across as SO gay, such that it is really hard to listen to him spouting off about whatever, and not think, “OMG is this guy totally gay, or what?” So what if he’s married to a woman. That means nothing.
The primary issue, though, is that Weismann should be one of the first to be convicted and do actual prison time for the massive criminal conspiracies he has been a part of and masterminded. Lock him up. If there is justice in America, Weismann is going to prison.
You say: “Gore was dened even ONE recount in FL”. Did you just fall off the turnip truck? Gore got a state-wide recount by law on the day after the election, and the totals were almost exactly the same.
Edward: if you know anything about the Florida case, you know that those FL counties that used voting machines couldn’t recount punch-card ballots because of hanging chads –about 31,000 votes. “Bush v. Gore” excerpted from Wikipedia:
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida’s 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida’s counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately.[1] On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay, with Scalia citing “irreparable harm” that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast “a needless and unjustified cloud” over Bush’s legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.”[1] Oral arguments were scheduled for December 11.
In a 5–4 per curiam decision, the Court ruled, strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, it held that the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution; the case had also been argued on Article II jurisdictional grounds, which found favor with only Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist. The Court then ruled as to a remedy, deciding against the remedy proposed by Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter to send the case back to Florida to complete the recount using a uniform statewide standard before the scheduled December 18 meeting of Florida’s electors in Tallahassee.[1] Instead, the majority held that no alternative method could be established within the discretionary December 12 “safe harbor” deadline set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5, which the Florida Supreme Court had stated that the Florida Legislature intended to meet.[2] The Court, holding that not meeting the “safe harbor” deadline would violate the Florida Election Code, rejected an extension of the deadline to allow the Florida court to finish counting disputed ballots under uniform guidelines requested in a remedy proposed by Breyer and Souter. That deadline arrived two hours after the release of the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore was among the most controversial in U.S. history, as it allowed the vote certification made by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to stand, giving Bush Florida’s 25 electoral votes. Florida’s votes gave Bush, the Republican nominee, 271 electoral votes, one more than the 270 required to win the Electoral College. This meant the defeat of Democratic candidate Al Gore, who won 267 electoral votes but received 266, as a “faithless elector” from the District of Columbia abstained from voting. Media organizations later analyzed the ballots and found that, under specified criteria, the original, limited recount of undervotes of several large counties would have resulted in a Bush victory, though a statewide recount would have shown that Gore received the most votes. Florida later retired the punch-card voting machines that produced the ballots disputed in the case.[3][4][5].
Gore really won, but thanks to the SCOTUS, we got Bush, and he nominated Alito. Again Republicans circumventing the will of the American people.
Once you claimed cohen was convicted of the same crime you lost all credibility
Cohen WAS convicted of the same crimes, and one of your MAGA media outlets–OAN to be exact, claimed that it was really COHEN who had sex with Stormy Daniels. It was forced to retract this lie and apologize. I’ll bet Hannity didn’t mention that one.
“The Court is not supposed to theorize about other factual situations that are not presented and how the law might apply.”
It is hard to know how to respond to such, well — nonsense.
Hypotheticals are essential to the practice of law and to judicial deliberation — especially for the Supreme Court. SC justices are not supposed to stare at a piece of bark on a tree in a forest. They are laying down the “law of the land,” which requires *generality* — which requires hypotheticals.
Dear Sam: the CONSTITUTION limits the authority of the SCOTUS to making decisions based solely actual facts and cases in front of it–the “Case or Controversy Clause” of Article III. Excerpted from Wikipedia:
“The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.[1]
In this context, “controversy” means an actual dispute between the parties.[2]”
So the Constitution specifically forbids advisory opinions based on “hypotheticals”–something Turley does or should know.
The time has come for Trump and all of his campaign advisors and legal team members to be imprisoned. This extreme measure is necessary to preserve freedom, liberty, and our democracy. Members of the Hamas Youth causing violence and disruption on college campuses agree that this is necessary. Dennis and George are also in strong support of these actions.
Uh-huh. It’s only interference if democrats lose. This is beyond madness, I hope they enjoy losing, because nobody sane is supporting dems at this point. There has been ample opportunity for them to return to sanity; they just refuse. i sincerely, with my whole heart, hope their ‘party’, implodes. Modern dems are absolutely the modern aristocracy, and most of ud hope we can resolve this with votes rather than sending heads into the street.
Typos galore. 🙄 Sorry.
The Republican party already imploded. All that’s left are a bunch of whiners and complainers rolling in their and Trump’s victimhood. And if you want to suggest violence, America’s prisons and morgues are seeing a lull these days. I wouldn’t mind seeing violent Trumpsters — as many of them are — behind bars.
Seems like the ones engaging in violence are you totalitarian leftists.
That will only get you so far.
Pro tip: We have all the weapons
Andrew Weissmann is a direct and mortal enemy of the Restricted-Vote Republic given to Americans by Ben Franklin, the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,, actual Americans and America.
“I think the real danger to the country is the progressive agenda.”
“A continuation of the Biden administration is national suicide.”
“I will vote the Republican ticket. I will support the Republican ticket.”
– Former Attorney General William Pelham Barr
Fox News contributor Turley is well aware Trump Administration advisors & officials have called Trump a threat to democracy.
Trump’s Defence Secretary, Mark Esper: “Yes, I do regard him as a threat to democracy, democracy as we know it, our institutions, our political culture, all those things that make America great “
Trump’s Chief of Staff, General Kelly: “He has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and our rule of law.”
Trump’s Communications Director, Alyssa Farah Griffin: “He is a threat to democracy, and I will never support him.”
While Turley accuses Andrew Weissmann of fueling hysteria, he predictably exhibits no recognizable concerns about Trump’s ongoing inflammatory hysteria.
Trump: “If we don’t win this election, I don’t think you’re going to have another election in this country. Our country is being destroyed. And the only thing standing between you and its obliteration is me.”
Turley undoubtedly gives Trump a pass for predicting that if he doesn’t win the election “we won’t have a country anymore” because the Professor doesn’t want to risk alienating his most ardent supporters here on his website.
And none of those officials cite any example of Trump undermining or threatening rule of law, but rather expose themselves as guardians of institutional corruption given sunlight by Trump.
Poor staffing choices, certainly, but it is not Trump undermining rule of law: they are.
“none of those officials cite any example of Trump undermining or threatening rule of law” Their examples are readily available & include refusing to accept the peaceful tansfer of power, relentlessly making false claims about widespread voter fraud & attacking Republican governors & secretaries of state for certifying election results after multiple recounts.
What are your examples of Trump administration advisors & officials undermining & threatening the rule of law?
Hey, why judge a president by his closest hand-picked advisors who know him best, right?
attacking Republican governors & secretaries of state for certifying election results after multiple recounts
Just using Georgia as an example.
Georgia violate numerous state election laws in handling and counting ballots. Those violation of laws invalidated the election. Just one example. Georgia did zero signature verification one 100’s of thousands of ballots. Those ballots should not have been counted, but the were, and corrupted the election. So yes, those elections should not have been certified. That would have thrown the election of EC voters to the Georgia legislature, as provided for in the State Constitution. That is something the President of the United States can comment on.
iowan2, Georgia ballots were recounted 3 times & Republican election official verified Biden won by 12,670 legal votes. A federal judge dismissed Sidney Powell’s lawsuit alleging widespread voter fraud in Georgia.
Last year, Trump attorney, Jenna Ellis, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting false statements and writings about Georgia’s 2020 election. In court, Ellis said “In the frenetic pace of attempting to raise challenges to the election in several states including Georgia, I failed to do my due diligence. I believe in and I value election integrity. If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges.”
It’s hardly surprising to hear Trump supporters still attacking US election officials 3 1/2 years after Trump lost the election. Do you also believe the Georgia Senate runoffs on January 5, 2021 won by Warnock & Ossoff were corrupted elections, iowan2?
So you just ignore the violation of signature verification required by law.
There is also the absence of chain of custody of absentee ballots.
Those two things invalidated the vote. The secretary of state should never have certified the vote.
Those are valid objection to the election.
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=542617
Trump did not refuse the peaceful transfer of power nor did he lie about factual widespread voter fraud
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=542617
Esper & Milley violated National Command Authority several times. Other Trump advisors did similar end-runs illegally, which resulted in poor decisions and multiple legal violations within the administration.
You are lying about the historical and legal record, which is extremely dangerous. YOu are brainwashed and must be removed from voting.
Trump followed the rule of law while Pelosi violated it to create a faux story to promote a coup. Its all available online for Democrats to read at their favorite website
http://www.chατυrbate.com/demsrρedophiles
“You are lying about the historical and legal record, which is extremely dangerous. YOu are brainwashed and must be removed from voting.” Funniest comment I’ve read this week. The historical & legal record shows Trump lost the 2020 election by 7 million votes & his attorneys lost over 50 lawsuits alleging election integrity issues.
Duly noted your utter contempt for US election officals & US judges & courts.
No, the historical and legal record shows Trump won, and that widespread voter fraud was in fact present.
Further, there were 92 election-related cases, with only 30 decided on the merits, and of those 30, Trump and/or the GOP plaintiff prevailed in 22 of them
https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm
But you got the total contempt for election “officials” and “judges” and “courts” part right. Good job, dimwit?
Anonymous: you are WRONG! There was no “merit” to the cases Trump lost. I don’t know what MAGA-media you rely on, but they’re lying to you. Trump was predicted to lose in 2020, and he did.
Entirely wrong. The legal record contradicts you.
Yell louder.
“No, the historical and legal record shows Trump won, and that widespread voter fraud was in fact present.” Feel free to offer links to the historical records & history books which show Trump won.
Hate to break the news, big boy, but the election related cases you’re citing didn’t alter the Electoral College results which were ceritfied by Congress on January 6, 2021.
Citations already provided, please learn how to read.
Hate to break it to you, but Congress certified a fraudulent election, and election challenges and multiple slates of electors are perfectly legal, contrary to your illegal actions against Trump and alternate electors (“fake electors” do not exist).
“Congress certified a fraudulent election…the historical and legal record shows Trump won, and that widespread voter fraud was in fact present.” These false narratives undoubtedly reflect the sentiments of Turley’s strongest defenders. Which is obviously why the Professor is on safe ground when he remains laser focused on political targets like Andrew Weissmann,
Turley is a waffler who pretends not to see things, just as the tyrannical left pretends that Biden “won” and that Trump has committed crimes.
And if you’re defending criminal Weissmann, you’re losing.
“…none of those officials cite any example of Trump undermining or threatening rule of law…”
At some point, this kind of BS right wing extremist lying protocol, in which you just blurt out what you wish to be true to “prove” a point will no longer work. My sense is it will no longer work when Trump is finally convicted. Yes, these knuckleheads will come back by saying, as if it’s overwhelmingly true, that there was no evidence presented in court, despite volumes of evidence being presented. They will ignore what actually happened. But when their sleazy used car salesman leader finally faces accountability, this will recede back into their National Enquirer, Hustler, etc. world.
Reality is 180 degrees from your false narrative.
When Trump is exonerated, and prosecutions of you lawless leftists has begun (including many “judges” and prosecutors), then the fun will begin as actual evidence is presented in actual proceedings using non-corrupt non-DC and NY juries, and massive conspiracy cases are brought against most of your “leadership.”
You lawless leftists are scared to death of this eventuality. You need to be.
Fox News contributor Turley is well aware Trump Administration advisors & officials have called Trump a threat to democracy.
More lies of omision.,
Do you have a date on those statements? The passage of time is informative.
We do have a Statement from AG Bill Barr from just a few days ago.
With the knowledge of the history of the last 8 years. Comparing the Actions and agendas of President Trump and Obama puppet Biden. Barr concludes Trump is vastly superior at preserving the United States of America.
Bill Barr: “You may want his policies, but Trump will not deliver Trump policies. He will deliver chaos and, if anything, lead to a backlash that will set his policies much further back than they otherwise would be.”
Mike Pence, March 5, 2024: “It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year. I made it clear there were profound differences between me and President Trump on a range of issues. And not just our differences on our constitutional duties that I exercised on Jan. 6.”
Mark Esper, January 6, 2024 “And yes, I do regard him as a threat to democracy, democracy as we know it, our institutions, our political culture, all those things that make America great and have defined us as, you know, the oldest democracy on this planet.”
Alysaa Farah Griffin, December 31, 2023: “Fundamentally a second Trump term could mean the end of American democracy as we know it,”
Bill Barr announced he will vote for Trump, and Pence will as well. Esper is having trouble saying what he will do, but he won’t vote for Biden. The best part of Alyssa Farah Griffin is her legs. She looks more appropriate in a mini-skirt than reading a book.
“…a threat to democracy…” Have heard or read it a zillion times, and every time, the person espousing this so-called threat, is referring to anyone on the right side of the political equation.
In reality, what they are saying is that those they oppose are not really a “…threat to democracy…”, but a “…threat to DEMOCRATcy…”
RFK Jr., who is a Democrat, says that Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump. Trump is a threat to Democrats, not democracy.
edwardmahl, RFK Jr. has lost his marbles.
Weissmann is an extreme criminal who must pay an extreme price for his intransigence.
Floyd Estovir, your comment here is exactly the reason people fear a return of Donald Trump. The prospect of stupid yahoo’s wanting to ‘even the score’ with liberals is unsettling to more than half the country.
Who or what is Floyd Estovir?
The score will be “evened” and more, regardless of who wins in November.
The Rubicon of political prosecution and criminalization has already been crossed by the left, so you need to expect retaliation and in the case of a Trump victory, retribution and justice. What form that takes remains to be seen, but it will and must happen “pour encourager les autres.”
The only parties who fear this coming justice are those in dire need of its swift and severe administration. Andrew Weissmann is one of many.
Half the country must be deported.
….is unsettling to more than half the country
Peter, no one would GAF at your demise. No one. Not eve Sheila Jackson Lee gives two schlitz about her own staff. You would rank lower than her staff, so yea, you should be fearful considering Jackson set the bar for being a vengeful witch
The court should adopt the bright line standard that goes farther than Trump’s atttoney argued – that the criminal prosecution of a president requires prior impeachment by they house and conviction by the senate.
That is NOT absolutely immunity – it merely precludes political prosecutions without 51% of the house and 2/3 of the senate allowing them.
If you can not reach that – then you should not expect that a jury in much of the country could unanimously convict.
The fact that you might be able to get a unanimous jury in small portions of the country is proof of the threat of politicized prosecutions.
The design of the constitution was to allow small “factions” in the count to STOP government action. To require Supermajorities to drive government action.
This is not about Trump. Robertson and several other justices wisely got that. Whatever their decision it not only will apply to future president it will become the future norm.
The actual question before this court is should what is happening with Trump become the norm for future democrat and republican presidents.
Democrats rant about the polarization of the country. But they are the ones changing the norms that are driving that.
Barack Obama spoke that we were a few days away from fundimentallly changing america.
Why is is difficult for democrats to understand that change is threatening,. disruptive chaotic, controversial, and polarizing.
It is also sometimes necescary – but we change slowly – with government FOLLOWING changes in supermajorities of people in order to avoid violent conflict and polarization.
Yet we have seen the executive becoming increasingly lawless. We have seen govenrment at all levels weaponized increasingly politically by democrats. We see those on the left speak of the rule of law, while willy nilly breaching hundreds of years of norms and bending the law into a pretzel to target people they do not like. That is the rule of MAN not the rule of LAW. Democrats changed the rules of the senate repeatedly – and the ultimate beneficiaries were republicans. They changed the rules of the house – and the beneficiaries have been republicans.
They have changed the rules of elections – substantially and abruptly.
While it has been more than a few days – Democrats have Fundimentally changed america. They have done so far faster than people support, and they have done so thoughtlessly without any consideration for 2nd and third order consequences.
Weismans “threat” of an immune president is complete nonsense.
If the president took a gun and shot his political rival – he would be impeached removed indicted and convicted pretty much immediately.
But nearly all of what Presidents actually do is done through others.
The remaining members of the executive have relatively limited immunity.
Seal Team Six keeps getting abused in these hypotheticals.
But the UCMJ requires soldiers to disregard and illegal order.
The Seals will not follow an order to assassinate a presidents political rival – unless that rival is demonstrably a terrorist and an immediate threat to the nation. Anwar Al Awari would not be protected merely by filing to run for president.
Nor would the national guard, the Joint Cheifs of Staff the Military engage in a coup at the orders of the president.
For many reasons – but amount those the constitution perscribes the date that the person who is president, is no longer president.
After that date, no orders from that person are binding, that person is no longer the president – whether the Secret Service, the WH Staff, the JCS, the National Guard or half the country would prefer otherwise.
Trump’s presidency ended on Jan 20,2021. Stopping Congress from certifying the election does not change that. Nor will it on Jan. 20, 2025 when Biden is not elected. On Jan 21, 2025 if no candidate is confirmed to have won the election – the speaker of the house becomes president until the election is resolved. Not the former president.
As is typical of the left – they are afraid of things that are not possible.
Regardless, what we are seeing – in NYC in DC at SCOTUS, is NOT about Trump.
It is about the extent to which the left can use lawfare to coerce the outcomes they desire when they can not win elections.
@john say,
Everything you said is absolutely wrong. What Trump’s attorney was arguing is already an extreme. You want that to go further. That would make the president’s position that of a king nay a limited dictatorship at worst.
“Seal Team Six keeps getting abused in these hypotheticals.
But the UCMJ requires soldiers to disregard and illegal order.”
But it wouldn’t be an illegal order. According to your argument the President can pardon anyone. And the President is immune from prosecution. Congress wouldn’t be able to impeach a president if he’s immune from prosecution. As republicans have demonstrated, with their loyalty to Trump. They have no obligation to convict him if they don’t want to.
The stupidity of your argument is breathtaking.
“The Seals will not follow an order to assassinate a presidents political rival…”
There’s no guarantee that will hold true. A president and his staff can lie, manipulate and fabricate evidence. Especially when you have loyal supporters in key government positions.
It IS about Trump. It’s entirely about Trump. Because he’s the source of this conundrum and it’s enabled by those loyal to him. A president is NOT above the law. But you seem to support the idea that he should be.
Congress wouldn’t be able to impeach a president if he’s immune from prosecution
You are an idiot.
Read the constitution!
Congress has plenary power to impeach the President. NO ONE questions that fact.
SCOTUS should just clarify that the Check on a President abusing his power (Droning a US citizen without due process) can be impeached and removed. If that does not happen, that means Congress has decided there was no abuse of power, or Congress failed to gather the votes to impeach and remove.
This is blindingly simple and fool proof.
There is one simple explanation. Trump Derangement Syndrome! They are scared to death of him becoming president because he will be out for revenge for all of the nonsense perpetrated against him.
I doubt it is Trump that will be out for revenge. But it may be a substantial portion of the Republican Party.
Democrats are terrified of this election – because when they lose power Republican US Attonery’s Republican AG’s Republican Senators, Republican congressmen will be looking to do to Democrats what Democrats have done to them.
One of the reasons that the party is unified behind Trump is that the threat of the left to Trump is to all republicans and all who disagree with the left.
What is being done to Trump can far more easily be done to Cruz or Hawley, and in many instances is being done to parents unhappy with the education of their children. Pro-life protestors, Catholics. Jews.
The left has made clear – if you engage in “wrong think” or worse – “wrong speech” they will go after you with avengence using all power including government power that they have.
That MUST Stop.
This is not 1984 and Trump is not Emanuel Goldstein and the two minutes of hate each day Must end.
@john say,
“What is being done to Trump can far more easily be done to Cruz or Hawley, and in many instances is being done to parents unhappy with the education of their children. Pro-life protestors, Catholics. Jews.”
What exactly is being done to them? Last time I checked. Being held accountable for violating the law is a thing. It’s not just an inconvenience.
You’re painting with a very broad brush in the same way fascists tend to do.
“The left has made clear – if you engage in “wrong think” or worse – “wrong speech” they will go after you with avengence using all power including government power that they have.”
Making false claims about it is even worse.
You can easily say republicans will go after you, and they do, when others engage in “wrong think” Like being transgender or that parents choose to support their children when they come out as transgender or binary. They are passing laws criminalizing “wrong think” or “wrong speech” when they attack those wishing to be addressed differently.
Republicans are already doing what you say democrats or the left is doing. Projection is often the first course of action fascists engage in. Because they seek to accuse others of doing what they do first. Fascists love to project the worst about themselves onto others and stoke fear and paranoia.
Our Father, Who Art in Heaven, for the love of a life, please send us some worthy trolls! This recent batch makes locusts look like prime rib!
Amen
Have you ever heard of blasphemy?
Amen, This blog has surely earned an upgrade of Trolls
The SCOTUS is delaying the Trump immunity trial on purpose. I know that, you know that, and everyone else does to.
There was a very narrow question here: Does the president have immunity for blocking an election, attempting a coup, and the peaceful transfer of power? The President has ZERO DUTIES for elections under the Constitution. It is a no brainer.
What is unhinged is your blind support of Trump and, in his own words, his desire to send Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent. And, then to try to sell it as you are being fair minded. The hypocrisy really stinks. I have to say that Trump is training you well.
If Trump wins in November, the SCOTUS will give him complete immunity. Sorry to say it, but you will soon learn what is like to be a lawyer in Putin’s Russia or in Germany in the 1930s.
Absolutely SCOTUS is deliberately engaged in delay – because that is the requirements of Due process.
Trump did NOT block and election – he challenged a lawless and rigged on.
There was no attempted coup.
And the peaceful transfer of power would take place NO MATTER WHAT.
Whether left wing nuts like it or not – there were only 3 possible outcomes of J6.
Congress certified the election of Biden. In which case on Jan 20,2021 he becomes president.
Congress certifies the Election of Trump. In which case on Jan 20, 2021 he continues as president.
Congress takes longer than Jan 20, 2021 to resolve the issue – in which case in the interim Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house becomes president until such time as one of the candidates is certified.
There are no other possibilities. There was no attempted coup.
Words actually have meaning.
To this day many of those on the left continue to claim idiotically that somehow the 2016 election was stolen.
Are you trying to conduct a coup because you challenge the 2016 election ?
The left rants that if Trump loses in 2024 their will be violence.
That is very possible. But only because it is highly unlikely at this time that Biden can legitimately win in 2024.
He is losing the popular vote. He is losing every swing state. He is at risk of losing blue states that are not swing states.
If the election were held today – it would require a massive amount of fraud on the part of democrats to win the election.
Fraud on that scale would be impossible to sell.
The most fundimental problem that Trump had with his claims of Fraud in 2020 – was NOT lack of evidence.
It was that with absolute certainty he lost the popular vote by atleast 5M votes.
While that is NOT the constitutional standard for deciding elections. it has a major impact on everyone’s thinking.
There is no doubt that the majority of people in 2020 wanted Biden as president – as bad an idea as that has proven.
Trump had to persuade the courts that more than 45,000 fraudulent votes were cast in 3 swing states.
That was entirely plausible. But he had to do so under circumstances where he lost the nationwide popular vote by over 5M.
That is an imcredibly hard sell – even if true.
Credible estimates fo the Fraud in the 6 swing states in 2020 are a low of about 400,000 ballots and a high of 2Million.
With the low more likely than the high. That is more than enough to flip the election, but not enough to flip the popular vote.
If 2024 plays out the same – which is highly unlikely, Trump will equally get nowhere trying to challenge the election, and having seen this game before Supporters will quietly prepare for the next election – and THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ELECTION.
The left, the democratic party misread the political trends in this country and is now on the wrong side of them.
The question is not if Republicans will dominate, merely when. And the failure of Democrats like Biden brings that all the sooner.
The danger of violence from the Right is if Trump winns the popular vote – or it is close, and still somehow manages to lose the electoral college. That scenario is NOT possible without massive election fraud – and most of the country knows that. Demographic choices by Democrats and republicans have created a 4pt advantage for Republicans in the electoral college.
Republican presidential candidates will win all elections that are close in the popular vote so long as Republican voters are rural and suburban and democratic voters are primarily urban. Republicans will have a similar advantage in the house of representatives.
If Trump wins the popular vote and loses the election and the court STILL refuse to look into election fraud – there will be violence.
That is not because Republicans are violent, but because government without the actual consent of the governed is not legitimate.
But that is highly unlikely – Democrats can not pull of the approximately 6pts of election fraud needed to win the 2024 election without getting caught egregiously.
That is why democrats are dispondent right now – the election is outside the window in which election fraud can tip the balance.
The most likely scenario in 2024 is that Trump wins and we see violence by democrats on the scale of the 1968 riots.
Look at our campuses right now – do you really think those people are going to peacefully accept a near certain Trump victory ?
Trump challenged the results. But lost all the challenges. Then he chose to attempt to overturn it by force because his legal challenges were devoid of the evidence or standing.
What he did after legally challenging the election is at issue. He went beyond the legal remedy. Illegally conspired to insert fake alternative electors, made false claims of voter fraud, and encouraged a mob to attack the Capitol to stop a legal count under false claims. So you’re partly right. Barely.
There was a very narrow question here: Does the president have immunity for blocking an election, attempting a coup, and the peaceful transfer of power?
Close, but still sooo far away.
The question is even more narrow. Is the action within Presidential power
President has ZERO DUTIES for elections under the Constitution. It is a no brainer.
Au contraire There are thousands of federal election laws in place. The DoJ very much has the power to look a elections
Congress has power.
Congress has the power to investigate the actions of the President, and impeach and remove the President if he abuses that power.
If congress declines to investigate Presidential Actions, then it is an absolute exercise of Presidential power.
“There was a very narrow question here: Does *the* president . . .” (emphasis added)
You seem to have confused the Supreme Court with a nighttime traffic court.
The SC sets precedent, for the entire country, into the future. A proper SC does not stare blindly at “the” president. It generalizes to “a” president.
Daily news reminds us that the nation has numerous and far greater issues to confront than any hyperbolic ideologue’s melodramatic statement that we are “one vote away from the end of democracy.” Illiberal progressives have howled that overwrought phrase until it no longer has any worth but for them. Considering it is their Administrative State that rules our autocratic nation, the self-evident retort to their clamor is that we are again one vote away from restoring democracy.
You’re right, but republicans have only focused on trying to impeach Biden and engage in culture wars. They have nothing to campaign on. No significant legislation passed. What have they done these past four years? Have you noticed that they don’t talk about accomplishments or results?
Accomplishments are to be realized when the power of unelected bureaucrats is checked and balanced, and the Administrative State, its political appointees and hires are answerable to the Republic’s citizens. Might republicans as a party actively attempt reducing the size and scope of the imperious Administrative State? Given the duality that most accurately describes the American party system it is quite uncertain. While the question is yet undetermined for the Republican Party, it is one long settled for the Democrat Party.
Democrats and lying goes hand in hand with terrorists calling for intifada genocide
Floyd, what does this have to do with Democrats?? We have no idea which party either of these people is affiliated with. Chances are that Muslim girl is NOT voting for Biden.
Peter, there is an airline giving away cheap airfare that should please you: One-way ticket from Uranus to Gaza. The Hamas there will welcome you with open arms, a flower laced bucket for your dense head and an extra sharp machete for your pencil thin neck. You’ll have to supply your own rainbow
Dont expect Democrats to GAF about your loss of life for the LGBTQIA+furry cause
🤡
It’s repetition of an archetype. The archetype was recently Hitler and he reincarnates as a religious cult called Islam. It is the duty of mankind to end the archetype if possible sooner rather than later. It’s insidious and has cells like cancer throughout nations. It is arrogant and is blind. It is ever vigilant for opportunities but so too is the one creator. They need to learn civility in north america as a beginning.
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
________________
“It’s time to stop talkin’ and start chalkin’!”
– Chick Hearn, Lakers Sportscaster
Look no farther than the hysteria that was propagated for COVID to see the rational of Weissman!
Yeah, refrigerator trucks being used as temporary morgues in hospital parking lots is nothing to get concerned about.
It is 2024 and the overall US death rate remains as high as it was during Covid.
Even during covid – more than half of the increase in the rate of death was NOT from covid.
The Fact is that Covid – especially the early variants had a fairly high mortality rate, and there was nothing that our public health officials were able to do about that. That problem was solved by nature – as covid became ever more contagious and ever more benign.
Because that is how evolution works.
But the damage done by bad public health responses to covid have far longer impact.
Suicides have risen, Drug oversoses have risen. Numerous other health problems increasing overall mortailty have risen.
Early detection and treatment of cancer and other diseases that are curable if dealt with early were delayed by covid and the effects of that will be with us for years.
There is a temptation for govenrment to try to treat everything like a war. Governments are fairly good at war. The entirety of a country can be focused on the existential threat – everything can be proirotized with respect to that threat. Everything is subordinate to that threat. But that comes at the expense of almost everything else. We tolerate that – because where there is a true existential threat the other infringements on our wants and needs and liberty are small compared tot heat existential threat.
But that does not work outside of existential threats.
Those seeking public Power try to use War rhetoric – because that justifies the single minded focus of resources – the war on Drugs, the war on poverty, the war on racism ….
The problem is that none of these – nor covid justifies a single focus prioritization of all of society like a true existential threat does.
Covid was never an actual existential threat.
Therefore the attempt to direct the focus of the nation and the priorities of the nation all arround covid not only failed, but werre actually harmful. Ultimately MORE SO that Covid itself.
When there is a true existential threat – things like rising suicides or drug overdoses or unemployment can be measured relative to their impact on fighting the existential threat. But when the threat is NOT existential – now prioritization is not so single minded, worse still it is NOT within the domain of govenrment. Government has a duty to stop existential threats and in doing so can take over all the machinery of a country and infringe on all our rights. Where something is not existential – we must be free to make choiuces for ourselves – without government interference.
Regardless, Covid was not an existential threat and your rants about corpses in temporary morges is irrelevant. Mere scare tactics.
The increased mortality that arrived with Covid remains with us today.
There are many factors that drive it. All in one way or another tie to our bad choices responding to Covid.
The early variant of Covid also had a low IFR, as studies showed in the Spring and Summer of 2020. And the extreme skewing by age and comorbidities was known then as well. As was the ineffectiveness of masks. The only US politician who fully grasped the scientific evidence and acted on it was DeSantis. He ended lockdowns early and opened all schools without masks in Fall 2020.
We knew about the extreme age/mortality curve oif Covid BEFORE it official arrived in the US. We knew from China that old people died of Covid and young people barely got sick.
That problem was solved by nature – as covid became ever more contagious and ever more benign.
Because that is how evolution works.
,
This needs amplified.
ALL respiratory viruses, become more contagious and less lethal with each new varient. That fact was NEVER a part of the official narrative. Why?you ask? Because the had to keep the population scared and confused. Because Dems NEVER let an emergency go to waste, and the longer the perception of danger lived on, the more Dems could solidify power.
ALSO, This was the first virus that natural immunity was ignored. Still don’t have an answer for that lie.
The manufactured hysteria over the SCt is simply a pretext for court packing. It’s all about power.