As I have previously written, I am not someone who has favored expansive presidential powers. As a Madisonian scholar, I favor Congress in most disputes with presidents. However, I saw good-faith arguments on both sides of this case and the Court adopted a middle road on immunity — rejecting the extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower court.
One of the most glaring moments in the address came when President Biden declared that “for all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”
That is not true.
The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.
The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.
Here the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling.
It is certainly true that the case affords considerable immunity, including for conversations with subordinates. However, this did not spring suddenly from the head Zeus. As Chief Justice John Roberts lays out in the majority opinion, there has long been robust protections afforded to presidents.
There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
President Biden’s hyper-ventilated response is crushingly ironic. He was vice president when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge. When former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the “kill list” policy (that included the right to kill any American citizen), he was met with applause, not condemnation.
The Obama-Biden administration then fought every effort by the family to sue the government. President Biden would have been outraged by any attempt of a Republican district attorney to charge him or President Obama with murder.
He would also be outraged by prosecutors pursuing criminal charges for the deaths associated with the deluge of undocumented persons over the Southern border.
In his address, President Biden also claimed that “the law would no longer” define “the limits of the presidency.”
That is also untrue. This case was remanded for the purpose of defining what of these functions would be deemed private as opposed to official. Even on official actions, former president Donald Trump could be prosecuted if the presumptive immunity is rebutted by prosecutors.
What was most glaring for many civil libertarians was President Biden’s portrayal of himself as a paragon of constitutional fealty. He declared that “I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers as I have for the last three-and-a-half years.”
That was also untrue. President Biden has racked up an impressive array of losses in federal courts where he was found to have violated the constitution.
This includes rulings that his administration has exceeded his authority and engaged in racial discrimination in federal programs. Indeed, Biden has often displayed a cavalier attitude toward such violations.
For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional. But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.
Biden showed the same disregard over the unconstitutionality of his effort to unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt. Courts have already enjoined that effort as presumptively unconstitutional (though an appellate court in one of those cases relaxed aspects of the injunction).
The address was used to reinforce his “democracy is on the ballot” campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish.
While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is.
For many of us in the free speech community, President Biden has become the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” the Biden Administration has helped fund and maintain an unprecedented censorship system in the United States.
That record is hardly supportive for a president claiming to be the defender, if not the savior, of the Constitution.
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct,” Roberts writes, “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.”
If motive is removed from distinguishing between official and unofficial conduct, what separates the Obama assassination of an American terrorist hypo used by Turley above from the dissent’s Seal Team 6 assassination of a political rival hypo?
The only difference between these is motive. The conduct is exactly the same.
The difference is not only motive; it’s also that Obama was acting as commander in chief pursuant to Congressional authority to conduct military operations against an enemy abroad. The assassination of a political rival has no constitutional or Congressional authority but is simply an intentional killing outside any official capacity, core or outer perimeter.
Congress did not approve of Obama’s action. What was the Congressional approval to kill an American?
Congress never approved of the wars in the Middle East. They certainly didn’t approve any actions in Yemen specifically.
Regardless, acting as commander in chief is a core function of the president, and there’s no requirement that any actions taken pursuant to this power be authorized by another branch of government. That is not written into the Constitution. As you know, the president has independent power to act in this capacity outside of Congressional approval. Presidents have claimed authority over a range of military actions, including attacking pirates, rescuing U.S. citizens abroad, and making military deployments, all of which was done without Congressional approval.
The OLC issued a legal opinion to Obama saying that he had a public authority defense to unlawful killing because of his war powers under the Constitution and the prior Congressional authorisation of the use of military force. Barrett referred to it in her concurrence. If Obama were to be tried for murder he would make the same arguments to claim immunity in a pre trial proceeding which would then be subject to pre trial appeal. He likely would win, and immunity would apply. In a similar indictment for ordering the assassination of a political rival, the President would have to establish the basis for his immunity. There is nothing in the Constitution, Congressional action or judicial rulings that confers this kind of official authority on the President. His claim of immunity would likely fail. It is up to the judiciary to determine the bounds of immunity in any particular case, applying the rules now set by the Supreme Court.
You write: “In a similar indictment for ordering the assassination of a political rival, the President would have to establish the basis for his immunity. There is nothing in the Constitution, Congressional action or judicial rulings that confers this kind of official authority on the President. ”
But this is not what the Roberts Opinion says. The opinion says the president has absolute immunity over core powers, and the command of the military is a clearly a core power. Full stop. That is the END of the discussion. It doesn’t matter WHAT he does with that core power. Motive/purpose is irrelevant. There is no burden to prove that what the president did was an appropriate use of that power. Otherwise, the immunity is not absolute. And even if it is deemed presumptive immunity (which by the way, there still could be absolute immunity for the non-core official acts because Roberts declined to hold whether absolute vs. presumptive was appropriate), the prosecution could not use any evidence of the act to persuade a jury that immunity should not apply.
If Roberts had held what you believe to be his opinion, the case would not be very controversial. But, he went WAY further. Please read the opinion.
“What he does” is not the same as motive or purpose. When Trump spoke with DOJ about conducting investigations he was acting within his core authority. If he spoke with them about assassinating a political rival he would not be. Motive doesn’t enter into it in either case.
Sorry neither WHAT nor WHY is relevant. You failed to respond to the substance of the above point.
Trump speaking to the DOJ is a core power regardless of the substance or purpose of the conversation. That was what the Roberts Court held. It does not matter what they discussed. You see this interpretation from Trump’s legal team in the NY Stormy Daniels case. They argue the evidence concerning communications within the executives control is off limits for the jury because the content – regardless of what it is – is immune as a core power of the President.
We disagree about that. What they discuss matters. Why they discuss it does not.
For example, if the President plots with the AG and FBI Director to rob a bank, that is not an official act, notwithstanding that the AG and Director are high officials within the executive branch. If the President were indicted for that he could seek to claim immunity but would have to prove in a pre trial hearing that the plotting fell within his core powers or outer perimeter of his authority. In that hearing it would not be enough to say that simply because he was plotting with high officials he was acting within his authority.
In the Smith indictment Roberts said that decisions about what to investigate or prosecute, and decisions to remove the AG, were core Presidential functions. They could not be rendered unofficial by examination of motive. Plotting to rob a bank is not within the President’s core or outer perimeter authority. The President would thus fail to establish immunity.
This is clear from Roberts’ discussion of public communications, where attention to CONTENT, form and context would be required to sort out official from unofficial. This is what the appellate court did in Blasingame. Just because the President says something doesn’t make it official. Just because a President is talking with high executives or the military doesn’t make it official. The subject matter counts. But once the subject matter is determined to be official, motivation does not transform it into unofficial.
What separates is geography. If your an American with skin in the game – your an American . By natural right. You don’t get to take it overseas and do treason and claim your mom and pop. From America. Same reason undocumented can be held for treason- for loyalty to home and not who is hosting them. You as an American run to another jurisdiction – want war on your fellow abandon done country men – that’s treason worthy of death. Are you stupid you don’t even knows what binds us?
The president forward has his core duty to protect preserve and defend the constitution. Period – so stop with the hypo theticals and believe in our selves and our ability to control the president- we have elections – we have impeachment- what we should have is on the first instance our pick of the man to be our guy – but they ginger that out. Soviet – never forgetvoa any is who the Americans are. Us.and providence has always been on our side.
Memo: Members and Associate Members of Floyd’s Troll Farm”
In Re: Biden Dementia
I have been in deep discussions with several of my Multiple Personalities, and we have all decided to start a New Conspiracy Theory. Here it is!
Trump and his Evil Maga Minions are directly responsible for Biden’s “rapid” onset of dementia. Biden was Covid-vaxxed multiple times, and there is a documented relationship between the Covid vax and dementia. Trump planned this all along! Let’s see how many on the Left fall for it! Do your own thing! Here are some links!
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/27/1040898432/biden-covid-booster-vaccine
A potential association between COVID-19 vaccination and development of alzheimer’s disease:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38806183/#:~:text=No%20significant%20relationship%20was%20found,incidences%20of%20AD%20and%20MCI.
If Biden keeps refusing to step away, will Democrats finally get interested in figuring out what “10% for the Big Guy” was about? @charliekirk11
Hello Biden. We live in a Republic NOT a Democracy.
#AZZ🤡
#FJB
Blame It On The Rain
Breaking- Joe Biden’s newest pseudonym is Milli Vanilli.
This was chosen, ostensibly because, as we all know, it is Italian for Pale Ice Cream
Instead its because its not HIS record. He’s not singing on that record.
He’s just lip synching his way thru the presidency. He just reads whats in the teleprompter. Everything in the teleprompter. And they NEVER let him sing live.
At the debate, Jill could be seen running to untangle the tape.
Today is Little Round Top day.
How did you celebrate, Professor Pinhead? By dropping a deuce in your pants?
Here the troll farm spoofs Turley; which is a dead giveaway regarding malicious intent.
^^^^^Here Floyd shows up as the troll Peter Shill, pretending to be one of us. His intent is entirely malicious.
Troll Farming??? Well, I always wanted to get into agriculture, but I was just planning on planting a few tomato plants, some jalapeño peppers and some catnip. . . 🙂
Scroll thru and you will see Peter Shill troll several other conservative commenters, as well as Benson
Chamberlain Day, I’d say!
Chamber maid day, for the good professor
mespo727272 — What possible connection to July 2nd does Chamberlain have?
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the 20th Maine saved the day at Little Round Top.
Here is a hilarious recap of the MSM – and “Sharp as a Tack” Biden !
“If you’re looking for a broader takeaway from all this, take how the press covered up Biden’s infirmity because it wanted to protect the Democrats, and apply it to literally every single thing that it does, on any topic, in any year, in any circumstance, forever.” @charlescwcooke
Donald J. Trump called them the Enemy of the People.
He wasn’t wrong.
Donald J Trump said he would end the Russian-Ukraine war in 24 hours. The Russian Ambassador to the United Nations says Trump is a liar.
I’d like to know why you MAGAts believe his lies and bluster. Did you all forget that he said that Mexico would pay to build the wall? How about all of the manufacturing jobs that didn’t come back to the USA under Trump, but have under Biden? How about the stock market crash Trump predicted if Biden won? How about the boast that we won’t have a country any more unless the disciples stopped the certified votes from being accepted? USA is the envy of the world—and it’s because of Biden, not Trump.
Ukraine isn’t going to let Russia keep the territory it has invaded but doesn’t control and it’s not going to let Russia dictate whether it can join the United Nations either. That’s why the Ukrainians have been fighting.
President Obama was getting his butt kicked by what he called the “JV” Team(ISIS) – and, btw, if you’re getting beaten by the “JV” team, where do you rank? Trump wiped them out in 6 months. All it takes is the will to do what everyone else says “can’t be done”.
“If the entire political and media elite can manufacture the lie for 4+ years that candidate now-President Biden isn’t cognitively impaired, what else might they have lied about and are lying about now?” @StephenM
They are propagandists who lie for the regime, nothing more.
Or, maybe, it’s MAGA media that keeps repeating the “dementia “ myth and attacking non MAGA media to sucker people like you. Look at Biden’s accomplishments— look at Trump’s failures. That’s enough.
Carl Bernstein on CNN,
Multiple sources tell him that there have been at least 15 occasions in the last year and a half “where the president has appeared like he did at that horror show (his debate performance).”
Bernstein reports that in the last six months sources… pic.twitter.com/VoSY8xDZpt
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) July 2, 2024
Note, that is Carl Bernstein on CNN.
“Multiple sources tell him that there have been at least 15 occasions in the last year and a half . . .”
The real story there is: Where have those “multiple sources” been for the last 18 months? And where was Bernstein?
The Left tangled itself in this Gordian knot of lies. And now, shock of shocks, its suffocating.
Biden’s Lapses Are Said to Be Increasingly Common and Worrisome
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/us/politics/biden-lapses.html
Note, that is the NY Times reporting.
Biden’s accomplishments, 13 dead in Afghanistan, inflation, open southern border, high crime due to soft on crime no cash bail in Blue cities, two wars, our enemies taking advantage of a weak Biden admin.
“Unscripted, long form event — well, let‘s see, that‘s what a debate is,” Jennings said. “I mean, he had 90 minutes of an unscripted event the other night and it was a disaster. Here‘s what I make of it. This is an amazing day. Number one, The New York Times reporting that he‘s lapsing in meetings, this is becoming more frequent. Number two, we found out today that a felon and a crack addict is now sitting in on White House senior staff meetings. Number three, the president is now tonight to his own donors, blaming a foreign trip that ended 12 days before the debate for his disastrous performance on Thursday.”
“This is what you call a high-speed come apart,” he continued. “The White House is off the rails. The president has effectively admitted tonight that he is not up to both campaigning for president and being president. I don‘t know where we‘re going from here, but this has been a momentous day and I‘ll be shocked if there aren‘t more Democrats who would come out and say, ‘What are we doing? We are walking into disaster if we stick with this.'”
— Scott Jennings on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront
“Day 2. Bannon in prison as a POLITICAL PRISONER for a misdemeanor. Garland has committed the same “crime.” Hunter, etc. The LawlessFare of the left will be turned on them. Reciprocity. Read UNHUMANS. Know the Communist Coup you are in. Tyranny vs. Freedom. Prepare accordingly.🇺🇸”
Sotomayor has given joe biden the greenlight to commit any crime now he pleases, and as we know that is what bidens handlers are spewing repeating the deception mantra, so joey fully believes it.
Expect a gigantic potus crime spree ongoing.
Sotomayor’s dissent was inexcusable. To put it in a non-partisan way, I would expect this kind of thing from Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Can’t have this kind of thing from a Supreme Court Justice.
Soto repeated Chutkin’s absurdity re Navy Seals example. Birds of a feather….
If Dems get the presidency again, you can bet Chutkin will be on the short list for the Supreme Court….
God save America from these lunatic leftists destroying the constitution, rule of law, the judiciary, and our country.
So many leftists to jail.
Construction of more detention facilities required.
Jonathan: Looks like in the Trump v. US decision we’ve gone from the madness of King George III to the the right-wing majority of the Court endorsing the madness of “King” Donald and his quest for unlimited power. It’s like the “Game of Thrones” with DJT playing the part of the “Mad King”. It’s a made for TV series with the our “imperial” Supreme Court acting as the “hand” of the King. The Brits are probably wondering what the hell is happening here!
And there has been swift action by DJT’s lawyers to use Chief Justice Robert’s decision. Yesterday, they filed a motion to dismiss the 34 count criminal conviction in NY claiming their client now has “immunity”. Today Justice Merchan ordered the July 10 sentencing of DJT to be postponed until Sept. 18 so the parties can file briefs to sort out the issues–whether DJT can claim presidential immunity. The problem for DJT is that, except for the checks he wrote from the WH to cover the hush money payments. almost everything that happened in the case took place when he “candidate Trump”. In any case they were “private” matters that had nothing to do with his “official duties”. So I doubt Justice Merchan will agree to dismiss the case.
Then we have the DC criminal case against DJT before Judge Chutkan. Now that is where there may be a silver lining.
Since the case is going back to Chutkan she will soon be holding a series of hearings to determine what, if any, actions by DJT during and after the insurrection on Jan. 6 qualify as “official acts” or what acts were outside the scope of his presidential duties. That means Jack Smith will be compelled to put on a series of “mini” trials with evidence and witness testimony. That’s not good news for DJT because, on a daily basis, the press will report to the American voters how DJT planned and carried out his unlawful scheme to overturn the 2020 election. And all that could come out just before the election!
Question: Have you actually read the decision? Any debate would be much more well-informed if people actually read the court opinion first before declaring it the basis for a monarchy in America.
Here you go: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Did you mean the basis for a “dictatorship of the proletariat?”
America already has that; it’s referred to as “one-man, one-vote democracy.”
Terrorists and adversarial foreign governments are emboldened by a dementia patient serving as President of the United States. Every time FLOTUS leads Biden off the stage by the hand, and speaks to him like a child (“You did great! You answered every question!), they will plan more attacks, invasions, and hostilities.
If the US re-elects Joe Biden, it could mean WWIII. I am the mother of a teenage son. If Biden is replaced with another far Left Democrat who views American strength and success as a sin, it could mean WWIII. I dread misinformed voters steering us into war. Under Trump, there were no new wars. As soon as Biden was elected, there was the rout in Afghanistan with Americans abandoned, Russia invaded Ukraine, Hamas terrorized on Oct 7, Haiti fell apart, and China is making preparations to conquer Taiwan. It all happened with horrifying rapidity. Now that Biden’s decline has accelerated, global stability will devolve just as rapidly.
Among the casualties during his watch that President Biden forgot to mention were three U.S. soldiers killed and many more wounded in a drone attack on Tower 22. As the mother of a deployed American soldier, I watched our dithering, mumbling commander-in-chief in terror, for my son. I literally wished the moderators had canceled the debate midstream, so that our enemies on the international stage could not see my country’s vulnerability and disarray. It’s far beyond Democrat vs. Republican. Citizens have a duty to lift their heads out of the scrum and see that.
Where the hell do you get this BS you write? If any adversaries of America would be emboldened by the occupant of the White House, it would be in reaction to Trump— he’s an absolute disgrace— as a person and as a purported leader. He is an international joke— with his morbid obesity, pompadour fake hair, his criminal indictments and convictions, his bloviating and his dismal record pretending to be President. He managed to alienate our allies and praised murderers like Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Joe Biden is respected by our allies and pulled together a unified front against Putin—it was Trump’s alienation of our allies, his stupid pulling out 14,000 troops from Afghanistan and turning loose 5,000 Taliban without first getting people out and arranging for a land or air base that proved to the world that Trump is clueless about deal making and international diplomacy. Trump is the cause of the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan and his weakness is what emboldened Putin and would encourage others.
You keep repeating the Trump campaign slogan of “no new wars”, as if Trump somehow should get credit for this and Biden should be blamed for Hamas attacking Israel and Putin invading Ukraine. Trump has a reputation for being stupid and arrogant. No one is “afraid “ of him, which is just part of his phony “he man” fantasy.— like his “self made boy wonder billionaire “ fantasy.
What could Trump do that Biden couldn’t? He doesn’t say. What Biden has done that Trump couldn’t is right our economy and public health, get the economy moving, pull together a unified front against Putin and got bills passed that benefit the majority of Americans — not the wealthy donors who are paying off Trump. Someone with dementia couldn’t do these things.
Biden isn’t surrounded by people whose main qualification is kissing his ass— which is what weakling Trump requires. Do you think the rest of the world doesn’t know this?
You write about misinformed voters—you are the quintessential misinformed voter— you parrot whatever you are fed by MAGA media, which is lies.
Joe Biden had a bad night after a couple of weeks of European travel and the trial of his son. He represented America at the G7, while Trump tried to get Russia readmitted. Do you think the significance of this was lost on the rest of the world? If Trump gets into office, economists say we will be headed for a massive increase in inflation. That will probably mean another recession. The rest of the world relies on the American economy, and they don’t respect Trump.
The content of Biden’s speech was on point. Trump spewed his usual verbal vomit of lies and bombastic arrogance. Do you think the world doesn’t see Trump for the pathological liar, narcissistic cheater and criminal who is desperately trying to avoid jail?
“We don’t want their love.”
“We don’t want their respect.”
“We want their fear!”
– Real President Donald J. Trump
“Joe Biden had a bad night after a couple of weeks of European travel . . .”
He was suffering from jet lag, two weeks later, after a grueling international flight on Air Force One.
He had a cold.
His staff didn’t prepare him properly.
He got too much rest at Camp David.
He was just stuttering.
Does the Left ever take blame for a disaster it creates?
Do you MAGTs ever admit that Trump can’t stop lying, that his “presidency “ was an unmitigated disaster, that he only got one piece of legislation passed—which was a tax cut that mostly benefited the upper 1%, and that he didn’t deliver on anything he promised— like Mexico paying to build a wall, manufacturing jobs returning to America or COVID ending when the weather warmed up?
What about all the lies Biden tells?
Inflation.
Open border.
13 killed in Afghanistan.
Two wars.
High crime.
Yes, he’s so well respected by our foreign adversaries they send him millions of dollars to him and his family. He’s a senile old criminal that sold America out!
Proof? Do you have any? Trump is offering the oil industry a chance to write an executive order rolling back regulations for $1 billion. A Jewish woman named Edelman has offered $100 million for the US to formally support Israel taking over the West Bank.
Excellent observation. Our Leftist “friends” need to take notice. We were given ample warning that the communist plan was to destroy the United States from within. Much of what was read into the Congressional Record in 1964 has already come to pass. We need a complete overhaul of the educational system, to teach patriotism, civics and other subjects that matter, like history, English, math and scientific thinking. All the smug, smarmy, self-serving comments posted here and elsewhere belong to spoiled-brat adults who have little to no concept of what real struggle and hardship is. They may not even realize that they are dupes who fall for the commie line because it has the “softened” face of socialism. Regardless of the face, it is still communism and the Dems embrace it hook, line and sinker. Yes, and if it continues, it is US who will be sunk. As for President Trump, he is pragmatic. P-R-A-G-M-A-T-I-C. He gets the job done. THAT is what I want in a President. These farcical trials that President Trump has been put through are like steel being hardened in fire: It becomes stronger. Remember, all of those gullible enough to echo the Dem line that “Trump will destroy democracy,” it is they who oppose free-speech by those with whom they disagree, it is they who tax, tax and tax more to fund an ever-growing socialist bureaucracy, and it is they who promote division of the people rather than unification. I almost forgot about merit: They also believe that having capable people doing things is not important, in their quest for cosmetic “inclusiveness.” Blame others and make excuses is the Dem way.
Uh Jay—WHAT job did Trump get done? Did Mexico pay for the wall? Did manufacturing jobs return to America? What happened to the economy he inherited? How many jobs were lost? How many bills did Trump get passed and who mostly benefited? Trump is selling the presidency— $1 billion for oil industry to write an executive order rolling back regulations. $100 million for the US to approve of Israel’s taking of the West Bank. These are just the crooked bribes that we know about, and, thanks to the MAGA appointees on the SCOTUS, Trump couldn’t be prosecuted.
Trump’s stay in Mexico may have not been a wall, but it was most certainly better than Biden’s Open Border policy. You know, the one that got Laken Raily, and Rachel Moin killed. Then there is those underaged girls Biden’s illeagls killed after sexually assaulting them.
The economy Trump inherited took off from the anemic Obama economy. During Obama’s second term, the medium income for Americans actually fell for the first time in modern history. The story was so big, even NPR had to cover it. The Trump economy was doing just fine up till COVID. Then everything went to heck in a handbasket.
Trump’s tax cut help put money into our pockets. A good friend of ours, in a higher tax bracket with no dependents, had to pay out. Trump’s tax cut worked exactly as it was meant too.
Biden’s war on fossil fuels is going to cost us all dearly. And the damage Biden has done may be too great for anyone to roll back.
Karen S,
As I have said many a time here on the good professor’s blog, Russia, China, Iran, the Houthis, Hamas, the drug cartels, they all want another Biden admin. It benefits them the most.
Democrats are deliberately misrepresenting the Supreme Court decision in a frantic attempt to distract voters from Joe Biden’s cognitive free fall.
The Supreme Court just confirmed that there are protections for official acts, but not for unofficial acts. Obama cannot be tried for killing Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in a drone strike, but Nixon could have been impeached for approving the bugging of the Watergate headquarters of the DNC, if he hadn’t resigned first.
As Ben Shapiro pointed out, if Joe Biden really thought SCOTUS had ruled that a president could murder his political opponent, then he would have had Trump assassinated. After all, Biden already used the DOJ and his apparatchiks in NYC to bring charges against Trump that would never have been brought against anyone else.
If he can’t beat Trump in a fair election, Biden will just throw him in prison.
Do you think that if you keep saying Biden is demented, that will make it so? Did you watch Biden’s speech? Of course not— more repeated slop you got from MAGA media. You don’t think for yourself and are immune from facts. You prove that over and over again.
Biden read portions of Justice Sotomayor’s strong dissent and said he agreed with it. Biden’s speech was strong and on point.
Turley’s assignment today was to try to defend the opinion and to attack Biden. Turley downplayed the significance of the contorted reasoning and ignored the better- written dissenting opinions. You of course wouldn’t understand this because you wouldn’t see it on MAGA media..
I watched the debate. It just threw wet garbage on a smoldering fire creating additonal smoke. We, a suffering nation, have endured the mediocrity of Joe Biden since the fraudulent 2020 election. The person meets the constitutional eligibility requirement to be elected. Nothing more. Be sure to save your screed. Print it on rice paper. That will make your words easier to eat when you see how President Trump improves this nation once he is (re)elected President.
Reading off a teleprompter is not prof of his mental competence.
Here, check out Carl Bernstein on CNN.
Multiple sources tell him that there have been at least 15 occasions in the last year and a half “where the president has appeared like he did at that horror show (his debate performance).”
Bernstein reports that in the last six months sources… pic.twitter.com/VoSY8xDZpt
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) July 2, 2024
Again, that is Carl Bernstein on CNN.
Oh, wait there is more,
Biden’s Lapses Are Said to Be Increasingly Common and Worrisome
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/us/politics/biden-lapses.html
Note, that is the NY Times reporting.
Did Joe Biden abuse his position of president in order to direct the DOJ, and activists in NY, to imprison his political opponent, and encourage a movement to remove Trump’s Secret Service projection to facilitate his assassination at some point in the future?
Under Joe Biden, the DOJ allowed serious charges against Hunter Biden to expire under the statute of limitations. There was a sweetheart deal so egregious that a judge objected.
Joe Biden’s Administration has coordinated with the media to cover for his cognitive free fall, with Karine Jean-Pierre insisting recently that unedited video of Biden freezing and getting confused were “cheap fakes.” Today, Jean-Pierre kept saying that Joe Biden just had a “bad day” during the debate, denied he had Alzheimers or dementia, and denied he had any cognitive decline. She admitted that he’s old, but is STILL telling the public to disbelieve our own eyes and ears. Should there be repercussions on members of the Biden administration for covering up the fact that the president of the US has serious dementia?
Did Joe Biden use the office of the presidency for his own personal gain, and to hold onto power?
Karen S: where do you get this crap you write about? There’s absolutely no evidence that Joe Biden directed or had anything to do with Trump’s indictments . NONE . If Biden was going to use his influence, wouldn’t it be to pardon his own son?
Trump was indicted because he’s a crook— always has been and always will be. MAGA media, of which Turley is a part, attacks everyone BUT Trump. Most Americans don’t believe he should get away with stealing classified documents, starting an insurrection because he’s a sore LOSER, falsifying business records to cover up sexual misconduct and trying to rig the vote in Georgia. Trying to blame Biden because grand juries found him liable is disingenuous.
Joe Biden can pardon his son for federal crimes.
It was Biden’s DOJ that allowed serious charges against Hunter Biden to pass the statute of limitations. Under Biden, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago with approval to use lethal force, if necessary, while Biden’s theft of classified documents he had no right to declassify was ignored. Under Biden, the FBI blocked investigations into criminal allegations against the Biden Family, including Joe Biden, revealed in Hunter’s Laptop.
The role of the DOJ is to help the President execute the laws. Biden’s DOJ has protected Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, while targeting Donald Trump.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/biden-doj-crossed-political-rubicon-with-trump-indictment
Some of these acts are Biden’s direct responsibility, while others are the work of faithful apparatchiks, like the Democrat AG and DA on Trump’s cases, who brought charges against Trump that would never have been brought against anyone else. NO ONE has been charged for entering an NDA as a legal fee rather than a campaign contribution to himself. By the same standard, Biden would have been charged for every dime he spent on denying the Hunter Biden laptop, and his own criminal activity, that was not entered as a campaign contribution to himself. He ALREADY would have been charged for mishandling classified documents and sharing it with people who lacked clearance, were it not for Hur declaring he was a “well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” If Biden is not cognitively fit to stand trial for stealing classified documents for decades, when he lacked the right to declassify anything, then he’s not fit to serve as president, or run for reelection.
Gigi, where do you get the crap that you write about?
Answer: lifted from, and inspired by MSNBC, CNN,Salon. HuffPost, Wapo, NYT, etc.
And you also steal the writing styles of many great posters on the blog. We’ve watched your changes over the last two years.
I disagree with people who call you names on this blog.
Because there is no you.
You are nothing more than a collage of everyone else’s thoughts, opinions, and arguments that you like.
The Supreme Court immunity ruling is a tremendous victory for our Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers and a much-needed victory against lawfare.
The ruling provides the President with absolute immunity for his core constitutional duties and at least presumptive immunity for actions that lie on the outer perimeter of his duties. Importantly and absolutely pivotal, the ruling disallows the use of evidence from official acts to be used in other charges, disallows the use of intent and is surprisingly proscriptive in delineating guidelines for determining official vs non-official acts.
While it is officially a ruling on immunity it is in reality a ruling that was precipitated and necessitated by lawfare. During orals, while the Justices were careful not to comment on any current or specific cases for obvious reasons, the subtext was abundantly clear that the ongoing lawfare that is being waged was a clear and present concern if not danger for many of the Justices.
In essence, the Court was faced with either protecting against an absolutely extreme, highly implausible Seal Team Six type scenario or protecting against the very present, here today reality of a Presidency that would consume itself in ouroboric fashion over time with lawfare as the Sword of Damocles that would hang ominously and chillingly over the actions of every President that took office. It chose wisely and providently.
Much respect and admiration to the Supreme Court for making this forceful, highly consequential and, ultimately, existentialistic ruling that will serve this country well in the politically tumultuous decades to come.
But it isn’t just the “implausible” Seal Team 6 scenario.
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct,” Roberts writes, “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.”
As an example of the absurdity of this proposition, imagine a hypothetical only one shade from something that actually happened. Imagine that Trump as president had offered Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a frank bribe, instead of using the word-salad he gave in his “perfect” phone call with the Ukrainian leader. Imagine for example that he had said, “I will give you $10 billion in military aid if you deliver me dirt on Joe Biden.” Such an offer would be a crime if it were a corrupt offer meant to dig dirt on a rival; but if the president were earnestly concerned about, say, protecting national security and believed that “the dirt” referred to something genuinely sinister, this might be a defensible exercise of the president’s Take Care Clause responsibilities. The difference is purely one of intent and motive.
Yet under this ruling, Trump would likely be immune whether he did this for the most venal of personal reasons or the most noble, good-faith reasons of state. A court could not even consider the motive in assessing whether immunity attaches to the act.
The intents and motives piece of the ruling is actually one of the most pivotal and important.
Imagine a world where every presidential action was subject to an “intents analysis” given the hyper partisanship and political environment we currently live in. For Dems, any action by Trump would be corrupt, vile and in violation of the rule of law because of intent. The very same action if undertaken by Obama would be hailed as a major policy victory or whatever else can be sculpted into a politically desirable narrative. The Presidency would simply be in a constant state of paralysis depending on the partisan balance and there is nothing in the Constitution to support such an intrusion on Article II powers. In fact, one of the major avenues by which lawfare is waged is precisely through the prosecution of intent–in effect, thought crimes. This ruling cuts that off at the knees. Kudos.
In your hypo, you say imagine that what Trump actually said in his phone call were instead a quid pro quo involving a bribe. My friend that is not just a shade of difference or a small leap of faith–that is leaping across the Grand Canyon in a single bound when you’re not Superman. It doesn’t end well. Remember as well that there is direct testimony from multiple witnesses that this was not a quid pro quo. Your hypo is a hypo on a quixotic quest in search of reality.
If you’re really looking for a quid pro quo scenario, then you must be incredibly outraged to the point of being apoplectic that Joe Biden, against all intra-agency policy, threatened to withhold $1B in US aid unless Ukraine fired a single, specific prosecutor (this is known as a quid pro quo) who by some miracle of a coincidence just happened to be investigating and confiscating assets of the head of Burisma who, in an extraordinary, secondary miracle of coincidence, just so happened to have hired Hunter Biden and his partner with no relevant experience whatsoever at a rate of $1M per year each (a rate that far exceeds that of board members for the top corporations in the world). Ironically, the head of Burisma apparently thought Hunter Biden was “dumber than his dog”. It strains credulity to think of any legitimate reason why Burisma would hire Hunter and Devon. Any thoughts?
This above situation which is decidedly real and not a hypo should absolutely be looked into and investigated (exactly what Trump was suggesting) and a Special Counsel is long overdue.
Any ideas on why that shouldn’t happen? Let the spluttering begin.
M:
“The intents and motives . . .”
That was a brilliant demolition.
A cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat tried this MASSIVE projection:
As an example of the absurdity of this proposition, imagine a hypothetical only one shade from something that actually happened. Imagine that Trump as president had offered Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a frank bribe, instead of using the word-salad he gave in his “perfect” phone call with the Ukrainian leader. Imagine for example that he had said, “I will give you $10 billion in military aid if you deliver me dirt on Joe Biden.”
The rocky shoals your insinuation falls apart on is that even the two fraudulent Soviet Democrat “whistleblowers” who violated the Espionage Act to didn’t even bother to claim Trump said anything remotely like that.
Meanwhile, it is fact – not Soviet Democrat apparatchik projection – that President Bribery Biden, The Big Guy, publicly confessed (bragged, actually) to an audience of wealthy donors that when he was Vice President he had threatened the Ukrainian government that if they did not fire the prosecutor investigating his First Son, The Family Cashier Formerly Known As The Crackhead Kid, he would of his own initiative withhold the billion dollars that Congress had appropriated for them.
No imagine required of what might theoretically have been done by Trump when none of the “whistleblowers” said anything like your imagination helps you attempt to insinuate.
Which leaves this question: does now President Bribery Biden have some kind of Vice President immunity for coercing a quid pro quo from Ukrainian government officials by threatening to withhold funds that have already been approved by Congress and with State Department/Foreign Affairs policy.
Shouldn’t Bribery Biden have already been in the docket standing trial for multiple corruption charges long ago? Does he have any immunity for his 40 years of felonies as both a Senator and then Vice President? Can a once again elected President Trump has his new Attorney General find a version of Jack Smith (who doesn’t agree to the kindly-old-man-get-out-of-jail-card played by Special Counsel Hur) to immediately indict and try former President Bribery Biden for corruption – and everyone else involved or aiding and abetting it as a RICO investigation?
And sidebar: what happened to the Soviet Democrats and their government whistleblowers who watched this happen in real time – and his confession to doing exactly that a couple of years later? It’s like they just cosplay at being concerned by Oval Office corruption and malfeasance. They don’t care until they think a mere suggestion of corruption should be all that’s required for impeachment/indictment – when the target is a Republican.
In 235 years, the president has never been prosecuted.
Impeachment and conviction are readily available to Congress in the Constitution.
Immunity Decision Breaks Established Precedent Again
Almost exactly 50 years ago, in July 1974, the court rejected an extravagant claim of presidential immunity: Richard Nixon’s effort to have the court excuse him from producing White House tapes in conjunction with the special prosecutor’s investigation of the Watergate break-in and cover-up. Nixon never faced criminal charges for his involvement in Watergate because following his resignation Gerald Ford granted him a “full, free and absolute pardon,” an act Justice Brett Kavanaugh lauded during the oral argument in Mr. Trump’s case.
But the text of Ford’s pardon made clear that but for the pardon, Nixon might have faced criminal prosecution for his conduct while president. Ford wrote in his proclamation that “Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States,” and explained that he was granting the pardon in order to avoid “exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.”
As the Ford-Nixon pardon made crystal clear, 50 years ago, the country understood well that ex-presidents could face trial for their crimes in office. That understanding endured until this week. Just three years ago, when Mitch McConnell voted to acquit Mr. Trump following an impeachment trial for incitement of insurrection, Mr. McConnell explained: “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”
On Monday, the court radically refashioned the settled understanding of the accountability of ex-presidents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/opinion/supreme-court-immunity-trump.html
……………………………………….
6 Federalists were put on the court through an operation funded by the Koch network of billionaires. And these 6 judges keep issuing decisions that break from judicial precedent.
Arranging to bug the Democrat headquarters at Watergate was not an official act, and thus was not, and will not, be covered by immunity.
Immunity covers official acts of the Executive Office. A president cannot be charged after leaving office for directing a strike against terrorists, for executive actions to fulfill his duties (even if those EAs are vehemently disagreed with), or for having discussions in official meetings. If Joe Biden woke up enough to ask his cabinet, “Hey, I heard on the news today that SCOTUS said a president can murder his political opponent. Can we just assassinate Donald Trump,” he would not be charged. A president can ask anything he or she wants in a meeting. If he ACTUALLY assassinated Donald Trump, that is outside official duties, and he would be charged. Then probably the Democrat prosecutor would say he was dropping the charges, because Biden is just a “well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” that a jury would find sympathetic.
Democrats just keep making up crimes to charge Donald Trump. Election interference, and interference in the Executive Office, has been Get Trump, Try to Get Trump Thrown Out of Office, Jail Trump, and Prevent Trump from Getting REELECETED. The abuse of power by government has been entirely targeted against Donald Trump, yet it’s TRUMP who Democrats claim we should blame for abuse of power.
Karen, you’re arguing that January 6th was a non event and no one should be held accountable. If that’s the case, ‘any’ defeated incumbent can try to stay in office by whatever means possible.
I have repeatedly, and for years, said that anyone who rioted in Jan 6 should be properly charged, and that rioters should be treated equally.
Most of the charges were for illegally parading and trespassing, yet they were put in solitary confinement. It was a clear abuse of the law, which SCOTUS confirmed.
We have witnessed Democrats interfere in the 2024 election by all means possible, from trying to strike Trump from the ballot, brining charges against him which would never be brought against anyone else, colluding to deny that Joe Biden is in serious cognitive decline and unfit for president, and blatantly lying that Trump called Neo Nazis “very fine people.” Video shows Trump said there were fine people on both sides of the statue issue, whether it should stay or be removed, but that he “wasn’t talking about the Neo Nazis or white supremacists, who should be condemned totally.” Democrats in positions of authority have abused that power to get Trump.
Yet, we are to believe that Democrats did not meddle in the 2020 election, besides, of course, colluding with Democrat apparatchiks in the intelligence community to lie that Hunter’s laptop was Russian misinformation.
Trump genuinely believed that his loss was the result of election interference. After all, there were truckloads of ballots delivered in the middle of the night, and different ballot standards applied in different districts, in violation of the 14th Amendment, among other reasons. He did not think he actually lost, and so he asked multiple people what could be done. In the Georgia case, he told him that they don’t even need to identify all the fraudulent ballots, just enough to make a difference. That isn’t an insurrection. It’s trying to combat fraud.
Al Gore believed he won the 2000 election. He lost the election, but the margin in FL was so slim that an automatic statewide recount was ordered. He lost the 2nd count. Then he sued to get a third hand count, and extend the election deadline past November 14, delaying the official certification of the election in Congress. He lost that, too. The election was official certified November 26. Then he sued to demand a 4th recount, which would have been another hand recount, but only on ballots in Democrat majority counties who did not enter any result for president. It would have bene ripe for activist to just fill that in, and of course unfair if Republican counties were excluded. SCOTUS denied that request, and he’s falsely claimed he actually won that election ever since.
Al Gore delayed the official election certification, and then after that election, tried to get SCOTUS to overturn the election, and get a 4th count of ballots, only in counties that would benefit him. That is far, and away, more than Trump asking a Georgia official to investigate fraudulent ballots, and just asking if the election certification could be delayed.
^^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore. ^^
“And these 6 judges keep issuing decisions that break from judicial precedent.”
Since the Nixon case was never adjudicated by a court, let alone by SCOTUS, it is in fact *not* “judicial precedent.”
The NYT is just making stuff up. Imagine that.
PUPPET WATCH
Afternoon Update, Tues. July 2
For the column, “No, President Biden–
Since our morning Puppet Watch was posted, traffic has tailed off. Most comments are coming from the belligerent green anonymous with minor assistance from Traveler.
The belligerent green anonymous dominated this morning as well. He sounds exactly like Floyd, Estovir, Hullbobby and Shakdi. An arrogant obnoxious jerk willing to use any vulgar insult. No pretext of civility.
A Professor Turley puppet keeps reappearing to mouth cynical puppet points. That puppet, in particular, should leave no doubt that trolls are in charge.
For the column “Age Of Rage–
Here some formerly less visible puppets are taking the lead. Old Airborne Dog is unusually active with plenty of assistance from GEB, Guy Ventner and old standby Upstate Farmer. Also present are Whig98, Neil Bobacon and ZZdoc1.
Curiously, Guy Ventner is usually fielded as more of a sign holder than active player. But today he’s out front, spewing puppet points.
It’s time to take a stand against the leftward drift the Bar has taken. It’s very simple: Forfeit your membership.
Below link to an an attorney’s letter explaining to the DC Bar why he will not be renewing his decades long membership, specifically citing the treatment by the DC Bar of former AUSAG, Jeffrey Clark.
“The Clark matter indicates to me – and perhaps many others – that the Bar has become an unofficial appendage of the Democrat Party.”
“…it seems to me to be advancing a political agenda to intimidate legal support and advocacy for Donald Trump and his supporters. This, I cannot abide.”
“…I will no longer finance this type of mischief with my Bar dues, and I will not renew my membership today.”
https://x.com/amrenewctr/status/1808246824324489668
You can take a stand to forfeit your Bar membership for the treatment of Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and others, as well.
“This is why Rudy Giuliani was Disbarred
He Exposed the mail-in ballot fraud at a 2020 Hearing in front of PA Legislatures
“You have two major gaps — you have the 672,770 votes that were not inspected by anyone secretly put into the ballot box and then you have this gap that I don’t understand between the mail-in ballots.
You’ve sent out: 1.8 million and the number you counted: 2.5 million!
That’s totally impossible to explain other than what some of the other witnesses were suggesting that they were basically stuffing the ballot box.
I believe what happened was that they never expected to be behind by 700,000 or 800,000 votes on election night.
They expected to be behind by a couple hundred thousand — in Philadelphia to steal a couple hundred thousand votes, they do it every year, that’s not going to be tough.
Now you have a real big problem so you had to create mail-in ballots, you had to stretch it out for a while…”
Thank you for everything @RudyGiuliani!”
https://rumble.com/v55473f-rudy-giuliani-exposed-the-mail-in-ballot-fraud-at-a-2020-hearing-in-front-o.html
Giuliani also exposed the Hunter laptop and all the crimes therein.
Rudy gave it to the FBI who sat on it and ran cover for the Bidens.
Plus the 51 CIA spies who lied about it to protect Biden.
Rudy Giuliani is a good man and a true American Patriot.
“The 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the Trump presidential immunity case highlights that the Bar overstepped its mission in the Clark matter,” he writes.