Well, I guess we had a good run.

[Jarlaxle]

What makes this "insane hyperbole"? Under the Court's broad grant of immunity, how exactly would you prosecute a criminal case for ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival or for organizing a military coup? "Commander-in-chief" is a core presidential function. How would you prosecute taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon? A president's motivation for any official act cannot be considered. What is insane is the Court's majority putting a president above the law.

Impeachment.

Do you support prosecuting Barack Obama for the murder of Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki?

[datsunaholic]

Impeachment of the President is useless. It's solely political theatre at this point. There have been 4 impeachments of Presidents in the US, none of which resulted in removal from office because that requires 2/3rds of the Senate. Since neither party holds a 2/3rds majority and neither party seems willing to convict their own guy, regardless of the seriousness of the charges, conviction is impossible.

No, the current "Conservative" members of the Supreme Court are hell bent on turning Trump and succeeding Republican presidents into Emperors, while simultaneously ensuring any Democratic, progressive policies are ruled "Unconstitutional". Since they are appointed for life, there is nothing stopping them from using their powers to "interpret" the Constitution for the sole purpose of establishing the Republican Party as the sole political entity in the US. The only people that can stop that is congress, but again, Impeachment is useless without conviction and removal. And there's no way that the Republican members of congress would do that when the SC is doing exactly what the Republicans want them to do.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Your point of order needs one of those emoji things that indicates either "very dry humor" or "shooting myself in the head now."

Oh, I dunno. I thought the word "presidenty" sort of gave it away.

ETA:

[Burning Petard]

For me 'impeachment' is not prosecution or even persecution. It is a process for the employer to fire the CEO. No jail time or fine is included in this action. Just instructions to clean out their desk and turn in their id badge. In the actual fact after Trump's contract was not renewed, nobody supervised while he did far more than the expected 'clean out your desk' which resulted in so many boxes that they were stacked throughout his home in Florida.

However, it is not a stretch for me to look at the 34 felonies for which Trump was found guilty, as real criminal actions (for which he is a guilty felon) as a form of resume 'clean-up' which had mixed results from the hiring committee back in 2016.

I have not seen anybody speculate on the results of the Supremes declaration of immunity as to state crimes that began before he was president.

snailgate.

[Big RR]

Since they are appointed for life, there is nothing stopping them from using their powers to "interpret" the Constitution for the sole purpose of establishing the Republican Party as the sole political entity in the US.

true, but then given their recent rulings, absent impeachment and removal, there is very little the SC can do if the president ignores their rulings; and even if (s)he is removed, very little to prevent him/her from remaining in office. With apologies to Stalin, how many divisions does the Supreme Court have?

[Burning Petard]

Modern mythology has it that 'Old Hickory' said: John Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it.

The very bottom line, the only thing the Supremes have is public opinion. They can't even remove a lower court judge who does not follow their instructions. This last court season has really stretched that support. Remains too be seen how that will go next year, if Trump is not elected, or even if he is.

snailgate.

[Sue U]

What makes this "insane hyperbole"? Under the Court's broad grant of immunity, how exactly would you prosecute a criminal case for ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival or for organizing a military coup? "Commander-in-chief" is a core presidential function. How would you prosecute taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon? A president's motivation for any official act cannot be considered. What is insane is the Court's majority putting a president above the law.

Impeachment.

So you're happy to abandon the whole concept of "rule of law" and leave as the only check on a president's criminal conduct a purely political process controlled by factions in Congress that in their sole discretion decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor? You really do want a dictatorship.

Do you support prosecuting Barack Obama for the murder of Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki?

Aside from your attempt at deflection by whataboutism, I think the assassination of Al-Awlaki was wrong as a matter of principle. But even so, not all wrongful deaths are punishable through criminal prosecutions and some homicides are justifiable on well-settled legal principles or other moral/ethical grounds. If there's a case to be made, make it. If you want to talk about other questionable decisions in previous administrations, I also think Dick Cheney, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, David Addington and several others should be prosecuted for authorizing torture in the Iraq debacle. But this SCOTUS decision probably immunizes them as well, since their crimes were carried out through the executive office.

[Jarlaxle]

So you're happy to abandon the whole concept of "rule of law" and leave as the only check on a president's criminal conduct a purely political process controlled by factions in Congress that in their sole discretion decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor? You really do want a dictatorship.

No, you're projecting. (As usual.) You're the one who wants an overwhelmingly powerful government with few checks on it. I want a Federal government closer to what Grover Norquist likes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 07117&ei=4

[MajGenl.Meade]

So you're happy to abandon the whole concept of "rule of law" and leave as the only check on a president's criminal conduct a purely political process controlled by factions in Congress that in their sole discretion decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor? You really do want a dictatorship.

No, you're projecting. (As usual.) You're the one who wants an overwhelmingly powerful government with few checks on it. I want a Federal government closer to what Grover Norquist likes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 07117&ei=4

Jarl loses 10 points for evasion. Sue never mentioned "government", let alone 'Federal government'. She spoke of your recommendation that the only sanction against Presidential crimes and misconduct should be impeachment. Which, as you well know, never works against a President and (even if it did) can only remove a person from office. The Supreme Court has just determined that even a 100% vote to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanours carries no weight in a court of law and (in fact) cannot even be considered as evidence of a crime. As long as "the President" did it in his official capacity, he is untouchable.

That should worry you as much as anyone. It creates a king in all but name. No self-respecting Republican (or America-respecting one) should countenance such a horrible decision. I don't.

[Some errors in word-usage may be closer than they appear]

[Sue U]

She spoke of your recommendation that the only sanction against Presidential crimes and misconduct should be impeachment. Which, as you well know, never works against a President and (even if it did) can only remove a person from office. The Supreme Court has just determined that even a 100% vote to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanours carries no weight in a court of law and (in fact) cannot even be considered as evidence of a crime. As long as "the President" did it in his official capacity, he is untouchable.

That should worry you as much as anyone. It creates a king in all but name. No self-respecting Republican (or America-respecting one) should countenance such a horrible decision. I don't.

Thanks for making my point for me. Left or right on the political spectrum, there should be some basic things we all agree on as Americans, and one should be that no one is above the law at any time or in any position. It is shocking and extremely worrying that the Supreme Court has lost sight of that, and that so many are willing to go along with it because it serves Trump's interest.

So you're happy to abandon the whole concept of "rule of law" and leave as the only check on a president's criminal conduct a purely political process controlled by factions in Congress that in their sole discretion decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor? You really do want a dictatorship.

No, you're projecting. (As usual.) You're the one who wants an overwhelmingly powerful government with few checks on it. I want a Federal government closer to what Grover Norquist likes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 07117&ei=4

I dare you to show one instance where I have ever advocated for "an overwhelmingly powerful government with few checks on it." My real-life actual job is literally ensuring the opposite. (Which is why I have mixed sentiments on the Court's decision in Loper Bright abrogating "Chevron deference.") Before you accuse someone of projection, "as usual," you might want to find out what that actually means. It is not "projection" to point out the logical consequences of the poorly reasoned opinions you espouse.

And speaking of poorly reasoned opinions, citing an article by Jonathan Turley, perhaps the hackiest of all political hack TV lawyers, is not a winning argument. There's a reason he's a laughingstock in the legal community. (It's because his opinions are poorly reasoned and shamelessly bad.) You might as well cite Sydney Powell, Rudy Giuliani or John Eastman.

[Burning Petard]

Anybody keeping track of the factual details?

https://apnews.com/article/voting-fraud ... 373d607962

My general memory says, with out actual tally of incidents, that the Trumpers have been and still are, crying massive voter fraud but can find no time or place where there was enough to change the results. But my general conclusion is that some has been found, and most of that has been done by registered Republicans. Is it all 'projection' like Trump's accusation of Harris faking crowd size?

snailgate