Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have protection from prosecution
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
"The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive," he said.
"The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party," he continued.
The question stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
Those charges stem from Smith’s months-long investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president of the U.S.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."
"Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President … the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent," she said.
Smith’s case against the former president and its trial have been pending amid the high court’s consideration of the issue.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, former President Trump said, "I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years, and now the courts have spoken."
"This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll—by a lot—and we will make America great again," he said.
The justices heard arguments from Trump attorney John Sauer and Michael Dreeben, a Justice Department attorney representing Special Counsel Jack Smith, on April 25 on whether presidents should have "absolute immunity."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … rosecutionSo our political, activist court just gave POTUS immense power.
Did SCOTUS just give Biden the ability to take an "official act" to neutralize Trump in some manner because he is a threat to democracy if he should win this election? I mean, the court has said that a president can be immune for official acts, right?
Trump's attorneys argued that using SEAL team six against a political opponent would be an official act... Should Biden tee them up?
Hey, when the president does it it's not a crime right? SCOTUS has validated Nixon's statement after all these years lol.
I mean if Trump wins, God forbid should Biden just pull a Trump? Gather the fake electors, deny the results and declare that he is staying in power, as an official act?
The decision effectively gives a green light to all future presidents to commit as many crimes as they want while in office. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it...
“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world,” Sotomayor wrote. “When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”Perhaps it does.
Perhaps the Biden Administration will, I doubt Biden is coherent enough to do so himself, but those making the decisions for him just might.
This is most likely what a decline into a dysfunctional... and then a tyrannical government looks like.
In NY you have an AG that ran on getting Trump, whose existence as AG is all about getting Trump, you have politically hardcore Judges working with that AG and others in the State that are willing to rewrite laws, ignore precedent, refuse evidence, and direct jurors to get the results that they want.
That is not Justice, nor is it impartial. That is political persecution, plain and simple.
They can take that ruling and run with it... start rounding up all known Trump supporters and confiscating all their assets. Why not?The court case covered "prosecution" but did not cover impeachment.
With this court case the bogus cases against a former president will be eliminated.
Should a president misbehave in his official capacity, it will now be up to the Congress and Senate to remove him.
That is how the removal of a president was designed to be done by the Constitution.The sad thing about this decision is that it comes about as a direct result of the unending legal persecution of a President one party didn't approve of. Had that persecution not happened, this decisions would not either.
The only question is where we take it from here; will future presidents (and this one) grossly abuse their power because of a poorly worded decision or will both parties back off of this madness? My bet is on the first possibility; our two party system is so broken, so distrustful and so divided as to make almost any decision impossible; the only thing lift is to get rid of the opposition, whatever it takes, and the legal system is the current tool of choice.No, the only question is how far are they going to go?
A headline I just read:
AOC vows to file articles of impeachment against Supreme Court
Do you see?
Do what they want or be destroyed.
Whether you are a Movie Star or a Politician or a member of the Supreme Court.
You will accept their rule. You will accept their domination. You will accept what they tell you reality itself is.
Or you will be destroyed.
They will destroy everything... the very fabric of sanity... male is not male... female is not female... wrong is only wrong if a victimizer does it... standards are oppression... math is racist... my truth is the only truth that matters.
Insanity... that is what they bring... that is at the heart of their ideology.
The longer they hold power the more certain our Nation's downfall is.
Not so much because it is forced on Americans... but because they project this insanity outward, it is what drives them to doing the insane, like forcing NATO onto Russia's doorstep. Or sending Iran billions upon billions of dollars despite knowing what they represent and what they fund. Or pushing away Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the very foundation on which the "Petro-" dollar's strength rests.
Insane... suicidal... take your pick.
It's still going to be problematic for Trump as Barrett got his lawyer to admit that many of the things he's actually charged with would not be considered official acts during the oral arguments. No way are the fake electors official.
The opposition to this decision might not be so dramatic if it was considered relative to 'best case' "official acts" instead of Trump-inspired 'worst case' official acts.
What if a president authorized a drone strike on a car and killed a family instead of the carload of terrorists he thought he was executing, should he be liable for murder charges after his term? Etc. etc . . . The real argument will be defining "official acts."
I think that the president should have absolute immunity in that case. Is that example similar to the ' . . . now he can send Seal Team Six after his enemies . . .' declarations of the power now given to Trump?
GAForget Trump!! I am more concerned that this is an eternity kind of thing. There is the old adage, give them an inch and they will take a mile comes into play the way I see it.
It is not as big a deal as some make it seem.
It remains to be seen whether many of the accusations brought against him could be upheld as an “official act” in court and would be eligible for immunity.
Most likely some will, some won't.
As for the 34 felony counts against him, I am pretty sure they aren't going to stick upon appeal, but that won't run its course until after the election.
The political play worked... it is likely to be the only case brought against him that land felony charges, before the election, so I don't think they care if years down the road it is made clear to everyone Trump was railroaded and ramrodded... they got their conviction to slander him with or jail him with as they choose to use it.I'm not worried about Trump and that soap opera. Don't touch that dial. Stay tuned. I just have reservations about what and who determines if an action is a 'Constitutional act' by the president. Seems to be very subjective in my view.
It is better than small-fry, easily bought or very eccentric AG/Judges being able to bring a President (or former President) up on charges.
Its no longer about the man, or the crime.
Its about the position. It is about the ability of the President of the United States to be able to act on behalf of all America as its elected and official leader.
What we saw throughout Trump's term, and thereafter as he became a leading candidate for 2024 is an abuse of the system.
It was never intended that a State AG could harass and incarcerate a President, this is absurd, we will be unable to function as a nation. The very things used against Trump WILL be used against the Party in charge today, it is just a matter of time.
An eye for an eye... the Supreme Court needed to be more decisive, it tried to put forth what in essence is common sense... once a person is or has been President then NO you cannot go back 26 years (26 years!!!) changing your own State Laws and Statute of Limitations to go after a former President for some absurd 'rape charge' from a woman who was clearly nuts and stated in public it was a lie!
How can we really know what Trump was guilty of, the Judges themselves were part of the Witch Hunt. They refused to allow key testimony, evidence, they allowed for Justice itself to be turned into a clown show.I think you're right, it will be the 'subjectiveness' of determining whether something is an official act that will be a problem.
However, I still think that a president must have some immunity for 'truly' official acts.
Consider a 'best case' scenario—the mentioned drone attack. If a president has 'high confidence intel that wanted terrorists are in a car and they order a strike based on that intel, should they be criminally liable if the intel was wrong and a family of civilians was killed?
I say no, they should have immunity for that act.
GAWhat if, as under the obama administration, a drone strike is ordered to kill an American citizen suspected of being a terrorist? No trial, just an order to kill.
Was that in the president's official duties?
Of course, obama was never even thought of in a negative way for doing such a thing, but it did happen.
Here is how the ACLU saw it.
Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority To Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones
The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration’s asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today.
“Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply,” said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government’s claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration’s claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing.”
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government’s decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asks the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asks the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
“If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state,” said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, who presented arguments in the case. “It’s the government’s responsibility to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, but the courts have a crucial role to play in ensuring that counterterrorism policies are consistent with the Constitution.”
The government filed a brief in the case in September, claiming that the executive’s targeted killing authority is a “political question” that should not be subject to judicial review. The government also asserted the “state secrets” privilege, contending that the case should be dismissed to avoid the disclosure of sensitive information.
The lawsuit was filed against CIA Director Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Barrack Obama in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are Jaffer, Ben Wizner, Jonathan Manes and Jennifer Turner of the ACLU; Kebriaei, Maria LaHood and Bill Quigley of CCR; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital. Co-counsel in Yemen is Mohammed Allawo of the Allawo Law Firm and the National Organization for Defending Human Rights (HOOD).
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/oba … mbat-zonesTough example. Tough question. And a tough dissent.
My first thought was the same 'yes.' After considering how many ways that could be wrong—with the American citizen complication, I ended up sticking with yes.
We don't know what they knew. There must be trust in the office no matter who occupies it. Without that, it doesn't matter who occupies it.
GAWell now... seems to me... what we got here is a failure to communicate.
I'm pretty sure, going on near 8 years now, if not longer, a good portion of the country don't have that trust in the Office which you speak.
That rightly goes for Congress as well, regardless of who is in that Office.
Might have been this way since they ramrodded the ACA through... despite some 75% of America saying they don't want it and don't trust them to do it. Those racist Tea Party rascals, remember them?
But... might be able to go back even further, to when they passed NAFTA and ushered in a new age of corporate flight out of the country...
sigh~ well now U went and did it, I went and researched the matter...
Back in 1964... soon after the Kennedy assassination, the percentage of Americans that trusted their government was 77%.
Today it stands at 22%. Sixty years later.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … 1958-2024/
Sixty years of many, many betrayals of American interests and out of control corruption, both parties had their sellouts, with the major shift coming after the Soviet Union collapsed and DC then really became the global center of power rather than the center of the American people's government.I did pause a bit before making the "trust" statement. I know the arguments that will come, but I have to stick with trusting the Office, even if not the person occupying it.
The issues you mentioned are not due to the construction of the Offices, but with the people we put in them. We get the blame Ken, we're the ones that vote them in.
GAOh no you didn't... did you?
Did you really type that?
"We get the blame Ken, we're the ones that vote them in."
You sure you don't want to take that back?
If given a binary choice... putting on my big boy hat here... give me a moment... haven't used the majority of what brain cells I have left since I witnessed the debate...
In politics, it may appear we are given a myriad of choices, especially during the primaries when America has many choices to consider (well... the Republicans kept up appearances for the coming 2024 election, the Democrats said screw the illusion).
A closer look reveals that these options can be significantly constrained, leading to a false sense of autonomy.
In America voters are usually faced with a binary choice between two major parties, rarely is there a Ross Perot or Teddy Roosevelt that makes a serious attempt at a third option.
This dominance is perpetuated by factors such as media focus, substantial campaign funding, and the "first-past-the-post" electoral system.
These elements work together to overshadow smaller/insignificant parties, creating an illusion of choice while effectively limiting the political options available to the electorate.
Furthermore, no 'independent thinkers' are allowed to be chosen as nominee for President, in either of the two major parties, the one time this has occurred (Trump) in our lifetimes, note the consternation and discombobulation this caused to our system.
Do I need remind you how the Republican Party itself tried to sabotage and distance itself from Trump during the run-up to 2016?
Do you remember how the Republicans bailed on their majority status in 2018, Republican politicians that were almost a shoo-in to win re-election in their State retiring instead, allowing for Democrats to fill their seats?
The greatest amount in the history of Congress, I believe, bowed out that year.
And then the Impeachment efforts began in earnest.
The framing of choices in both political and socioeconomic contexts restricts genuine autonomy, creating a cycle where existing power structures and inequalities are reinforced.
When 'the People' try to re-assert some semblance of control over who 'represents' them and what direction the government takes... as was evidenced in 2010 with the Tea Party wave that swept out many Democrats... and in 2016 that brought us Trump... corrections are made to mitigate those changes and get our 'politics' back on course.
In the case of Trump, this effort is becoming increasingly dire, direct, and difficult to hide from a populace that is becoming increasingly aware... an awakening compounded by 'sleepy Joe'.
Some evidence that the American populace is finding it more and more difficult to believe they have real choice, they are aware that something is seriously amiss:
Beyond the binary illusion of American democracy
https://csu-cauldron.com/2024/04/23/opi … democracy/
The American illusion of choice
https://bucknellian.net/124775/opinion/ … of-choice/
5 Reasons the Two-Party System is Bad for America
https://goodparty.org/blog/article/5-re … or-america
The Illusion of choice is as real as the fostering of Division upon all Americans.
In the interval between Jan. 6 and Inauguration Day 2021, a Populace survey, dubbed the American Aspirations Index, found “stunning agreement” on national goals across every segment of the U.S. population, including, to a significant extent, among those who voted for Donald Trump and those who voted for Joe Biden.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ … +Index.pdf
The few points where the survey registered disagreement (notably, on immigration and borders), the dissent was intense. But intense disagreement was the exception, not the rule.
As I have often said, mostly to Credence over the years... if the two sides ever realize that Black is not the enemy of White and Gay is not the enemy of Straight... our government will have a serious, serious, problem on its hands.
I believe that time is coming, as soon as we take the next severe economic downturn... so long as the stupidity in DC does not interfere with the majority of Americans ability to "have their stuff" their houses, cars and cell-phones... they can continue to survive and remain in power.
The DC solution is to do what they always do when the debt reaches unsustainable levels... start a World War... replace the old economic model with a new one... suppress/oppress a certain portion of the population when doing so.
I'm not sure they are going to be able to pull it off this time, between allowing in 30 million migrants that have no loyalty to America and have not been programmed to believe in America, and the fact that information has become almost impossible for them to control, I believe we are heading into a new 'French Revolution' moment... and if you do some research on that, it wasn't pretty, it was insanity... truly insane acts went on during that time, like the beheading of 40 nuns because they would not renounce their faith type of crazy.
That is why, when you witness truly insane things going on today, it begs one to ask, where is this all going?
You know, the insanity of men acting like women and our government forcing us to accept them as women. Or mutilating our children, or starting a war on Russia's border, clear signs that sane people are no longer running the show.
Anywho, much of what 'News' reports, politicians, and pollsters call polarization, is really “learned divisiveness”... division propagated by the assumption that it exists even where it does not.
Fabricated division which is increasingly difficult to sell to a population that no longer tunes in to the MSM sources of information.
Ordinary folks think Americans are much more partisan than they are.
The more involved in politics a person is, the more distorted their view of the other side. In other words, engagement in politics actually serves to narrow one’s perspective on the world.
This can most easily be exampled here in these forums, I am sure this is something you are aware of.
Most run-of-the-mill Americans dislike people who are really ideologically extreme, who are very politically invested, who want to talk to them about politics. They tune it out.
Which is why when an appearance like Biden made for the debates happens, and tens of millions of Americans tune in to check it out, the literal jaw of America drops to the floor.All those brain cells seem to be working now.
GATrust me... I regret it... that's OK I'm now a few gummies into not giving a crap about how embarrassingly putrid America looks today on the global stage, and the message it tells the rest of the world that we allow a bunch of loons and mentally incapacitated people 'run' America.
" If a president has 'high confidence intel that wanted terrorists are in a car and they order a strike based on that intel, should they be criminally liable if the intel was wrong and a family of civilians was killed?
I say no, they should have immunity for that act."
For the sake of expediency, maybe? The bottom line is that is done today in other countries. Why would doing it in the US itself be any different?
From my understanding any action toward or regard terrorism is considered an action of war - domestic or international. We have a war on terrorism. Matter of fact a Global War on Terrorism. So, that being so the hypothetical proposed the casualties would be collateral damage, right?
"The law of armed conflict (LOAC) permits soldiers (President as Commander in Chief) to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed, provided the attack is consistent with the requirements of the principle of proportionality."
"Proportionality
The rules of LOAC provide some protections for civilians, but civilians can lawfully be killed in war. The LOAC principle of distinction prohibits attacks directed against civilians, meaning it is unlawful to intentionally target civilians. Civilians, however, may be incidentally harmed or killed in attacks directed at military objectives. The LOAC principle of proportionality only prohibits attacks against military objectives if the attack is expected to cause incidental harm to civilians or civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Thus, the principle of proportionality implicitly authorizes the knowing or foreseeable (but not intentional) killing of civilians in certain circumstances. Indeed, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths has increased over the past century, particularly with the advent of aerial warfare, the development of more destructive weapons, and the urbanization of societies."
Collateral Damage and Innocent Bystanders in War by Lieber / West Point (Jul 10, 2023)
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/collateral … nders-war/
"Conclusion
While the principle of proportionality may serve a humanitarian interest in limiting the scope of war, we should not be complacent in thinking that the laws of war perfectly mirror moral principles, or that actions consistent with the LOAC are morally permissible. Ethically minded States and militaries need not be satisfied with the moral shortcomings of the principle of proportionality. They should acknowledge that collateral damage may be lawful, but not always moral, and take additional steps to reduce the risks to innocent bystanders in war."
Absolutely. If a law is made it will be used and misused. It will be stretched to the limits.
I’m speechless, ever since King John was forced into signing the Magna Carta in 1215, no one in Britain is above the law, not even a King:
Yet, in America, a President of the USA can be above the law…….
Reasons King John signed Magna Carta in 1215: https://youtu.be/CKT7yJRQO40No, the insane part that should have Americans outraged is that a State AG that ran on railroading the (then) President has the ability to reach out and touch the President.
The Supreme Court tried to state with their ruling that it is the job of CONGRESS to do so... that the CONSTITUTION lays out they are the ONLY ones who have the authority to do so.
That lower courts were able to gum up a sitting President during Trump's Administration is bad enough, that they are now prosecuting a former President and current front runner to be President again over what most astute individuals recognize as pure nonsense, in NY, puts the entire system into question.
The Supreme Court was not clear enough, not stern enough, lower courts should never have the ability to undermine the Constitution, nor the Office of the Presidency.Can your King then be jailed for doing his sworn duty? If some yahoo lawyer decides he doesn't like the law, can the King be put away for enforcing that same law?
The Five puts the situation in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWhRhSl7QHs"Should a president misbehave in his official capacity, it will now be up to the Congress and Senate to remove him.
That is how the removal of a president was designed to be done by the Constitution."
It certainly was until the Republican senators of 2016-2020 who chose politics - twice - over enforcing our laws.I view it as upholding the law by not convicting an innocent man. They ignored politics and did the right thing. Both impeachment were 100% bogus!
The problem here that any graduate of civics 101 knows is that the President has immunity against actions taken in office WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DUTIES. But the attempt to undermine procedures as proscribed in the Constitution is not within that scope, and take illegal actions to continue in office after he clearly lost is in violation of the law. That right wing SC knew that already and wasted time coming to a conclusion that stated the obvious. The delay was unacceptable, and confirmed what I always suspected. That the conservatives jurors are literally in Trumps back pocket.
People ought to be smart enough to know that an impeachment is administrative and not judicial. Republicans congressmen being as dirty as they are and subject to partisan politics would excuse Trump of wrong doing if he had a competitor murdered.An unintended consequence of this ruling is that now Chutkin can hold hearings to determine what is personal versus what is official acts. And both sides will present their cases. We will get to see what the government has before the trial. Could end up being the J6 hearings, part II.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/evidence-com … 04515.htmlUnusually, I didn’t bother ‘fact checking’ before posting – my excuse is that I’m pre-occupied with tomorrow’s General Election, and in packing for our holidays (vacations) immediately following the Election: As from tomorrow, I shall be away on holiday for a few weeks, so I’ll be absence from HP for a while.
Anyway, I have now ‘fact checked’, and the short answer is “Rex Non-Potest Peccare” (The King can do no wrong). So in respect to this forum, for those who are religious, my message is “Let he without sin throw the first stone”.
In summary:
The Magna Carta of 1215 set the principle in the British Constitution that “no one is above the law, not even the King”.
However, the principle in the Magna Carta of ‘no one is above the law’ slowly became eroded overtime, as the maxim of ‘Rex Non-Potest Peccare’ from its humble beginnings, grew over the next few centuries, by degrees, until by the 17th century it became a cardinal principle of the English constitution. The principle of ‘Rex Non-Potest Peccare’ can be traced back to ‘The Code of Justinian’ in 6th century Rome (The codification of Roman law in the early 6th century).
As the principle of ‘Rex Non-Potest Peccare’ became embedded into the British Constitution, so it was then exported to the rest of the world, including America, by the British Empire e.g. The principle of sovereign immunity (rex non potest peccare) in USA law was inherited from the English common law (medieval law).
So right or wrong, England is historically at the root of the current legal mess that America finds itself in.
Notwithstanding the above; a mega fundamental difference between the King of England and the President of the United States is that the British King these days has no political power – whereas the President of the USA has a lot of political power. So in my view (as a Brit), giving any President such powers of immunity against criminal acts is a dangerous thing, and a potential threat to democracy. In contrast, the then Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) was find by the Police in 2022 for committing a criminal offence (which led to his downfall from power); so no politician in the UK is above ‘National Law’; but obviously, as with all countries around the world, government officials, including politicians, do have ‘diplomatic immunity’ from prosecution by foreign countries – unless convicted for war crimes.
See you in August, when I’m back from my holidays (vacations)." giving any President such powers of immunity against criminal acts is a dangerous thing"
I think among your reading you should read the SCOTUS decision. What you stated is completely wrong.
The leader of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation argued the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity will reinforce a “second American Revolution,” which he said would “remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts told Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast how the Supreme Court ruling on immunity — which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecutions for actions in office — should encourage conservatives.
“In spite of all this nonsense from the left, we are going to win. We’re in the process of taking this country back. No one in the audience should be despairing,” Roberts said, adding, “And in spite of all of the injustice, which, of course, friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve know, we are going to prevail.”
“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,” he added later.
Robert’s Heritage Foundation is the moving force behind Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for a possible Trump reelection in November. The nearly 1,000-page handbook is aimed at advancing right-wing policies and expanding the powers of the presidency.
SMHIs what is being said there any worse than a President standing in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia and declaring tens of millions of Americans domestic terrorists and the biggest threat to America?
Biden’s stark warning: The U.S. is threatened by its own citizens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … within-us/
And this, even before he was President:
Biden slams pro-Trump mob as 'domestic terrorists'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NudMWGigyjE
How can the US be threatened by its own citizens, who want fair and verifiable elections, who want controlled borders and want to avoid WWIII?
What Biden means when he says "Democracy is threatened", is that their remaining in control is at risk... at risk of the American people standing up and demanding their government represent them, not corporate and international interests.
Those pesky Americans that want to put America first, American Jobs, America's economy, etc... they are so annoying to Pelosi and Biden and Schumer who have been in DC longer than half of American has been alive. That's too damned long... our country needs an enema.They have also recommended every conservative prospective justice for the last decade. Look what they have accomplished - and who elected them?
Related Discussions
- 50
States Can't Remove President Trump From Ballot
by Readmikenow 9 months ago
Finally, a move to end the election interference of the democrat party. This may be the beginning of sanity returning to the election process.It was a 9 - 0 ruling by the Supreme Court that President Donald Trump remain on the ballot. That is a very powerful statement for the democrats...
- 20
POTUS Immunity? If the SC is not a Rightwing Tribunal, why are we here
by Credence2 9 months ago
It was interesting to note a recent Supreme Court ruling:“On the self-executing issue, the unsigned majority “per curiam” decision is not merely evasion, but error. It rewrites Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Where the section says that Congress may enact legislation to enforce the amendment, the...
- 382
Donald Trump Supporters/Voters Disenfranchised in Colorado, Who's Next
by Angie B Williams 6 months ago
Which State will be next to decide that their leaders and their State's Supreme Court are more mighty, more powerful than the U.S. Constitution and the Power, which, by design and by LAW, belongs with the American people? That's what this is.....right? A power trip? Let's be the one to outdo all...
- 41
Supreme Court Reforms
by IslandBites 4 months ago
President Biden will call on Congress to impose term limits and a code of conduct on the Supreme Court while also drafting limits on presidential immunity, a White House official said.Biden will discuss the proposed reforms during remarks on Monday at the LBJ Presidential Library, in commemoration...
- 40
Congressional Resolution Declares No Insurrection by Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 9 months ago
Gaetz, Stefanik offer resolution declaring Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection’Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) unveiled a resolution Tuesday that declares former President Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”The resolution — which...
- 37
The case why I am compelled to vote against the GOP/Conservatives
by Credence2 4 years ago
A great article that speaks for me and my opinion regarding the aforementioned topic in the Atlantic. How much of it concurs with your own?https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … te/616808/Patience, it could be seen as a long read.Your thoughts, please.