So, now Biden is immune from prosecution for any crimes committed in an official capacity, what will he do?

[Anonymous]

Well, that's now a lie.

SCOTUS just made it possible for POTUS to be a dictator, undoing centuries of precedent that said no-one is above the law.

They did that massive favour for Trump just days after making it legal for "gratuities" to be paid to officials after the event.

Trump will have no compunction to stop him abusing this totally unreasonable power.

Enforce the 13th Amendment and have Trump removed from the ballots by executive order

"Render" Republican a few senators for a couple of months to nominate and confirm honest justices

Have six SCOTUS "justices" disappear permanently

None of the above, because he's a decent man

Updates

2 d

files.mastodon.online/.../fe5d188620dc8d0e.png

[Avicenna]

You obviously didn't read the majority opinion or have even a basic understanding of the issues involved. The most likely explanation is that you're angry that Trump won't continue to be targeted as much by the Democrats using the federal court system.

[Avicenna]

@goaded, this is obviously you, isn't it?

[Asker]

Yes. You think the dissents don't "even a basic understanding of the issues involved"?

No president has ever wanted or needed immunity from criminal prosecution before Trump. Why do you think that is?

[Avicenna]

You have no business propagandizing about a legal ruling based on a well-established principle in US law that you don't like and don't understand in the least. Don't like it? That's too bad.

SCOTUS had to rule on this because of the illegal coordination of malicious prosecution of Trump known as "lawfare" which violates his constitutional rights by the Biden Administration and DOJ, including forcing some local prosecutors to go along with it at the state level. Yet you keep propagandizing as if these prosecutions are not malicious and are not motivated by political animus and interfering with the democratic process, process and legal procedures that you don't understand don't care to understand.

And the dissent was pure and utter junk.

[Asker]

It's obviously not a "well-established principle in US law", because there wouldn't have been a SCOTUS decision needed, would there? And there wouldn't have been dissents. So that's a lie.

So is the "lawfare" claim. Trump committed crimes before, during, and after his presidency.

The documents case is particularly clear. He had them, he refused to return then, he hid them from the authorities, he lied about them, he showed them to people with no security clearance while explaining how he hadn't declassified them while president (there's a recording of that).

The only reason he hasn't been convicted on all counts is the judge he appointed to the bench is working for him.

[OhLongJohnsoning]

While I don't think he should do anything drastic, and I don't think he will, i do like the idea that he could, now that "trump supporters have always wanted trump himself to be "king", right?"

[Asker]

Exactly. His SCOTUS just handed that to him on a plate, if he can win the next election.

[OhLongJohnsoning]

Yep!

[NamerOfStars]

They did nothing of the kind. Please actually READ the court's rulings (available free at https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ) before criticizing, rather simply parroting what your media overlords tell you.

[Asker]

Bullshit. If the president can claim something was official, it's legal. That's a ridiculous idea, and against the idea that no-one is above the law. No kings, remember?

[NamerOfStars]

Which, again, IS NOT WHAT THEY RULED. Read, THEN bitch. Not before.

[Asker]

So a president can't now sell pardons? A pardon is indisputably an official act.

Did you read the dissents?

https://youtu.be/ZoNKFC8P9hI

[Avicenna]

So, according to you, the dissents are 100% accurate and predictive but the actual ruling isn't accurate.

[Asker]

@Avicenna The dissents match 250 years of precedent, the majority are making stuff up.

[_Maya_]

Would you agree that then 250 year old laws or 1000s years old laws would differ then?

. Don't waver like your other responses. Just answer my question.

[Asker]

@_Maya_ Who are you asking?

[Avicenna]

LOL, 250 years of precedent- go ahead and cite them and explain exactly how they apply to this case (by the way, there was no Supreme Court 250 years ago). You clearly don't understand the Constitution (not surprising since you're a foreign Stalinist), so you're stuck propagandizing about anything other than actual points of law or constitutional principles.

And what did the majority in this case "make up"? You propagandists never have anything to back up your propaganda.

Fact is, you don't get to stamp your feet and demand rulings in a foreign court to be accordance with your non-US, Stalinist Weltanschauung.

[Asker]

@Avicenna Sorry I forgot how young your country is. How about the constitution that explicitly says a president can be prosecuted for criminal acts? Or the part about how the president should ensure the laws are faithfully executed - how, exactly, do you do that by breaking them with immunity?

[monorprise]

Its called sovereign Immunity, its a legal concept that predates our legal system, we even passed the 11th amendment to prevent the federal court from striping states of this immunity.

So nothing new here, a president can't give illegal orders because that is not consistent with the law to be followed.

What does the Amendment banning slavery have to do with Trump? I think your referring to the 14th amendment which is the least legitimate of all amendments.

[Asker]

14th, you're right. Do you know what a sovereign is? It's a king!

[Avicenna]

No, "sovereign" refers to the state, i. e., "the government". Ever heard the term "sovereign debt"? Do you think that's merely money borrowed by a king?

[Asker]

@Avicenna You know that's only about lawsuits, not criminal cases though, right?

[monorprise]

@Avicenna Also the concept of popular sovereignty which the U. S. was founded on.

[Avicenna]

You're all over the place now, Mr. Anonymous. Sovereign immunity applies to both civil and criminal cases. And it's a well-established principle in US law. What isn't is the lawfare the Biden Administration and some DOJ hacks pursued against Trump, including directing cases at the state level that should never have been brought.

[Asker]

@Avicenna You're not telling the truth. en.wikipedia.org/.../Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

Grand juries decide if a case is being brought for purely political reasons or whether there's a crime committed and that the accused likely did it.

I already told you I'm goaded.

[Avicenna]

Everyone knows it's you goaded- your propaganda is easily recognizable. I'm mocking you for going anonymous.

LOL, your hastily-grabbed source does not back up your claim (although it does define what sovereign immunity is)- grand juries merely decide whether there is enough evidence has been presented by one side (the prosecution). Grand juries do not decide whether a case has been "been brought for purely political reasons". And they certainly do not decide whether sovereign immunity is applicable. Yet again you lie while trying to move the goalposts.

www.alllaw.com/.../...he-role-of-a-grand-jury.html

[Asker]

@Avicenna It's not propaganda. I occasionally post anonymously so that all the people who blocked me can see and respond. I usually identify myself.

I see your confusion. If there's no evidence of a crime or if there's not enough evidence to suggest the accused committed it, a grand jury would reject it. So, if Trump wins and tries to get Biden indicted for bribery, a grand jury is there to laugh in Trump's face. That's what I meant.

Trump did falsify business records, steal documents, and try to overturn the election. If there was no evidence of the crimes or that he was involved the five grand juries involved would not have allowed an indictment.

[exitseven]

Before he leaves office there will be 5 or 6 Supreme Court justices that will voluntarily "retire" and he will replace them with moonbats that do not know what a woman is.

[Asker]

There ought to be. If they're not impeached first.

Standing in judgement over the person who gave you that position for life should be reason enough to recuse.

[gorydetails]

I so love you retards misinterpreting SCOTUS decisions and then making up ridiculous scenarios. It's a daily occurrence, now.

[Asker]

Spoken like a true brownshirt.

[gorydetails]

I'd rather be a brownshirt than a european moron.

[Syntosi]

You do realize that brownshirts are European right?

[Asker]

@gorydetails And that you're a moron, right?

[gorydetails]

I'm not the one making up retarded scenarios.

[Asker]

As of now, the president can break the law with impunity if he can convince SCOTUS that it's an official action. Much easier to convince them if one or two went missing.

[gorydetails]

you children live in a weird fantasy land.

[Asker]

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent".

[gorydetails]

Yup, another histrionic loony.

[Asker]

Supreme Court Justice, actually.

[gorydetails]

Yup. Another delusional leftist.

[DryGermanGuy]

@Joel---:
Maybe you can appreciate the opinion of a former federal prosecutor with 30 years of legal experience?

https://youtu.be/ZoNKFC8P9hI?si=CQwOYtrchdMCClZz

[gorydetails]

@DryGermanGuy aka a partisan hack.

[DryGermanGuy]

How could he be a „partisan hack“ if he worked under four or five different administrations? Even your insults are nonsensical!

[Syntosi]

@DryGermanGuy And he calls us delusional.

[gorydetails]

@DryGermanGuy I wonder if he thinks a president should have been arrested or throwing japanese americans in concentration camps.

[Syntosi]

I for one think that you can definitely prosecute a president for throwing American citizens into a concentration camp but it appears that I am in the minority here.

[DryGermanGuy]

@Syntosi
That's what being a victim of 24/7 ragebaiting media does to the brain and the soul. It's just sad.

[gorydetails]

@DryGermanGuy from the folks who think Brandon should send seal team 6 after trump

[DryGermanGuy]

So now you claim not to know what humor and sarcasm are, even with the resolving I posted ten minutes later. Got it.

[gorydetails]

@DryGermanGuy That's neither. That's propaganda you morons are trying to get people to believe.

[DryGermanGuy]

He should freely deploy Seal Team 6! 🤔😬

[Asker]

He won't, though, will he. This is 1933 again, with nukes.

[DryGermanGuy]

Of course Biden won’t. He has been a public servant for more than 50 years and wants to strengthen the country and constitution, not destroy them.

[Anonymous]

You're worried about Trump so that's you saying (as a democrat) that Joey won't win in November

Wait until he sells the US to China and Hunter openly becomes the fentanyl kingpin

[OtterMan68]

It's good to be king!

[Zoeysiren]

None of the above