knapplc

Very well said. This is a corrupt Supreme Court. They barely touched on the only question they should have been considering. Here's the whole thread: As with the three-hour argument in Trump v. Anderson, a disconcertingly precious little of the two-hour argument today was even devoted to the specific and only question presented for decision. The Court and the parties discussed everything but the specific question presented. That question is simply whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People. thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People -- and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history. It is not even arguably a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the fairness, accuracy, and integrity of a presidential election. Let alone is it a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the proper certification of the next president by the Congress of the United States. Neither of these is a power or function of the president at all. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions. Consequently, they purposely and pointedly withheld from the President any role in these fundamental constitutional functions. To whatever extent the Framers implicitly provided in the Executive any role whatsoever in these fundamental constitutional functions, it was a limited role for the Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, to inquire into allegations of fraud in presidential elections and ensure that the election was free, fair, and accurate. The former president’s Department of Justice did just that and found that there was no fraud sufficient to draw into question the results of the 2020 presidential election. The former president of course has refused to this day to accept that finding by not only his own Department of Justice, but also countless others of his closest advisors. Whether undertaken in his or her “official,” “candidate,” or “personal” capacity, a President of the United States has never been and can never be immune from prosecution (after leaving office), for having attempted to remain in power notwithstanding the election of that President’s successor by the American People. Consequently, there is no reason whatsoever for the Supreme Court to remand to the lower courts for a determination of which of the alleged criminal acts might have been personal and which might have been official. Neither is a clear statement from Congress that a president is subject to prosecution under the statutes with which the former president has been charged necessary in this particular case. As applied to the former president for the criminal conduct with which he has been charged, there can be no question but that Congress intended a President of the United States to come within the ambit of the statutory offenses with which he has been charged. For the same reason, it would be ludicrous to contend that the former president was not on sufficient notice that if he committed the criminal acts charged, he would be subject to criminal prosecution by the United States of America. To hold otherwise would make a mockery out of the “plain statement” rule.

And pardoned by the person with absolute immunity.

Yes, this would be the correct response. But they won't do that. They'll remand it to a lower court.

This seems hard to believe. I guess unless the drill was to start the offense at the 1 yard line and see what they could do. That doesn't sound great about the defense, though. Not one, but two 99-yard drives? Meh.

If they give him this freedom, and he wins the election, there won't be any Democrats in the White House. The whole point is to delay, delay, delay. If Orange Man Bad wins, they grant him this immunity. If Biden wins, they'll very reasonably explain that no one is above the law. Everything that's happened after J6 has been according to Orange Man Bad's preferred timeline.

Huge victory for Orange Man Bad. This is why they stacked the court.

Seems like both the NYT and Biden/Team Biden need to grow up a bit.

1. Yes. Duh. Obviously. We all watched them do this in 2020/2021. 2. These people should have been prosecuted three years ago. This is obviously timed to coincide with the 2024 election. Just enforce the law when you have evidence laws have been broken. - signed, Americans

"I just can't vote for Biden. So I'll vote for this guy" guy is so weird. This is not a viable alternative.

This is where I'm at. I don't really care about the Heisman after Suh got snubbed, but Bush did break the rules at the time. Seems weird to say we're retroactively making that not a violation. If Bush gets his Heisman back, does that mean Ohio State gets to reinstate wins from Tattoogate?

I believe that's a parody account.

Literally no one predicted this outcome. It's so surreal!