It's a slippery slope to pick out a piece of the Constitution that is not upheld. What next?Just talking about the requirement to be born in the US tho. Then an immigrant from anywhere that becomes a citizen could run for the top job. Good way to get a sleeper agent in there but they already got that with tRump.
I'm not saying to remove that requirement but things need to be tightened up so a guy like tRump can't just do things like go dictator for a day or fire everyone so he can replace them with toadies that will do his bidding illegal or not.
The Republicans on the Supreme Court mock everyone. Once in, they know they're Supreme and cannot be removed. In this day, they will never be impeached by a 2/3 vote. If Individual 1 should manage to get back in, he'll have no use for them and will dissolve the Court. Term, or age limit would be good.I'm not saying to remove that requirement but things need to be tightened up so a guy like tRump can't just do things like go dictator for a day or fire everyone so he can replace them with toadies that will do his bidding illegal or not.
I do have faith that if tRump got back in and tried to get the armed forces to trample the constitution they would refuse as they are sworn to uphold it and have a lot more integrity than that idiot. Would rather not see that tested tho as he can still screw a lot of stuff up in the meantime.
I still don't understand why those tRump appointed supreme court justices who were specifically asked if they would maintain Roe but voted to remove it aren't impeached for lying about that. They got to go along with Clarence Thomas and more stringent guidelines need to be imposed on further crap from SCOTUS. Maybe limit their terms of service as well.
Or a simpler, more direct way to fire andor prosecute them. Only way to secure that is to amend the Constitution.
And that won't happen.
Thus my second paragraph. The partisan divide is killing us.
thehill.com
They really need to stop republishing that man’s social media activity.Special counsel Jack Smith rebuffs Trump’s immunity claim in new filing
Special Counsel for the Department of Justice Jack Smith rebuffed former President Trump’s claim that he should get immunity in Smith’s case related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election in a Saturday filing.
The former president’s legal team has said that Trump should be immune from prosecution in the case because the conduct noted in the indictment happened while he was in office. That argument was previously rejected by Judge Tanya Chutkan, the judge originally overseeing the case.
The former president appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
“An individual who has served as President but is no longer in office may face investigation, indictment, trial, and, if convicted, punishment for conduct committed during the Presidency,” the filing read. “The President stands alone in the constitutional firmament, but legal principles and historical evidence establish that, once out of office, a former President may face federal criminal prosecution like any other citizen.”
Last week, the former president went after Smith in Christmas Eve posts on Truth Social. In one post, he said he is “fully entitled” to total presidential immunity when it comes to the charges he faces in Smith’s case related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He also doubled down on his claims that Smith is working on President Biden’s behalf.
“THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN, LIED TO CONGRESS, CHEATED ON FISA, RIGGED A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ALLOWED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, MANY FROM PRISONS & MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, TO INVADE OUR COUNTRY, SCREWED UP IN AFGHANISTAN, & JOE BIDEN’S MISFITS & THUGS, LIKE DERANGED JACK SMITH, ARE COMING AFTER ME, AT LEVELS OF PERSECUTION NEVER SEEN BEFORE IN OUR COUNTRY??? IT’S CALLED ELECTION INTERFERENCE. MERRY CHRISTMAS!” Trump said in another Christmas Eve post.
Special counsel Jack Smith rebuffs Trump’s immunity claim in new filing
Special Counsel for the Department of Justice Jack Smith rebuffed former President Trump’s claim that he should get immunity in Smith’s case related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election in a Sa…
Merry Christmas Donald and a most unhappy new year, first up, NY takes his money and exposes his finances, that should make him howl and dance. Next more states disqualifying him and the call by the SCOTUS doesn't look good for Donald, that's just for January... Donald could be pretty well done by the end of January if he loses his appeals and the disqualification case. He won't be done with the republican base however and will control a significant number of them even from a prison cell, provided he can communicate once he is inside of one. We generally don't hear much from imprisoned convicts, except when they are appealing in court.
thehill.com
Why not get in Trump's corner for a while? Lindsey is hoping the courts will dispose of Trump for him and the GOP, so is Mitch and those judges on the SCOTUS are more Mitch's judges than Trump's, he was just a rubber stamp on Mitch's picks. January promises to be an interesting and decisive month, let's hope for a happy new year with Donald disqualified to start it out.An expert at giving oral pleasure.
Graham backtracks on earlier Jan. 6 criticism of Trump: ‘It depends on what the conduct is’
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday appeared to backtrack on earlier criticism of former President Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 and suggested, instead, that his presidential immunity defense was “a legitimate claim” as he moves forward with various court battles.
In an interview on CBS News’s “Face the Nation,” Graham was pressed on whether he stands by his 2021 statement that Trump could still be prosecuted for wrongdoing and that “the president’s conduct is subject to the law of the land.”
“Yeah, it depends on what the conduct is,” Graham said, when asked whether he stands by his earlier statement, which he made after he voted to acquit Trump in the second impeachment trial, following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.
“Now, if you’re doing your job as president – and January the sixth, he was still president trying to find out if the election, you know, was on the up and up – I think his immunity claim, I don’t know how it will bear out, but I think it’s a legitimate claim,” Graham continued.
Trump faces four criminal indictments — two federal and one in New York and one in Georgia — and two relate to his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
The former president’s legal team has argued that, since Trump was president at the time and claimed to be acting in his capacity as president, he would be immune from prosecution. Others have fought back against that argument, pointing out that, before the attack on the Capitol, he was speaking at a rally, in his capacity as a political candidate for office, not as president.
Some also point to extensive evidence that he was told repeatedly that the election was not stolen and that he was not acting in the interests of the country.
Graham, in defending Trump, claimed the former president “gave a fiery speech” and suggested Trump played a minimal role in the actual attack.
“They’re prosecuting him for activity around January the sixth. He didn’t break into the Capitol. He gave a fiery speech, but he’s not the first guy to ever do that,” Graham said. “So at the end of the day, I think this case will not go to trial before the election. I think there are more legal issues around this than you can even imagine about what can a president do as president? What are the limitations of being president?”
When pressed again on whether he thinks a president should be immune from prosecution, Graham said no one is immune from the law but defended Trump’s immunity case.
“Well, it depends on- right, I mean, nobody is immune from the law, but you do have presidential immunity to do your job. I mean, I have immunity to do my job under the Speech and Debate Clause. That’s what the legal issue is.”
“This went before the nation through impeachment, and he got acquitted. I think January 6 is baked into the cake. I think the Jack Smith cases are not changing the political outcome in polling. We’ll see what the court does. At the end of the day, Donald Trump is in a good position to win the Republican primary because Republicans believe he had a good presidency, and I think he can win the general election.”
Graham backtracks on earlier Jan. 6 criticism of Trump: ‘It depends on what the conduct is’
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday appeared to backtrack on earlier criticism of former President Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 and suggested instead that his presidential immunity defense was “a l…
The conservative justices are Mitch's justices, not Trump's, he was a rubber stamp for Mitch's picks. They are all federalists and originalists and the intentions of the framers of the 14th are well documented from things written and said by them about it. We have a pretty good idea about the federalist society's take on this since one of the founders wrote an academic article spelling out why Trump should be disqualified. There are many more reasons most of them legal arguments, the courts have found Trump is an insurrectionist, nobody found differently in appeals, and it is very unlikely a "finding of fact" will be overturned.
welcome back!
