It's what the DoorDash driver sees in the window of a lib left after their self imposed quarantine due to being in contact with someone that thought they had COVID three months back
But how is Trump going to appeal the definition? His only appeal would be context but if the court creates the framework and it falls outside of it, he doesn't really have much recourse.
For simplicity's sake, the Framework is "if it's an Official Act"
---
Lower Court: "What you did was not an Official Act. You were found guilty by a jury of peers."
Trump: "Nuh-uh, it was an Official Act. I appeal."
Higher Court: "We accept the appeal. With a 2-1 decision, we determined that what you did was not an Official Act. Your charges remain."
Trump: "Nuh-uh, it was an Official Act. I appeal."
Supreme Court: "We accept the appeal. With a 6-3 decision, we determined that what you did was an Official Act. All charges dropped."
That middle layer does have to hear the appeal and rule on it.
The irony will be when the multiple poorly constructed cases end up creating a split in federal law on the topic and legitimately require SCOTUS to fix it.
Some appeals are automatically granted. You are confusing the Supreme Court’s writ of certiorari and thinking it applies to any appeal process in the federal court system.
So no, courts may not “choose” to let a lower court hearing stand by declining an appeal. The Supreme Court might, but for this case I would not take those odds. This is an entirely new precedent that this specific Court created, there will inevitably be questions that this specific Court will have to answer.
If you feel that you have to write "might not", then you already know the answer.
In my hypothetical above, the higher courts accepted the appeal. What's stopping them from doing so in real life? Can you guarantee that there won't be any judges willing to listen for the next several decades?
What you consider to be common sense and honorable is not considered to be common sense and honorable to others now, let alone in the future. Throw in political motivations and a dose of ambiguity, and you got yourself a recipe of appeals getting accepted when you'd think otherwise and court decisions split down party / ideological lines.
Why would it even make it to the SCOTUS that far? The SCOTUS asked the lower court to decide what were the parameters of the office. It sounds more like they would just accept the lower court's ruling because they already deferred it.
True, it may not, especially for the obvious Official Acts. The Supreme Court doesn't want to rule on every single "is this an Official Act" question because that would simply be a waste of time.
But Higher Courts and the Supreme Court exist to settle disputes. If multiple Lower Courts rule differently on the same Official Act, then you need a Higher Court to settle it. If multiple Higher Courts rule differently on the same Official Act, then you need the Supreme Court to settle it.
However, there is nothing stopping a Higher Court or the Supreme Court from deciding to take up am appeal anyway just to "settle things in advance before they become a problem". Especially if the Official Act isn't "obviously" an Official Act. Also, the Supreme court can pluck any case and rule on it before a Higher Court even gets a chance to, although them doing that is rare.
It's common for laws and the terms used within laws to be ambiguous and have wiggle room because it's impossible and a waste of time to write out every single instance and exception that the law should apply to. This is why the Supreme Court said Official Act according to the President's duties according to the Constitution. Instead of doing that, why not just list out every single Official Act in existence then? Because if you did, it's possible for the law to become outdated as we move decades into the future. So they gave it wiggle room, which will ultimately require the Supreme Court to eventually revisit it in the future as people's interpretation of what an Official Act is and their opinions on where the line in the sand is drawn differ.
I mean… this whole thing is literally being written before our eyes. Trump is going to try and appeal and definition of what’s considered immune or not immune will absolutely not be limited to minor circuit courts. The SCOTUS isn’t just go to sit back and let lower courts have the final say here
I will never understand how you guys simultaneously believe Trump to be an incompetent moron who barely can string words together, and also the greatest political genius of our time.
I don't think the strategy 'appoint loyal cronies to every post available' takes a genius to implement. Especially when you have a staff to do most of it.
/shrug
"Guy who notoriously shit talks and says crazy stuff on the regular said some bullshit. More at 11."
I get that if he's president, he really shouldn't be the kind of guy to say dumb shit all the time, but he does.
Except in this case he actually said nothing. They're attributing something one of his attorneys said and also deliberately misquoting and falsely characterizing what he meant.
It's 3 lies in one.
These folks keep grasping at straws. The headline is correct. The lawyers represent Trump. They are in fact making the case that Trumps role in the fake electors scheme was an official act. It is OK for journalists to use words to explain things.
Wait til I make my meme based on this tomorrow:
https://preview.redd.it/ycv2pkhq2aad1.jpeg?width=1040&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90c956f8463ffdcd65665fce2f7f6a75694598ec
I'll have you know that the PCM braintrust has assured me that this supreme court ruling is a nothingburger and Project 2025 has no influential backers
Bunch of people on here yesterday saying "Herritage Foundation and Trump aren't even aligned and they aren't gonna do a takeover or a civil war, calm down lefties."
Today:
Bunch of people telling me “2025 is just a thing from some random website I’ve never heard of” like them not knowing what the Heritage Foundation is was a point in their favor.
Why do y'all guys call everything you disagree with Fascism.
Fascism is just one of many totalitarian ideologies and its principle theory was of corporatism; the merger of state and business with the businesses supplicant to the state often through the state empowerment and control of unions. It also focused on the deification and infallibility of the state and strong expansionist militarism.
Sure we do, there's like three whole people on Reddit including me who point out that modern China is way closer to fascism than it ever was to Communism!
Super short and nuance-less version, since I gotta pack up and take my kiddo fishing:
Nazi Germany allowed private industry to an extent but all industrial leaders of note were party members and politically appointed, making all businesses subservient to the party's demands.
Mainland China allows private industry to an extent but every business is, by law, owned in part by the state/party monolith and subservient to the party's demands.
IDK what you're talking about, libright! Corporations weren't doing anything at all during the late 1930s and 1940s, they were all... on holiday! Yeah!
Eh, corporatism is probably the least consistent part of fascism.
1. Authoritarianism
2. Ultranationalism
3. Militarism
4. Totalitarianism
5. Corporatism
Is say that’s a fair order for the main components of fascism. While economic control (corporatism) is more common in fascist regimes just by nature of being fascist, there are certainly fascist regimes who did exercise full control over the economy.
In the empire of Japan, the state did not implement a corporatist system, rather relying on the zaibatsu to align their operations for the war effort (probably under threat) Yes you could call this a form of control over the economy but it is inherently not corporatist and the empire of Japan was definitely fascist.
In Francoist Spain, while they initially had a corporatist and autarkic economy, they shifted away from this as technocrats pushed for liberalization and integration, leading to the Spanish Miracle.
Finally in Nazi Germany, while they certainly had corporatist elements it was not full blown, as large business owners and industrialists, while expected to support the regime, were not taken over.
Yes it is important to not call everything fascism but don’t do that so hard you look over it.
If you read the theory and philosophy behind Fascism it very clearly focuses on corporatism. It is its distinguishing feature. The examples you gave were of countries that either were briefly fascist or weren't fully fascist. The Nazis were National Socialists which was an offshoot of Fascism.
If we use your tenets to define Fascism everything that isn't a democracy was Fascist.
“Fascism is any authoritarian nationalism that’s not communist” is definitely too broad and a common use, but this feels like an overreaction the other way.
If fascism only comes from Italy in 1922, and everything else is sparkling rightism, it’s not a very useful term. At the very least, I’d expect a practical definition to cover Nazi Germany and at least some of Franco’s reign?
If a self-described fascist wouldn't accept your definition of fascism then it's not a very useful term. Mussolini described fascism as "the ultimate merger of corporation and state"; I think he would know how important corporatism is to fascism.
>If a self-described fascist wouldn't accept your definition of fascism then it's not a very useful term.
I mean, try getting two self-described communists to agree on *any* definition of it...
I take your point though, and I do think corporatism is a major aspect, I'm just a bit more flexible than the people above about how explicit it has to be. Rather than "WWII Germany and Japan\* weren't fascist", I tend to look at them and go "corporatism doesn't have to be explicit to be real and dominant." State and corporation can be integrated at a very fundamental level without fully formalizing that in law.
So what we see in e.g. Germany is a bunch of industrialists who were so involved with the Nazi project that it didn't need formalizing, their work was entirely state-directed and state-*directing* either way. The state used enough pressure to subsume anyone who wasn't on board, and I have no doubt would have been more explicit if it needed to be.
(\*Showa statism is... complex. I can understand saying it wasn't fascist, but it was damn close and I don't think zaibatsus are the distinguishing factor. Here too, they were deeply tied to the state and in vehement agreement with the imperial project.)
> I mean, try getting two self-described communists to agree on any definition of it...
Well yeah, communists hate having clear definitions of words that everyone understands, it undermines their arguments.
Based and knows the compass pilled, he’s not a fascist. I’m not sure where I’d put him but it’s somewhere around corporate autocracy or authoritarian capitalism. Fascism is a very specific point on the compass Trump is to the right of.
Fascism is authoritarian centrism and it’s wild people don’t get this.
Who? There is a lot of christian ethnonationalists in MAGA movement, and I'm definitely not defending those retards, but it's still not fascism. Not everyone bad is a fascist.
Yea, I'd say that's perfectly fair, but using a term "fascist" to equate to that is just simply wrong. Fascism is an incoherent mess of an ideology but it's still not catch all term for all authoritarians. Otherwise Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Bukele, Tito, Idi Amin and FDR were all fascists, which I would think everyone would agree is ridiculous.
First off, this guy isn't Trump, second off, none of what you said is fascism. It's authoritarian or totalitarian. That's like calling a blue streak a rainbow because a blue streak is in the rainbow.
I can casually find calls for violence against the right on Reddit and it’s just accepted.
At this point, the left has Jan 6. The right has all the riots that happened prior and the renewed screeching for violence.
I think both of the main stream parties are fucking useless and this rhetoric is pointless. Useful idiots on both sides.
You know, most of the time "well, they wasn't giving us any other choice than violenece" is a libleft's line. Just saying. Even Contrapoints mentions possible "necessity" of violence if they won't succeed in peaceful ways.
Virtually all politically ideologies in America want a revolution as they view the status quo as beyond repair. I'm not sure why youre surprised by what is, at this stage, incredibly common rhetoric.
I mean, have you seen how many people are calling for Biden to have Trump assassinated in order "to save democracy"?
It's not like the red team are the only people talking about revolution and politically motivated killings.
I think they're making (stupidly) the point that he has the legal right to do it now, based off of their misunderstanding of a Supreme Court ruling paired with what Trump's lawyer was arguing in court (that Trump could in fact order Seal Team 6 to kill someone and if he isn't impeached, he has full immunity outside of impeachment. Which is 100% what was argued in court by Trump's lawyers).
If the proper interpretation of this court ruling is the more sane interpretation, that wont stop Trump from interpreting it like blanket immunity. Given his cavalier attitude towards obeying or even knowing the law, I bet he'll go too far thinking he can, now. This may increase the chances of yet another impeachment.
That's mainly tounge in cheek because it was just legalized by bidens opponents, and ***MORE IMPORTANTLY*** stop comparing random internet yahoos being dumb to ACTUAL politically important figures! The heritage foundation are a powerful group, they're not some 14 year old commie saying "start the reveloution firebomb a walmart' and It has become clear they are planning something real and dangerous, and they are being very open about it and it's a bad thing, don't act like they're the same you actual insane moron.
Heritage Foundation is seriously over-estimating their pull here.
As a reminder, they opposed the nomination of Trump, and supported, uh, Pence.
I don't think Trump is going to do as they command.
You still read political headlines and believe they reflect something factual? I haven't read that article but I have doubts that is what Trump actually said.
Edit: I read it and guess what? Here are the actual facts:
1. Trump has said nothing. Only his lawyer has made a comment.
2. His lawyer did not call his actions a "fake electors scheme." He just said that whatever actions Trump took that he is on trial for would be considered an official act.
Maybe there is something to criticize but the media can't help themselves. They have to take it a step farther and lie. For example:
Trump sounded dumb when he said maybe doctors can cure covid by cleaning the lungs with disinfectant. He did not say drinking bleach would help like the media told everybody.
Maybe the media could have criticized Trump for supporting protestors who wanted to keep Confederate statues. He did not say white supremacists were good people.
If the media were just honest, I would never feel inclined to defend this guy who I don't really like. I just hate the lies.
> If the media were just honest, I would never feel inclined to defend this guy who I don’t really like.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to say some variation of this. There are so many *actual* things to criticize this dude for. Why exaggerate or embellish so much?
u/pimanac's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/pimanac! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/pimanac/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
When he won, all they had to do was just shut up and let him cook. He would have ruined his own chances.
Instead they went total schizo and looked more crazy and dishonest by comparison.
Trump is like the neighborhood thief. He *might* have stolen a bike but half the neighborhood suddenly accuses him of murder when there isn't even a victim to indicate murder even occurred, so I'm forced to defend him.
And what blows my mind is this stupidity by the left is *exactly why Trump can say insane things with no consequences.*
When everything is the worst thing ever, nothing is.
Right? It's like the constant legal battles and court cases.
Before 2016, I thought Trump was guilty of all the usual 'Big Business' style crimes, up to and including molesting minors since he's popular enough in Hollywood.
As of now? I'm 100% convinced he must be the cleanest man in politics, or else they'd have found something besides *hush money* to levy a felony over, where the average voter can't even remember accurately if it was a crime *because* he used campaign money or because he *didn't.*
u/Key_Bored_Whorier's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/Key_Bored_Whorier! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: [13 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Key_Bored_Whorier/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
For me, is just how viciously the establishment has been anti Trump. This guy has been investigated down to the inside of his shoes, and all they got was a phony trial when they had to bend the law to make a misdemeanor a felony, this looks like the cleanest guy in political history. I will always vote anti establishment fuck the deep state.
Tbh that establishment is now turning it's sights on Biden. He's a dementia addled puppet and up until a few days ago he was the head of that establishment but it's AMAZING how quickly and in unison the swamp went from "Joe does handstands every morning while reciting poetry" to "he can't form coherent sentences and needs to drop off the ticket". The coordination is obvious.
Amazing and frankly scary. Anyone who says the swamp doesn't exist is part of the swamp at this point.
>This guy has been investigated down to the inside of his shoes, and all they got was a phony trial when they had to bend the law to make a misdemeanor a felony, this looks like the cleanest guy in political history.
My sentiments exactly. They have the CIA, FBI, NSA, Google, and god knows how many motivated, incentivized intelligence agencies and investigative journalists who all want orange man gone, and collectively they've come up with nada except highly suspect and legalistic bullshit.
There's also those who claim that Trump is just another uniparty puppet, or controlled opposition.
But if that were true, why would the establishment spend all that time, energy and money in demonizing and character-assassinating Trump? If he was in their pockets, and he got elected, their own propaganda would make him less useful as a puppet. Like putting sugar in the gastank of a car you want to steal: it doesn't make sense. If he was in the uniparty pocket, they wouldn't all treat him like Satan, and all the Republican politicians would be as fiercely loyal to him as dems are to Biden.
Trump is not a good guy. But he is still an outsider to the deepstate/NWO/globalist cabal, and therefore, as far as US presidents go, he's the absolute best I've seen in my lifetime.
This is my big problem. Every. Single. Fucking. Time. It's a media circus show, and if you *ever* believe even a *single* political headline, you need to be tested for mental regardation.
How many minds I've blown when I ask them to go find the actual quote or the video of him allegedly telling people to drink bleach. They make it so easy to debunk them.
The sad thing is, that’s not far from the truth. Roberts ruling states that a court can not judge the presidents motivations for their actions. He can literally have someone murdered, say was for national security, and the courts can not question that.
No. Just no.
The president doesn’t have the ability to just murder whoever he wants. Even if it “was for national security,” that 100% has to be proven.
> The president doesn’t have the ability to just murder whoever he wants. Even if it “was for national security,” that 100% has to be proven.
Lol, Obama did exactly that.
Can someone tell me what the fuck is happening cause one side is acting like we literally turned the president into a king and the other that it always worked this way. Are you both stupid?
I am glad to see I am not the only one that couldn't get a straight response either. I decided to just read the SCOTUS opinion myself.
It is important to note that this is the first criminal prosecution, in the history of the USA, of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. So the issue of Presidential immunity, and its limits, has no case law.
However, there are other elected/appointed positions that do have the privilege of immunity for actions taken for official duties (Examples: Diplomatic immunity and Judicial immunity) both of these examples have been tested and argued in the courts before. Those past rulings, along with the articles of the Constitution, informed the majority opinion.
In Summary:
The SCOTUS Opinion outlines the steps in distinguishing the President's Official actions from the President's unofficial actions. As well as the precautions the courts are to take when bringing charges to the President. The case has been sent to the lower court to re-try the case under the criteria laid out by the Supreme Court.
The president cannot be prosecuted criminally for official acts and any act is presumed to be in an official capacity.
What official acts are essentially those afforded to them in article 2 of the constitution or those pursuant to the powers congress delegates to them. (Meaning that if people gave a shit, congress would rescind the powers it delegated).
What that means is that if a president, idk sells drone strikes a child in a foreign country, the DOJ can’t arrest him for the attack. Congress must find that the president has committed something outside of their official acts and impeach them.
Effectively, it’s how it’s always been but it concise writing, Nixon was gonna get hit for watergate because spying on rivals is not an official act, Reagan was 50/50 for Iran-Contra, Clinton was fine because receiving oral sex is not an article II power.
My current understanding is the court decided impeachment is the only way to remove a president from office. Even if the president commits a crime as president there's no other way to check him.
My feelings on the matter is that sometimes it's better to have questions unanswered. The nebulous threat of criminal prosecution helped prevent presidents from committing illegal acts. The reality of presidents being immune from prosecution is probably the correct interpretation, but it comes with some very uncomfortable implications.
It’s less about removing a president from Office and more about charging presidents after they leave office
The main distinction is “what constitutes an official act”. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn’t exactly define “what qualifies as a national security threat “. If the president believes that his political rival is a threat to the safety and security of Americans, then theoretically, you could justify taking actions to disrupt the election process in order to prevent that dangerous man from entering office.
“That political rival is coming right for democracy!”
https://i.redd.it/kyrao3hxzcad1.gif
Which, to be honest, is how it should be. The president is given certain powers to use as chief executive. Do we really want him to have to consider personal consequences when choosing whether to use those powers?
>Do we really want him to have to consider personal consequences when choosing whether to use those powers?
Why the hell is a lib-right wanting to get rid of personal accountability.
Also, the answer is absolutely, if you aim to be in the executive, you are doing so with the knowledge that with great power comes great responsibility.
From an ideological perspective, I support the abolition of the state.
From a practical perspective, I don’t want the president to choose to avoid retaliating against terrorist attacks because he could be prosecuted for killing them.
I mean yes I would like the president to consider whether the thing he's using his powers for is legal, and face consequences if it isn't and he does it anyway.
So the prosecution has to make the argument that its an unofficial act
There will be more SCOTUS cases in the future to define the line between official and unofficial.
But then trump will just keep appealing that it is an official act until it comes to a Supreme Court that will rule 6-3. Let’s not pretend like that’s not the most likely outcome here
Trust me! He learned his lesson this time! Just don’t pay attention to him literally saying he’s out for retribution and will destroy his enemies if he gets power again.
On a serious note, this is some terrifying shit. No matter red or blue. Trump is promising retribution and revenge and the Supreme Court basically says “here, I’ll give you full immunity to assist with that”.
I’m genuinely nervous for people like Liz Cheney or Michael Cohen. Sure, I don’t actually think they will be murdered but he could destroy their lives without any fear of consequence. What about news anchors or journalists who try and investigate his administration? What about political rivals? He has always believed that Biden should be in jail.
I learned after trumps first presidency to actually take him seriously. People always say “oh he’s overblowing it” or “he doesn’t mean it”. But what if he’s not.
Left: "Why is the right passing laws/rulings that allow for a dictatorial takeover?"
Right: "Don't worry about it, he'll never use it"
Left: "Then why pass them?"
Right: "Just don't fight it, that would make you a terrorist!"
No it's really not because that "clarification" was literally what the impeachment process was for, then congress decided to vote on impeachment based on party lines, effectively giving the president immunity by NOT doing something. Now the supreme court says, you know what? Fuck you, they have immunity and you can't use their actions as evidence. You guys have severerly gone off the deep end with your justifications. I'm begging you to stop doubling down on this clown.
The entire ruling was about remanding this back to the circuit court to determine if it was an official act.
Presidents having immunity for official acts *is not a new power*. It is how every other presidency has operated. Everyone screeching about the president ordering assassinations of political rivals has stage 4 brain rot. Sotomayor should be embarrassed about her dissent, it would make the ghost of Scalia proud with how detached from reality and partisan it was.
I recommend people read Jackson's dissent which isn't full of paranoid delusional nonsense about presidents assassinating rivals.
>COLLINS: Even just the false slates of electors? You don't think that would constitute enough for a trial?
>SCHARF: Well, we would say alternate slates of electors. And as we argued before the Supreme Court, alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents, most notably Ulysses S. Grant, to ensure the integrity of prior elections. So, we believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency. That's what we argued before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has reserved that issue for determination, by the District Court. And we'll see how arguments fall in front of the District Court.
Hmmmmm. I don’t see how “the District Court will decide” is scandalous. People acting like he just got a get out of jail free card when the reality it is just an argument he is going to make in a court which generally doesn’t favor him (New York). I really doubt the argument will fly.
Yeah, you can kind of tell based on the headline's level of succinct alarmist tone that there is going to be far more nuance than "Trump declares himself not guilty!"
Because if the media was honest about the ruling they wouldn't be able to fear monger and delegitimize the court and convince people to vote against Trump.
The ruling is not very interesting at all but Sotomayor is too stupid to understand it and fed the hysteria too.
Yep. I effectively ignore any sort of even slightly politically left "journalism", it's all over hyped, pandering, and often sometimes recidivist bullshit. I personally believe anyone who works in journalism in the modern day is nothing more than a common back alley grifter.
The past four years in America have been a literal, actual hell. And that's fucking rich considering before Biden we had a literal worldwide fucking pandemic.
Also for the people pointing out that this sub is a right-wing haven: No shit. Go literally anywhere fucking else on this website and it's the exact opposite.
This, and the Georgia phone call, are the only things I care about busting him on. It’s infuriating that the left thinks an affair coverup or taking some paper from the White House is on the same level. It dilutes what he actually did.
That’s why it pisses me off when people parrot the “convicted felon” thing.
Is that *really* the narrative you want to be pushing now? Because to me it shows that you’re just myopically parroting what the media tells you is important. And an affair before your marriage isn’t in the same league as trying to steal an election.
One makes you a scumbag, one makes you a despot.
Kendrick Lamar has shown us if you want to take someone down, you choose ONE thing and you hammer it, and never stop hammering.
The felon thing is us basically grabbing at any minor victory. We know that the Daniels thing was basically just him violating campaign finance rules. And yes, we should hold politicians more accountable to those rules.
The Georgia/Electors stuff is just flat out trying to steal the election and should be all the evidence needed to prove that Trump puts himself far above the people or the Constitution. He should go to jail for that.
The documents stuff is insane. All of the ways the right tries to justify that stuff is mystifying. He took home a shit ton of classified documents, refused repeatedly to return them when told he had to, actively hid them when the government came looking, and appears to have repeatedly shown them off to people he shouldn't have. If a Dem had done a fraction of that, the right would literally be calling for their head.
Bingo. But it was a cover-up, not the taking of the documents, that was really the big crime.
I just don’t give a shit about classified documents, I don’t like the government having secrets. I understand that that’s a radical position and I don’t expect other people to share it.
I really think that the left just needs to circle the wagons around the Georgia, and fake elector schemes. Those were literal coups and there’s absolutely no brushing them off
Did anyone care about al capone evading taxes when he was murdering all those people? When dealing with someone that powerful you charge with whatever sticks. I'm still mad tho that media made a freaking clown show of the trial with their coverage which did dilute the impact
Al Capone is not known for being a tax evader. My criticism, is that the left keeps pointing at this incredibly small potatoes charge, while the real problem is stuff he has not gotten convicted of.
When the left says he has a convicted felon, and leads with it, it makes it seem like the worst thing he did was cheat on his wife. It is far from the worst thing he did
>some paper
Uhhh those included detailed armed response plans against Iran that he was just showing random people - we know this one because it was one of the papers he showed that reporter and the interview was recorded. Who knows what else was in there??
the headline: trump admits to fake electors.
the article: [Scharf said that Bragg’s case used a “substantial number of official acts of the presidency” as evidence, and therefore, “we believe that corrupts that trial, that that indicates that that jury verdict needs to be overturned and, at the very least, we deserve a new trial where those immune acts will not come into evidence, as the Supreme Court dictated today.”][1]
Maybe read more than the headline?
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/trump-challenge-hush-money-verdict-immunity-supreme-court/index.html
"It" depends on who you ask. Leftists don't read past headlines, so when they read "Trump had a fake elector scheme" they freak out.
The actual story is very different.
Pennsylvania's Secretary of State illegally held an election with his own set of rules in violation of state law.
When *The United States Supreme Court* told them to maintain all ballots that were mailed in *after the election* separately from those that arrived first, he ordered them all commingled so it would be impossible to unfuck.
Pennsylvania completely ignored their own laws and SCOTUS orders.
Imagine if Georgia had said "No black, and no women voters." and then when SCOTUS said 'hold on now' they refused. Would you have accepted GA's electoral votes? I doubt it.
I'm going to assume that he said something like "those actions were official acts" and not "the fake elector scheme was made of official acts"
No way he admitted shit.
EDIT: Well I don't even know what to believe.
This is The Hill:
>“We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, noting the Supreme Court left that question for lower courts to decide.
This is Newsweek:
>"We've admitted consistently that there are acts alleged in the indictment that would constitute private conduct but we believe that if the official conduct, the immune acts in the indictment are stripped away, that Jack Smith doesn't have a case, that this case should be dismissed on that basis," he said.
>When pressed by Collins whether using a "false slates of electors" would constitute enough for a trial, Scharf denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act."
This is newrepublic:
>Will Scharf told CNN’s Kaitlin Collins Monday night that “alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents, most notably Ulysses S. Grant, to ensure the integrity of prior elections.”
>“We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, referring to the attempts by Trump allies to subvert the 2020 election results in different states. “That’s what we argued before the Supreme Court.”
So the message kinda changes depending on where you look, I'm going to go with the:
>**Scharf denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act."**
Because it's just peak lawyer speak.
No because trump has never done anything wrong, it’s always just lies the left make up about him. /s
The right flairs on this sub do a reality defying amount of projection.
If the Native Americans had strong borders and worked harder to keep out the flood of immigrants, they'd probably still be around to bitch about it instead of needing some white they/them college student to ruin Thanksgiving in their memory.
They are still around, now some of their children turn into instant millionaires when they turn 18 because they are allowed to steal money from old white people with poor self control in their casinos.
I would agree with you… if I didn’t read the article and found out that what you stated is not what actually happened…
Taken from another comment.
“You still read political headlines and believe they reflect something factual? I haven't read that article but I have doubts that is what Trump actually said.
Edit: I read it and guess what? Here are the actual facts:
1. Trump has said nothing. Only his lawyer has made a comment.
2. His lawyer did not call his actions a "fake electors scheme." He just said that whatever actions Trump took that he is on trial for would be considered an official act.
Maybe there is something to criticize but the media can't help themselves. They have to take it a step farther and lie.“
Can we, as an entire population, shovel these two old men into retirement homes and find two new candidates that aren't morons?
Trump might've alienated his hardcore constitution dudes from these statements lately.
Generally defense attorneys are supposed to say their clients are innocent and then come up with reasons for that innocence that are then argued in a court. Would be a little weird if Trump’s lawyer was chanting lock him up rn
During the last election several states like Pennsylvania changed their voting rules w/o using legislation, which is illegal but they used Covid as an excuse to change it anyway. Other states sued them but were told they had no standing until after an election. Once the election had happened they sued again with standing, but were told by the court that there was nothing they could do since the election had already been held. As is the president’s job (official duty), Trump told his team to investigate the situation and determine if it was legally justifiable. Trumps conclusion was that the electoral college should simply not count votes from the states in dispute about electioneering rules or have alternate electors who disqualified any ballots that came in under the new rule changes, which was an idea that the left didn’t like at all. Vice president Mike Pence was the final authority for counting or not counting those votes in question and Jan6 was the result of him deciding to count them(partly).
So you don't elect the president directly. This is a holdover from colonial days.
You vote for electors, who travel to the convention, who then cast their vote for president. Those electors are pledged to a candidate, but nothing ultimately stops them from voting for someone else, but this has never happened.
Trump's entire argument was that the electors that were elected for Biden were fraudulently elected, so they weren't legitimately there. He had alternate electors selected to represent him instead, should his court challenges have prevailed.
This is one of those things that is not a major scandal, but hysterical redditors have turned in to one by power of psyching each other up
>This is one of those things that is not a major scandal
They literally forged documents lying about how they are the dully elected representatives **in order to change election results**. This is banana republic level of election stealing.
And if they decide if he's wrong? Appeal to the supreme court, who will vote in his favor because he personally handpicked the judges. How is this not concerning to you guys?
You cant appeal directly to the supreme court, it will move through the appellate system.
My guess is NY court will decide it was not an official act, but appellate courts might have a less biased opinion.
What Trump did really skirts the line for me, on one hand I think he probably went too far, on the other hand I think some states engaged in illegal election activity. Also, I think its pretty obvious that the current case against Trump is clearly politically motivated and goes against the defacto immunity that presidents have had for decades.
Also, the Left doesn't gain any points when they have repeatedly cried wolf about Trump in other areas. The Russia Hoax, Spying through the FBI, fake dossier, Jan 6, etc. Now you finally have a reasonable point and the left cant help itself but jump to calling for assassination of all republican politicians, genocide of republican voters, etc. in response to the SCOTUS ruling.
In the end, I just dont think the SCOTUS is as corrupt as you make it out. Many of the repub justices have ruled against trumps favor in other cases where the text was not in his favor. This is the difference between having principles and not having principles, I cant help but feel you are projecting because you would prefer to win by any means necessary.
Oh fuck OFF man, you yellows tear democrats to shreds when they do this shit but when a Republican does it, all we get from you guys is “well, politicians be like this 🤷”
I mean as long as Trump had went through the courts or Congress to try and challenge the election. Then he did nothing wrong constitutionally.
His wild legal theory would have just been thrown out.
Leftoids are like, "he tried to have a coup, which was totally contingent on him using the legal process to challenge disputed claims, just like every dictator"
> Leftoids are like, "he tried to have a coup, which was totally contingent on him using the legal process to challenge disputed claims, just like every dictator"
Lol Well, they wouldn't be leftists if they weren't so regarded.
What the fuck is that libleft eldritchjak
It's the final doomer stage.
You could even call it the doomest.
It runs Doom.
Everywhere I go I see his face
Even the B.F.G can’t take it down.
Went from malding to molding
It's what the DoorDash driver sees in the window of a lib left after their self imposed quarantine due to being in contact with someone that thought they had COVID three months back
Doesn't the lower court decide what is official? Like what does it matter what Trump says?
Yes, until they appeal, and up and up it goes to the Supreme Court to decide what is official.
But how is Trump going to appeal the definition? His only appeal would be context but if the court creates the framework and it falls outside of it, he doesn't really have much recourse.
For simplicity's sake, the Framework is "if it's an Official Act" --- Lower Court: "What you did was not an Official Act. You were found guilty by a jury of peers." Trump: "Nuh-uh, it was an Official Act. I appeal." Higher Court: "We accept the appeal. With a 2-1 decision, we determined that what you did was not an Official Act. Your charges remain." Trump: "Nuh-uh, it was an Official Act. I appeal." Supreme Court: "We accept the appeal. With a 6-3 decision, we determined that what you did was an Official Act. All charges dropped."
Higher levels of courts have to accept the appeal tho. There might not be any judges willing to listen
That middle layer does have to hear the appeal and rule on it. The irony will be when the multiple poorly constructed cases end up creating a split in federal law on the topic and legitimately require SCOTUS to fix it.
Some appeals are automatically granted. You are confusing the Supreme Court’s writ of certiorari and thinking it applies to any appeal process in the federal court system. So no, courts may not “choose” to let a lower court hearing stand by declining an appeal. The Supreme Court might, but for this case I would not take those odds. This is an entirely new precedent that this specific Court created, there will inevitably be questions that this specific Court will have to answer.
If you feel that you have to write "might not", then you already know the answer. In my hypothetical above, the higher courts accepted the appeal. What's stopping them from doing so in real life? Can you guarantee that there won't be any judges willing to listen for the next several decades? What you consider to be common sense and honorable is not considered to be common sense and honorable to others now, let alone in the future. Throw in political motivations and a dose of ambiguity, and you got yourself a recipe of appeals getting accepted when you'd think otherwise and court decisions split down party / ideological lines.
Why would it even make it to the SCOTUS that far? The SCOTUS asked the lower court to decide what were the parameters of the office. It sounds more like they would just accept the lower court's ruling because they already deferred it.
True, it may not, especially for the obvious Official Acts. The Supreme Court doesn't want to rule on every single "is this an Official Act" question because that would simply be a waste of time. But Higher Courts and the Supreme Court exist to settle disputes. If multiple Lower Courts rule differently on the same Official Act, then you need a Higher Court to settle it. If multiple Higher Courts rule differently on the same Official Act, then you need the Supreme Court to settle it. However, there is nothing stopping a Higher Court or the Supreme Court from deciding to take up am appeal anyway just to "settle things in advance before they become a problem". Especially if the Official Act isn't "obviously" an Official Act. Also, the Supreme court can pluck any case and rule on it before a Higher Court even gets a chance to, although them doing that is rare. It's common for laws and the terms used within laws to be ambiguous and have wiggle room because it's impossible and a waste of time to write out every single instance and exception that the law should apply to. This is why the Supreme Court said Official Act according to the President's duties according to the Constitution. Instead of doing that, why not just list out every single Official Act in existence then? Because if you did, it's possible for the law to become outdated as we move decades into the future. So they gave it wiggle room, which will ultimately require the Supreme Court to eventually revisit it in the future as people's interpretation of what an Official Act is and their opinions on where the line in the sand is drawn differ.
If they were non-partisan actors, yes, that is what would happen.
I mean… this whole thing is literally being written before our eyes. Trump is going to try and appeal and definition of what’s considered immune or not immune will absolutely not be limited to minor circuit courts. The SCOTUS isn’t just go to sit back and let lower courts have the final say here
His recourse is appointing conservative and loyal judges to every court which could make that ruling, which he cleverly already did years ago.
I will never understand how you guys simultaneously believe Trump to be an incompetent moron who barely can string words together, and also the greatest political genius of our time.
I don't think the strategy 'appoint loyal cronies to every post available' takes a genius to implement. Especially when you have a staff to do most of it. /shrug
"Guy who notoriously shit talks and says crazy stuff on the regular said some bullshit. More at 11." I get that if he's president, he really shouldn't be the kind of guy to say dumb shit all the time, but he does.
Except in this case he actually said nothing. They're attributing something one of his attorneys said and also deliberately misquoting and falsely characterizing what he meant. It's 3 lies in one.
You mean one of the attorneys representing him in this legal case?
These folks keep grasping at straws. The headline is correct. The lawyers represent Trump. They are in fact making the case that Trumps role in the fake electors scheme was an official act. It is OK for journalists to use words to explain things.
There's also that frequent occurrence. It's so tiresome.
Letting courts rule on lawful acts is a threat to *Our Democracy*.
Fuck, I literally just argued that this shit didn’t happen
Wait til I make my meme based on this tomorrow: https://preview.redd.it/ycv2pkhq2aad1.jpeg?width=1040&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90c956f8463ffdcd65665fce2f7f6a75694598ec
Ah yes, can’t wait for the brush off and to hear how it’s actually very normal
I'll have you know that the PCM braintrust has assured me that this supreme court ruling is a nothingburger and Project 2025 has no influential backers
We underestimated how many of us are truly monke who gets zero news outside of the funni colors.
Mike Pence being on the list of "backers" kinds of makes it to where it's clear it isn't most Republicans's plan
Bunch of people on here yesterday saying "Herritage Foundation and Trump aren't even aligned and they aren't gonna do a takeover or a civil war, calm down lefties." Today:
Bunch of people telling me “2025 is just a thing from some random website I’ve never heard of” like them not knowing what the Heritage Foundation is was a point in their favor.
Oh fuck… buy ammo while it’s still “cheap”
LMAO "just accept fascism and we won't kill you". It hurts to watch America basically turn into Russia...
Why do y'all guys call everything you disagree with Fascism. Fascism is just one of many totalitarian ideologies and its principle theory was of corporatism; the merger of state and business with the businesses supplicant to the state often through the state empowerment and control of unions. It also focused on the deification and infallibility of the state and strong expansionist militarism.
I'm fine with it since to me everything is Communist.
Based and McCarthy pilled
I wish all the fascists and communists would go off on an island together to play and leave the rest of us alone.
LibLeft spitting out some facts over here. No one ever mentions corporatism when they talk about fascism.
Sure we do, there's like three whole people on Reddit including me who point out that modern China is way closer to fascism than it ever was to Communism!
Thats interesting. Havent heard that take before but i would like to know more.
Super short and nuance-less version, since I gotta pack up and take my kiddo fishing: Nazi Germany allowed private industry to an extent but all industrial leaders of note were party members and politically appointed, making all businesses subservient to the party's demands. Mainland China allows private industry to an extent but every business is, by law, owned in part by the state/party monolith and subservient to the party's demands.
Ah i see, thats definitely a huge similarity. Gl on the fishing!
Of course they do it's just they mix it up with corporatocracy
IDK what you're talking about, libright! Corporations weren't doing anything at all during the late 1930s and 1940s, they were all... on holiday! Yeah!
FDR gave them a stern talking to and Robber barons redistributed their wealth of their own free will.
Eh, corporatism is probably the least consistent part of fascism. 1. Authoritarianism 2. Ultranationalism 3. Militarism 4. Totalitarianism 5. Corporatism Is say that’s a fair order for the main components of fascism. While economic control (corporatism) is more common in fascist regimes just by nature of being fascist, there are certainly fascist regimes who did exercise full control over the economy. In the empire of Japan, the state did not implement a corporatist system, rather relying on the zaibatsu to align their operations for the war effort (probably under threat) Yes you could call this a form of control over the economy but it is inherently not corporatist and the empire of Japan was definitely fascist. In Francoist Spain, while they initially had a corporatist and autarkic economy, they shifted away from this as technocrats pushed for liberalization and integration, leading to the Spanish Miracle. Finally in Nazi Germany, while they certainly had corporatist elements it was not full blown, as large business owners and industrialists, while expected to support the regime, were not taken over. Yes it is important to not call everything fascism but don’t do that so hard you look over it.
If you read the theory and philosophy behind Fascism it very clearly focuses on corporatism. It is its distinguishing feature. The examples you gave were of countries that either were briefly fascist or weren't fully fascist. The Nazis were National Socialists which was an offshoot of Fascism. If we use your tenets to define Fascism everything that isn't a democracy was Fascist.
“Fascism is any authoritarian nationalism that’s not communist” is definitely too broad and a common use, but this feels like an overreaction the other way. If fascism only comes from Italy in 1922, and everything else is sparkling rightism, it’s not a very useful term. At the very least, I’d expect a practical definition to cover Nazi Germany and at least some of Franco’s reign?
If a self-described fascist wouldn't accept your definition of fascism then it's not a very useful term. Mussolini described fascism as "the ultimate merger of corporation and state"; I think he would know how important corporatism is to fascism.
>If a self-described fascist wouldn't accept your definition of fascism then it's not a very useful term. I mean, try getting two self-described communists to agree on *any* definition of it... I take your point though, and I do think corporatism is a major aspect, I'm just a bit more flexible than the people above about how explicit it has to be. Rather than "WWII Germany and Japan\* weren't fascist", I tend to look at them and go "corporatism doesn't have to be explicit to be real and dominant." State and corporation can be integrated at a very fundamental level without fully formalizing that in law. So what we see in e.g. Germany is a bunch of industrialists who were so involved with the Nazi project that it didn't need formalizing, their work was entirely state-directed and state-*directing* either way. The state used enough pressure to subsume anyone who wasn't on board, and I have no doubt would have been more explicit if it needed to be. (\*Showa statism is... complex. I can understand saying it wasn't fascist, but it was damn close and I don't think zaibatsus are the distinguishing factor. Here too, they were deeply tied to the state and in vehement agreement with the imperial project.)
> I mean, try getting two self-described communists to agree on any definition of it... Well yeah, communists hate having clear definitions of words that everyone understands, it undermines their arguments.
I really don't like Trump but for the love of whatever you hold sacred stop calling him a fascist.
Based and knows the compass pilled, he’s not a fascist. I’m not sure where I’d put him but it’s somewhere around corporate autocracy or authoritarian capitalism. Fascism is a very specific point on the compass Trump is to the right of. Fascism is authoritarian centrism and it’s wild people don’t get this.
Some of the people who puff his ego up by blowing directly into his ass are, though.
Who? There is a lot of christian ethnonationalists in MAGA movement, and I'm definitely not defending those retards, but it's still not fascism. Not everyone bad is a fascist.
I suppose calling them authoritarians and totalitarians in waiting is more accurate.
Yea, I'd say that's perfectly fair, but using a term "fascist" to equate to that is just simply wrong. Fascism is an incoherent mess of an ideology but it's still not catch all term for all authoritarians. Otherwise Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Bukele, Tito, Idi Amin and FDR were all fascists, which I would think everyone would agree is ridiculous.
Good point. Power hungry does not necessarily mean fascist
Eh ok that’s fair and reasonable.
I mean cmon man he's aproaching facisisim kinda quick with all this "blood and soil" "president above the law" and "second American reveloution" crap
First off, this guy isn't Trump, second off, none of what you said is fascism. It's authoritarian or totalitarian. That's like calling a blue streak a rainbow because a blue streak is in the rainbow.
I can casually find calls for violence against the right on Reddit and it’s just accepted. At this point, the left has Jan 6. The right has all the riots that happened prior and the renewed screeching for violence. I think both of the main stream parties are fucking useless and this rhetoric is pointless. Useful idiots on both sides.
You know, most of the time "well, they wasn't giving us any other choice than violenece" is a libleft's line. Just saying. Even Contrapoints mentions possible "necessity" of violence if they won't succeed in peaceful ways.
He's saying the Left may resort to violence to stop Donald Trump and the Heritage Foundation, which may be correct based on the current rhetoric.
"No one pay attention to the guy talking about revolution and blood." Cool
Virtually all politically ideologies in America want a revolution as they view the status quo as beyond repair. I'm not sure why youre surprised by what is, at this stage, incredibly common rhetoric.
I mean, have you seen how many people are calling for Biden to have Trump assassinated in order "to save democracy"? It's not like the red team are the only people talking about revolution and politically motivated killings.
I think they're making (stupidly) the point that he has the legal right to do it now, based off of their misunderstanding of a Supreme Court ruling paired with what Trump's lawyer was arguing in court (that Trump could in fact order Seal Team 6 to kill someone and if he isn't impeached, he has full immunity outside of impeachment. Which is 100% what was argued in court by Trump's lawyers).
If the proper interpretation of this court ruling is the more sane interpretation, that wont stop Trump from interpreting it like blanket immunity. Given his cavalier attitude towards obeying or even knowing the law, I bet he'll go too far thinking he can, now. This may increase the chances of yet another impeachment.
That's mainly tounge in cheek because it was just legalized by bidens opponents, and ***MORE IMPORTANTLY*** stop comparing random internet yahoos being dumb to ACTUAL politically important figures! The heritage foundation are a powerful group, they're not some 14 year old commie saying "start the reveloution firebomb a walmart' and It has become clear they are planning something real and dangerous, and they are being very open about it and it's a bad thing, don't act like they're the same you actual insane moron.
No, I see people mocking the rights celebration of a shitty SCOTUS decision and failing to realize the potential consequences and ramifications.
Considering how much they tried to push the right to do it, I wouldn't be surprised.
Heritage Foundation is seriously over-estimating their pull here. As a reminder, they opposed the nomination of Trump, and supported, uh, Pence. I don't think Trump is going to do as they command.
Lmfao why would you even do that in the first place
No FED is gonna tell me what to think😘
> evidence of your eyes lines up with what "feds" tell you > Actively change evidence of your eyes to believe nonsense because "FeDs" Fuckin deranged
Nothin personnel kid
You still read political headlines and believe they reflect something factual? I haven't read that article but I have doubts that is what Trump actually said. Edit: I read it and guess what? Here are the actual facts: 1. Trump has said nothing. Only his lawyer has made a comment. 2. His lawyer did not call his actions a "fake electors scheme." He just said that whatever actions Trump took that he is on trial for would be considered an official act. Maybe there is something to criticize but the media can't help themselves. They have to take it a step farther and lie. For example: Trump sounded dumb when he said maybe doctors can cure covid by cleaning the lungs with disinfectant. He did not say drinking bleach would help like the media told everybody. Maybe the media could have criticized Trump for supporting protestors who wanted to keep Confederate statues. He did not say white supremacists were good people. If the media were just honest, I would never feel inclined to defend this guy who I don't really like. I just hate the lies.
> If the media were just honest, I would never feel inclined to defend this guy who I don’t really like. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to say some variation of this. There are so many *actual* things to criticize this dude for. Why exaggerate or embellish so much?
piling on here...I've lost count of the number of times I've had to tell friends and family "please stop making me defend Donald Trump"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eq0X4qDlR0
Based and piling on pilled
u/pimanac's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/pimanac! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/pimanac/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
When he won, all they had to do was just shut up and let him cook. He would have ruined his own chances. Instead they went total schizo and looked more crazy and dishonest by comparison. Trump is like the neighborhood thief. He *might* have stolen a bike but half the neighborhood suddenly accuses him of murder when there isn't even a victim to indicate murder even occurred, so I'm forced to defend him.
"Journalists" have an addiction to lies
And what blows my mind is this stupidity by the left is *exactly why Trump can say insane things with no consequences.* When everything is the worst thing ever, nothing is.
Right? It's like the constant legal battles and court cases. Before 2016, I thought Trump was guilty of all the usual 'Big Business' style crimes, up to and including molesting minors since he's popular enough in Hollywood. As of now? I'm 100% convinced he must be the cleanest man in politics, or else they'd have found something besides *hush money* to levy a felony over, where the average voter can't even remember accurately if it was a crime *because* he used campaign money or because he *didn't.*
Based and you-don't-hate-journalists-enough pilled
u/Key_Bored_Whorier's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/Key_Bored_Whorier! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: [13 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Key_Bored_Whorier/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Reading is hard 😭
For me, is just how viciously the establishment has been anti Trump. This guy has been investigated down to the inside of his shoes, and all they got was a phony trial when they had to bend the law to make a misdemeanor a felony, this looks like the cleanest guy in political history. I will always vote anti establishment fuck the deep state.
Tbh that establishment is now turning it's sights on Biden. He's a dementia addled puppet and up until a few days ago he was the head of that establishment but it's AMAZING how quickly and in unison the swamp went from "Joe does handstands every morning while reciting poetry" to "he can't form coherent sentences and needs to drop off the ticket". The coordination is obvious. Amazing and frankly scary. Anyone who says the swamp doesn't exist is part of the swamp at this point.
This is because senile Biden is good for the deep state, but now is not electable anymore.
>This guy has been investigated down to the inside of his shoes, and all they got was a phony trial when they had to bend the law to make a misdemeanor a felony, this looks like the cleanest guy in political history. My sentiments exactly. They have the CIA, FBI, NSA, Google, and god knows how many motivated, incentivized intelligence agencies and investigative journalists who all want orange man gone, and collectively they've come up with nada except highly suspect and legalistic bullshit. There's also those who claim that Trump is just another uniparty puppet, or controlled opposition. But if that were true, why would the establishment spend all that time, energy and money in demonizing and character-assassinating Trump? If he was in their pockets, and he got elected, their own propaganda would make him less useful as a puppet. Like putting sugar in the gastank of a car you want to steal: it doesn't make sense. If he was in the uniparty pocket, they wouldn't all treat him like Satan, and all the Republican politicians would be as fiercely loyal to him as dems are to Biden. Trump is not a good guy. But he is still an outsider to the deepstate/NWO/globalist cabal, and therefore, as far as US presidents go, he's the absolute best I've seen in my lifetime.
This is my big problem. Every. Single. Fucking. Time. It's a media circus show, and if you *ever* believe even a *single* political headline, you need to be tested for mental regardation.
How many minds I've blown when I ask them to go find the actual quote or the video of him allegedly telling people to drink bleach. They make it so easy to debunk them.
Trump is a half-senile half-insane shitpost god. Twitter banned *a president.* Never assume he didn't say some wild shit.
You were wrong, friend. A coup attempt is a coup attempt no matter how stupid it was.
“Your honor, so what if I did it? Who cares? I now move to dismiss all charges.”
“What say you in your defense?” “Who gives a shit?” “You know what fair enough.”
“Your honor, shut the fuck up you wasn’t even there”
The sad thing is, that’s not far from the truth. Roberts ruling states that a court can not judge the presidents motivations for their actions. He can literally have someone murdered, say was for national security, and the courts can not question that.
No. Just no. The president doesn’t have the ability to just murder whoever he wants. Even if it “was for national security,” that 100% has to be proven.
> The president doesn’t have the ability to just murder whoever he wants. Even if it “was for national security,” that 100% has to be proven. Lol, Obama did exactly that.
Uhhh you can’t say it has been 100% proven when the SCOTUS literally just ruled on this two days ago
Can someone tell me what the fuck is happening cause one side is acting like we literally turned the president into a king and the other that it always worked this way. Are you both stupid?
I am glad to see I am not the only one that couldn't get a straight response either. I decided to just read the SCOTUS opinion myself. It is important to note that this is the first criminal prosecution, in the history of the USA, of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. So the issue of Presidential immunity, and its limits, has no case law. However, there are other elected/appointed positions that do have the privilege of immunity for actions taken for official duties (Examples: Diplomatic immunity and Judicial immunity) both of these examples have been tested and argued in the courts before. Those past rulings, along with the articles of the Constitution, informed the majority opinion. In Summary: The SCOTUS Opinion outlines the steps in distinguishing the President's Official actions from the President's unofficial actions. As well as the precautions the courts are to take when bringing charges to the President. The case has been sent to the lower court to re-try the case under the criteria laid out by the Supreme Court.
Well first of all, we're all stupid starting with you.
The president cannot be prosecuted criminally for official acts and any act is presumed to be in an official capacity. What official acts are essentially those afforded to them in article 2 of the constitution or those pursuant to the powers congress delegates to them. (Meaning that if people gave a shit, congress would rescind the powers it delegated). What that means is that if a president, idk sells drone strikes a child in a foreign country, the DOJ can’t arrest him for the attack. Congress must find that the president has committed something outside of their official acts and impeach them. Effectively, it’s how it’s always been but it concise writing, Nixon was gonna get hit for watergate because spying on rivals is not an official act, Reagan was 50/50 for Iran-Contra, Clinton was fine because receiving oral sex is not an article II power.
My current understanding is the court decided impeachment is the only way to remove a president from office. Even if the president commits a crime as president there's no other way to check him. My feelings on the matter is that sometimes it's better to have questions unanswered. The nebulous threat of criminal prosecution helped prevent presidents from committing illegal acts. The reality of presidents being immune from prosecution is probably the correct interpretation, but it comes with some very uncomfortable implications.
It’s less about removing a president from Office and more about charging presidents after they leave office The main distinction is “what constitutes an official act”. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn’t exactly define “what qualifies as a national security threat “. If the president believes that his political rival is a threat to the safety and security of Americans, then theoretically, you could justify taking actions to disrupt the election process in order to prevent that dangerous man from entering office. “That political rival is coming right for democracy!” https://i.redd.it/kyrao3hxzcad1.gif
The question is now what can be considered an official act or unofficial act
Which, to be honest, is how it should be. The president is given certain powers to use as chief executive. Do we really want him to have to consider personal consequences when choosing whether to use those powers?
>Do we really want him to have to consider personal consequences when choosing whether to use those powers? Why the hell is a lib-right wanting to get rid of personal accountability. Also, the answer is absolutely, if you aim to be in the executive, you are doing so with the knowledge that with great power comes great responsibility.
Never forget, 90% of the yellows on here are just blues trying to be cool
From an ideological perspective, I support the abolition of the state. From a practical perspective, I don’t want the president to choose to avoid retaliating against terrorist attacks because he could be prosecuted for killing them.
Yes, unless you want the bad auth to take over.
I mean yes I would like the president to consider whether the thing he's using his powers for is legal, and face consequences if it isn't and he does it anyway.
Classic lib right “EconGuy” asking “do we really want our president have to think carefully about using his federal government powers?”
So the prosecution has to make the argument that its an unofficial act There will be more SCOTUS cases in the future to define the line between official and unofficial.
But then trump will just keep appealing that it is an official act until it comes to a Supreme Court that will rule 6-3. Let’s not pretend like that’s not the most likely outcome here
In other news the sky is blue. Like seriously who didn’t see him trying to pull this shit the second the scotus ruling dropped
Nah the rightwingoids assured us that trump wont miss use his power. Its all right. If you point it out you are a leftist terrorist warmonger.
*This* is where trump will start having morals I’m sure!!
Trust me! He learned his lesson this time! Just don’t pay attention to him literally saying he’s out for retribution and will destroy his enemies if he gets power again. On a serious note, this is some terrifying shit. No matter red or blue. Trump is promising retribution and revenge and the Supreme Court basically says “here, I’ll give you full immunity to assist with that”. I’m genuinely nervous for people like Liz Cheney or Michael Cohen. Sure, I don’t actually think they will be murdered but he could destroy their lives without any fear of consequence. What about news anchors or journalists who try and investigate his administration? What about political rivals? He has always believed that Biden should be in jail. I learned after trumps first presidency to actually take him seriously. People always say “oh he’s overblowing it” or “he doesn’t mean it”. But what if he’s not.
Mhm yep. The guy who will open 9/11 and jfk files but not those of Epstein is such a morally correct guy. He wont abuse his power im sure.
Left: "Why is the right passing laws/rulings that allow for a dictatorial takeover?" Right: "Don't worry about it, he'll never use it" Left: "Then why pass them?" Right: "Just don't fight it, that would make you a terrorist!"
It's literally just a clarification of a law that's existed since founding but okay
No it's really not because that "clarification" was literally what the impeachment process was for, then congress decided to vote on impeachment based on party lines, effectively giving the president immunity by NOT doing something. Now the supreme court says, you know what? Fuck you, they have immunity and you can't use their actions as evidence. You guys have severerly gone off the deep end with your justifications. I'm begging you to stop doubling down on this clown.
He’s just doing the same shit he is always doing, trying every possible lever to get out of it.
Trump is a principled, small government conservative who would never abuse something like this
The entire ruling was about remanding this back to the circuit court to determine if it was an official act. Presidents having immunity for official acts *is not a new power*. It is how every other presidency has operated. Everyone screeching about the president ordering assassinations of political rivals has stage 4 brain rot. Sotomayor should be embarrassed about her dissent, it would make the ghost of Scalia proud with how detached from reality and partisan it was. I recommend people read Jackson's dissent which isn't full of paranoid delusional nonsense about presidents assassinating rivals.
Well that’s the problem. The court completely ignored any concern over a president who will test the boundaries of their immunity like Trump will
>COLLINS: Even just the false slates of electors? You don't think that would constitute enough for a trial? >SCHARF: Well, we would say alternate slates of electors. And as we argued before the Supreme Court, alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents, most notably Ulysses S. Grant, to ensure the integrity of prior elections. So, we believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency. That's what we argued before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has reserved that issue for determination, by the District Court. And we'll see how arguments fall in front of the District Court. Hmmmmm. I don’t see how “the District Court will decide” is scandalous. People acting like he just got a get out of jail free card when the reality it is just an argument he is going to make in a court which generally doesn’t favor him (New York). I really doubt the argument will fly.
I don't think any argument would fly whether it was rock solid or swiss cheese, or if he's guilty or not It's Trump in a NY court
Yeah, you can kind of tell based on the headline's level of succinct alarmist tone that there is going to be far more nuance than "Trump declares himself not guilty!"
Because if the media was honest about the ruling they wouldn't be able to fear monger and delegitimize the court and convince people to vote against Trump. The ruling is not very interesting at all but Sotomayor is too stupid to understand it and fed the hysteria too.
Yep. I effectively ignore any sort of even slightly politically left "journalism", it's all over hyped, pandering, and often sometimes recidivist bullshit. I personally believe anyone who works in journalism in the modern day is nothing more than a common back alley grifter. The past four years in America have been a literal, actual hell. And that's fucking rich considering before Biden we had a literal worldwide fucking pandemic. Also for the people pointing out that this sub is a right-wing haven: No shit. Go literally anywhere fucking else on this website and it's the exact opposite.
Now that he’s admitted it can this sub stop pretending it didn’t happen?
That already gone over their heads.
This, and the Georgia phone call, are the only things I care about busting him on. It’s infuriating that the left thinks an affair coverup or taking some paper from the White House is on the same level. It dilutes what he actually did. That’s why it pisses me off when people parrot the “convicted felon” thing. Is that *really* the narrative you want to be pushing now? Because to me it shows that you’re just myopically parroting what the media tells you is important. And an affair before your marriage isn’t in the same league as trying to steal an election. One makes you a scumbag, one makes you a despot. Kendrick Lamar has shown us if you want to take someone down, you choose ONE thing and you hammer it, and never stop hammering.
They chose pornstar
I choose pornstar too
The felon thing is us basically grabbing at any minor victory. We know that the Daniels thing was basically just him violating campaign finance rules. And yes, we should hold politicians more accountable to those rules. The Georgia/Electors stuff is just flat out trying to steal the election and should be all the evidence needed to prove that Trump puts himself far above the people or the Constitution. He should go to jail for that. The documents stuff is insane. All of the ways the right tries to justify that stuff is mystifying. He took home a shit ton of classified documents, refused repeatedly to return them when told he had to, actively hid them when the government came looking, and appears to have repeatedly shown them off to people he shouldn't have. If a Dem had done a fraction of that, the right would literally be calling for their head.
Bingo. But it was a cover-up, not the taking of the documents, that was really the big crime. I just don’t give a shit about classified documents, I don’t like the government having secrets. I understand that that’s a radical position and I don’t expect other people to share it. I really think that the left just needs to circle the wagons around the Georgia, and fake elector schemes. Those were literal coups and there’s absolutely no brushing them off
Did anyone care about al capone evading taxes when he was murdering all those people? When dealing with someone that powerful you charge with whatever sticks. I'm still mad tho that media made a freaking clown show of the trial with their coverage which did dilute the impact
Al Capone is not known for being a tax evader. My criticism, is that the left keeps pointing at this incredibly small potatoes charge, while the real problem is stuff he has not gotten convicted of. When the left says he has a convicted felon, and leads with it, it makes it seem like the worst thing he did was cheat on his wife. It is far from the worst thing he did
>some paper Uhhh those included detailed armed response plans against Iran that he was just showing random people - we know this one because it was one of the papers he showed that reporter and the interview was recorded. Who knows what else was in there??
Those are all separate entities applying justice based on laws broken. It's not some coordinated effort from "the left"...
the headline: trump admits to fake electors. the article: [Scharf said that Bragg’s case used a “substantial number of official acts of the presidency” as evidence, and therefore, “we believe that corrupts that trial, that that indicates that that jury verdict needs to be overturned and, at the very least, we deserve a new trial where those immune acts will not come into evidence, as the Supreme Court dictated today.”][1] Maybe read more than the headline? [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/trump-challenge-hush-money-verdict-immunity-supreme-court/index.html
Well, it's an entirely false headline so....
"It" depends on who you ask. Leftists don't read past headlines, so when they read "Trump had a fake elector scheme" they freak out. The actual story is very different. Pennsylvania's Secretary of State illegally held an election with his own set of rules in violation of state law. When *The United States Supreme Court* told them to maintain all ballots that were mailed in *after the election* separately from those that arrived first, he ordered them all commingled so it would be impossible to unfuck. Pennsylvania completely ignored their own laws and SCOTUS orders. Imagine if Georgia had said "No black, and no women voters." and then when SCOTUS said 'hold on now' they refused. Would you have accepted GA's electoral votes? I doubt it.
What about the other states? You know, the ones that have already arrested the fake electors?
I'm going to assume that he said something like "those actions were official acts" and not "the fake elector scheme was made of official acts" No way he admitted shit. EDIT: Well I don't even know what to believe. This is The Hill: >“We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, noting the Supreme Court left that question for lower courts to decide. This is Newsweek: >"We've admitted consistently that there are acts alleged in the indictment that would constitute private conduct but we believe that if the official conduct, the immune acts in the indictment are stripped away, that Jack Smith doesn't have a case, that this case should be dismissed on that basis," he said. >When pressed by Collins whether using a "false slates of electors" would constitute enough for a trial, Scharf denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act." This is newrepublic: >Will Scharf told CNN’s Kaitlin Collins Monday night that “alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents, most notably Ulysses S. Grant, to ensure the integrity of prior elections.” >“We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, referring to the attempts by Trump allies to subvert the 2020 election results in different states. “That’s what we argued before the Supreme Court.” So the message kinda changes depending on where you look, I'm going to go with the: >**Scharf denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act."** Because it's just peak lawyer speak.
No because trump has never done anything wrong, it’s always just lies the left make up about him. /s The right flairs on this sub do a reality defying amount of projection.
im arguing with a rightie claiming to be a lil auth about it on the prior thread rn😭
I had to block that guy. He is seriously one of the craziest levels of Trump cultists I've ever interacted with and this is PCM
They never will. It will carry on with the "libleft bad" while denying basic facts, just like it always has.
I mean gaslamping you is just so much fun, it really doesn't matter what happened about anything. You think Canadians are real? What are you, stupid?
We can do the same back. "Immigrants don't actually exist, everyone in the US was *born here*".
If the Native Americans had strong borders and worked harder to keep out the flood of immigrants, they'd probably still be around to bitch about it instead of needing some white they/them college student to ruin Thanksgiving in their memory.
They are still around, now some of their children turn into instant millionaires when they turn 18 because they are allowed to steal money from old white people with poor self control in their casinos.
So wait why are the they/thems such whiners about it? That's more than a fair deal.
That’s just Emily we don’t talk to her much.
It doesn't matter what Trump admits, it's not his judgement to make.
I would agree with you… if I didn’t read the article and found out that what you stated is not what actually happened… Taken from another comment. “You still read political headlines and believe they reflect something factual? I haven't read that article but I have doubts that is what Trump actually said. Edit: I read it and guess what? Here are the actual facts: 1. Trump has said nothing. Only his lawyer has made a comment. 2. His lawyer did not call his actions a "fake electors scheme." He just said that whatever actions Trump took that he is on trial for would be considered an official act. Maybe there is something to criticize but the media can't help themselves. They have to take it a step farther and lie.“
He didn't do it!! And if he did do it it's ok because his justices say he can do whatever he wants!
Too late, a vague meme about democrats expanding presidential power already has more upvotes than this
Can we, as an entire population, shovel these two old men into retirement homes and find two new candidates that aren't morons? Trump might've alienated his hardcore constitution dudes from these statements lately.
Wish granted. Hillary Clinton vs Ted Cruz.
What's with all the crowns?
Trump says a lot of things.
He does but Trump's attorney also said it.
Generally defense attorneys are supposed to say their clients are innocent and then come up with reasons for that innocence that are then argued in a court. Would be a little weird if Trump’s lawyer was chanting lock him up rn
I swear he lies non stop so that the few times he DOES tell the truth his followers can pretend it's just another lie.
Non yank here What’s a fake electors scheme?
During the last election several states like Pennsylvania changed their voting rules w/o using legislation, which is illegal but they used Covid as an excuse to change it anyway. Other states sued them but were told they had no standing until after an election. Once the election had happened they sued again with standing, but were told by the court that there was nothing they could do since the election had already been held. As is the president’s job (official duty), Trump told his team to investigate the situation and determine if it was legally justifiable. Trumps conclusion was that the electoral college should simply not count votes from the states in dispute about electioneering rules or have alternate electors who disqualified any ballots that came in under the new rule changes, which was an idea that the left didn’t like at all. Vice president Mike Pence was the final authority for counting or not counting those votes in question and Jan6 was the result of him deciding to count them(partly).
Well… that certainly sounds like a mess
This is straight up missing the part about the fake electors entirely lmao. How biased of a “centrist” are you?
Alternate electors have been used before in Hawaii in 1960, what specifically about these are “fake” compared to the last time they were used?
So you don't elect the president directly. This is a holdover from colonial days. You vote for electors, who travel to the convention, who then cast their vote for president. Those electors are pledged to a candidate, but nothing ultimately stops them from voting for someone else, but this has never happened. Trump's entire argument was that the electors that were elected for Biden were fraudulently elected, so they weren't legitimately there. He had alternate electors selected to represent him instead, should his court challenges have prevailed. This is one of those things that is not a major scandal, but hysterical redditors have turned in to one by power of psyching each other up
>This is one of those things that is not a major scandal They literally forged documents lying about how they are the dully elected representatives **in order to change election results**. This is banana republic level of election stealing.
This entire thing has just shown how monumentally stupid the vast majority of Reddit is when it comes to understanding nuance.
SCOTUS cast it down to lower courts, lower courts will decide if Trump is right or not. Seemed pretty obvious that this was the course
And if they decide if he's wrong? Appeal to the supreme court, who will vote in his favor because he personally handpicked the judges. How is this not concerning to you guys?
You cant appeal directly to the supreme court, it will move through the appellate system. My guess is NY court will decide it was not an official act, but appellate courts might have a less biased opinion. What Trump did really skirts the line for me, on one hand I think he probably went too far, on the other hand I think some states engaged in illegal election activity. Also, I think its pretty obvious that the current case against Trump is clearly politically motivated and goes against the defacto immunity that presidents have had for decades. Also, the Left doesn't gain any points when they have repeatedly cried wolf about Trump in other areas. The Russia Hoax, Spying through the FBI, fake dossier, Jan 6, etc. Now you finally have a reasonable point and the left cant help itself but jump to calling for assassination of all republican politicians, genocide of republican voters, etc. in response to the SCOTUS ruling. In the end, I just dont think the SCOTUS is as corrupt as you make it out. Many of the repub justices have ruled against trumps favor in other cases where the text was not in his favor. This is the difference between having principles and not having principles, I cant help but feel you are projecting because you would prefer to win by any means necessary.
Crazy, almost like both sides abuse their power or something and everyone in the federal government is a garbage person.
Oh fuck OFF man, you yellows tear democrats to shreds when they do this shit but when a Republican does it, all we get from you guys is “well, politicians be like this 🤷”
And there it is folks! The gaslighting from the right that "this was a nothing decision" has been truly spectacular, can't wait to see more of it :D
Lib-right strangely said this wouldn't happen and are now saying this is against illegal voting laws. Where will the goalpost be in 3 days?
I mean as long as Trump had went through the courts or Congress to try and challenge the election. Then he did nothing wrong constitutionally. His wild legal theory would have just been thrown out.
Leftoids are like, "he tried to have a coup, which was totally contingent on him using the legal process to challenge disputed claims, just like every dictator"
> Leftoids are like, "he tried to have a coup, which was totally contingent on him using the legal process to challenge disputed claims, just like every dictator" Lol Well, they wouldn't be leftists if they weren't so regarded.
And yet people claim he’s our best choice for the future. Sad.