I want them to worry over their decisions and to give grave consideration to the law over every action no matter how small.
Look, Folks, we shouldn't be in court arguing for our elected leaders to be given unlimited power...
...instead we must demand they be held to highest standards of public accountability at all times.
You want a better nation, be a better citizen.
~Jim Wright
Great excerpt. You wonder whether it's ever occurred to the right-wing six on SCOTUS that in hundreds of years of American history, we've never had a prosecution of a president or presidential acts after the president left office. And yet somehow we must be wery, wery careful to protect against that hypothetical.
Trump's lawyers are before the Supreme Court today arguing Trump should be given 'absolute immunity' from the law.
Even for crimes he committed when he wasn't president.
And the Supreme Court is entertaining this idea.
We're actually entertaining this bullshit.
There isn't any immunity for Presidents.
There isn't any immunity from the law for any elected office — including that of Supreme Court Justice, so long as we're on the subject.
There's no immunity from the law for any citizen, not in the Constitution, not in law, not in tradition, not in any legal precedent.
There's no immunity. None. There never was.
Presidential Immunity is not a thing that has ever existed outside of Trump's fevered brain.
Unless...
Unless the Supreme Court creates it specifically for Donald Trump today.
And when I say Supreme Court, I'm using the term in the same many that I would "fucking clown show" because Alito is literally wondering out loud on the record if presidents can PARDON THEMSELVES FOR CRIMES THEY COMMIT WHILE IN OFFICE.
And it's entirely possible this Supreme Court made up in the majority of unqualified grifters might actually create immunity just for Donald Trump.
Clown show might be overly generous.
Here's the question I want asked: What illegal acts would a president need to routinely commit in order to execute the duties of the office?
What does the president need immunity FROM?
What? Be specific. Give examples. Show your work.
But no one can beyond "The president should be able to order the SEALs to murder his political opponents, theoretically, you know, for national security or something, probably."
That's not hyperbole. That's LITERALLY the argument that keeps coming up and we keep entertaining it like that's actually a thing we would want a president to be able to do. Right? And in fact, that's exactly what Trump's lawyer DID argue, that the president should be immune from the law if he orders the assassination of his political rivals.
That is LITERALLY the argument.
And the Court is entertaining it.
But you never hear these people giving an example of anything else. Just murder your opponents. That's it.
Without immunity, argues Trump, presidents must worry over every decision, wondering if they'll be hauled before the nation to justify their actions under the law.
Well, GOOD!
GREAT idea, let's do THAT.
If you're going to murder your political opponents, I'd like you to maybe have to think about that for a bit, yeah?
What? No? Okay, guess not.
When Lyndon Johnson lied us into Vietnam over the Gulf of Tonkin, when George W. Bush did the same with WMDs in Iraq, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
They never were and never will be. I guess that's immunity.
And it shouldn't be that way.
I want my elected leaders sweating it every day.
I want them cautious, deliberate, and accountable. I want them to demand the intelligence and the assumptions and the plan to be checked and rechecked and checked again to the most rigorous of standards.
I want them to worry over their decisions and to give grave consideration to the law over every action no matter how small.
Look, Folks, we shouldn't be in court arguing for our elected leaders to be given unlimited power...
...instead we must demand they be held to highest standards of public accountability at all times.
You want a better nation, be a better citizen.
Trump claims "thousands of [his supporters] were turned away from the courthouse" He claims the courthouse is an "armed camp." Witnesses on scene say otherwise. So do the pictures and the livestream. Far from an armed camp, the place appears to be just another day in Lower Manhattan. But let's say it was. Let's say it WAS an armed camp with militarized cops armed with heavy weapons, SWAT teams, the National Guard, attack dogs, barbed wire, riot control vehicles, tanks, armed drones, military helicopters, reinforced fighting positions, walls, fences, barricades... Let's say it was an armed camp. Isn't THAT exactly what Trump promised America? Isn't that exactly what MAGAs wanted, what they demanded, how they want to live? Surrounded by walls. Guns. Guards. Dogs. Minefields. Drones. Barbed wired The army. You know, to keep them safe, to keep the criminals away from decent Americans? That's what they wanted, wasn't it? Yes, it was. Funny, though, how it turned out TRUMP was the criminal all along, how HE was the rapist, the thief, the thug, the liar, the enemy come to destroy America. Funny indeed. LOL. It seems the Evangelicals' god is an iron.
Trump Media CEO Devin Nunes sent a letter to allies on Capitol Hill to press them to investigate potential manipulation of his companyâs stock.
Nunes asked Republican lawmakers to probe âanomalous tradingâ of the stock, which trades under the ticker DJT on the Nasdaq.
The stock price has lost more than half of its value since its trading debut, but the volatile stock shot up more than 9% on Wednesday.
The company, which created the Truth Social app, is majority-owned by former President Donald Trump.
I can't wait for the day when The GOP complains that Democrats are looking at who is pumping up the stock in the days leading to Trump getting more shares, and for them to start crying that the government is weaponized, overstepping, and involving themselves in issues they don't belong in.
How about the cult of virtue signalers ? All talk and no walk.
I got chosen to lead my department a long time ago. I still have the congratulations card where they wrote, ânow you can get in there and get some of this fixedâ and, of course, it was much harder than it looked. First thereâs âitâs the way weâve always done thingsâ (the conservative position) and then there are the ones willing to change - but they all have different ideas how, and a lot of them are short sighted or impossible in the real world. And then thereâs the inertia of, once approved, getting a team of people to change what theyâre doing. Maybe even displacing them to another job as they become redundant. (After all, arenât you supposed to move to efficiency?) And then, frequently, perfect becomes the enemy of good enough.
Upshot: in the real world, itâs not virtue signaling; itâs having a worthy goal and slowly, even using switchbacks, trying to advance towards that goal - in the face of a lot of opposition who want things to stay the same or even go backwards. You know, when things were great.
Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, tried to claim Trump is taking "great pains" to comply with the gag order.
The Judge literally looked at Blanche in utter disbelief and then said "You're losing all credibility. I have to tell you right now, you're losing all credibility with the Court."
Now, I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be one, but if you ARE a lawyer and the judge in your most important case says to you in PUBLIC "you're losing all credibility with the court," well, it seems to me that would be BAD, lawyering wise, and maybe you should think about a career in something else. Like dog walker or donut maker or just moving to a remote island without internet and spending the rest of your days eating raw coconut meat and thinking about your life choices.
