That’s not the DOJ’s opinion. Can’t charge a sitting president. But whether or not the threat of prosecution after his term is a disincentive (I think it is), presidents aren’t above the law. No more.
Nixon resigned either because he realised what he did was wrong or he thought he would be impeached. I can not see the first happening with Trump and I am not sure enough republicans would vote to impeach him even if he openly ordered the military to kill all republicans.
I couldn’t see the first happening with Nixon, either, TBH.
On a more contemporary note, should the America-hating fuckstick ever deliver another SoTU (OG forbid), we’ll at least have the spectacle of the speech never being able to start, because when he’s introduced, all the Pubbies will be afraid to be the first to stop applauding.
Over time, I’ve generated some ‘canned’ stuff that I post on another (decidedly lesser) forum, where the RW always repeats the same blather, and … this saves me time:
If – God forbid – Trump retakes the White House and implements Project 2025, his supporters will have done everything they can for Donald Trump. They will no longer be of use to him.
What do they think happens then. Are they counting on the boundless love, compassion, and loyalty that Trump has always shown those who sacrifice for him – like the January 6th mob?
Do they think he’ll have their backs … like he had Mike Pence’s?
Are they counting on his economic benevolence, the way he paid the legal fees for all who are facing prison time for helping him – the white collar way – to overturn the election?? The way he’s coddled and protected Rudy Giuliani who did his dirty work at every single turn?
Or Mike Lindell. Or Allen Weisselberg. Or Jenna Ellis. Or John Eastman. Or Peter Navarro.
Or Michael Cohen. Or Steve Bannon.
I would count the US Supreme Court, as currently constituted, among that group.
What is it they think will happen once they do Trump The Very Last Favor They Could Ever Do Him?
Think.
I’ve always held the opinion that, if there is one place in our Federal government where Slippery Slope Arguments are, of necessity, supposed to be considered, it’s the Supreme Court.
They’re not supposed to play judicial whack-a-mole. They aren’t appointed to create ad hoc solutions to today’s challenges. They’re supposed to have wisdom, foresight, and prudence, and a profound understanding of history sufficient to inform a clear-eyed vision for the possible future.
As to a very important argument about what would happen to SCOTUS under a Trump 2.0 regime – IMHO – they’d be safe as long as they are useful, but the same loyalty qualification would stringently be applied to them as to any other mindless functionary allowed to serve Trump.
One opinion not in support of DJT on something material … something consequential … something that would directly affect Trump’s wealth or power … and the Court either gets stacked, or the traitors get Impeached, or they get dragged out in leg irons on State Media (ie, Fox News).
There’s a huge cognitive dissonance playing out in my head, where – intellectually – I know just how awful what’s playing out right now truly is, but I can’t change the ‘basically decent’ default setting in my brain dramatically enough or quickly enough to think strategically or tactically about a way forward.
I’m as ‘proud’ of it as I am dismayed by it.
[Maybe this is exactly how good people felt as their countries were rent asunder before their very eyes]
It puts me in the unimaginable position of hoping that we have enough people in the LW machinery who are just as bad as, or worse than, those on the right.
And I’m anything but confident in that daydream born of utter shock and dismay.
Some of them just won’t see it.
I was having a discussion with one of our local Trumpers this weekend. He’s a major pro-union guy, and was talking at the pub about how if you didn’t go on strike, you’d never get anything from the bosses.
So I asked him, how he could support Trump, who was notorious for screwing over workers every chance he got.
He’d never heard of such a thing, and literally refused to look at a single link I sent him that discussed this issue.
They’re just that willfully blind.
We’re missing something because the Court didn’t put it in. Sure, they implied that there are boundaries… but they never actually said just what those boundaries are. Even though some of their own colleagues were explicitly pointing out some very heinous things that didn’t fall clearly beyond their implied boundaries.
Because of the exact situation we’re in now with Trump. If a scheme like that works and the military follows the order then it doesn’t matter what the law says. If the military doesn’t follow the order, you have to punish the president so future presidents don’t view themselves as playing with house money to try to remain in power.
AFAIK it’s still up in the air if Trump’s stupid coup schemes are covered by immunity but if there ultimately is no way to punish him, why wouldn’t every losing incumbent president try?
Two excellent posts.
The NY Times points out that there is actually some good news to come out of this: the hearing before Judge Chutkan in which Smith lays out all of Trump’s seditious actions for determination as to whether they’re “official”, amounts to a mini-trial right before the election. And it’s a “trial” with no verdict – just all the damning evidence.
Kind of a win-win, in terms of making Trump look bad at just the right time.
Yeah? What’re we gonna do? Take it to the Supreme Court?
And of course taking these things through the court system even under the best of circumstances will take years with no certain outcome. And who will have standing to do so? The DoJ run by the very President being investigated?
And that’s assuming that said President doesn’t just overwhelm the system with a vast number of similar offenses committed in a constant stream.
The President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. I count at least two Justices who are running afoul of bribery laws and should be arrested for such. Oh, and that’s a Constitutional Act, for which the President has Absolute Immunity, according to those same judges.
I think it’s more likely that a Republican president would be more likely to abuse their “official duties” one way, which the SCotUS would interpret as OK, while a Democratic president would be more likely to abuse their “official duties” a different way that would be interpreted as not OK.
Our local paper (Daily Herald), which leans conservative, had a big editorial today saying they’re scared of results of this ruling. They also printed “heavily abridged” (their words) versions of the majority decision and minority dissent. What struck me was towards the end of the Majority decision:
Doesn’t that whole “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge” sound a whole hellova lot like what’s been happening the last 30 years or so? President gets in, signs a whole bunch of executive orders reversing the executive orders of the prior President?
And while they quote Washington and note his concerns, doesn’t this ruling exacerbate the situation?
“First they came for the Jews, but I am not a Jew…” I am (in general) an optimist. I don’t like being pissed off, so I try to see the bright side of things. However, there have been a lot of people saying “I wouldn’t mind Trump as a despot, because he believes in the things I do and would put this country right!” The MAGAts are going to see the “rule of law” disappearing in the right way, and won’t care. The rich are going to see stock prices increasing, and won’t care. That leaves the rest of us getting screwed over.
Trump’s play is to consistently talk big, then subvert expectations by not delivering. It’s his one play, you go into a conversation or business deal with him and you assume he will do something basic and he just never does. The union guy who refuses to see this, it’s always the same dynamic with Trump. Enough people always just make it up, insist on seeing what is never there.
I guess the silver lining is anything that happens won’t be because Trump never actually does anything. If Trump was more of an evil mastermind, more lawful evil than chaotic evil, he would actually deliver on shit. Trump half-assed building the wall because that’s what he does with everything. If it takes more than 5 seconds, he’s screaming about his next Diet Coke.
“We’ll know 'em when we see 'em.”
A lot of people are saying that this decision gives the President unfettered power. It doesn’t. Now, the President serves at SCOTUS’ pleasure. It means that whichever party controls SCOTUS also controls the President. This was a huge power grab by the judicial branch.
Looks bad to who? Certainly not his supporters, and he already looks bad to the Democrats. Yes, there are Republicans that do not openly support him, but they are “good” Republicans who, while not actually doing Trump’s bidding themselves will happily get the fuck out of the way of the Trumpettes then reap the benefits after the fact. They already know he looks bad, but they have put too much on the line psychologically to back out now.
Taking this logic to its absurd conclusion, there’s no political reason at all to bring Trump to trial for any of his crimes. His supporters don’t care and Democrats already hate him anyway.
Impeachment is off the table too now. Presidents could be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Now they can’t commit crimes at all, because if the president does it, it’s not illegal. So no more threat of impeachment (not that it’s been much of a threat in recent years).
This is not just a partisan decision by a bought-and-paid for Supreme Court. It’s a naked power grab over the other two branches. Bribery is legal (as long as you don’t call it that and deliver the check after the fact), the government is not allowed to use agency experts to inform policy and the Supreme Court will tell the Pres if he can be charged with a crime. Trump’s not the only one who wants to be King - John Roberts does too.
Article III of the Constitution says “… The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour …”, but does not specify a mechanism for removing them. We have assumed impeachment, but it is not in there. A “President” might just say “I get to remove those justices, because the Constitution doesn’t say that I can’t.”
Meanwhile, a subsequent ruling from the Supreme Court will affirm that the part of the Presidential Oath of Office, “… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution …” refers to the piece of parchment itself, not the words it contains or the concepts it embodies.