Over- or under-. SCOTUS didn’t quite go so far as to say anything the President does as part of his duties is legal.
The (effectively nearly meaningless) distinction they made was that they would ultimately be the arbiter if there was a dispute as to whether or not his actions were legally justified as part of his official duties.
… and meaning they can fuck any Democratic president and protect any Republican one. It’s a truly evil ruling.
This is a very common misconception about that ruling.
SCOTUS ruled that former presidents “can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly.”
So, yes, he can (probably) “do no wrong” related to official acts. I have no doubt that his lawyers will try to argue that anything that he did while he was/is president was an “official act.” But – purely hypothetically – if a sitting president were to, say, strangle someone, I have a difficult time seeing that that would be considered an “official act.”
But, in this case, if we’re talking about him being called to testify about his relationship with Epstein (most, if not all, of which occurred before he was president the first time), that “immunity” would not apply, AIUI.
Indeed, and I happen to have an opinion on how the current arbiters would decide in a controversial case involving the current temper tanTrump in the White House. So yes,
is what I meant to whine about. Are you trying to lift my spirits? Try harder.
We get to deal with him in our country on a daily basis. Misery loves company
You have my solidarity. Which is not worth more than thoughts and prayers, but there you go. I am even more powerless than you, go figure.
Maybe this will help your spirits, maybe it’ll depress you more:
There must be some grift in here.
What? So it’s basically a Craig’s List for drugs. How does this help?
Let’s delve a tad more into the article to see.
Rip van Simple forgets the name of the president.
Minneapolis is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
That’s all that should be required to have the condiments catapulted 'cross the kitchen.
Which chapter of The Dictator’s Handbook is this from?
Elections really are a sore spot for the convicted felon, aren’t they?
If armed men cause people to avoid voting, America is lost entirely.
I thought the dems would win and haul fatass in to testify under oath.
Dementia, come on quick.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday said she could offer “no guarantee” that ICE personnel would not be stationed at polling sites
Her words in all their weasely goodness,
Bad weather causes people to avoid voting.
Was she asked for a “guarantee”. Does she make laws and order ICE around?
Did Thomas Jefferson have to write “no army at polling places” in the DOI or Constitution (I thought he did)? It’d be overruled anyways.
I mean, by next week Trump will probably have forgotten he said anything about it.
This is all kinds of hilarious.
The felon’s frau’s movie opens at $7 mil.
The director of which has a bit of affinity with the felon.
Oh, I don’t doubt that bit about people who don’t normally go. I’m going to go out on a limb here with my very own WAG: the people who went to see the cruddy movie avoid Hollywood fare because it’s woke, etc.
And what flick did manage to get numbers the felon likes to pepper his own blathers with?
Yes, that part I just quoted is at the beginning of the link, but hey, it’s more hilarious putting it in this order. Or I can put it this way:
15,000%
15,000%
15,000 percent
FIFTEEN THOUSAND PERCENT, YOU FRAUD!
As I said, it’s more hilarious. And this is for a movie that came out six years ago.
And a final interjection:
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Please forgive my typos above. Not wearing glasses.
Vanity of vanities; all is vanity!
Sounds like good news, doesn’t it? But there’s a reason there’s the expression I quoted at the top.
And Schumer’s response?
Which prompted America’s toddler to continue his petulance.
[/quote]
In the weeks since, Trump has continued to withhold the more than $16 billion earmarked for the long-planned Gateway project connecting New York and New Jersey through a new rail tunnel beneath the Hudson River.
[/quote]
And, finally, to no-one’s surprise.
But, of course, that doesn’t matter. The felon’s carrying out (or not carrying out, as the case may be) functions of his office. Doesn’t that mean he’s immune?
I’ve completely lost track of the Through the Looking-Glass logic of the clowns in charge. If you haven’t, you’re a veritable genius.
Holy Book of Ecclesiastes, Batman!
Seriously, how does Schumer have the power to rename Penn Station and Dulles Airport? Is that somehow in the power of the US Senate? I somehow doubt it, but I could be wrong.
He doesn’t. It’s not. And that’s why he told Rip van Simple he doesn’t have that power.
Phew! Thank you, @Monty .
Penn Station is owned by Amtrak and Dulles is situated on federal land leased to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a joint venture between the municipal government of DC and the commonwealth of Virginia.
Presumably they’d be the ones who’d make the call as to renaming them - which, considering the byzantine nature of how quasi-public corporations and interstate condominia work, is not likely to happen within any of our lifetimes.