Jack, the problems with the portion of the ruling that declares that a President has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” are numerous. Oops, hit Post too soon. … The biggest issue I believe has been created by the opinion is that there is no avenue of review open to either the judicial or congressional branches of government for official acts of the president. It is as if the Court has said that every official act enjoys the same level of absolute immunity from review that the pardon power has. There is considerable uncertainty about what, if any, limits still exist for those acts ostensibly falling under the first clause of the three. That is a problem because of… Read more »
Roberts’ ruling directly contradicts the impeachment clause which expressly states a PotUS can be “convicted of” (and therefore capable of committing) “high CRIMES, BRIBERY, TREASON, and misdemeanors
Why else would an impeachment clause be in there? For a bunch of “originalists” today’s court-jesters are not thinking inside the box.
NYT: “if Judge Chutkan sticks to her practice of dealing quickly with procedural matters and is able to schedule the hearing for September or October, it could lead to something extraordinary: a mini-trial of sorts unfolding in the nation’s capital in what could be the homestretch of the presidential campaign. It could look a lot like a full-on trial of Mr. Trump, lacking only a jury to render a verdict.”
“A hearing could easily take weeks. And it could result in testimony not only from Mr. Pence and his advisers, but also from a cast of characters including lawyers and campaign aides who were part of the fake elector scheme, and state officials who were subject to arm-twisting by Mr. Trump.”
I don’t know what course Mr Biden must chart, (that’s way above my pay grade) as long as he fully realizes the extent of the war we’re in—with maga and thereby with the Russian.
Ivy, I don’t believe the ruling limits Congress’ power under the Impeachment Clause. The President is subject to impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but is immune from prosecution for those offenses by DOJ (and potentially states prosecution) if committed while he is in office.
Here’s Laurence Tribe on the opinion at Media Matters. This is a devastating blow to our system of government. In fact, probably the most eloquent and elaborate dissent, which I haven’t seen quoted in the press much, is that of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said that it is a five-alarm fire for self-government under democracy. And the reason is that the court was really flying the flag of the Constitution upside down. It was suggesting that just because an act is official, that it is something a president can do but that others can’t do, that creates a cloak of immunity. That’s upside down. It is worse to use the cloak of presidential authority to commit ordinary crimes for which the rest of us would go to jail than it is to do things that are purely personal. For all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity. It’s dangerous and… Read more »
Very surprising move. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has agreed to postponement of Trump sentencing in light of Trump’s lawyers arguing the SCOTUS immunity decision entitles them to dismissal of the conviction
Anything that gets Democratic voters focused on Supreme Court in the presidential campaign is helpful. With Dobbs and everything else it seems like they get it more than ever.
Btw, I wonder if Thomas and Alito realize first thing Trump would do is force them out (like he did to Anthony Kennedy) so that he can replace them with younger versions of them.
And here’s Pr. Tribe’s guest essay in NYT. On Monday the Supreme Court dispensed with the rule of law by effectively depriving the American people of crucial information we should have had before the November election. The question before the justices in Trump v. United States: Was Donald Trump immune from prosecution for the crimes the special counsel Jack Smith accused him of committing while president? The answer should have been obvious: No, presidents cannot commit crimes aimed at obstructing the peaceful transfer of power without facing consequences. Indeed, to my knowledge, no court has ever held that a president could be criminally immune under any circumstances. Instead of delivering that judgment many months ago and allowing the trial to proceed, the justices have given Mr. Trump the gift of delay piled upon delay. By taking nearly 10 weeks to deliberate before returning the case to the district court —… Read more »
Poobah, maybe you can explain to me how paying hush money to a porn star to keep her quiet during the campaign for president could be an official act – pretend I’m 5.
CNN? The ones who gave us that debate?
Oh yes, lets delve into this nice platter of media sewage.
Should we speculate on what CNN’s AGENDA might be? I guess we could just examine that “debate”, huh……
CNN: Oh, hey…..look at this you guys…..ALL the Democrats could beat him hands down, right? Right?
Please check out the top dog at CNN and try to imagine what agenda he might be pushing.
Or maybe,,,just maybe….look at that stump Chris Licht town hall and that Firehose of LIES cnn called a debate.
CNN is just more Fox. Got any Fox polls to put up?
This is not hard. If you fuck with Biden you’re going to SPLIT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. History shows that the Split Democrats NEVER win. Yes, Obama won after the schism but it was OBAMA, after having led all the way.
I just can’t understand this Push to Lose.
And this time—we lose it all.
Joe is fighting the billionaires, he’s fighting CNN, the NYT, Fox, he’s fighting Russia. They’re all out there arrayed against him.
Any ordinary citizen who’s lost a loved one by unaddressed gun violence, opioids, bullying and suicide, border crossings, or botched covid response has skin in this game. If you add in the military “suckers and losers,” you’ve got a lot of skinned people.
Biden now talking live about climate change. Always a good wedge against Trump’s anti-science ignorance.
But another prompter speech not really what he needs to be doing right now. Still hasn’t done anything unscripted since debate. Maybe he’ll take some questions at this event.
First and so far only elected Dem off the reservation.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas (Austin) calls on Biden to withdraw.
“Too much is at stake to risk a Trump victory. President Biden saved our democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2020. He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024.”
ABC’s @GStephanopoulos has landed the first post-debate interview with Biden. It’s happening on Friday. First clip will be released Friday night; “the extended interview will air Sunday, July 7, on ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos’ and @GMA on Monday, July 8,” ABC says.
POTUS Joe needs a televised town hall.
I sure don’t need it. Any sane person doesn’t need it. But he needs to do it for some folks.
Gotta drive a ways to vote but will only vote in the general this year, as I’m afraid to affiliate with a party at this point. In Texas, you could choose which ballot you wanted when you went to vote and you tapped a screen so nobody there knew. Here, they want to know your political proclivities now. Considering the situation, I don’t feel safe.
‘You Are Complicit’: Historian Gets Mad At CNN, Media For Helping Trump By Highlighting Biden’s Debate Showing (msn.com) Historian Allan Lichtman on Monday criticized CNN and the media by claiming the media helped former President Donald Trump’s election prospects by only focusing on President Joe Biden after his poor debate performance on Thursday. Biden, during the debate, talked with a raspy voice and trailed off while speaking, leading to worries regarding his age and fitness for another presidential term. Lichtman on “CNN News Central” said CNN and the media are playing a role “in Donald Trump gaslighting his way to the presidency and threatening our democracy” by disregarding the former president through paying more attention to Biden’s debate performance than Trump’s. “I love you guys in the media, but I have to say you are complicit in Donald Trump lying and conning his way to the presidency,” Lichtman said. “All the attention has been… Read more »
repeating for emphasis from a guy who has science on his side. at least he’s been correct 9 out of the last 10 elections: “I love you guys in the media, but I have to say you are complicit in Donald Trump lying and conning his way to the presidency,” Lichtman said. “All the attention has been on Biden’s faltering debate. But Donald Trump’s debate was vastly worse. It was based entirely on lies. More than 30 significant lies. That’s one lie for about every one minute and 20 and 30 seconds. He threatened our democracy by saying he wouldn’t accept necessarily the results of a fair election.”</p> … he continued. “There’s an old saying: ‘It’s not just the evil people who wreak havoc on the world. It’s the good people who don’t do enough to stop them.’ And the media right now is complicit in Donald Trump gaslighting his… Read more »
David Dayan
From me: Setting aside everything else, campaign finance laws dictate that the only Democrats who can seamlessly use the hundreds of millions of $$ currently raised for the election are Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. Anyone else would start from scratch
At most, Biden could give $3,300 directly to a new candidate. His campaign account had $91 million at the end of May and raised $33 million more since last Thursday.
Kamala could use all of it. Another candidate would have to re-raise it. https
its too late, and only getting later by the minute
i was waiting for the post-debate polls to assess the damage and all indicators suggest it’s minimal
Kamala would have to head a replacement ticket, for a variety of reasons, finances certainly being one, her being the incumbent VP another, her having received tens of millions of votes already as a VP candidate…
the “1 out if 10” is actually 2016, due to some qualifications and modifications that he uses to warrant getting booked as “the man who accurately predicted 9 of the last 10” elections
“Everyone is freaking the f*** out,” one official said.
Who is “everyone?” Freaking out people do not inspire confidence, nor are they the best to turn to under pressure, in my experience. I’d keep them in the anteroom too. Cool heads must prevail.
runner-up ‘toon also by whamond capturing the ever-continual state of the democratic party
ad usable for Joe’s campaign and the upcoming convention
one of the best catherders on this day sixty years ago
LBJ to Dirksen: “what the Hell’s the presidency for?”
60 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed Civil Rights Act of 1964 – The Washington Post
Patd
You outdid yourself this morning with the intro. Herding cats is my all time favorite advertisements and the cartoons are definitely keepers.
Thanks for all your hard work.
They have now been acquired by Hewlett Packard.
Bink on a roll last night with posts #100, 101, 102. Excellent points, lots to ponder, agree completely.
This time the battle will be entirely at the ballot box. Don’t vote for an actor and especially don’t vote for a bad actor.
Jack, the problems with the portion of the ruling that declares that a President has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” are numerous. Oops, hit Post too soon. … The biggest issue I believe has been created by the opinion is that there is no avenue of review open to either the judicial or congressional branches of government for official acts of the president. It is as if the Court has said that every official act enjoys the same level of absolute immunity from review that the pardon power has. There is considerable uncertainty about what, if any, limits still exist for those acts ostensibly falling under the first clause of the three. That is a problem because of… Read more »
Why else would an impeachment clause be in there? For a bunch of “originalists” today’s court-jesters are not thinking inside the box.
NYT: Ruling Opens Door to Airing of Evidence
We ALL got skin in this game.
Orange Lurch would rather rule in hell (under Putin, of course) than serve in heaven, to borrow a line or two.
Festivus in July 🎄
Well… Professor Laurence Tribe was alarmed by the immunity ruling… that’s good enough for me.
Jamie… as both of us being long time cat owners… we know the truth to that cartoon!
I don’t know what course Mr Biden must chart, (that’s way above my pay grade) as long as he fully realizes the extent of the war we’re in—with maga and thereby with the Russian.
Ivy, I don’t believe the ruling limits Congress’ power under the Impeachment Clause. The President is subject to impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but is immune from prosecution for those offenses by DOJ (and potentially states prosecution) if committed while he is in office.
Renee, I’m keeping an eye out for Laurence’s assessment of the opinion. I’ll post it if I notice it – please do the same.
Pogo, thanks. It sounds increasingly like separating the fly shit from the pepper territory. 🪰
reuben Scott
Billionaires own the media, so all we are seeing and hearing is billionaires propaganda. It’s just that simple
Echo to Jamie’s thanks for Pat’s hard work.
Getting us started in the morning like a Rooster welcoming the new day. Much appreciated!
Here’s Laurence Tribe on the opinion at Media Matters. This is a devastating blow to our system of government. In fact, probably the most eloquent and elaborate dissent, which I haven’t seen quoted in the press much, is that of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said that it is a five-alarm fire for self-government under democracy. And the reason is that the court was really flying the flag of the Constitution upside down. It was suggesting that just because an act is official, that it is something a president can do but that others can’t do, that creates a cloak of immunity. That’s upside down. It is worse to use the cloak of presidential authority to commit ordinary crimes for which the rest of us would go to jail than it is to do things that are purely personal. For all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity. It’s dangerous and… Read more »
Very surprising move. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has agreed to postponement of Trump sentencing in light of Trump’s lawyers arguing the SCOTUS immunity decision entitles them to dismissal of the conviction
Dems to introduce amendment to reverse Supreme Court immunity ruling.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750735-joe-morelle-amendment-supreme-court-immunity-ruling/
Anything that gets Democratic voters focused on Supreme Court in the presidential campaign is helpful. With Dobbs and everything else it seems like they get it more than ever.
Btw, I wonder if Thomas and Alito realize first thing Trump would do is force them out (like he did to Anthony Kennedy) so that he can replace them with younger versions of them.
Also like cooking on the Iron Chef…you never know what’s the secret ingredient until it’s revealed.
And here’s Pr. Tribe’s guest essay in NYT. On Monday the Supreme Court dispensed with the rule of law by effectively depriving the American people of crucial information we should have had before the November election. The question before the justices in Trump v. United States: Was Donald Trump immune from prosecution for the crimes the special counsel Jack Smith accused him of committing while president? The answer should have been obvious: No, presidents cannot commit crimes aimed at obstructing the peaceful transfer of power without facing consequences. Indeed, to my knowledge, no court has ever held that a president could be criminally immune under any circumstances. Instead of delivering that judgment many months ago and allowing the trial to proceed, the justices have given Mr. Trump the gift of delay piled upon delay. By taking nearly 10 weeks to deliberate before returning the case to the district court —… Read more »
They’re counting on it and so are their wives.
Poobah, maybe you can explain to me how paying hush money to a porn star to keep her quiet during the campaign for president could be an official act – pretend I’m 5.
Any Dem can beat Trump. GOP has the wrong nominee. All are within or close to margin of error.
CNN Post-debate Poll
Trump 49%
Biden 43%
—–
Trump 47%
Harris 45%
—–
Trump 48%
Newsom 43%
—–
Trump 47%
Buttigieg 43%
—–
Trump 47%
Whitmer 42%
Pelosi just threw in the towel on Andrea. Did not say he should stay in, just said it’s up to him.
CNN? The ones who gave us that debate?
Oh yes, lets delve into this nice platter of media sewage.
Should we speculate on what CNN’s AGENDA might be? I guess we could just examine that “debate”, huh……
CNN: Oh, hey…..look at this you guys…..ALL the Democrats could beat him hands down, right? Right?
Please check out the top dog at CNN and try to imagine what agenda he might be pushing.
Or maybe,,,just maybe….look at that stump Chris Licht town hall and that Firehose of LIES cnn called a debate.
CNN is just more Fox. Got any Fox polls to put up?
Rudy disbarred in NY. Pity 😆
This is not hard. If you fuck with Biden you’re going to SPLIT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. History shows that the Split Democrats NEVER win. Yes, Obama won after the schism but it was OBAMA, after having led all the way.
I just can’t understand this Push to Lose.
And this time—we lose it all.
Joe is fighting the billionaires, he’s fighting CNN, the NYT, Fox, he’s fighting Russia. They’re all out there arrayed against him.
It’s fucking time to have his back.
Any ordinary citizen who’s lost a loved one by unaddressed gun violence, opioids, bullying and suicide, border crossings, or botched covid response has skin in this game. If you add in the military “suckers and losers,” you’ve got a lot of skinned people.
Clyburn also on Andrea, also pointedly did not say Biden should stay in. Both confirmed he hasn’t called them.
Biden now talking live about climate change. Always a good wedge against Trump’s anti-science ignorance.
But another prompter speech not really what he needs to be doing right now. Still hasn’t done anything unscripted since debate. Maybe he’ll take some questions at this event.
First and so far only elected Dem off the reservation.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas (Austin) calls on Biden to withdraw.
Texas, eh?
today’s meme…
If Biden stays in, good to know Kamala not a drag on the ticket
Here’s what drives her numbers
ABC’s @GStephanopoulos has landed the first post-debate interview with Biden. It’s happening on Friday. First clip will be released Friday night; “the extended interview will air Sunday, July 7, on ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos’ and @GMA on Monday, July 8,” ABC says.
https://x.com/BetteMidler/status/1808139549140475993
Bette Midler giving Randy some company.
POTUS Joe needs a televised town hall.
I sure don’t need it. Any sane person doesn’t need it. But he needs to do it for some folks.
Gotta drive a ways to vote but will only vote in the general this year, as I’m afraid to affiliate with a party at this point. In Texas, you could choose which ballot you wanted when you went to vote and you tapped a screen so nobody there knew. Here, they want to know your political proclivities now. Considering the situation, I don’t feel safe.
‘You Are Complicit’: Historian Gets Mad At CNN, Media For Helping Trump By Highlighting Biden’s Debate Showing (msn.com) Historian Allan Lichtman on Monday criticized CNN and the media by claiming the media helped former President Donald Trump’s election prospects by only focusing on President Joe Biden after his poor debate performance on Thursday. Biden, during the debate, talked with a raspy voice and trailed off while speaking, leading to worries regarding his age and fitness for another presidential term. Lichtman on “CNN News Central” said CNN and the media are playing a role “in Donald Trump gaslighting his way to the presidency and threatening our democracy” by disregarding the former president through paying more attention to Biden’s debate performance than Trump’s. “I love you guys in the media, but I have to say you are complicit in Donald Trump lying and conning his way to the presidency,” Lichtman said. “All the attention has been… Read more »
repeating for emphasis from a guy who has science on his side. at least he’s been correct 9 out of the last 10 elections: “I love you guys in the media, but I have to say you are complicit in Donald Trump lying and conning his way to the presidency,” Lichtman said. “All the attention has been on Biden’s faltering debate. But Donald Trump’s debate was vastly worse. It was based entirely on lies. More than 30 significant lies. That’s one lie for about every one minute and 20 and 30 seconds. He threatened our democracy by saying he wouldn’t accept necessarily the results of a fair election.”</p> … he continued. “There’s an old saying: ‘It’s not just the evil people who wreak havoc on the world. It’s the good people who don’t do enough to stop them.’ And the media right now is complicit in Donald Trump gaslighting his… Read more »
David Dayan
From me: Setting aside everything else, campaign finance laws dictate that the only Democrats who can seamlessly use the hundreds of millions of $$ currently raised for the election are Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. Anyone else would start from scratch
At most, Biden could give $3,300 directly to a new candidate. His campaign account had $91 million at the end of May and raised $33 million more since last Thursday.
Kamala could use all of it. Another candidate would have to re-raise it. https
Think it’s time to stop framing it as a “king,” too.
Charles III (or his dearly departed mum) is not what we’re looking at if tRUMPsky (or any Republican) were to win.
All hands in deck for Biden/Harris 2024.
its too late, and only getting later by the minute
i was waiting for the post-debate polls to assess the damage and all indicators suggest it’s minimal
Kamala would have to head a replacement ticket, for a variety of reasons, finances certainly being one, her being the incumbent VP another, her having received tens of millions of votes already as a VP candidate…
Can confirm she looks Presidential in black 👍
The guy who’s predicted 9 out of 10 elections…..which one did he miss?
It appears, after a cursory search, that hr missed Bush v Gore, but I’m not sure about that.
(He didn’t miss)
the one you suspect
the “1 out if 10” is actually 2016, due to some qualifications and modifications that he uses to warrant getting booked as “the man who accurately predicted 9 of the last 10” elections
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House#:~:text=For%20Lichtman's%20predictions%20from%201984,%2Dsquared%20value%20of%2070.56%25.
he makes good points, regardless.
“Man with 80% record” doesn’t have the same ring to it, 80% is still a good record, though
Who is “everyone?” Freaking out people do not inspire confidence, nor are they the best to turn to under pressure, in my experience. I’d keep them in the anteroom too. Cool heads must prevail.
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/02/biden-white-house-campaign-staff-freaking-out-debate?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiospm&stream=top