Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

[XtremeJibber2001]

Barr won’t leave his tribe. It’s self preservation for him.

Curious your thoughts on the SCOTUS presidential immunity hearing today. Do you think SCOTUS some how gives Trump cover?

[deadheadskier]

What's left to preserve? He's 73 years old. He could simply state he's a private citizen now and has no need to stay involved.

Can someone point anything in the constitution that suggests a President has total immunity? If there's nothing there and the SC decides in Trump's favor, they'll have a target on their backs.

[easyrider16]

Curious your thoughts on the SCOTUS presidential immunity hearing today. Do you think SCOTUS some how gives Trump cover?

Substantively, I believe the U.S. president, current or former, is immune from prosecution for official duties he performed while in office. The key question is whether the court agrees that his acts to block to certification of the election were official duties of his office. I think they are not, because no criminal behavior can be said to be within the duties of the office, and it would be a pretty big reversal of precedent for the Court to find otherwise. So ultimately I think the Court rules against Trump.

It is interesting that the Court took the matter up, as they didn't have to at this point. On the one hand, it's a major issue that will be the subject of appeal at some point, and judicial economy suggests they deal with it now before there's a trial. On the other, this kind of appeal is very much out of the ordinary, and it's being taken up in a highly politically charged climate. I suspect the Court probably took the case because it's not actually a difficult issue, and I don't think many can quibble with the notion that the President is not above the law.

I think that's what they'll say - the President is not above the law, and if a judge/jury finds that his trying to send fake slates of electors is a crime, then it can't be part of his duties as President. It will, however, create further delays. At this point I think the chances of these cases going to trial before the election are minimal. On the other hand, these delay tactics could backfire spectacularly and result in a trial some time in September or October on the J6 case where he doesn't have a judge he appointed presiding.

[Bubba]

Expand upon what you mean Bubba. Jews live in perfect harmony with anyone no matter what their backgrounds and beliefs are?

I think back to my first serious girlfriend. She was Jewish. It was a year being made felt uncomfortable because the family didn't tolerate her dating a goy. They wouldn't even entertain the idea of me converting to Judaism; not that I would have or have anything to convert from. My Catholic parents tired of the negatives and left the religion before I was born. They wanted her with someone from Jewish lineage only. How asisine is that? It would be like me refusing to date anyone without Irish lineage.

Eventually she broke up with me and she married a proper Jew.

I'm sorry, but I can't be convinced that religion, all of them, continues to be one of the greatest sources of division and intolerance between humans throughout history. The positives simply don't negate that reality. Nevermind it's persistent use in many places to brainwash and control.

Thanks for asking. First off, Jews don't really have the same concept of heaven and/or hell as Christians, nor do Jews threaten eternal damnation on those who sin. The concept of eternal life is tied to the return of the Messiah, whose time has yet to arrive. Another school of thought is that we live on through the memory of those who come after and through the good things we have done in life.

Jews have spent the last 2,000 plus years of Christianity trying to survive persecution, simply wanting to be left alone to practice our beliefs. Christianity has spent the same period of time trying to convert, voluntarily or otherwise, all non-Christians. Survival is one of the main reasons why intermarriage has been discouraged. For the most part it is not caused by dislike of other religions but, rather, a reaction to our history and experience. Today we find many more interfaith marriages among Jews and others and, in fact, Reform Judaism and even Conservative Judaism accepts interfaith relationships. I have interfaith marriages in my family and everyone is fine. A cousin who recently passed away was married to a devout Catholic and they attended Synagogue and Church most weekends. In fact, each was active in the other's house of prayer and the priest spoke at my cousin's Jewish funeral along with the Rabbi and others. My one experience with non-acceptance was one of my college roommates (Jewish) marrying a Catholic with his girlfriend telling her parents she was converting. It was HER parents who threw her out and never spoke with her again.

Your point about religion is certainly somewhat valid for Christianity. Judaism, however, does not require that others convert nor do we force our beliefs on anyone. You do your thing and leave us alone to do ours.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Curious your thoughts on the SCOTUS presidential immunity hearing today. Do you think SCOTUS some how gives Trump cover?

Substantively, I believe the U.S. president, current or former, is immune from prosecution for official duties he performed while in office. The key question is whether the court agrees that his acts to block to certification of the election were official duties of his office. I think they are not, because no criminal behavior can be said to be within the duties of the office, and it would be a pretty big reversal of precedent for the Court to find otherwise. So ultimately I think the Court rules against Trump.

Thus far the justices seem to be beating up Sauer pretty well. Sauer arguing a coup may be an official act is wild.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Curious your thoughts on the SCOTUS presidential immunity hearing today. Do you think SCOTUS some how gives Trump cover?

Substantively, I believe the U.S. president, current or former, is immune from prosecution for official duties he performed while in office. The key question is whether the court agrees that his acts to block to certification of the election were official duties of his office. I think they are not, because no criminal behavior can be said to be within the duties of the office, and it would be a pretty big reversal of precedent for the Court to find otherwise. So ultimately I think the Court rules against Trump.

Thus far the justices seem to be beating up Sauer pretty well. Sauer arguing a coup may be an official act is wild.

Seems it has come full circle, with Roberts saying the court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what facts or documents are being discussed and whether or not immunity should be removed or not. IANAL but guess this means it will be sent back to the lower court, providing more delay.

[easyrider16]

It's always hard to make predictions based on what the judges say from the bench. But based on what I'm reading, I think the Court is going to articulate a standard that offers the President some level of protection, but does not amount to blanket immunity. Roberts questions about the Appeals Court decision seem like a criticism in that regard, that they just made a sweeping dismissal of Trump's arguments without a careful analysis of how it applied to each set of charges.

The other big theme that I think is important is the skepticism some of the judges expressed for the charges relating to obstruction of an official proceeding. Kavanaugh said it's a vague statute, and a statute can be declared unconstitutional if it's so vague that a person can't determine what it proscribes. That might end up applying to this case.

Even if the obstruction of official proceedings charges get dismissed, there is still the conspiracy to defraud the U.S. That's count one of the indictment, and frankly I think it fits the facts better. It's exactly what he tried to do - conspire to send fraudulent electors.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Retired judge Michael Luttig weighs in ...
https://x.com/judgeluttig/status/1783542480069185587

As with the three-hour argument in Trump v. Anderson, a disconcertingly precious little of the two-hour argument today was even devoted to the specific and only question presented for decision.

The Court and the parties discussed everything but the specific question presented.

That question is simply whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People.

thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People -- and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history.

It is not even arguably a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the fairness, accuracy, and integrity of a presidential election.

Let alone is it a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the proper certification of the next president by the Congress of the United States. Neither of these is a power or function of the president at all.

In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions.

Consequently, they purposely and pointedly withheld from the President any role in these fundamental constitutional functions.

To whatever extent the Framers implicitly provided in the Executive any role whatsoever in these fundamental constitutional functions, it was a limited role for the Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, to inquire into allegations of fraud in presidential elections and ensure that the election was free, fair, and accurate.

The former president’s Department of Justice did just that and found that there was no fraud sufficient to draw into question the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The former president of course has refused to this day to accept that finding by not only his own Department of Justice, but also countless others of his closest advisors.

Whether undertaken in his or her “official,” “candidate,” or “personal” capacity, a President of the United States has never been and can never be immune from prosecution (after leaving office), for having attempted to remain in power notwithstanding the election of that President’s successor by the American People.

Consequently, there is no reason whatsoever for the Supreme Court to remand to the lower courts for a determination of which of the alleged criminal acts might have been personal and which might have been official.

Neither is a clear statement from Congress that a president is subject to prosecution under the statutes with which the former president has been charged necessary in this particular case.

As applied to the former president for the criminal conduct with which he has been charged, there can be no question but that Congress intended a President of the United States to come within the ambit of the statutory offenses with which he has been charged.

For the same reason, it would be ludicrous to contend that the former president was not on sufficient notice that if he committed the criminal acts charged, he would be subject to criminal prosecution by the United States of America.

To hold otherwise would make a mockery out of the “plain statement” rule.

[deadheadskier]

What I heard most of today is the argument that a President can't be prosecuted for a crime unless they're impeached and convicted by Congress. In today's tribe minded political climate, a Congressional conviction will never happen.

The chaos MAGA brings to America is so damn exhausting. I say it about very few people, but the world will be better off when that Mfer is dead.

[deadheadskier]

Thanks for the response Bubba. Fair points

[easyrider16]

What I heard most of today is the argument that a President can't be prosecuted for a crime unless they're impeached and convicted by Congress. In today's tribe minded political climate, a Congressional conviction will never happen.

That's Trump's argument, or one of them. I don't think it holds water for the reasons you stated, and also just on the basic principle that no man should be above the law, not even a president with a majority in the Senate protecting him.

The other issue is that Trump is no longer in office. The reason he was acquitted on the J6 stuff is that many Senators bought the argument that once a President is out of office, he can't be impeached. So this leads to the ridiculous conclusion that a President can shoot someone in the face the day before he leaves office yet be immune from criminal prosecution because Congress didn't have a chance to impeach him.

Trump's argument is partly premised on a DOJ memo, not any kind of law, that says it's DOJ policy that a sitting President can't be indicted unless he is impeached and removed from office. But the President is the head of the DOJ, so there are obvious reasons why this memo should hold little water, not least of which is that it was written by a President's DOJ to protect the president (Clinton was President when the 2000 memo was written, but the idea was originally formulated during the Nixon administration). On the other hand, the DOJ pretty much can't indict a sitting President as a practical matter because the President can just order the DOJ to quash it - or, as Nixon did, just fire them.

After Nixon's bullsh!t Congress passed the independent counsel act, which made it illegal for the President to fire an independent counsel except for good cause, among other protections. But it has since expired and has never been renewed, so now we are back to the Nixon era on this stuff. And Trump is rehashing a lot of what Nixon argued. It's a bit ridiculous if you asked me.

[deadheadskier]

One of Trump's top picks for VP.

Nice gal

https://www.rawstory.com/noem-dog/

[XtremeJibber2001]

One of Trump's top picks for VP.

Nice gal

https://www.rawstory.com/noem-dog/

There's a large farm in my family. I understand putting animals down that are suffering (due to age or sickness), but killing animals because you just don't like them really isn't a "tough decision that happens all the time on a farm".

[deadheadskier]

Seriously. If the dog isn't capable of hunting like you want, re-home it to a family who simply wants it as a pet.

What an absolute, heartless bitch

[XtremeJibber2001]

Voted for Sununu each time he was up for governor here in NH. Never again.

Anyone who doesn't condemn and walk away from Trump in 2024 will not receive my vote in the future

The election denial stuff is terrible. The Jan. 6 stuff was terrible. But those are not disqualifying.

https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/1785396322448597140