On the Ropes
Last night and angry, jacked up Joe Biden condemned the SCOTUS. It seems that the Court got so fed up with the lawfare directed at a former President that they took on a case they normally would have shied away from. It was the politicized DOJ and a handful of ideologically driven prosecutors that brought this issue to the SCOTUS. The Court found that Presidents do actually have limited immunity. The decision was a bit stronger than some had thought. The three leftist justices were the dissenting voices. The decision was one for the hereafter and thus future President's will no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for policy decisions after they leave office. In the context of Monday’s Supreme Court decision, the Court found that Presidents are absolutely immune to prosecution for actions taken while exercising their “core constitutional powers,” and entitled to the presumption of immunity for their official acts. It does not provide a shield for private or unofficial acts.
It will now be up to the trial judge in the lower court case against Trump, the very judge who has been so friendly to the prosecution, to now hold hearings on whether the charges against Trump were based on official acts by the then-president or unofficial ones. It will be a time-consuming process and presents another obstacle to the illegally appointed Jack Smith. For Joe Biden it is yet another gut punch coming after his debate disaster.
In his divisive, angry speech last night Biden put a target on the back of the SCOTUS while lying about January 6, lying about Donald Trump, and lying about what the Supreme Court ruled yesterday. He and his fellow democrats are willing to destroy the reputation of the Court simply to maintain power. In a speech that was clearly written by someone else, we can only wonder who, Biden not only attacked the Court, but inadvertently made it obvious to any rational human being that it was he who unleashed the DOJ and all these rogue prosecutors against Trump. Biden is only left with trying to defame Trump and responding to all the events now coming back to haunt him. It is now obvious to everyone that lawfare was a democrat campaign strategy (one that bit them in the ass) and unless something strange happens in the next 4 months, Biden is the underdog in the 2024 election.
In other news:
House Republicans have sued AG Merrick Garland and asked a federal judge to force him to turn over audio of Biden’s interview with the special counsel who investigated his handling of classified documents. The DOJ doesn't really have a leg to stand on.
As Israel’s military runs low on munitions, some Israeli Generals now want a cease fire in Gaza. Gee, how did they run low on munitions?
Large flows of investment have helped turn Ukraine into a Silicon Valley for autonomous drones and fueled a potential new era of killer robots.
The Netherlands swore in its first Conservative government today, after nearly 14 years under its previous prime minister.
The defeat of Emmanuel Macron’s party in the first round of parliamentary elections has effectively dissolved his center-left party.
The judge declared a mistrial in the case of Karen Read, who was accused of killing her boyfriend, a Boston police officer.
A significant heat wave will begin in California today, and forecasters said high temperatures would last well through the holiday weekend.
In litigation involving the FDA’s approval process for the medication abortion drug mifepristone, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the plaintiff-doctors and medical associations lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s actions regarding mifepristone, thus taking it off the table for the Biden campaign.
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
Good morning
Question of the day: Was Joe Biden's attack on the SCOTUS a threat to democracy?
I did smile when I read this:
Reputation? What reputation? Allowing a Justice to sit who has already Accepted millions of dollars in "gifts" has already destroyed the court's reputation. So now, the POTUS is entitled to "officially" commit murder wtihout penalty. Oh, how I wish I were a fly on the wall of the Justices' common room of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Heard of extra judicial drone killings? They were very popular with Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, and now Biden. Obama even had two US citizens killed w/o due process using drone strikes. Are any of them ever going to be held accountable- even when they hit the wrong target and killed civilians?
But the left has jumped the shark and is never coming back if they think this ruling allows a President to simply kill US citizens. Or doesn't allow presidents to be held accountable for violating the law.
"It turns out that I'm really good at killing people"
Are you talking about Sotomayer who took millions of dollars from a publisher and then refused to recuse herself from a case involving said publisher?
Democrats/leftists aren't held to the same standards. What are you thinking!?
He was better at it than Bush Jr and Trump.
Can't tell with Biden as they have clammed up about their "Over the horizon" extrajudicial drone killings after that Afghanistan debacle post withdrawal; where they killed (executed is a better word) an ally aid worker and his family. They didn't even apologize for their mistake- just an "Oops, and we will try to get the remaining family members out of Afghanistan."
I hate to say it, but 50 years of activism couldn't diminish the Court, so why does a fair ruling?
I'd venture to say that maybe the previous courts were made up of justices who weren't so corrupt or biased.
When Obama became POTUS I thought it was a great moment for America. Unfortunately I eventually learned to be disappointed.
If that's true, it only helps prove my opinion that the court is corrupt, and political loyalties are not a factor.
They were ideologues. The worst kind of corruption.
Why?
Why? On TV I watched him speak at the Democratic National Convention which really impressed me, and I thought then he could be a great PotUS. At his inauguration I heard or read Dubya who attended say he was there to watch history being made, and when the camera zeroed in on Oprah with tears streaming down her face it made me tear up as well and I thought then that America was really making its high mark in history. But eventually, with some of the things, one of which was stabbing Israel in the back, I lost it. Until Trump, every PotUS promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but never kept their promise. Only Trump kept the promise he made and although I would never vote for him, I give him credit for keeping that promise.
That DNC Convention was in Boston in 2004 I believe. That same speech impressed me too. It was then I knew that he would eventually be a Presidential candidate and if he was, he would be hard to beat. I can understand people getting emotional, especially black Americans over it, and the first time he ran in 2008, he was the beneficiary of the "October surprise" with the financial crisis/housing crisis of 2008. He could have been a great President. Instead, he divided the country, politicized the federal government and tried to move the country to the left. He also was the first President to have issues with the Israeli government.
All of that being said, it would seem that the only thing that fulfilled it being a great moment was America electing a black President.
As you point out:
But eventually, with some of the things, one of which was stabbing Israel in the back, I lost it. Until Trump, every PotUS promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but never kept their promise. Only Trump kept the promise he made and although I would never vote for him, I give him credit for keeping that promise.
Some may ask, based on that alone, why you would never vote for Trump. I however know the answer to that why.
[✘]
"Rage has again replaced reason as commentators race to the bottom in reckless rhetoric. The threats and attacks will not work. The court is designed to stand against everyone and everything except for the Constitution. It was forged for this moment." .... Jonathan Turley
R ep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said Monday he will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court ruling issued Monday, which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecution for actions in office.
“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” Morelle wrote on the social platform X .
New York Dem will introduce amendment to reverse Supreme Court immunity ruling (msn.com)
Let us all wish him good luck with that.
They seem to forget that the ruling, which was issued according to the Constitution and the law, will help Biden when the time comes for him to be investigated for high crimes, misdemeanors, and acts of treason.
The ironic part of it is that Joe Biden is probably the biggest beneficiary of that ruling.
Which part of the Constitution gives POTUS the right to break the laws of this country? Care to cite those parts?
Care to site what laws were broken?
A police officer can speed to give you a speeding ticket
There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution referring to presidential immunity to the ramifications of criminal conduct. The right wing court made it up out of thin air.
So you are for indicting Obama for conspiracy to commit murder? or if your outrage limited to just trump?
If you think you can get Obama convicted for that, go for it.
Have you always been a strict Constructionist?
You are now the 3rd person to reply to my question, yet none have even tried to answer. That should be answer enough, there is nothing in the Constitution about Presidential immunity, and you all know that which is why you are evading and deflecting from the question.
The word “privacy” does not appear anyone in the Constitution, do you have a right to privacy?
The phrase "The separation of church and state" doesn't appear either, do you believe in the separation?
What about the right to remain silent?
[deleted][✘]
You seem to be confused again. I am asking where in the Constitution it states that a President can break the laws in this country. Nowhere have I asked for a verbatim quote.
Either answer the question or don't, but stop trying to evade and deflect. It just shows your ignorance in the matter.
No.
You questioned implies that if an activity or freedom isn't discussed in the Constitution, it doesn't exist.
I've done neither.
Perhaps, I've had long standing issues with the imperial presidency and I think that SCOTUS went way to far with this one. It's not the first time that SCOTUS had made a dubious decision.
SCOTUS has ruled that it does. SCOTUS only addresses Constitutional questions.
If you truly believe that, then your reading comprehension is lacking.
Yet in all your comments, you have never stated or implied that. SCOTUS has taken the 1st step into turning the Presidency into a dictatorship.
A solution looking for a problem.
Joy Reid is not coping well with the latest events.
She doesn't cope well with the smell of air.
Too bad, she could sure use it.
Yep, such an angry, nasty thing.
Only a matter of time before her crashing ratings shit can her “show” for good.
She has now gone to a crew cut
What a maroon!
Now we are in pure fantasy land
'Say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me'
Donald Trump to DOJ officials.
-
That evidence has now been barred by the corrupt Supreme Court, one of which members flies traitor flag over his house, and another whose wife was urging on the Trump steal of the election. She is , by the way, the Supreme Court justices "best friend".
Is that kept with the J6 committee, Russia Collusion and Inciting A Riot evidence? Asking for a friend.
Since you know absolutely nothing about the J6 committee findings there's no sense and no reason to make a reply to you
So, it is with all that fictional / deleted "evidence". Good to know.
And yet here you are.
you are in over your head
No. Just not falling for your attempt to gaslight me into your point of view.
[✘]
not one of you do, or can, address what i said
that is not gaslighting, it is the fact
[✘]
No link, nothing to back up your claims and you actually expect me to believe that?
Do better.
Really? this is what i said
Please point to even one of the replies to me that addresses what i said
I have literally posted thousands of more links on this forum than you have.
You know even less.
You believe a produced for prime time, highly edited, over coached witnesses, and only TDS suffering morons on the committee is reality.
They presented only evidence that fit their narrative.
They purposely withheld any evidence or testimony that ran counter to that narrative.
Then they tried to hide or destroy the evidence to keep it from getting out.
Keep spouting nonsense like that and people will start comparing you to Joe Biden.
We've all seen your "smoking gun" and "we got him now" articles that amounted to nothing.
Trump has had three and a half years to present his side of the story. So far nada.
He was asked at the debate about his inaction after the riot was underway and he immediately tried to change the subject to the border and Nancy Pelosi. He is a piece of shit.
Somebody's notes? Really?
So you are relying on something somebody told somebody that told somebody? Are we playing "Telephone"?
Do better.
talking to you is an utter waste of time. unfortunately this happens a lot on newstalkers
All I'm asking you to do a simple task. You claim you've posted "thousands" of links. If that is truly the case, you should have no problem using them to complete that simple task. Just keep in mind, I, and others will call you on it every time.
Delving into childish comments like "talking to you is an utter waste of time" will cause people to interact with you as you present yourself. Act like a child, you'll be treated as a child.
people have posted hundreds of links about jan 6th on this website, BUT , every time, you claim no one has any evidence against trump.
it is a shame this sort of garbage is continuously allowed on newstalkers
Once again. You claim you've posted "thousands" of links. If that is truly the case, you should have no problem using them to complete that simple task. Just keep in mind, I, and others will call you on it every time.
You have no credibility left after buying the Russia collusion hoax hook line and sinker.
Point out which part of the statement is not factual?
The Jan 6th committee was hand picked by Pelosi to get Trump at all costs. All of the members hated Trump beyond call (hence the TDS).
Pelosi hired a tv executive/producer to edit it so it was ready for prime time and stayed on message
Only you believe the committee didn't coach witnesses. Especially their star witness- who wasn't a witness at all. She just had hearsay testimony.
Still think the Jan 6th committee didn't hide evidence that disproved their narrative; and try to destroy it once the investigation was over.
Keep posting the same bullshit TDS driven articles over and over and people will start to accusing you of a being a bought and paid for Democrat shill.
No, congressman did not say J6 panel destroyed records | Fact check (usatoday.com)
The claim: Jan. 6 House committee was caught destroying records
An Aug. 9 Facebook post ( direct link , archive link ) shows clips of several members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Now that the J6 Unselect Committee has been caught destroying their records, let’s see what they said in their own words about destroying evidence during their made-for-TV show trial of President Trump,” reads part of the post.
It was shared more than 300 times in 12 days. Similar versions of the claim have been shared on other social media platforms by former President Donald Trump and by Rep. Lauren Boebert , a Colorado Republican.
Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks
Our rating: False
The Republican congressman overseeing the investigation into the committee’s work has not said any records were destroyed, and there have been no reputable reports of such destruction. What Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia did say is that some video recordings are missing, and he does not know what happened to them.
Committee provided transcripts of some interviews, depositions
The issue centers on the whereabouts of some video recordings of interviews and depositions from the committee’s investigation into the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The committee issued its final report in December 2022 before it disbanded.
Loudermilk and Rep. Bennie Thompson , the Mississippi Democrat who chaired the Jan. 6 committee, traded letters in June and July.
Loudermilk wrote that some recordings were not archived or transferred to the Committee on House Administration. Written transcripts of them were provided, however.
House Rule VII outlines the requirements for preserving House records at the end of each two-year term, and a footnote to Thompson’s response to Loudermilk outlines why Thompson says those written transcripts comply with that rule.
The committee was not obligated to archive all video recordings of interviews or depositions that were transcribed, he wrote. He cited guidance from the House clerk’s office that says the information contained in a document – and not necessarily that document’s format – make it a permanent record.
Because those interviews and depositions were transcribed by “nonpartisan, professional official reporters” and were reviewed for errors by both the witnesses and committee staff, those transcripts qualify as the official, permanent records and follow House rules for record-keeping, he wrote.
Fact check : Debunking false narratives about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot two years later
Nowhere in the letter does Loudermilk say the recordings were destroyed. There are no reputable news reports that he made that claim and no evidence of the destruction of the records.
“Whether the missing information has been destroyed, was sent to other entities or is still in the possession of members of Congress from the select committee is uncertain at this time,” Loudermilk said in an emailed statement to USA TODAY.
Adam Comis, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee , called the claim in question “very much false.” Thompson is the ranking member of that panel.
USA TODAY also reached out to the social media users who shared the claim but did not immediately receive responses.
And none of them with any evidence of Trump wrongdoing. I say Trump because pretty much every one of your seeds are about him.
Joe Biden would surely have been prosecuted when he left office for leaving the border open.
You should be thanking the Court.
Donald Trump is the only President to have been indicted and prosecuted simply because every other President has had blanket immunity from prosecution. No longer. Obtaining a legal basis for prosecuting Trump has established a limitation on the Presidency. (At least until liberals stack the courts again.)
Next question, does a President have a right to blanket executive privilege? If unofficial actions are no longer immune from prosecution then why should a President be allowed to obstruct those prosecutions by claiming executive privilege?
SCOTUS has threatened the imperial nature of the Presidency that has become the status quo. Of course Joe Biden is angry since the autocratic power of the Presidency has now been limited. Biden is now at risk of prosecution, too.
Yep, once again liberals actions weaken the union. Problem is too many of them are either too dim and/or full of hate to make the connection.
Must suck to be them.
Liberals have stacked the courts to shield them from the same legal arguments they use against opponents. That's why Trump scares the shit out of liberals.
Opinions will vary.
A complete load of partisan garbage. Nothing more, nothing less.
Leftists are making it easier and easier for me to never vote for any Democrat again.
When you are forced to eat a shit sandwich, it’s preferable to eat only the shitty bread and not the shit.
This election is a lot like that with Trump as the bread and Biden as the shit.
[✘]
After reading sototmayors dissent, I finally agree with Laurence tribe About something, Her appeal is only for diversity purposes, she’s really not that smart and her hysterical impulses only make the “conservatives” look smarter by comparison.
That is pretty funny coming from President Open Border, debt cancellation and mass amnesty for illegals and terrorists.
Biden already has ignored multiple Supreme Court rulings with his rental/loan payment hold at the end of Covid (yes it was a Trump EO/EA; but Biden is the one that extended twice- once after the Supreme Court ruled against it); and his student loan forgiveness programs.
Democrats have no problems breaking laws whenever they want to.
They also have no problem weaponizing the government at every level against anyone they don't agree with.
But they are the first ones to scream the second there is any attempt to hold Democrats/leftists accountable.
And anybody with a functioning brain sees that it's been happening for at least 8 years now.
Biden’s speechwriter/Puppet master is either an idiot or he thinks the people who pay attention to Biden are.
Dope on a Rope. Hey, that's kinda catchy.
Maybe that explains the travails of Biden's handlers. He's a slippery old sucker.
i see he now claiming his international trip two weeks previously was the cause of his incoherence. A literal week at a resort of not working before 11;00 am with afternoon naps just wasn’t enough.
He thinks this helps him.
It’s impossible for a person who cares about this country to risk another four years of this insanity.