.

Trump will do all the things they accused him of going to do last time, but never did whilst it’s Biden who is doing almost everything Trump was supposed to do last time. Sigh. Sadly people are falling for this hype again.

As far the Supreme Court decision…people should actually read the damn thing.
Presidents are not above the law now anymore than they have been before. They can still be held accountable through impeachment and if convicted they can be charged through the courts. But when has any president actually been held accountable for true crimes? Eisenhower killed how many thousands? Or Reagan for the contra affair? Truman for killing German prisoners of war? Bush for millions of Iraqi deaths due to a lie? And torture… Obama for killing 2 Americans without due process?

People need to change their diapers and see that Trump was no more evil than previous presidents. I’d say less so, but of course the media didn’t tell us his true crimes.
How is it that so many people didn’t see Trump board the helicopter when his term ended after bitching about how he would never leave?

Good essay.

.
I suggest a full read

Turley:

Despite the prediction of Rachel Maddow that this was a “Death Squad Ruling,” the only thing that seemed to die was objective reporting and commentary in the wake of the decision.

On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow warned that the Supreme Court had just unleashed death squads to roam our streets. CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen announced that murder was now legal (at least for presidents), while others predicted that the ruling on presidential immunity would invite “tyranny.”

Anyone reading the coverage would conclude that James Madison has been replaced by John Wick in a new “Baba Yaga” Republic.

In this decision, the court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.

The dissent (Sotomayor) ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims. For example, the majority discussed how prosecutors could present evidence in a bribery case that a president “allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” The prosecution can overcome the presumption of immunity with such evidence.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration’s “kill list” policy to a group of lawyers and judges at Northwestern University Law School and received not condemnation but applause. Under Holder, the Obama administration fought every effort of the al-Awlaki family to seek information on the killing and insisted that courts had no role to play in such cases. Yet, in the wake of the immunity decision, Holder expressed shock at the implication of the presidential power. Could Obama and Biden be charged with murder for what they did? Most say no, because they were acting in fulfillment of their national security authority. If so, could they simply declare a political opponent to be an enemy combatant? They actually did maintain, years before this Supreme Court opinion, that such a decision was left to them and figures such as Holder

Presidents already have immunity for murder. Weren’t people paying attention?

I suggest the bedwetters read the damn decision themselves instead of reading what others say it means. Falling on deaf ears tho since the person I’m talking about doesn’t read other’s essays. Impeachment has always been the way to hold presidents accountable, but now the court has given another way if the president does something that’s outside the limits the court set out. That’s why they sent cases back to the lower courts. To decide what Trump actually did.