Maybe it would work if they played round robin instead of winner stays on.
Maybe it would work if they played round robin instead of winner stays on.
Us? We were granted no such immunity.
SCOTUS has nearly unfettered authority as long as Congress remains dysfunctional in keeping them in check. They’re just passing the power along.
*Coups are only legal if initiated by the President.
So are many Christians. Pagan practices were merged into Christianity around 300 AD. They celebrate Christmas near the winter solstice even though Jesus was reportedly born in late September. The Christmas tree was taken from the Pagan tradition of Yuletide. The three days between Good Friday and Easter Sunday were originally intended to correlate with the path of Venus during the spring equinox, mirroring the resurrection in the story of Ishtar.
Oh, I agree that it should be considered a crime. I’m just suggesting a way Cannon may leverage this in Trumps favor.
Since there’s no requirement that the President needs to be actively in office for immunity, if she ruled that his ownership of the documents was an “official act,” then any crime he may have committed involving the documents could be considered in service of said act.
If it were truly in support, they’d donate profits or feature designers from the community. Some do, but a lot of it is cheap rainbow colored junk from China to increase profits.
Right. Lieberman screwed single-payer healthcare, therefore all of the Democrats in Congress were useless.
So the obvious solution is give control to the party that’s systematically dismantling the protections of our rights?
Yeah, but it would be more like an empty retail store selling its display racks. We’ve been sold out of valuable politicians and judges for years.
Agreed. The entire House is up for election in November, along with 33 Senate seats.
My biggest concern is the down ballot effects of sizable Democratic abstentions. If Trump wins, he’ll likely have a Republican Congress supporting him.
Exactly. The consequence of not voting for that senile old man is accepting an authoritarian criminal into the White House.
I agree. It’s maddening. The way I challenge it is by citing sources to debunk the misinformation. Most people just block them, leading to unchecked misinformation for more passive users to read as facts.
Most polls put her on par with Biden. Dataforprogress.org has her leading when “fitness” and “strength” are brought into question, but that’s the only poll I’ve seen where she has any lead at all.
That’s probably true for the candidate that’s half a billion dollars in debt to NY, has “allegedly” sold government secrets to foreign entities, used his hotel to siphon millions from taxpayers by mandating it for governmental use, and hopes to become President to pardon himself from several crimes awaiting trial.
Biden’s sizable funds are campaign contributions. There are rules on how those are spent after the campaign ends.
Presidential candidates raise millions of dollars from donors and through political action committees during campaigns.
There are rules in place for how money can be used after a campaign ends. Permissible uses include charitable donations and donations to other candidates while personal use is prohibited.
Campaigns may refund money to donors or redistribute it with their permission if they drop out.
Super PACs may use leftover campaign cash to support the same candidate in other elections.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/042716/what-happens-campaign-funds-after-elections.asp
He cannot. There are no vacancies.
The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.
There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.
They’ll still be “presidents.” Putin is an “elected president.”
They’re not gaslighting. Did you read the article, or just the headline?