How about when there are folks who have been harmed by people with agendas?

They'd prefer their code or commentary to be inclusive, not exclusive?

All of this ignores this is not happening in a vacuum. Project 2025, trump, the supreme court selection of limited precedent and ignorance of other precedent....

This is a brick in the pavement of our descent into fascism. Hand waving it away as a wonderful clarification that enabled prosecution of the office is unreasonable.

They already ruled the Constitution and clear discussion in Congress during the original Amendment, invalid when the insurrection clause and States rights were revoked... Colorado ballot decision ftr.

They've shown their hand. They're willing to select evidence, much like your review, that fits the narrative - ignoring any other facts.

It's already being used to delay adjudication in clear abuses of power.

Law requires a certification from a board to practice. You're of the opinion that examination that proves ones understanding of the law(bar exam, exhaustive study followed by proving that knowledge)--- puts you on equal footing with that majority?

I continue to firmly dissent your assertion regarding the validity of your opinion, you have firmly claimed not to be a bar certified individual.

Being an expert in law here has weight. A majority of them feel this is a power grab. You're welcome to hold opinions. Spouting endless review to make responses difficult isn't helping you.

This is akin to you saying you know better how to file legal paperwork or act as a defense attorney because you read about it.

Do you also dospense medical advice?

Except in the future - If you're part of the official staff for the president - A defense wouldn't be needed. The fact that the president told them to do it wouldn't even be able to come up. It's privileged communication now.

yearse ?

Your argument seems to be, they already had this power - now the Supreme Court can stop them. When will that ever happen?

You're glossing over the fact that they've declared entire sections of communication off limits going forward. This is new. This is not same old, same old. The Supreme Court is currently compromised. No-one is going to prosecute a republican president in this environment.

Everything they could do can be construed as official, immune, business after being elected when viewed through the right lens.

If this the president previously had immunity, why was Nixon pardoned?

The Supreme Court was free to interpret this as they saw fit. They've demonstrated that they're not following precedent and are marching to their own beat.

Regarding the clear power grab, Denying the facts that the other changes the court has made will have untold effects on the ability of states that are gerrymandering based on race:

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/nx-s1-4977539/supreme-court-ruling-makes-it-harder-to-bring-racial-gerrymandering-claims

It's ok to insurrection, if you do it right, also while president:

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5005999/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions

It's also ok to use your official employees as president to carry out illegal acts and prevent them from testifying:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/1198912764/consider-this-from-npr-draft-07-01-2024

Denying that folks who actually understand the law, like law professors, and Supreme Court Justices. There's a difference between laypersons and experts in some fields. I'm not claiming to be an expert in neurology, law, or other fields. I'm deferring to people who have studied these field(s) and asking for their logic and expertise. You're responding and relying on your logic.

The court is currently controlled by one party. One person openly claims credit for this, and definitely pushed the balance towards one direction.

Our congress is deadlocked by republicans when it comes to anything related to the former president.

They will not pass anything or see cases against their preferred president making them literally immune in practice.

The word soup from kava seems to indicate they feel, that because the president had so much power already, what's the big deal if a little bit more gets added?

Folks who are scholars on the topic seem to think accumulating more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to be a bad thing.

As noted in Supreme Court rulings: The only parties who get to decide if a president is acting incorrectly would be if A. Congress successfully impeaches the president, B. They passed the supreme court's review of what constitutes (non)presidential acts.

In reality both of these branches have been corrupted and owned by 'conservative' interests.

Rulings on SuperPACs, Citizens United, gerrymandering, presidential immunity, insurrection and more are laying the groundwork to remove additional freedoms or protections.

So this has the result of essentially making it possible for the controlling party of these to have a literal dictator whose communications with officials can't be reviewed or considered in prosecution.

Folks who have a lot of experience working with legal matters are voicing concerns on this. This isn't an appeal to authority, rather a matter of consulting folks who are experts and considering their opinions.

Fair. Thanks. Was mobile and trying to wade through and reply.

They can't impeach if they can't assemble a quorum.

So your answer to why your opinion is more valid than everyone else is; Because I say so?

Thanks for providing clear sources as to why your opinion is more valid than the dissenters with credentials.

The act the con man committed was before being elected. That one will be a poo stain on him for much longer.

You're wrong. They are felonies.

Has nothing to do with the time as president and everything to do with election tampering actions prior to the election.

A person who has money to cover their bond/surety will remain free until sentencing or until bond is revoked. Post sentencing they have to serve their sentence.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0

His 34 felonies are in fact criminal. Not 32; 34.

Sentencing is 7/11/24 for 34 felonies related to the hush money/2016 election interference news campaign he pulled off.

The combination of multiple elements made it a felony, elevated from a misdemeanor.

These are criminal charges for falsifying business records for having sex with a porn star and paying to cover it up.