If America had a king it would likely be a constitutional monarchy a la Canada or Britain.. The president is however American royalty with most of the trappings. Trump would like a crown though.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I handicap it as the immunity deal is provided so the insurrection case goes away.

I am certain he will be convicted in the NY case that is going on right now, but don't think punishment will be much.

Georgia case wont' get going in time to bother election.

Florida case goes nowhere before election.

Trump loses the election as he goes into election night with a big lead, but then overnight he loses the lead and Biden comes out victorious the next morning.

Side note: We may see another summer full of riots and encampments, perhaps Autonomous zones, due to the Anti-Jewish protests and mail in balloting becomes all the rage again as folks claim they are scared to leave their homes.


My bail out plan to move to the islands may need to be moved up a few years.

A millennium after the Magna Carta and we still can't get it figured out.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Not so sure about that. Canada-Britain has a distinct head of state separate from the monarchy, and I believe that head of state holds most actual "chief executive power." And that head of state is subject to all manner of bureaucratic restrictions and checks on power. (I sense windywave trembling in disagreement over his loverboy Trudeau).

In the U.S., an untouchable President would be sort of both rolled into one. Both the statutory head of state and a grand poobah not subject to almost any checks or laws. Just maybe impeachment.

What does the price of gas/tea in China have to do with presidential immunity?

GL 550.

Nutella said, Biden has "Lowered gas prices by $1.70 per gallon".

The price of gas in my area has gone up.

Well, shoot.

I mean, No! Wrong colloquialism.

What do you think about granting a President the power to use the military to illegally snatch away everyone's guns as an official act of office, and then not allowing that President to be prosecuted for it? Maybe you'd trust President Trump with that freedom. Would you trust the next President after Trump's 2nd term?

Would you trust that impeachment would do the trick, with the 2/3 Senate requirement for conviction?

Remember that the FBI/ Justice Department could do nothing while that President were in power. We've already established that a President cannot be prosecuted while in office.

I am absolutely astonished at the some of the "conservative" justices going into full pretzel logic to shit on fundamental conservative principles.

I remember back in the Obama administration all the crazy fears about Obama collaborating with the UN to not leave office and take everyone's guns. A few current SCOTUS justices, "Let's grant the President the freedom to actually attempt or even accomplish all that crazy stuff with no accountability whatsover, except maybe impeachment. And if he's impeached he's free to go...no criminal prosecution."

He started it? Is that what you’re saying? JFC. As a mom, I recognize this— my kids outgrew saying that nonsense years ago.

The bullshit needs to stop.

If you have any sense of honor or patriotism, you would agree that the Trump nonsense needs to stop. We can fight about our issues (gas prices or guns or abortions) later. It’s time to clearly & unequivocally reject authoritarianism.

The 2nd Amendment exists to stop a President from taking guns from the citizens.

He might get away with it for a short amount of time, but eventually the people will respond and stop it.

Precisely. It is a law. This case is about being able to prosecute the President for breaking law.




So we're saying that the justice system should be not be used to hold Presidents accountable for following law. Instead, the first line of defense should be something between civil unrest and full revolution. This is what I mean by pretzel logic.

Also the President is in charge of the military. Better hope the military doesn't go along. Or else "the people" are going to be in for a world of shit. It's no longer 1776, when bands of quickly-trained people were an effect insurgent force against an organized military. Take a look at Hamas vs. the IDF. The insurgent side ain't doing well.

I believe you're a fan of reading the Constitution in the context of how life was lived when it was written. The view of the role of the President when the Constitution was written was very much not one that viewed the job as an untouchable, all-powerful executive. Just the opposite, the view was the President to have limited, constrained power, held under check by law and process. Most power going to the states, the President only having enumerated Federal powers....a contrast to the power excesses of the monarchy being ejected from U.S. soil. This is an idea championed by conservatives. Why are conservatives suddenly recoiling from that idea?

I predict that they will reject Trump's argument for absolute immunity and reject Jack Smith's argument for no immunity. Instead, they will conclude that, like the President's immunity from civil lawsuits, the President has absolute immunity from criminal lawsuits for acts falling within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibilities. Then, remand to the lower court to apply that standard to the facts of this case.

I’m disheartened and also a little pissed at conspiracy-minded people.

Members of SCOTUS are giving serious consideration to conspiracy theories about wrongful prosecution. News flash: if a conspiracy of wrongful prosecution hasn’t been a problem for presidents before (it wasn’t), it isn’t a problem now. We’ll cross that bridge if/when we get to it.

We have facts which provide clear & convincing evidence of a president inciting violence to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump Conspiracy theory v. Facts

Please remember that dim@beyond is the Simple Jack of Rain Men.

So you are concerned with the price of gas driving a Mercedes that gets 12-13 miles to the gallon in the city and still only 17-18 on the highway. Ok.

Nutella said that the price of gas went down $1.70 per gallon.

The price of gas where I live has gone up quite a bit to $5.39 per gallon.

I am simply refuting his assertion.

The price of gas doesn't affect my life.

"Outer perimeter" sounds impossibly subjective and vague. But I secretly hope this happens because I want to see the Trump team argue that the Executive Branching participating in a peaceful, legal transfer of power was very much on the outer perimeter of their concerns. :)

Except that if trump took them away, MAGA would hand them over freely and then thank god that they didn't live in California where their gun rights are limited.

It'd go down like this: join Trump militia or turn in your guns. And they would.

It did
U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars per Gallon) (eia.gov)
June 2022 $4.929
January 2024 $3.075

Now back on topic. Do you believe any President, not just Trump, should be immune from prosecution for criminal acts he committed while in office?

Where the hell do you live. I’ve been paying anywhere between 3.29 and 3.89 for over 4 years.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

It was interesting that Trump's lawyer admitted that at least three of the acts he is charged with were private, not public, acts. I was a bit stunned by that.

I live in Mountain View.

This was in Menlo Park a few days ago:

https://kion546.com/...ghest-in-california/

Why do you do this? You take the highest point and the lowest point and then quote that. Did it technically happen? Yes. But those are dates that no one would pick except that they are the lowest and highest prices. It now throws the rest of your argument into doubt because you cherry picked data for this one.

And yes, like Jim I have been also paying over $5 for gas for a couple years. I don't blame Biden for it, but it is a fact.

---

------------------------------
The first time man split the atom was when the atom tried to hold Jens Voigt's wheel, but cracked.