The Supreme Court just did Biden a huge favor by giving Trump immunity

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Monday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to vastly expand the notion of presidential immunity was an incredibly beneficent favor for one of the men hoping to win your vote in November.

Just not the guy you're thinking of.

President Joe Biden desperately needed something to change the conversation after his calamitous performance in last Thursday's debate, which prompted a full three-day weekend of Democratic hand-wringing, with public and private debate about whether he should be swapped out for a more capable candidate.

What better way to interrupt that clamor than to have the court's conservative justices – the kind of folks who came of age thinking Richard Nixon got a raw deal – declare that former President Donald Trump might not have really broken the laws that we all saw him break, if he was acting as president at the time and not as a petulant narcissist who can't stomach being a loser.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-just-did-biden-080618305.html

[Lovie777]

1. Thats why corporate media is on Pres Biden ..............................

like white on rice.

[CincyDem]

2. I agree but for a different reason...

A staple of Trump’s stump speeches is that Biden has weaponized the DoJ against him.

We know that’s bullshit piled on bullshit but there’s the thing…SCOTUS expressly said that the President can engage/direct the DoJ and, more importantly, his or her motives associated with that engagement can not be examined by the courts.

So…what Trump calls weaponization is actually constitutionally accepted official acts, no matter the reason why.

The favor to Biden in this decision is that he has today all the powers were terrified of Trump having should he win in November. Within the boundaries of the law, Joe has a lot more tools at his disposal to 1) influence the election and 2) protect democracy. If we really think it’s “existential” we’re in do whatever legal we can…and there’s shit that’s legal today that wasn’t on Sunday.

Said another way…”Weaponized…you ain’t seen nothing yet…and it’s all legal”.

Use it or lose it. (Imma gonna make that into a bumper sticker…lol).

[Igel]

3. Of course the president can direct the DOJ.

Should he? No. Would it be unethical? Sure.

Do I think the president have instructed the DOJ or its predecessor to check out somebody or emphasize going after somebody at least a dozen times in the last 200 years, yes, yes I do. You really think that the president was hands off when it came to Al Capone or Jefferson Davis, even if it meant channeling instructions/directives/orders through an intermediary subordinate? (Although in the privacy of a one-on-one in the Oval Office or over dinner, who'd report it?)

The US Attorney General reports directly to the President and is member of the cabinet. The President can appoint and remove the US AG. When an US AG resigns, the resignation goes to the office of the president. The US AG's authority is derived from his appointment by the president. There is no other source.

[CincyDem]

4. If we agree that he's now allowed to direct the DoJ by law...

...it feels as ethical as taking a legal tax deduction for a charitable donation. The law says it's ok...do is it unethical to do it? I'd say no.

This is not a power we would have ever asked for but when it lands in our lap, let's put it to good use.

Use it or lose it.