I did find the part that listed the military as one of the Presidents office acts, you are correct on that. I also found this on page 62, that is the basis for the questioning about Seal Team 6 during arguments, and again in the SCOTUS descent. I read it as effectively saying that if the President uses police or military to do an "unlawful killing" then because they are "exempt" he would be immune. So the President isn't allowed to murder in a foreign country, but if he uses the military it's an official act and exempt? This reads to me like it only stops the President from personally being a Rambo, carrying out hit jobs, but Trump was a draft dodger (so ...). Any lawyers here? I don't see an instance of the President carrying out an "unlawful" killing without using the police or military. Except if maybe this is one of those things left over from when a President would duel, or people in Congress would bludgeon someone with a cane?

Congress has concurrent authority over many Government functions, and it may sometimes use that authority to regulate the President’s official conduct, including by criminal statute. Article II poses no barrier to prosecution in such cases.

I would thus assess the validity of criminal charges predicated on most official acts—i.e., those falling outside of the President’s core executive power—in two steps. The first question is whether the relevant criminal statute reaches the President’s official conduct. Not every broadly worded statute does. For example, §956 covers conspiracy to murder in a foreign country and does not expressly exclude the President’s decision to, say, order a hostage rescue mission abroad. 18 U. S. C. §956(a). **The underlying murder statute, however, covers only “unlawful” killings. §1111. The Office of Legal Counsel has interpreted that phrase to reflect a public-authority exception for official acts involving the military and law enforcement. **

Trump cares about one thing, Trump. If these policies will hurt people he sees as an enemy, he'll be all for it. He doesn't want to run a country, or do any work, he wants to be the "strong man" at the top everyone "respects/fears". He gives zero shits about anyone or anything besides himself. This election is 100% about getting elected to keep himself out of jail, and of course his revenge on everyone trying to hold him accountable for his ever growing crime list.

He doesn't want to be a part of it, because that's like work. He'll be 100% happy to let them do these horrible things and take credit for it later.

Ah good catch, not sure if I mistyped or mobile auto-correct got me. I think I even looked the word up to make sure I was spelling it correct (I always want to add an "e" on the end). And no rudeness taken on this side, I appreciate it. Thanks! =)

They worded and ruled the way they did, because they know there is a 0% chance Biden would carry out anything he would have to declare immunity for, because he is so worried about being a "both sides" politician. And the SCOTUS didn't make any of that "the law", it's still illegal, BUT the President can now claim immunity for breaking the law and nobody can do anything about it. It plays against the morals of the Left, since the Right sold their morals for power long ago.

And Biden could certainly do something that counters this without having to break the law, and exercise this new immunity. He could be running on expanding the Court, bumping the number to 13 Justices (one Justice for each US federal circuit court), adding new qualified Judges instead of inexperienced partisan hacks. He could run on adding rules on ethics and time limits for the Court, make the members (or a staggered amount of them) do a rotation out and back to one of the 13 US federal circuit court systems every 4 years (or whatever). This would go a long way against this weaponizing of the Court with bad faith Justices that are putting Politics/$ over the country and the law, and it would be all legal.

Just as a devils advocate when we talk about replacing Biden at this late stage.

Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election.

Source: Primary challenge

Swapping Biden out to find someone that can poll better than a guy who plans to end elections, setup death camps, take away all reproductive rights (abortion, birth control, IVF), as well as rolling back LGBTQ+ rights, shouldn't even be an issue. Unless you're part of the cult, it seems like an easy choice between freedom, or the fall of the Republic.

I personally couldn't imagine trying to overcome telling a court room of people what I can only imagine is PTSD inducing memories, and then on top of that receiving death threats from Trumps cult. I'm not sure one could have enough years of trauma therapy to overcome that.

It might also be the allegations are 100% true, but the death threats and people trying to destroy your life and those around you might not be worth it. Look how Stormy has been treated when the Cult is out to get you.

He has stated that he wants to pardon everyone for Jan 6th, and will likely pardon anyone willing to be his militia against the Left/immigrants. The Supreme Court has thrown gas on how fast they are going to be able to go through the whole Project 2025 playbook.

Yes, but now he could do it legally (well full immunity making legality ~~mute~~ moot).

The issue this time is that one party still flies at least two of those flags still.

The Chief Justice did give two examples, as a kind of playbook for Trump and the people behind Project 2025. The two things he mentions that for sure fall within the absolute can't investigate/question/use as evidence/prosecute "official" acts are:

1. pardons (they may pardon anyone for anything for any price)
2. command their Attorney General (DOJ) - which they can then use #1 to cover them for any illegal requests they carry out