Presidential Immunity And More Debate Fallout | 538 Politics Podcast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Since Thursday, the only story in American politics has been President Joe Biden's poor debate performance and what on earth Democrats are going to do about it. That was until today, when the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have legal immunity for official acts.
In this installment of the 538 Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with Jessica Roth, a law professor and former federal prosecutor, about the details of the Supreme Court's ruling. Then 538's Nathaniel Rakich and Tia Yang discuss the continued fallout from the presidential debate.
Website: fivethirtyeight...
Merch: fivethirtyeight...
Twitter: / fivethirtyeight
Facebook: / fivethirtyeight
Podcast: itunes.apple.c...
Invest in Bitcoin before retiring by diversifying across assets, allocating a small portion of your portfolio, staying updated on market trends, and considering long-term holding to balance risk and growth..
Successful investment starts with clear goals and risk assessment, often best done with a financial advisor's help
James Clark's market insights have consistently led to profitable decisions.
I recently sold half my tech stock holdings due to all-time highs, leaving me with $400k. Should I invest in ETFs now or wait for a market correction considering potential inflation?
Celebrating a $30k stock portfolio today from a $6k start. Investing wisely has given me time for family and future plans.
From $37K to $45K that's the minimum range of profit return every week I thinks it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family.
Please bring video back! Huge week for SCOTUS. Wednesday, the Snyder ruling affirms officials can receive "gratuities" as long as it's not explicitly a bribe. Friday, Loper Bright ruling overturns Chevron deference, affirming the court is the ultimate authority on all subject matter. Monday, Trump ruling for presidential immunity.
Chevron is an interesting conversation, but I dont know what a bunch of propagandists aka pollsters would have to say about it. I don't think they are equipped frankly. Whether or not the legislature is broken entirely or not. If the executive should appoint people to essentially write laws. Democracy or political technocracy
To be clear, the “out” discussed if an assassination is directed is “let it happen first, then we can decide.” THAT IS BONKERS
Welcome to Trump's Amerika ! Better learn to salute the Dear Leader. The bone spurs in my right shoulder are going to be a real pain.
I don't see much difference here from the Nixon days ... "I am not a crook"
@TenFrenchMathematiciansInACoatNo, they didn't. This is a lie.
It would be an unlawful order. As a former Air Force Officer we know we have an individual responsibility to not follow an unlawful order.
That being said, it didn't stop a drone operator from assassinating a US Citizen abroad when order to by President Obama.
Sounds like they want to leave it open to decide if the person murdered was someone they personally hated or who stood between them and their money and power to decide whether or not his life was worth saving or his murderer worth punishing.
What a stupid concern by the majority.... maybe if a presidential act is so outrageous that they should feel chilled by the possibility of prosecution for that act, then the president should freaking feel chilled by it!
I'd rather careful conscientious acts being done by a president than acts which they have no concern for the consequences! If they were truly just they'll be defended in court.
we have 200+ years of precedent of presidents retiring from their war crimes in comfort.
it's obviously a lie.
What's hilarious (in a very grim way) is that the SC believes this immunity ruling (which includes the wanton assassination of political rivals) will indebt them to Trump and that they'll be "safe" from his wrath. Clearly, they seem to have forgotten what happened to all his previous lawyers.
@henrilitor1646 is that a bad thing, though? When i said consequences, i meant it broadly, as to include public or criminal backlash for the actions they took.
Shouldn't we want leaders to consider what their constituents or the law would think if they carried out a certain act (e.g., start a war, assassinate a threat)?
Leaders make difficult decisions sometimes, sure, but those means to act should then be defensible to a majority of people or at least a court of law.
I do realize that in our highly polarized environment, that might be idealistic, but I think we should be striving for better as a nation.
This was the concern of the Founders, though, and not without reason... One of the hallmarks of totalitarians is to try and jail former executives for actions taken as part of their duties.
Presidential immunity honestly has to apply for official acts. For example, a president has to be able to negotiate with other foreign leaders. For example, if Biden wants to tell Putin something to the effect, "if you stop the invasion of Ukraine, we will take all troops off the border of Poland." Without presidential immunity, the president would have just committed a crime by revealing troop movement. But he has to be able to do that to do his job. That's just one example of many. Immunity for official acts has to be there or the president can't act as president.
Birth of a tyrant
Isn't there some virtual convention date that is happening to get ahead of the Ohio deadline, well ahead of August?
I think so, I hope so, because Biden (or whoever the Democratic nominee is, likely Biden) must be on the ballot in all 50 states!
Plus DC, of course
Where are the videos?
no video?
Seal team six a things now?
Apparently so. "Hello, SpecOps HQ? Get Team Six on the ready line!"
you forgot the video, please include it
I voted for Biden in the primary and wilk write him on in the general election if need be
Maybe it’s time we switch to a parliamentary system 🤷♂️
I support a separate executive branch but we are giving one man too much power. I wonder if it be better if the executive branch were run by a group of people rather than one individual. Or even run by the legislative branch with more checks on power. Especially considering how Project 2025 wants to turn our independent bureaucracy into a group of yes-men to Trump.
But this decision is incredible. It puts the president above the law. Even official acts, if a president commits a war crime, they can’t be tried. It’s very dangerous.
Oh yeah... because in parliaments, the PM isn't supremely powerful.....
Yeah, great idea, let's rewrite the Constitution now. Not like that's a recipe for a clusterf*** of epic proportions.
Actually. I sort of agree. We need a way to tweak the system from two parties to multiple parties. But that's as much a cultural thing as political. So, we're stuck...and probably f***ed.
Lol when the other side wins…let’s change the rules! Always.
@@urubissoldat5452you can make a parliamentary republic where the powers of the PM are weaker
@@rbu2136except right now Biden is in power and could do lots of things since this decision
Also funny because after the 2020 election you guys lost and still screamed fraud lol
Doesn’t the criticism of populism(just because it is popular doesn’t mean it’s good or right) apply with popularity polls towards court decisions?
This is a much better presentation if it done live.
I thought that the decision regarding bribes vs gratuities was saying that the charge of the crime in question needed to be classified as either a bribe or gratuity and then charged accordingly. This is to ensure that the proper law would be used, thereby removing the possible defense of saying that the wrong law was used. (Gratuity violations to be charged under the gratuity law and bribery violations under bribery law, instead of a gratuity violation charged under the bribery law and vice-versa. 🥴) It is NOT legalizing bribery.
21:22 Roberts: “the dissent is talking about chilling scenarios that are not before the court today”.
You know what else was not before the court in this case?
- Whether Presidents or ex-Presidents have criminal immunity for all official acts performed while President.
- Whether Presidents or ex-Presidents have criminal immunity for all acts performed within the “outer penumbra” of their official responsibilities
- What the limit of that “outer penumbra” is
- Whether Presidents and ex-Presidents have criminal immunity for all non-official acts performed while President.
The /only/ questions that were actually in the case before SCOTUS were whether the plaintiff-Trump-had immunity to the 4 charges laid against him due to having been President when he committed the acts those charges allege. That’s it. *Everything* beyond that is not necessary to decide this case. It might make it /easier/ to decide the answer to the actual questions by forming a broader framework to build their reasoning on, but that doesn’t have to be part of the holdings in the issued opinion. It doesn’t even have to be publicly released.
This specific SCOTUS, and more broadly the 3 conservatives that have been on it for decades, have repeatedly issued specific rulings on individual cases while conspicuously avoiding addressing the obvious underlying bigger questions. It wouldn’t’ve been at all inconsistent for them to say “Trump has immunity for doing X and Y, but not for W, and Z; if you want to extrapolate to other situations when you’re POTUS and contemplating a course of action, go for it”.
What happened to the mantra “we can’t rule on hypotheticals that aren’t actually before the court”‽‽ “Every President, for all time” wasn’t the plaintiff. “Every possible criminal charge that might be laid for Presidential actions” wasn’t being charged. “Everything any President has ever done, or any future President might do” wasn’t part of the allegations.
Spot on. Same with Mississippi 15;week case.
This ruling not what the public means by 'Expansion of the Court'. Ha
When Nathaniel says if Biden drops out then it will be Harris, why is it a foregone conclusion it would be Harris?
If any other Democratic candidate took Biden’s place, they would have to start their fundraising from scratch. But since Harris is Biden’s VP, she would inherit all of his fundraising after he stepped down.
@@ConMan-ye4ou Ohhh wow! I didn't know that. Thanks for clarifying :)
Video
Get ready to Heil Trump!
Heil? He is no king dude😢
I'm so tired of hearing the word "performance" tied to Joe Biden's debate appearance. It wasn't the performance that shock viewers. The shocking element was the clearly unveiled SENILITY. Being senile doesn't involve performance. It's a sad consequence of age, for which there is no cure.
Please rehear audio only. Biden actually made sense!
I’m not sure I agree with Nathaniel’s certainty that if there’s a different Democratic nominee that it will absolutely be Kamala Harris. It very well could be, but if things get to that point all “she’s the VP” precedent goes out the window while they try to pick who they think would be the very best option to win. That may or may not be Harris
Let me help you understand why it would and can only be Harris. It all comes down to money. Biden has raised a billion dollars already. He can't use that for anyone else but her because she's on the same ticket. So if you replace Biden with literally anyone else, you've got 128 days or so to raise another billion dollars and build a national organization and run a campaign against Trump.
Its not realistic. The only way it can happen is if Harris inherits Biden's campaign funds and infrastructure and by law ONLY SHE CAN DO THAT.
It will divide the party and install Trump as Emporer. It always divides the party.
It's either her or Newsom; none of the other floated candidates have enough reach with voters to really counter Trump. With that said, Biden is still the better bet and it's up to him and the party to tell voters just how close the country is to becoming a totalitarian empire.
It isn’t Harris. I know someone who worked for her. Not much good to say.
Agreed. She was pollng like 2-3% when running in the 2020 primary. I see Newsom, Whitmer, Booker in line ahead of her.
If Biden cannot manage the transition and Kamala out .... heil trump
Bye bye rights. Heritage Project 2025 spells it out. Formula 7 and Schedule 47 worth a glance also.
Biden is a mess.
Listen to 'debate' without video. Just audio, as the Supremes Arguments enjoy. Biden actually had substance. Trump had lies, fact check says 30-50, one every minute!
The USA is a mess but Trump wouldn’t change that, he is a big part of the problem.
This is a revelation. I thought, when I first heard the ruling, that they had ruled mostly against him. Unofficial acts are not protected; that’s what I took from it. The fact that official acts are protected did not seem like a surprise.
But WHAT is a official v unofficial Act. Muddy waters for sure
Best way to say
"Happy MAGA Month" ya'll
Happy MAGA month!
Another holiday captured and ruined by the Red Party. Christmas festivities aren't the spiritual same anymore.
Nancy was correct, it's about the kids. 🎆Have a Happy 4th...apolitically.💜🇺🇲
I watch about 70% or so of your stuff
And I enjoy it for the most part. Enough to keep coming back
Why would you cite polls about what the public thinks about constitutional law😂
Trust MY experts, the rest is up to a vote
well, when your highest court in the land has abandoned constitutional law it doesnt matter who weighs in anymore.
Constitutional law is made up. It's nonsense now.
@@Michael_DominicI guarantee you have not read the ruling 😂😂
@@Michael_Dominic you’re a constitutional lawyer? No? Ok. Sit down.
Biden has to go.
Biden IS NOW A KING!!! He’s not going anywhere ROTFL
@@UnDaoDu What good is a sundowning King?
Experience Matters. Biden first term is the most productive since Reagan.
Biden was left a chaotic mess.
He know has #1 Economy.
@@Zenny1220 If he was GOP he would be having Trump arrested Treason and executed. The immunity means Trump can’t do that to him so he can die in peace without fear
@@jannichi6431 He’s mentally worse than Reagan in his second term and that guy had dementia.
Total MAGA victory 2024!
oh, for sure.
Yeah we are fucked.
Trump 2024
Read summary of Heritage Project 2025.
'Indemnify' law enforcement is a dangerous notion.
No one is above the law, like the Supremes said at confirmation hearings...under Oath.
Oath to Constitution is taken by Military and Law Enforcement as with many other gov agency jobs.
Nahh