Did justices contradict themselves with Trump's immunity? POLITICO explains
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июл 2024
- The Supreme Court’s decision on Donald Trump’s claim to be immune from prosecution may go down as one of the most brazenly political decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.
The opinion will have far-reaching consequences for the presidency, but the immediate effect will be to exponentially shrink the odds of a trial before November on Trump’s effort to remain in power after he lost the 2020 election. Indeed, the opinion might come to be known as Bush v. Gore 2.0 - a stunning intervention that could plausibly swing the presidential election to Trump.
Read the full story: www.politico.com/news/magazin...
-----------------------------------------
Subscribe to our channel! / @politico
Check out our video catalog: www.politico.com/video
Follow POLITICO here:
➤ X: x.com/politico
➤ Instagram: / politico
➤ Facebook: / politico
They are corrupt and not worthy of the position they hold.
They did not contradict themselves, THEY LIED.
Bonght and paid for
Good evidence that show the justices acted in contrary to their promises to uphold Disappointed in the justices that made this ruling.
THEY LIED - DON’T SUGARCOAT IT
All this six judges should step down from the bench of the Supreme Court 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Ya good luck as long as the bribes and pay offs are available they will be free.
Still calling these corrupt clowns in robes, “justices”? 😂😂😂 Wake up coz you are all getting screwed.
They LIE!!!!
If it is the law that a president is immune from prosecustion for official acts, why would a president be granted immunity in the first place and why has is this idea news to judges, lawyers, including Trump and his lawyers who stated it should be true, rather than saying it is already true?
The idea that a president is immune from the law implies the law did in fact apply to the president but not anymore.
That the president is not above the law simply because you are saying the law doesn't apply to him is a contradiction.
Hello Aria
What Robespierre said after approving the guillotine and death penalty after once being against it:. "Times have changed".
What does Robespierre have to do with Trump? In Robespierre's time there was a monarchy which he (along with cronies) overthrew. Here, we are in the time of democracy, with it's rules. Having a coup d'ètat because you lose the elections is not comparable. Biden is not an absolutistic monarch, he was elected as Trump was elected before.
They lied 😢 simply stated they're liar's 😢
Agree smh yet they won't say it
Your excessive use of crying emojis isn't very convincing.
Contradict? Ah, fk no, it's called lying
It's called stacking the deck folks
were they under oath ??
Yes
It’s called impeachment…da…
Can we call this perjury ?
Not really, because they chose their words very carefully. Perjury is a false statement of fact, and the SCOTUS nominees' pronouncements were pretty much statements of opinion. And to the extent that they were statements of fact (e.g., "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land"), they were true statements. The implication was that they would respect precedent and not overturn Roe v. Wade, but it was just an implication, not a promise. Very slimy and disingenuous, but it is what it is.
Exactly what I was thinking !
S court will overtune the conviction
They did what majority of people do in job interviews
Perhaps, but most jobs don't come with a guarantee of lifetime employment.
Liars
To answer your question: Absolutely.
Hello Stacy
They should reverse their decision because those judges they confirmed lied to get on the Supreme Court illegally so therefore their decision is void.
They didn't contradict themselves.
He gets immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts
😂😂😂😂
Trump 2024
They're a bunch of liars
nope. actually it would be treason for them to disgree. what does that mean for the judges that did not agree, how corrupt..treasonous? he is safe accordimg to the constitution
Obama:
Black not for Donald J Trump Vote Maga 2024!!
Huh???