US supreme court in Trump v United States last week establishes that the president has immunity from prosecution for “official acts”
law-free zone around the president, loaded weapon for any president...
limitless power to the office. “enabling acts” of Nazi Germany.
president might declare a political opponent an enemy of the state and have a military sniper kill that person
the stuff of Tom Clancy novels o
How might a rogue president without political or moral constraint
president to refrain from accepting any gift, payment, or anything of value from a foreign state or its rulers.
the president cannot be prosecuted for this crime,
There are many levers here that a corrupt president can pull,
Bannon
1974 after the abuses of Richard Nixon.
treasury department impounded funds
what would happen if the president instructed the secretary of the treasury to unilaterally withhold payment on bonds issued by the US government to specific creditors,
IRS might target political opponents,
conservative critics of the federal government
A pliant or compromised president could redirect resources away from enforcement.
Project 2025
statute does not define what a time of war means;
A president intent on launching military action that is illegal or immoral – calling a Seal Team 6 operator to kill an American overseas, or perhaps someone within the United States
a malevolent president
mobilization of military force domestically, a violation of federal law.
The functions of military intelligence, the CIA and the Department of Justice are separated by a wall of laws meant to protect US citizens from the government’s vast capacity
A president unconcerned with the law could simply walk intelligence gathered from one agency to another, with orders to act on it.
, the supreme court decision last month overturning the Chevron doctrine or the principle of legal deference to agency rule-making, may have done as much harm as Trump v United States in this regard.
If the president ordered an FBI official to break the law with an illegal wiretap or search, there is no mechanism for that crime to be unearthed in court if the president invokes this defense. The target may never learn that their rights were violated.
If we wanted to read MSM garbage, I would go to any place other than here.
The simple fact is, pretty much every over-reach listed here has been used by past presidents regularly and the reason why America is where it is right now. Yes, they have taken bribes. Yes, they have ordered their enemies killed. Yes, they have abused FISA, colluded with CIA and DOJ and broken thee wall erected to seperate all these powers.
We have lived through all this, watched all this happen helpless that not one of them has beeen held to account.
Now, finally, precedent has been set that presidents CAN be held accountable and CAN be prosecuted.
What if they claim "It was an official act" ?
Oh, the horror.
No, unlike what Sotomayors likes to think, the ruling clearly leaves that decision to thee lower courts to decide and it will follow the usual process all the way through the appeals and to SCOTUS.
So no, if the president orders Navy Seal team to assassinate his opponent, he CANNOT claim it was an official act. He has to convince that it was an official act to the whole judicial process, including a majority of SCOTUS.
Screaming at the top of their lungs on the most absurd scenario is one of the top techniques of the Cabal to make us so scared that we give away our rights. We should be smart enough to realise this.
If we look beyond this absurdity, we will see that finally the first step has been taking to bring accountability to the highest office that has been abused beyond all imagination.
I really despise the Guardian, I usually can't bear to read any of their tripe, The Guardian has the smell of Soros all over it.
But like it or not, this article goes into a lot of detail on recent events. Of course it has a bias, but we can take from it what we like. A fellow anon made a post about the fact that Mainstream Media had barely touched upon Chevron, so seeing this pop up in my feed was interesting, and I thought it was important to read this.
Especially seeing how the left will spin what is about to happen, they can see what is coming, they are SHITTING themselves, this article makes that clear...
I had to "Google" what that word was, for anyone else like me who does not know.
In the military, a brevet is a warrant that gives a commissioned officer a higher rank title as a reward, but which may not confer the authority and privileges of real rank. The promotion would be noted in the officer's title (for example, "Bvt. Maj. Gen. Joshua L. Chamberlain" or "Bvt. Col. Arthur MacArthur").
US supreme court in Trump v United States last week establishes that the president has immunity from prosecution for “official acts”
law-free zone around the president, loaded weapon for any president...
limitless power to the office. “enabling acts” of Nazi Germany.
president might declare a political opponent an enemy of the state and have a military sniper kill that person
the stuff of Tom Clancy novels o
How might a rogue president without political or moral constraint
president to refrain from accepting any gift, payment, or anything of value from a foreign state or its rulers.
the president cannot be prosecuted for this crime,
There are many levers here that a corrupt president can pull, Bannon 1974 after the abuses of Richard Nixon.
treasury department impounded funds
what would happen if the president instructed the secretary of the treasury to unilaterally withhold payment on bonds issued by the US government to specific creditors, IRS might target political opponents, conservative critics of the federal government
A pliant or compromised president could redirect resources away from enforcement.
Project 2025 statute does not define what a time of war means;
A president intent on launching military action that is illegal or immoral – calling a Seal Team 6 operator to kill an American overseas, or perhaps someone within the United States a malevolent president
mobilization of military force domestically, a violation of federal law.
The functions of military intelligence, the CIA and the Department of Justice are separated by a wall of laws meant to protect US citizens from the government’s vast capacity
A president unconcerned with the law could simply walk intelligence gathered from one agency to another, with orders to act on it.
, the supreme court decision last month overturning the Chevron doctrine or the principle of legal deference to agency rule-making, may have done as much harm as Trump v United States in this regard.
If the president ordered an FBI official to break the law with an illegal wiretap or search, there is no mechanism for that crime to be unearthed in court if the president invokes this defense. The target may never learn that their rights were violated.
If we wanted to read MSM garbage, I would go to any place other than here.
The simple fact is, pretty much every over-reach listed here has been used by past presidents regularly and the reason why America is where it is right now. Yes, they have taken bribes. Yes, they have ordered their enemies killed. Yes, they have abused FISA, colluded with CIA and DOJ and broken thee wall erected to seperate all these powers.
We have lived through all this, watched all this happen helpless that not one of them has beeen held to account.
Now, finally, precedent has been set that presidents CAN be held accountable and CAN be prosecuted.
What if they claim "It was an official act" ?
Oh, the horror.
No, unlike what Sotomayors likes to think, the ruling clearly leaves that decision to thee lower courts to decide and it will follow the usual process all the way through the appeals and to SCOTUS.
So no, if the president orders Navy Seal team to assassinate his opponent, he CANNOT claim it was an official act. He has to convince that it was an official act to the whole judicial process, including a majority of SCOTUS.
Screaming at the top of their lungs on the most absurd scenario is one of the top techniques of the Cabal to make us so scared that we give away our rights. We should be smart enough to realise this.
If we look beyond this absurdity, we will see that finally the first step has been taking to bring accountability to the highest office that has been abused beyond all imagination.
Thanks for playing.
I really despise the Guardian, I usually can't bear to read any of their tripe, The Guardian has the smell of Soros all over it.
But like it or not, this article goes into a lot of detail on recent events. Of course it has a bias, but we can take from it what we like. A fellow anon made a post about the fact that Mainstream Media had barely touched upon Chevron, so seeing this pop up in my feed was interesting, and I thought it was important to read this.
Especially seeing how the left will spin what is about to happen, they can see what is coming, they are SHITTING themselves, this article makes that clear...
Every MSM is the same. They play different roles in creating the Hegelian Dialectic.
Very true.
Have a brevet to go with your coffee, General Kane. Bravo!
Thank you Sir!
I had to "Google" what that word was, for anyone else like me who does not know.
In the military, a brevet is a warrant that gives a commissioned officer a higher rank title as a reward, but which may not confer the authority and privileges of real rank. The promotion would be noted in the officer's title (for example, "Bvt. Maj. Gen. Joshua L. Chamberlain" or "Bvt. Col. Arthur MacArthur").