That honor goes to a basketball court, situated in the floor above.
Posted on 06/18/2024 9:05:53 AM PDT by Dead Corpse
https://greatawakening.win/p/17tL6JzByu/anyone-have-sauce-on-any-new-fen/c/
https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/fencing-being-put-up-around-the-supreme-court-as-we-speak/113788763/
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/us-supreme-court-fenced-for-first-time-since-roe-v-wade-ruling-videos-surface-article-111070890
Heard about this on one of my gun forums and went looking for better sources. Appears that with the end of the term coming up and with at least 2 seriously high profile cases being published this Thursday/Friday... It looks like the barriers are going back up.
My guess, the Trump Immunity case is going to upset some folks.
Stay frosty kids... This week could get spicy.
One could say pretty much the same thing about even less fencing, around the crapitol on jan 6.
But the Libs say no one is above the law, if there really believed that then why the need for a fence?
Reason enough to follow 'Nancy Drew', aka Helen Brady, a citizen journalist in the DC area. Goes into town and checks out with video most days, the whitehouse, crapitol, FBI building, Treasury building, Key bridge, etc.
Fencing is in there. This 'Penguin' guy I find to be disinformation. Helen Brady I trust.
That honor goes to a basketball court, situated in the floor above.
President Nixon could have been convicted.
Presidents don’t have more immunity than their subordinates such as Merrick Garland or Jack Smith.
Presidents do enjoy a rebuttable presumption that their actions were legal.
I don’t think the Supreme Court is currently fenced. The problem with fake news is that it goes both ways. Conservatives have to be extra careful these days about believing what we read, what we see, and even video that is presented. The left will use social media posts such as those circulating about the fencing at SCOTUS to discredit stories that ARE true.
The Democrats' words were inflammatory.
Trump's weren't.
Trump's base has for years been hardened against unceasing outrages.
Biden's base rarely loses so they will rage at every outrage.
Thought of that too...
Putting up fencing around the SCOTUS why?
Really, if they don’t give Trump immunity then Obama, Biden, Clinton, Bush, and all of the POTUS past have serious problems. Only someone with T.D.S. can’t see that. Further, the Biden administration broke the law by putting Jack Smith, who was never Senate confirmed as a US attorney, in charge. It’s a judicial nightmare, that needs to end. The former status quo was blown out of the water by Democrats to ‘get Trump’ and it has devolved to a need for SCOTUS to say the obvious.
Honestly, the Biden administration is essentially lawless at this point. The DOJ isn’t responsive to Congressional oversight anymore. The FBI spends its entire time doing political hatchet work for the Democrats. The DOJ, FBI, CIA, Homeland are just political front organizations for the Democrats at this point, and serve to cover for Joe and Hunter. They even go after whistleblowers who relay how corrupt it all is.
I am not to worried about the SCOTUS deciding the process about immunity for a POTUS who has already been found not guilty by the Senate for Jan 6th. I am
More concerned about the safety of the SCOTUS if they call out the lawlessness and unconstitutionality of what the Democrats and Joe Biden have already done. Then there will be riots by the left and death threats, just like Schumer once promised if they didn’t do what the democrats wanted.
I tried zooming on on the building from the Capital Mall camera, but the tree line obscures the 1st side of the building.
Apologies didn’t see your post and posted the same thing.
Not sure about the fences BUT there is this:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/the-morning-read-for-monday-june-17/
Thurs 9:45 am.
In the 1970s, I never heard a single claim that Nixon had immunity.
These racks were down, and are now up. There are still two days until they start publishing more...
As stated in the lead in post, was looking for better sources.
FReegards...
except one:
“During David Frost’s series of interviews with Richard Nixon, Nixon (in)famously said
‘when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition.’”
reader comment:
The context, clearly indicated in your quote, is the Huston Plan, which involved mass surveillance of US citizens, burglary, and even potentially internment camps for “radicals.” It was an assertion that any crime could be committed if it was claimed to be in the national interest (preventing people from making the nation less “peaceful” and “orderly”).
Nixon:
Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, “Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation.”
link given above:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/78917/was-nixons-when-the-president-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal-tech
WIKI
The Huston Plan was a 43-page report and outline of proposed security operations put together by White House aide Tom Charles Huston in 1970. It came to light during the 1973 Watergate hearings headed by Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC). According to U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (R-MD), U.S. President Richard Nixon rescinded the plan on July 28, 1970, after approving it on July 23.
The impetus for this report was President Richard Nixon’s desire for coordination of domestic intelligence on purported ‘left-wing radicals’ and the counterculture-era anti-war movement in general. Huston had been assigned as White House liaison to the Interagency Committee on Intelligence (ICI), a group chaired by J. Edgar Hoover, then Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director. Huston worked closely with William C. Sullivan, Hoover’s assistant, in drawing up the options listed in what eventually became the document known as the Huston Plan.
The plan called for domestic burglary, illegal electronic surveillance, and opening the mail of domestic “radicals”. At one time, it also called for camps in Western states where anti-war protesters would be detained.
On July 23, 1970, Nixon ratified the proposals, and they were submitted as a document to the directors of the FBI, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the National Security Agency (NSA).
Only Hoover objected to the plan and gained the support of then Attorney General of the United States John Mitchell to pressure Nixon to rescind the plan.
As details of the Huston Plan unfolded during the Watergate Hearings, it came to be seen as part of what Attorney General Mitchell referred to as “White House horrors”. This included the Plumbers Unit, the proposed fire-bombing of the Brookings Institution, the 1971 burglary of the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the creation of a White House enemies list, and the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to punish those deemed to be enemies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huston_Plan
Penguin 6 drove down there last night and walked around videoing the building. The street out front is closed to traffic but the only fencing is some low bicycle type fencing. You can basically still walk right up to the steps.
The bump stock decision made it clear that only Congress can make laws. Based on that decision, I am very confident that SCOTUS will Reverse the Chevron decision. It will be 6-3; maybe 5-4, but it will be reversed.
The same reasoning should also apply to the legality of the appointment of Jack Smith as a Special Counsel. Merritt Garland admitted there is no Special Counsel statute. He claimed there were regulations that allowed such an appointment. He was shut down when the Congressman pointed out that regulations are not laws.
I’m also pretty sure Trump will largely prevail on the immunity case. However, if the Court rules that Jack Smith was not constitutionally or properly appointed under a statute, the court could rule that way an then rule that the immunity issue is mute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.