MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann indicated that the California Democrat was correct in her assertion, adding that the high court decision removes “an enormous check” on the president.
Andrew, read the opinion. Is dispatching the military in such a way an official presidential duty? What a bunch of morons.
Not to mention the military has to consider if it’s an illegal order.
Andrew Weissman has a considerable amount of blood on his hands:
Enron executive suicided from his persecution, remember?
Mueller’s panel was really Weissman’s panel and they went after Trump like maniacs, and also Gen. Flynn. Gen. Flynn was decided to be removed by obama and biden on Jan. 17, 2017 at the beginning of the 4 year coup against Trump— 4 years of near constant lawfare and fake russia russia shite all cooked up originally by hillary clinton and Perkins Coie— including fake FISA filings that implicated Carter Page US Naval Academy graduate (who is still trying to get back the life stolen from him!).
Zoe Lofgen is one uglya@@ California Communist in simple terms—and monumentally a “victim” of her own stupidity in saying crap like this. Unless of course she knows she should be targeted for prosecution.
Far from removing restrictions on the actions of a president - ANY President - this decision actually puts on restrictions on the actions of a President that never existed formally in the law before now. The simple fact is that no president has ever been charged with a criminal offense in the entire history of our nation. There was, effectively, complete and total immunity. What the Supreme Court did is to say that for constitutional duties, there is total immunity. Nothing changed there. For acts done while president that are not actually constitutionally required or permitted acts, there is presumptive immunity. That means that somebody can overcome that presumption and prove that they were personal in nature, and thus hold a President criminally liable while in office or afterwards. Thus, the Court clearly stated that certain acts don’t have any immunity at all. Finally, the Court indicated that for clearly personal acts, there was no immunity whatsoever. So if the President picks up an ashtray and smashes somebody over the head with it, he can be charged with criminal assault, and perhaps attempted murder. If the president shoots and kills somebody without any kind of justification, he can be charged and convicted of first-degree murder or manslaughter, and if the President orders some forces under his command to murder Supreme Court justices or political opponents, that is purely personal in nature, it is meant for his own personal benefit in some way or other, and has no immunity attached whatsoever. Weissman is not stupid, far from it (evil and hyper-partisan is another thing altogether), and he knows this quite well - but he chooses to lie like the leader of his party and pretty much every other Democrat, simply to make his/their political opponents look bad and to thus retain power. He is a thoroughly disgusting, despicable and pathetic individual.
I think that all of this was implied by common sense, but since somebody decided to criminally prosecute Trump, this became a case and the Supreme Court was pretty much forced to take on the issue and make a ruling that has an awful lot of common sense in it. These Democrats are barking-at-the-Moon crazy, they are all suffering from an overwhelming infection of TDS. They can’t even think logically anymore.