Presidential Immunity And More Debate Fallout | 538 Politics Podcast 

To be clear, the “out” discussed if an assassination is directed is “let it happen first, then we can decide.” THAT IS BONKERS

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.

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.

Where are the videos?

Isn't there some virtual convention date that is happening to get ahead of the Ohio deadline, well ahead of August?

Birth of a tyrant

no video?

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.

you forgot the video, please include it

Seal team six a things now?

This is a much better presentation if it done live.

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.

I voted for Biden in the primary and wilk write him on in the general election if need be

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

I watch about 70% or so of your stuff

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.

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.

When Nathaniel says if Biden drops out then it will be Harris, why is it a foregone conclusion it would be Harris?

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..

Why would you cite polls about what the public thinks about constitutional law😂 Trust MY experts, the rest is up to a vote

Best way to say "Happy MAGA Month" ya'll

Biden is a mess.

Video

If Biden cannot manage the transition and Kamala out .... heil trump

Get ready to Heil Trump!

Biden has to go.

Total MAGA victory 2024!

Trump 2024