Before he took the stage in Butler, Trump sent out a fundraising email to supporters.

"ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE IN ONE HOUR!" Trump wrote. "I could be making a MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT that's sure to strike FEAR into the hearts of our DEEP STATE ENEMIES.""

Suing advertisers is a great way to drum up more advertising business!!! /s

It's both. They aren't mutually exclusive.

If you're writing personal checks holding up the line at the store in 2024 you're an -----.

Would have, or would've. Never "would of."

It's like nails on a chalkboard reading that.

But Biden is too old!!!!1one

"Only the best people."

The tail is wagging the dog. Some very rich people who don't exactly want to be seen as Trump supporters but still want Biden gone started this "he's got to quit" narrative. It's the new "but her emails."

Neither side would have allowed this to go to court and have any damning evidence be introduced into a public record. $243 million is chump change to Boeing.

But her emails!!!!

It's a bad law, but he could just stop taking the disability payments and not owe the $30k.

#58,

Reverend!

Pretty sure this was posted a month ago when it happened

They should have had to pay the full $24 million.

Few people have missed a joke as badly as you just did Earthmuse.

More: Chief Justice John Roberts slipped the allowance into his majority opinion, as the justices ruled 6"3 in Trump's favor along ideological lines. In a quiet sentence, Roberts argued that the fresh take on the executive branch relationship would help the president carry out his constitutional duties.

"The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" Roberts wrote.

"And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President's chief law enforcement officer' who provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,'" Roberts continued, citing a precedent from an immunity case argued for Cabinet members, Mitchell v. Forsyth.

This means that if Trump returns to office, he will have free rein to wield the Justice Department as he sees fit"and he and his allies have already given plenty of indications as to what they plan to do.

What's more American than "TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS" of private citizens?!? /s

Sounds like something that happens in North Korea but MAGA will eat it up and ask for seconds.

Said it a week or two ago but it should be repeated. Gutting public school systems to fund charter schools and vouchers was one of the worst ideas in the history of ideas.

Biden should officially declare the Republican party a terrorist organization today and have the DOJ seize their accounts and assets.

#35,

We already have guns that we already know how to use. We just think some guns should be much harder to get.

Boaz has no idea what progressive means. It's just a buzz word for something he's frightened of, in this case the rule of law is the progressive thing he hates.

In her dissent, she declared that "When [a president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution." She listed out some extreme cases where she argued this ruling would shield presidents from prosecution:

Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today.

Sotomayor added: "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law." She went on, concluding her dissent by stating her "fear for our democracy":

The majority's single-minded fixation on the President's need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after "endeavor[ing] to show" that the Executive designed by the Constitution "combines ... all the requisites to energy," Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: "Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?" The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Library ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President's vulnerability to "prosecution in the common course of law." Ibid. The answer after today is no.

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.

With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

Trump and his packed court have fundamentally changed this country for the worse. I am pretty much certain the country won't survive another Trump term if he wins.