'Fear of an imperial presidency': The historic implications of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling

After the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on presidential immunity, Trump's legal team requests a pause in the classified documents case. Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirshner, former chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, Matthew Dowd and presidential historian Douglas Brinkley join Yamiche Alcindor to discuss the potential historical implications of the ruling and how the decision continues to impact Trump's current cases.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#supremecourt #trump #msnbc

[@RealDeadPoolHere]

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty-Thomas Jefferson.

[@TruthTeller-ps3rq]

what law?

[@DemonDog444]

Like vaccine mandates?

[@scottharrison8701]

@@RealDeadPoolHere Trump 2024 is rebellion enough

[@tweetsterD]

@@DemonDog444 Is your whole family blind as well ?

[@MKultraInstinct]

“Just obey and comply to big pharma guys! The government loves us!l - the tyranny fighters LOL 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@barbaravanalmelonelson]

We no longer have a Supreme Court we can respect.

[@adampost6690]

the DOJ can't control the supreme court. that's what they found out this week

[@nutmegriot209]

or tolerate

[@Pilotpaulie]

We think they’re spot on.

[@Onyx-n5m]

Sounds like a double standard for the rule of law when it works in your favor, but against it when it doesn’t

[@nutmegriot209]

@@Onyx-n5m giving presidents immunity might not work in your favor either. why make that the new standard?

[@user-sq4jz9up6g]

Not Historic ..Hysteric

[@johnalexander4940]

@@user-sq4jz9up6g the quintessential Psychopaths wet nightmare . Let's Go JOE 💙 👍

[@jonharson]

Histrionic*

[@VOTEBLUE24]

Alito and Thomas are always under the influence of a billionaire when they make their crazy rulings ..

[@Jonsmithc1]

globalists are freaking out right now 😂🎉 DAVOS clowns in panic

[@jamesdouthat3999]

only for el stoop eds

[@karta4345]

Thank you MSNBC for finding the real target and getting off Biden's back.

[@mikepolls3032]

@@karta4345 Biden sucks

[@Sl0ppyJ0s]

Democrats lit the fire then complain their eyebrows are getting singed. This is what happens when you engage in political lawfare. Trump memes about it then when he gets voted in he says “we don’t do that in America” democrats turn around and do exactly what they warned trump would do. Make that make sense 🤷‍♂️

[@Pilotpaulie]

Biden is a potato. The world knows that now.

[@Onyx-n5m]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@jamestramel4046]

MSNBC has 28 viewers. Their opinions are comical. They have to target their viewers, however.

[@jamesburge1983]

Thanks Moskow Mitch.

[@donaldgossett1736]

Not Imperialism, not Royal, but rather totalitarian.

[@Jonsmithc1]

globalists are freaking out right now 😂🎉 DAVOS clowns in panic

[@VOTEBLUE24]

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM ☑Disdain for human rights ☑Religion and government intertwined ☑Identification of enemies as a unifying cause ☑Rampant sexism - Overturning Roe ☑Controlled mass media ☑Obsession with national security at it's borders ☑Corporate power protected ☑Labor power suppressed ☑Disdain for intellectuals and the arts ☑Obsession with crime and punishment ☑Rampant cronyism and corruption Sound familiar ..☑

[@turdferguson3475]

Totalitarians put their opponents into prison. Sound like anyone you know?

[@francoisleveille409]

@@turdferguson3475 Putin.

[@Chulitatr]

.....RIDIN WITH BIDEN FOUR MORE YEARS BECUZ HE'S ACCOMPLISHED MORE IN 3.5 YEARS THAN ANY REPUBLICAN HAS IN 65 YEARS!

[@nutmegriot209]

Impeach the Supreme Court!

[@ricardodsavant2965]

My advice is to calm down, go for a walk in nature, and have a nice day.

[@bobbybob3865]

It's not easy to do that with what is going on in the United States.

[@ricardodsavant2965]

@@bobbybob3865 -I live in Portland, OR, USA and I find it very easy. Have a nice day.

[@johnmclaughlin2392]

We are not meant to have a king.

[@user-vo2cw5yu9w]

Watching MAGA make justifications for this lunacy has been eye opening.

[@Sl0ppyJ0s]

@@user-vo2cw5yu9w trump supporters don’t justify it. Trump supports proposition 47 it’s been up on his website since he began his race. No one in his campaign supports project 2025 it directly contradicts everything he’s been campaigning on.

[@ronnyparsons6403]

Justify what ? Explain how a geriatric president will do anything without his subordinates ? All subordinate officers are not immune of anything and have oaths to uphold. Illegal orders will not pass easily or at all. Mike Pence refusal to comply on J6 is a great example of that.

[@One.--]

Corruption at the highest level

[@tomasrosario5543]

Corruption at the highest level , stay woke!

[@kt3505]

Maybe they think it is cute and a misplaced interpretation of what other countries think, making your president immune from prosecution.

[@jaysmith6863]

Apparently Biden is immune due to being too senile according to Hurr. At least we now know why they don't want to release the audio tapes after the debate performance.

[@Chulitatr]

The immunity claim should be a unanimous NO a president does NOT have absolute immunity. The SC is an imminent threat to Democracy, the constitution, and the rule of law. ..It's abominable that the SCOTUS & the GOP aren't committed to the US constitution or the Rule of Law.

[@Chulitatr]

PRESIDENT & KING Biden should seize the absolute immunity and REMOVE the GOP appointed judges, expand the court, and set term limits for all federal judges to end the corruption.

[@adampost6690]

he's not immune from prosecution. they're being hysterical. he's immune from political prosecutions same as obama

[@williamblake827]

You mean weaponization? Another Biden backfire. Boooyng.

[@howardj602]

The recent ruling by the Supreme court regarding immunity is in itself unconstitutional. i.e. Article 1 Section 3 paragraph 7: the Constitution of the United States: Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office and disqualification to hold ...Any office of honor trust or profit under the U.S. BUT: the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment accord to Law.

[@charliebrens3349]

The Subprime Cult

[@rll9359]

THE BOTTOM LINE____What I do no fathom is why this is allowed to continue/ Drastic measures should be complimented/ The current administration has the means to squelch this/ Weather if it is above board or NOT/ Take care of this now before the election/ Civil war will occur in either outcome

[@adampost6690]

there will be no war. it's called the separation of powers. judges cannot tell an elected president how to make decisions. thats what their ruling comes down to.

[@mscheese000]

@@adampost6690 Wrong. The ruling comes down to "the president is now a king."

[@keithclyde733]

Awesome, Biden has it all, Good looking, Energy, and no family baggage. GO JOE

[@t.r.campbell6585]

What an absolute load of rubbish. We have to remember that we have a constitution that limits the power of government and the president. We have to uphold and have faith in the constitution.

[@VaucluseVanguard]

No need to ask, "who ate all the pies?"

[@user-bo6mu8ij3t]

Hope Democrats be equally tough on Trump for his crimes. We need a new attorney General to send Trump to prison for all his crimes along with his criminal cronies.

[@Sturmavk]

Sounds like something Stalin would do. You're in great company.

[@scottharrison8701]

Yeah, Biden became a dictator when he tried to jail Trump. The Supreme Court stopped him. Oops

[@fragout9575]

​@@Sturmavk are you forgetting the ridiculous chants of "lock her up!" or that Trump fired TWO different FBI directors for not filing charges against Hillary Clinton or that he pressured several of his AGs to file charges and when Sessions recused himself from the proceedings, he fired him as well?! So who exactly are you referring to when you claim "sounds like something stalin would do?"

[@danielmackay8099]

What crimes ?

[@user-bo6mu8ij3t]

@Sturmavk democrats need to treat Trump just the way he prefers his opponents. 😀😃😄😛😜😝

[@romandevivo1163]

The Banana Republic of the United States of America.

[@sclogse1]

Don't act out of fear. Act out of information. Don't worry...think. And the less you talk or watch stuff on the 1st debate the sooner things will improve. I look at the last four years. Good enough for me. If Biden has a problem in the next four years, he has backup.

[@alangarland8571]

Trump if he wins, can then theoretically do away altogether with the supreme court and simply appoint himself as supreme arbitrator of every legal argument.

[@billfuentes7989]

That is pretty much on point, now hopefully since the Heritage Foundation released their 2025 project really early maybe that will show republican's and maga that this wasn't such a great idea.

[@mikepolls3032]

@@alangarland8571 Before I see another confused left wing media pundits or democrat who are confused The president has certain immunities its that the president has absolute immunity from "civil damages" actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. For Example if Biden broken border policy lets an illegal migrant in the country who then kills my child I can't sue the president for it.

[@jamesdouthat3999]

no he couldnt

[@JDustyTV]

If you genuinely believe that will happen then you need to touch grass

[@mrjerzheel]

By what authority could a president do away with SC? no such power exists

[@davidbible1469]

Imperial presidency, dictatorship. Potato, potahto.

[@brendansparks1511]

tRump is not as benign as a potato, but I get your point.

[@jamesdouthat3999]

el stoop ed

[@marklasky3555]

Matthew Dowd--> so unhinged ABC let him go

[@taluaigaluega905]

Instead of crying about what the supreme court did, how about encourage people to vote against Trump and for our democracy being threatened by the extreme right. Hehehe. 😮😊

[@MariaGonzalez-vv9xk]

Biden can resolve this problem if He wants and He can do it ASAP issuing a official act to jail trump for traitor ohhhhhhhh remove him from all states ballots. SIMPLE LIKE THAT. I CAN NOT BELIEVE HE CAN NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE POWER THAT HE HAS RIGHT NOW. IN ORDER TO APPROVE A LOT POLICIES REJECTED BY THE HOUSE....

[@mikepolls3032]

why thing was better under Trump Joe broke this country and if you voter for him it’s elderly abuse

[@LazyEyePolitics]

You know what would be even more wild? Putting up a young populist candidate like Jon Stewart up instead, so we don't watch democracy slip between our fingers. You don't bounce back from old age. If that was the case, retirement homes wouldn't be a business plan.

[@VOTEBLUE24]

Yeah lets just be distracted by Trump's stupid clown act and ignore the justices who have the power to end democracy . Bad plan

[@mikepolls3032]

@@LazyEyePolitics A president doesn’t control democracy… It’s the voters

[@FoxWiseConsultants]

The anchor is clearly helping their DEI quota

[@EAKR]

If you haven’t already read the Project 2025 I would strongly recommend that you read it. Not being an American I read it and am greatly disturbed about the implications it may have not only on your democratic society but also mine. It will be the last of your democracy as you know it today.

[@paleocon777]

Worry about your own Country

[@MissouriGuerrilla]

​@@paleocon777Right?! This guy sucks! America #1

[@GRIZZ-sb1zt]

I READ IT, AND IT READS LIKE A COMMUNIST BIBLE

[@billfuentes7989]

@@MissouriGuerrilla Your mom swallows 🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧍🏾‍♂🧎🏻‍♀

[@heemlo649]

Which author is running for president ?

[@user-km2yn5ce4r]

Be afraid, be very afraid, we like you that way 🤫🤑👹

[@curtisihegie13]

The trump campaign would like to thank msnbc for free advertisement 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Your next talking point should be "Trump is a treat to democracy" "King Trump".😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@mikekelley2877]

Whatever's wrong with you it's no little thing.

[@Onyx-n5m]

😂😂😂😂

[@Onyx-n5m]

@@mikekelley2877 And if you’re still supporting Biden, then I think it’s time for a cognitive test, especially after the date😂😂

[@curtisihegie13]

@@Onyx-n5m 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂 just passing by

[@suzanne9150]

READ TRUMP'S PROJECT 2025. That says it all of Trump wanting to destroy our country as we know it. right out of a Russian playbook.

[@Profous222]

Hail Caesar ! From now on

[@Chennault-en9nb]

June 24 marked one year since the Supreme Court, in the landmark Dobbs case, overturned Roe v. Wade, shockingly reversing almost 50 years of precedent to strip away what had been a constitutional right to an abortion. You see, the conservative justices in the majority of that 5-4 decision argued the Roe decision was “egregiously wrong” because the Constitution never mentioned abortion. That meant, the justices said, abortion couldn’t possibly be a constitutional right and must be left to the states. It’s one of Republicans' longest-running talking points: “Don’t legislate from the bench.” Doing anything else would amount to activist judges “making things up,” or as the phrase goes, “legislating from the bench.” To hear Republicans talk, that’s pretty much the worst thing a federal judge could do. It’s one of Republicans' longest-running talking points: “Don’t legislate from the bench.” Now that Republican appointees are a supermajority on the Supreme Court, you would think that this majority would steer clear of anything that might look like it was writing laws and thereby undermining the people’s representatives in Congress. But you’d be wrong. Today’s conservative justices are happily imposing their reactionary legislative vision on America, not just by interpreting laws, but by effectively rewriting them, in order to implement unpopular policies that could never get passed through Congress. Separation of powers be damned. Take some of the biggest, most divisive, most consequential issues in American life right now: student loan relief, climate change, voting rights, labor laws and gun control. Now the Supreme Court decides what happens on those issues. Not you. Not me. Not our elected representatives. Like on Friday when the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that 43 million Americans would not receive student loan relief under President Joe Biden’s plan. The conservatives ruled the program had not been explicitly approved by Congress in the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act. But that law allows the Education Department to “waive or modify” financial assistance programs “as the Secretary deems necessary” in a national emergency. Like the Covid pandemic we were still in when Biden announced his plan last year. In her dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan slammed her conservative colleagues, writing: “The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness.” Got crippling student debt from predatory loans? Tough. The Supreme Court says you can’t get relief. Got crippling student debt from predatory loans? Tough. The Supreme Court says you can’t get relief. On climate change, the Supreme Court has undermined Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency twice in the last year alone. In West Virginia v. EPA, a 6-3 majority ruled the EPA exceeded its authority by regulating carbon emissions from power plants. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority: “It is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme. … A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself.” Except that Congress did explicitly give the EPA the authority to use the “best system of emission reduction” when it passed the Clean Air Act in the '60s. As Kagan put it in her dissent, “The Court will not allow the Clean Air Act to work as Congress instructed. The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much.” Then in May in Sackett v. EPA, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in a precedent-setting opinion that the Clean Water Act only allows the EPA to regulate wetlands that have “a continuous surface connection” to “waters of the United States.” Except that’s not what the law says. The law applies to “all waters of the United States” and explicitly wetlands "adjacent” to those waters. But instead of applying the law as written, Alito just changed the meaning of the word “adjacent” to mean “adjoining.” You want Congress to decide how to protect our air and water? Tough. The Supreme Court decides that now. Next, look at voting rights, where in the last 10 years, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the core protections of the historic Voting Rights Act, first passed by Congress in 1965. In the last 10 years, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the core protections of the historic Voting Rights Act, first passed by Congress in 1965. Congress passed the VRA explicitly to force southern states with a history of disenfranchising Black voters through seemingly neutral voting requirements to get approval from the federal government before they could implement any new voting laws. This “preclearance” was such a crucial part of the VRA that Congress voted overwhelmingly to extend the preclearance provision in 1982 and again in 2006. But in 2013, a 5-4 majority led by Roberts decided that voter suppression laws were no longer a problem in those states. That ruling in Shelby County v. Holder effectively voided the preclearance provisions that Congress had voted overwhelmingly to extend just seven years earlier. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2021, the 6-3 majority upheld an Arizona election law that imposed burdens upon Native Americans living on reservations because the majority felt the burdens alleged were “modest when considering Arizona’s ‘political processes’ as a whole.” As Kagan noted in her dissent, “The Court has (yet again) rewritten-in order to weaken-a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses.” Do you want Congress to protect voting rights and stop racist rules from suppressing minority votes? Tough. The Supreme Court is writing the laws now. Recommended THE MEHDI HASAN SHOW Donald Trump is running a 'make America fascist' campaign Now look at labor rights, where this anti-worker, anti-union court has legislated from the bench to create new rights for corporations, and against their employees, in two major cases. In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, which enshrined the right of workers to join unions and to organize orderly strikes. To resolve disputes between workers and employers, the law also established the National Labor Relations Board. This court has hacked away at that system. You want Congress to protect labor rights? Tough. The Supreme Court has other policy ideas. This happened most crucially in 2018 with Janus v. AFSCME, when the Roberts court struck down the long-standing practice of mandatory union “agency fees” being deducted from employees’ paychecks. “There is no sugarcoating today’s opinion,” Kagan wrote in her dissent. “The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation’s law-and in its economic life-for over 40 years.” You want Congress to protect labor rights? Tough. The Supreme Court has other policy ideas. In the absence of much meaningful action by Congress, this Supreme Court has done more than any legislature to radically alter gun policy. In Washington, Chicago and New York state, over more than a century, lawmakers passed tailored gun regulations, but in recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted them. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, five justices struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban, deciding that the Second Amendment wasn’t about colonial militias but about the right of the average Joe to brandish a Glock. In 2010, that ruling was extended to the rest of the country with McDonald v. Chicago. Then in 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the court went a step further and decided that the Second Amendment also says Americans are guaranteed a right to carry guns in public, contradicting New York’s century-old law requiring gun owners to show proper cause for doing so and obtain a license. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it during oral arguments, “You’re asking us to make the choice for the legislature.” As liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it during oral arguments, describing the implications of a court stepping in on a state’s legal turf, “You’re asking us to make the choice for the legislature.” The six conservative Supreme Court justices were more than happy to make that choice for the state Legislature. States only get to put limits on really dangerous things, like voting rights and abortion. You want Congress to stop mass shootings? Tough. This Supreme Court is calling the shots. Making the choice for the legislature - that’s exactly what this Supreme Court now does, on a regular basis, and on a range of key issues. It takes issues decided by the people’s representatives and then re-decides them in a manner that pleases the conservative supermajority on the bench. So an elected, and Democratic-controlled, Congress can write and pass a progressive law, but an unelected and very conservative Supreme Court can just rewrite it. Confidently. Brazenly. Shamelessly. These are not neutral judges. These are politicians in robes. This op-ed is an adaptation of a segment of "The Mehdi Hasan Show" on Peacock on June 22. Mehdi Hasan Mehdi Hasan is host of "The Mehdi Hasan Show" on Peacock and an MSNBC political analyst. He is a former senior columnist for The Intercept, for which he launched the "Deconstructed" podcast. He was also the presenter of "UpFront" and "Head to Head" on Al Jazeera English. He is the author of two books and the winner of the Society of Professional Journalists' 2018 Sigma Delta Chi Award for Online Column Writing. CONTINUE READING

[@OmnipotentO]

The whole idea of immunity of any kind for any politician is just incredibly wrong. Yes, I DO want my presidents to second and triple guess themselves. I want them to get advice from a panel experts in various fields and not make questionable decisions on a whim. Like that's the way it's always been and that's the way it should be.

[@joebloe923]

I'm surprised they still let us comment. They're always getting blasted in the comments 😂.

[@haroldmoore1412]

It’s all the same 15 trolls like you.

[@waverideraus4882]

democracy at work.

[@Sturmavk]

Most anti Biden, anti Lefty, anti MSM comments are shadow banned. They tried just deleting up until last year but people were getting around the censorship filter by misspelling words and using emojis. Now YT just shadow bans your comments if you make a lot of pro free speech, anti lefty comments.

[@johnward43]

One word: Wegove. Please use it. 🙏

[@Bagoproductions13]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@MrMisuma]

America has lost it’s way, but how do you get back on track? Is voting blue enough?

[@ashleybrandt2195]

Are you on track to a dumpster fire, then yes it will.

[@BlossomWithPaper]

The Supreme Court did nothing but put the vote back to the states. If you don’t like what your state is doing, VOTE or MOVE to one you like better. You still have a choice.

[@Mike-j7o]

It's the end !

[@user-te6eo1gw9l]

CAN WE GET RID OF LUKE AND GO BACK TO MORE THAN 5 MINUTES???

[@Jonsmithc1]

globalists are freaking out right now 😂🎉 DAVOS clowns in panic

[@JasonCobb-ps6vg]

So is SCOTUS in on this Foundation Project 2025 stuff? 😮

[@DemonDog444]

I love these stupid scare tactics, only idiots believe them...

[@booqueefious2230]

You people aren't going to know what to do with yourselves when Trump wins by a landslide 😂

[@JasonCobb-ps6vg]

Sounds right up Clarences alley and then some…

[@harryhocus7367]

Supreme Court: Drunk behind the wheel!!

[@tyronejackson2235]

You must be referring to Sotomayor, Kagen and Jackson.

[@robertdebrus3732]

Let us extend a Laurel and Hardy handshake to our new...

[@richardflores8595]

Men's is really truth social 😮

[@tyronejackson2235]

Looking forward to Trump appointing a few more good young justices with lifetime appointments.

[@patcomerford5596]

SCOTUS has lost all credibility.

[@mikekelley2877]

Did they have any to begin with?

[@patcomerford5596]

@@mikekelley2877 Great question! My answer is 'No'.

[@Pilotpaulie]

They rock!

[@ashleybrandt2195]

Thank god they just got it back. Feels good to have someone still stand up for the people. Not your agenda.

[@mikekelley2877]

@@ashleybrandt2195 whatever's wrong with you it's no little thing.

[@tweetsterD]

We understand needing Judicial Independence, but at the same time, any suggestion their rulings are based in law, and not on politics, is baseless, with rulings that are obviously political, and have only come about since trump came down the "Overweight Freight Escalator" to upend Democracy in America simply to satisfy personal Gain and Grift.

[@srunnion8276]

Joe says he is ready to win in 2020!!! Nope, nothing wrong with him!

[@davidportnoy3237]

Should we lock up the Supreme Court with Trump because we didn't get our way for once?

[@freeskier175]

MSNBC has really let themselves go. She sounds like diabetes.

[@hughjorg4008]

Republicans made it possible for dictator Trump to put three MAGA judges in the Supreme Court. (3 judges in 4 years in office). 🙄 Vote BLUE in November. Vote BLUE for your State Governor, vote BLUE for Congress senators and House representatives. Vote BLUE for president.

[@SuEnRoD]

It's now 122days, 6hours, 46minutes, 2seconds until Trump is re-elected and it can't be stopped! Trump2024 FJB

[@TexasMadeElvalle]

Biden a dictator as we all know by now.

[@b.t.2795sGrandma]

No thank you.

[@davidrhinehart7764]

Republicans had nothing to do with ginsburg staying on until she died.

[@saltyshaker5069]

Blacks for TRUMP

[@user-tc4nd1nw3l]

Wahhhhhhhhh😢😢😢😢

[@JP-fn5xt]

Piotr Pavel found artillery shells, not Trump.

[@jaygibson5057]

You installed them Now they are ousting each other Choice was removed

[@user-qj6xc3tc2q]

🙏🙏🙏

[@Hugedatabass]

Inspiring

[@robertbobby2410]

These people have full knowledge what is immunity for the president Trump they know of all this nonsense

[@user-yt3so4pk7u]

Yamiche Alcindor, so,glad to see you on MSNBC. VOTE BIDEN HARRIS

[@Krisnelson1969]

Donald Trump belongs in prison.

[@kennyporterfield9630]

Keep on sowing discord because we all reap what we sow…Ask the Democratic Party and Joe Biden about reaping what you sow.Have a Blessed day.

[@cyrus8020]

I just have three questions for you MSNBC. #1. Do you know the definition of "Imperial Presidency"? Well here is the answer from the dictionary: "noun , (sometimes initial capital letters) a U.S. presidency that is characterized by greater power than the Constitution allows." So with that said, here is my second question. #2. It is a FACT that Biden totally disregarded the constitution and the process by which any president can get laws and policies implemented when he implemented student loan forgiveness. #3. Why did you not report this FACT that we already have an "Imperial Presidency"? I know the answer to that question as well. You are a politically bias organization. Fake news.

[@mikepolls3032]

@@cyrus8020 Funny we are a republic not a democracy.. Democrats are mad because they don’t have mob rule.. Voting is left to the towns , city’s and states who decide what or how their state are all ran , then they vote for a president.. It’s the voters that decide

[@vrforseniors9830]

Fear? MAGA LOVES IT!!!!

[@Kenny-ng9ee]

Can somebody please please ask Donald J Trump Who’s Katie Johnson, and is That Donald Trumps or Jeffrey Epsteins baby she has

[@nivekstar1]

If you're afraid of what's going to happen within the next few months then stop talking and do the needed action for talking will not save America it is action action action action action action!!!!

[@dtaylor939]

Just vote for Trump so we can Make America Great Again

[@Pilotpaulie]

Trump 24

[@kenearnest3921]

Can we just cut the charade? Joe Biden is fading fast. Even Stevie Wonder can see that

[@user-yt3so4pk7u]

Says a Demented Don cult member. VOTE BLUE.

[@honahwikeepa2115]

Great win for the US Constitutional Republic. Democracy advanced.

[@AwkwardTruths]

Not sure why people love to quote "No one is above the law." There are plenty of people who enjoy immunity when doing their jobs, the immunity effectively means they operate "above the law." -- Judges: Have absolute immunity from civil suits for monetary damages for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction. -- Members of Congress: Under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Senators and Representatives have immunity for legislative acts. -- Prosecutors: Have absolute immunity from civil suits for actions that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, such as initiating and pursuing prosecution. -- Police Officers and Other Executive Officials: Have qualified immunity, which protects them from civil liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. -- Federal and State Governments: Have sovereign immunity, which protects them from being sued without their consent. This extends to various government agencies and officials acting within their official capacities. -- Administrative Law Judges and Other Similar Officials: Have immunity for actions taken in their adjudicative role, similar to judicial immunity. There are more...

[@stoopidpursun8140]

But... but... ORANGE MAN BAD! But... SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY!!! *REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

[@vincestapels2022]

Also Obama... What he did makes Trump's "crimes" miniscule. Drone striking until he ran out of bombs. And killing innocent American citizens.

[@nunyabusiness3666]

Please don't talk about things you have no idea about. Try being any of those things without qualified immunity. You can't. None of it puts you ABOVE THE LAW...lol This is a real question. Are you lying on purpose or just this naive?

[@reason6835]

Also Presidents have enjoyed immunity from civil prosecution since the 70’s. It was only a matter of time before a case arose concerning criminal prosecution. It’s no surprise they applied the same standard.

[@reason6835]

@@nunyabusiness3666: If none of that puts you above the law, then neither does presumptive immunity for official acts for the President. Either immunity makes you above the law or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then stop claiming it when it comes to Trump.

[@raymondsmbb5794]

Trump's Project 2025 on Wikipedia and Heritage Foundation

[@user-hl4uz9kc1y]

Long live our King Trump

[@paleocon777]

*PRESIDENT TRUMP 2024* for _World Peace and Prosperity!_ ☮️☮️☮️☮️☮️☮️☮️☮️☮️☮️

[@stephenm8898]

Lol surely you aren't all falling for this are you?

[@DavidJ2222]

🎉🎉Joe, you did such a great job! You answered every question- "doctor" Jill🎉

[@ryblack5032]

Like She was talking to a Toddler 😂😂😂😂

[@bidenharrismadmagazinesper574]

"Where's my pasta ice cream??" ~ Joe

[@swimminginthoughts]

She had to help him down a signed step. It's sad.

[@CentralKentuckyElevators]

Not a Doctor

[@saltyshaker5069]

@@CentralKentuckyElevators Nope Jill is a babysitter and now she's babysitting Biden

[@josephinadelamartiniquemin5448]

Chicken little click bait with all they got is blame the Judge, cheap shot lie?

[@sparkfromyoutube]

Opinions and Arguments for Recusal, or Removal, of Three Supreme Court Justices: With such disregard and negligence of this process, in respect to the standing laws and principles of this nation, that it may be reasonably argued, that there is a reasonable possibility of bias in some of the stated opinions in this matter, partly argued by the specific instructions in parts of the opinion, towards how a judge, appointed by the very same defendant, of which appointed three of the nine justices involved in these decisions particularly including this specific individual citizen, in regards to these specific matters, should handle their own proceedings involving the same individual. One can most certainly and reasonably assume that these factors have a high possibility of affecting these judges decision, simply on the merits of the fact that these justices were appointed by the same individual in which cases they are overseeing, and that the mere existence of the possibility of bias is further enhanced by the relation between Judge, defendant, and plaintiff, as ordinarily in practice, and may be backed by precedent in lower courts, that It can be reasonably inferred that a latent bias may exist, given the extent to which judge, relates to either plaintiff or defendant, and that to recuse is to preserve the nature and balance of law and order in those instances. That, along with the recent allegations of political bias among these very same justices, due to their viewpoints which have been made public, and as such, anything you say, can and will be used against you in the court of law, which granted, each citizen has a right to their opinion, and in respect to individual rights, these justices can have such beliefs, yet in instances where such beliefs, or relationships, may interference with the execution of their duties as supreme court justices, the option to recuse, is a respected and valid option when such relationship between Judge, defendant, and plaintiff, exists. The issues that need to be addressed, ad nauseum, are, that these reasonable requests, in respect to these arguments, to recuse were denied, in recognition of the underlying pretense of ethics as established that the Supreme court must acknowledge, along with previously argued points, including that these very same justices swore under oath and stated in testimony, that they would not allow political bias to affect their decisions, nor that any one is above the law, where it can be reasonably argued that this decision, these opinions, along with the ongoing evidence and concerns of bias that continue to show, and parts of these opinions posed by those very same justices that arguably contradict those past statements, along with the complete lack of oversight, lack of scrutiny, lack of precedent, lack of proper examples of execution, lack of definition, lack of foundational and fundamental constitutionality, that there is inherent perjury being committed. Specifically considering, past statements under oath regarding the validity of Roe v Wade, past statements regarding non partisanship, and past statements regarding no one person being above the law, all of these, subsequently as of writing these opinions, seem to contradict the current stances, positions, and opinions of these three specific justices. All of this is quite questionable, even while maintaining the perspective that minds and opinions change over time. More questionable is that given these recent decisions, to whom they preclude to specifically, as specified by these justices in their opinions, and the included arguments pertaining to the validity of the special counsel trying cases against this specific individual, who again, appointed these exact justices to these positions, which raises some concerns over the intent of including directions in regards to the Special counsel's case, but no directions in the events of impeachment, which are handled by the other branches government. This act of specific inclusion certainly raises questions of concern, along with the absence of instances involving congress, and prosecutions by other lower courts. Regardless of those concerns alone, these decisions to not recuse with such apparent possibilities of favoritism, of consideration of personal bias, the existence of the fact that these justices even have to decide to put their bias, that is unquestionably involved due to the nature of their appointments, because of the inherent aspects of their appointments by the plaintiff/defendant that can reasonably be assessed for consideration, all can be justified as a reasonable argument to recuse as what other standard could reasonably exist under the very definitionand core principle of ethics, given the words used in the resulting opinions involved in reaching this decision, the inherent appointments of these justices and judges involved in the same individual's ongoing cases, their refusal to reasonably respect the principle concept of ethics as can be asserted by existing precedent in past judgments, in a variety of courts and cases involving recusal, the oversight in this decision and sheer ignorance of precedent and the principles of law involved in these opinions, the potentially arguable dispositions of perjury due to the allowance of these opinions being an objectively apparent reversal of testimony under oath by these very justices in regards to allowing a single American citizen that holds the office of president of the united states, to have an privileged exclusive right by position, to have immunty from prosecution, to withhold truths and potential evidence with the expressed excuse under this opinion of immunity for official acts, to disregard actions done in furtherance of a crime, in place of committing crimes, in furtherance of duty, which again, is without precedent nor can or should be implied by its apparent absence from the constitution, nor is a right afforded to any one American citizen under the bill of rights, which inherently gives that one single person, more rights than anyone else in this country in regards to the potential application of these opinions, that are being utilized immediately after the decision was made nonetheless, which by definition, by nature, by practice, and by precedent, places the president of the united states above the law and in turn starts a division that may be comparable to that of a monarchy, which is against the very texts of the declaration of independence, the very bounds and restrictions of the constitution, the very freedom and equality that is perpetuated to every American citizen, no matter their position of office in this democracy, from the bill of rights. Consider this possibility, absent of nuance and simplified in order to apply a more logical argument, if any other president, sitting or former, were to personally bring a case to the Supreme Court, which partly consisted of Justices that were specifically appointed by that same president, wouldn't it be reasonable to question the involvement of those justices in making a completely unbiased, fair, impartial judgment, given the fact that the existence of the inherent issue of the relationship between that president and the justices they appointed is absolutely without a doubt, a real and evident factor that they must consider in their writing of their opinions, regardless of their stance? One can state that they can judge without bias, but the reality still remains that the factor/nuance exists exclusively with those justices in that instance, more so than other justices, and should be considered as human nature, along with human error, and many other unrecognized, yet important factors exists, especially when handling decisions that can drastically change the future of this democracy, and this country. As such, the hypocrisy of these justices’ oaths and testimonies to congress compared to these inherent liabilities, and the refusal to recuse, while asserting such opinions that jeopardize the very reasons why these individuals were allowed to litigate these opinions as law, with no real foundation founded upon or within the core beliefs of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the declaration of independence, may further be used to argue in favor of these justices being removed from their positions because of their individual and apparent differences of their testimonies under oath, when being properly and reasonably compared to their arguments, their opinions, their decisions with lack of scrutiny, lack or precedent, lack of evidence, lack of reasoning, lack of real substantial litigation, and unique circumstances of their appointments, along with their decisions to specifically hold this opinion, in conjunction and in favor of that plaintiff which appointed them. Doing so and allowing justices that were directly appointed by one of the parties involved, sets a dangerous and unreasonably high standard for recusal as precedent in this instance. At the very least, recusal of these judges and justices can be reasonably justified, and refusal of such raises the question of removal for the justices from their appointed positions under the inherent and implied perjury, in relation to these justices appointment, and those involved in this case, along with other evidence as needed, as that may be viewed reasonably as clear violation of ethics, given all the facts and what can reasonably be assessed and argued in these instances. If the option of recusal from the three in question does occur from this opinion henceforth, it would ultimately alter the outcome of this decision, in a more reasonable and logical manner, if the concept of ethics, the instances of precedent, true and proper litigation, and theoretical testing of this ruling against prior impeachments, was administered. It is of such importance that such considerations be made for the integrity of the court, the country, our democracy, and the constitution.

[@dtaylor939]

How many of the Democrats here are planning to attend a Biden rally this election season?

[@b.t.2795sGrandma]

🦗🦗

[@EMendonca-mp2mf]

We don’t go to rallies, we just go vote. Going to a political rally doesn’t seem like a good time.

[@haroldmoore1412]

We saw a rally in Wisconsin today and it was packed.

[@haroldmoore1412]

@@b.t.2795sGrandmathat’s between your ears.

[@mac888spectral7]

Rallies don't win elections, as MAGA can attest 😂

[@dixonyaarmouf4630]

May I present to you the most intelligent liberals in America 🇺🇸: Joe Biden: "first Black woman to serve with a Black Presi-dent." Kamala Harris: "By the way, I'm proud to be, as I said, the first Vice-President, first Black woman, to serve with a Black President.“ This clown 🤡 show is an absolute wrap.

[@mscheese000]

Meanwhile, SCOTUS: "The president is a king!"

[@TDS_ExistMaga4ever]

Lol still crying the left has lost grin and bear it baby

[@MartinaPaulinodelarosa]

Libing cuenta bse repu licana bote colorado 300 cuenta weter junir regitro

[@muttonchopsgayever]

To the Batcave, Robin!

[@GayleAllen-RINO]

JUST LIKE THE UK, America will vote out the maga-nutz

[@Jonsmithc1]

globalists are freaking out right now 😂🎉 DAVOS clowns in panic

[@rukiddingmeNJ]

“Imperial”? 😂 Who buys this stuff? 😵‍💫😂👌🏿

[@jimmy2bricks56]

So, this ruling is somehow retroactive? Like what, to the beginning of the US?! So, Nixon needs to be cleared too? How is this retroactive? BS

[@reason6835]

It just that Presidents have ALWAYS had immunity for official acts. Since no other President has been criminally charged before, there’s really nothing to retroactively apply.

[@saigejones3363]

Thank you. What if these people had to push for the Civil Right Bill, that a lot of people benefitted from, we would be in trouble. Get up and fight back like the Trump/Republican party.

[@D1G1TALSYNAPS3]

😂 look at all the tds tahrds in here Bwahahaha 😊

[@CentralKentuckyElevators]

MSNBC is a broken record.

[@Sandman-001]

You're not forced to be here.

[@mac888spectral7]

I think that network that lost $787 million over the Big Lie is still on the air.

[@AlwaysAwesome001]

​@@Sandman-001 YOU HATE the 1st Amendment?

[@JDustyTV]

@@Sandman-001oh but we are my friend.

[@fauxque5057]

MAGA King Trump 2024

[@dianecrofoot7955]

I am not political, just a high school education, if I can see & understand how insane this ‘immunity’ thing is….what’s wrong w/people, this is totally nuts, how & why has this immoral dangerous crazed person gotten this far!

[@adampost6690]

they are lying to you. the immunity puts separation of powers back in place. the judicial branch has no constitutional right to tell the president how to run the country. same as the president cant tell judges how to rule on cases. a small group of DOJ people have been abusing their power. it got out of control, now its been stopped.

[@tyronejackson2235]

Like you said yourself, your not very educated or smart. 🤣

[@ashleybrandt2195]

Yeah congress has alwasy been the one who should bring the executive branch to trial. It's the checks and balances set up between the 3 branch executive, judicial, and congress.....in the constitution which seems to be more of a guidline for democrats and there media as you see.

[@seanhillebrant-kc5wu]

Haha....

[@sheilawade433]

IT IS NOT THE SUPREME COURT'S JOB DESCRIPTION TO MAKE UP A LAW CALLED PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY

[@leslietaylor9313]

Register early and vote every republican out of office everywhere. 🌊🇺🇲👍 stop project 2025 .

[@mac888spectral7]

"Look, you were wrong about 2020. You were wrong about 2022. Remember the 'Red Wave?'" Bravo President Biden 👏

[@only2genders02]

Trump isn't the GOP tho. Big difference.

[@mac888spectral7]

​@@only2genders02Then I'll expand on it on Joe's behalf: They were wrong about 2018.

[@only2genders02]

@@mac888spectral7 Trump is probably going to win. Jail can't stop him. No, the only thing that can keep Trump out of office? Millions of mail in ballots. Trump's kryptonite.

[@Kat77115]

@@mac888spectral7 💯

[@scottharrison8701]

I believe that the elections are rigged and dangerous number of voters are with me.

[@larrybradford2032]

Nobody but Joe 💙💙💙💙

[@gigiscrafts1259]

Joe didn’t want this. The republican senators wanted this.

[@GrandmaMoysis]

Thomas should be impeached!

[@only2genders02]

Because he's black?

[@AlwaysAwesome001]

Dave? Wendy's? Huh.

[@wsbs520]

He's not President

[@charlottevarney7268]

Every democrat and Independent needs to vote Blue 💙💙💙🌊🌊🌊🌊

[@TASportsCardBangers]

Is there any other news besides political news ? I am so burnt out from it I don’t even feel like voting.

[@rickymack01]

You are being controlled by the spirit of hate and fear 😂😂😂

[@roadwarrior6039]

Democrats the party of goblins

[@haroldmoore1412]

Said the Russian troll.

[@mac888spectral7]

🐏 Maaaggaa 🐑

[@rude1527]

Goblins find that disrespectful and disgusting!