It’d literally be better politically to say nothing on the topic

Biden need only say three words to clinch the election right now: “He missed. Damnit.”

The only judge that should be involved in this election is Judge Dredd.

/s, or /s/s?

Not sure whether to denounce that mob, or wish them better luck next time.

Too many people don’t understand that “militia” and “people” are synonymous as used in 2A.

“AR” refers to a pattern of rifle. Any manufacturer can produce complete rifles or various components and accessories that fit the AR pattern. Those components are interchangeable. This allows you to customize your rifle to your current and future needs simply by swapping parts, rather than needing a gunsmith to machine and fit them.

“AR” is to guns like “Pickup truck” is to cars. A pickup might be a simple, ordinary vehicle. It might be a heavily customized rock crawler. It might be a lowered and styled cruiser. It might have a ladder rack, or have the bed swapped for a maintenance truck, or flatbed. It might be converted to repossess vehicles, or fight brush fires. Likewise, an “AR pattern rifle” refers only to the most basic structure of the rifle rather than a specific gun.

I think I saw a documentary about that on Elon’s new video site, Xvideos.com.

(/s, NSFW)

They are, indeed, people. My point was only that they are not “bystanders”. They are actively involved, and much more so than the average voter.

Edit: a bystander Trump supporter was killed

FTFY. They were attending a Trump rally. They weren’t just a bystander. They were complicit.

Trump got shot at. Trump fine (hence the meme), shooter dead, couple bystanders Trump supporters dead.

I want to retire. I am sick of this country being run by workaholics. I want it to be run by people planning on not working themselves into the fucking grave, and expecting the rest of us to do so as well.

57 years is the oldest a candidate should be for a first-term presidency. 61 for a second term. If they still want to play politics, they can take a position in their local HOA.

I prefer the “chaos” scenario.

I strongly prefer the “chaos” scenario.

I think that the best chance we have for defeating Trump in November is by energizing the base. I think that Kamala - while certainly qualified - is the boring, expected candidate.

With Biden in the race, the DNC convention is going to be nothing more than three memes that will be forgotten in a week. With Kamala, 5 memes. It’s a nothing burger; a waste of time and campaign funds.

But, if we go in to the convention with Kamala on the bottom of the ticket, and the top vacant, the DNC turns into a media frenzy. We come out of it with a new, mostly unknown candidate who will be winning news cycles for weeks as the media tries to figure out what to make of them.

Chaos Candidate/Harris, 2024.

The president is immune for any act he is authorized to perform: an “official” act. Any act he is not authorized to perform is an “unofficial” act. The immunity ruling doesn’t even slow down the criminal prosecutions against him. It’s not even a speed bump.

Everyone seems to forget Trump’s argument was that he was absolutely immune to all criminal prosecution for anything unless he was impeached for it first. SCOTUS rejected that argument outright, and opened the door for courts to declare his actions “unofficial”.

like if I shoot someone in self defense, I have to prove there was a threat to my person instead of me not liking their hat.

No, you don’t. The last state to place the burden of proof on you for defending yourself was Ohio, but they repealed their unconstitutional “Affirmative Defense” requirement in 2019. In every state, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that your actions were not defensive, not yours to prove they were.

Likewise, it is the prosecutor’s burden to prove he was fraudulently “convinced”.

They absolutely can question intent. They just can’t use an “official act” as evidence of intent. They can use all the “unofficial acts” they want to demonstrate intent. And, once they decide that the bribe was an unofficial act, the door is opened to use it for intent as well.

Take conspiracy for example. The elements of conspiracy are:

1. Two or more people agreed to commit a crime

2. All conspirators had the specific intent to commit the crime

3. At least one of the conspirators committed an overt act

Trump conspires with false electors to rig the election. Trump’s is immune to charges stemming from his conversation with Pence, but he is not immune to charges of conspiring with false electors. His communication with Pence cannot be considered evidence of intent (#2), But it can be the overt act (#3) of the conspiracy.

You reversed the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecutor - not the accused president - who has to do the proving.

That is presumptively out of bounds for trial. That is a rebuttable presumption.

The court only has to “presume” it was an official act. That presumption is rebuttable. The prosecutor would present an argument that such a bribe was not an “official” act; the judge is free to accept that argument.

If he were legitimately convinced that the electoral college process was improper, it is his duty to pressure Pence not to certify. He can’t be criminally charged simply for pressuring Pence not to certify.

However, that same act of pressuring Pence can be considered a component of election fraud. He cannot be charged for merely pressuring Pence, but the act of pressuring Pence can be used as evidence of that wider fraud. The trial court is free to decide that the wider fraud is not an official act.