MUST BE POLITICAL, BUT NO COHERENT MESSAGE BEHIND THE POLITICAL TOPICS IS NEEDED.

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1784004678553940113

Per Daniel Feldman:

TikTok does not actually have to divest.

They can instead pay a fine of $5,000 per user, which works out to $850 billion. pic.twitter.com/wk1Z4zIc1a

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 26, 2024

Can't Make It Up: The President of the United States has been assigned “walkers.”

You heard that right. The man that has access to nuke codes now requires aides to escort him across a lawn.

These handlers now walk between Biden and the pool cameras, "to draw less attention to… pic.twitter.com/RO81Dvufb6

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 26, 2024

Remember the expansion of warrantless spying that Biden rammed through Congress and signed into law a week ago despite public outcry? That the FBI had already used to spy on Americans more than 278,000 times? You'll never guess what he's using right now against student protests: https://t.co/0UMIC77S09

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 26, 2024

https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1ccz861/justice_sotomayor_somberly_places_death_of/?sort=controversial

It was a profound exchange.

On Thursday, as justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard extensive oral arguments over whether Donald Trump, as a former president, is totally immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was in office, it began with a series of questions to special counsel attorney Michael Dreeben from Justice Samuel Alito.

Alito, more than an hour into proceedings, started to press Dreeben about whether the prosecution of a president would undermine the stability of a country's governance. It would seem easily agreeable, the justice argued, that a “stable, democratic society” required a defeated candidate to leave office peacefully if he lost an election.

“Even a close one,” Alito said. “Even a hotly contested one.”

Dreeben easily agreed but when Alito asked what may change if that same outgoing incumbent realized he couldn't head off into “peaceful retirement” after a defeat but “may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent,” would that not lead the country into a destructive cycle of destabilizing democracy, too?

For the special counsel's attorney, the reasoning was “exactly the opposite.”

Mechanisms already exist to contest elections that are both legal and far more appropriate. Dreeben took the window to remind the court that Trump lost every lawsuit he raised to challenge the 2020 election, save for one and that outcome wasn't “determinative,” he said.

Alito's argument appeared to strike a solemn but dissonant chord in Justice Sonia Sotomayor after the back-and-forth with Dreeben.

Turning to Dreeben, the justice asked if the “stable democracy society” required the “good faith of its public officials” and that “good faith” would assume those officials would loyally follow the laws of the United States.

“Correct,” Dreeben said.

But putting that ideal situation aside for a moment and considering the real world, Sotomayor remarked that “there is no fail-safe system of government.”

“Meaning, we have a judicial system that has layers and layers and layers of protection for accused defendants in the hopes that the innocent will go free,” she said. “We fail routinely.”

The justice continued:

But we succeed, more often than not, in the vast majority of cases and the innocent do go free. Sometimes they don't and we have some post-conviction remedies for that. But we still fail, and we've executed innocent people.

Having said that, Justice Alito went through step by step all of the mechanisms that could potentially fail.

In the end, if it fails completely, it's because we've destroyed democracy on our own, isn't it?

Dreeben argued that the framers of the Constitution designed the separation of powers to avoid — or, at minimum, limit — the abuses of a democratic system.

“The ultimate check is the goodwill and faith in democracy and the crimes that are alleged in this case are the antithesis of democracy,” he said.

Trump faces four felony charges in Washington, D.C., connected to his alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Separate of this exchange on Thursday, there are many other notable moments at arguments including Justice Neal Gorsuch dreading the idea of having to face the issue of whether a president can issue a self-pardon and Justice Amy Coney Barrett asking a Trump lawyer if he conceded that private acts are not protected.

!chuds

https://twitter.com/Liz_Andromeda/status/1783618711137505445

JUST IN: Justice Alito just blew up the entire argument by the DOJ.

Alito: "If the president gets advice from the attorney general, that something is lawful, is that an absolute defense?"

Dreeben: “yes”

Alito: “Wouldn’t the President just pick an AG who’ll let him do… pic.twitter.com/T2L7u29nZU

— 🇺🇸Travis Media Group🇺🇸 (@TM1Politics) April 25, 2024

Also reminder how they treated the one Kang they did let on the big screen

https://thehilltoponline.com/2024/02/05/jonathan-majors-ouster-puts-the-marvel-universe-in-a-precarious-position/

Oh my god…

I missed this originally but he’s also proposing a 25% tax on UNREALIZED gains.

UNREALIZED.

That’s for wealthy individuals but still, absolute insanity. A lot of people would just leave the US and the government would likely have less tax revenue than before. https://t.co/J0XecKgAM0

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) April 24, 2024

The Ukraine aid already isn't enough

As America becomes richer the numbers of free gibs provided to the populace increase year on year.

The primary difference between the gibs given by the government in America and those given by the Europeans to their citizens is that the American would give a free gib to the people at x per capita income, meanwhile the European will give that same free gib to the people at 1/2 X per capita value.

In this manner the European flow of investment rises forth slower than the American model, and thus giving it too early made it difficult for the European model to be able to handle the stresses of random crisis events.

Americans ended up becoming adaptable capable of moving from job to job. Meanwhile Europeans ended up being stuck in place demanding of the government more than it could legitimately afford to give while still running a functional state that grows prosperous.

The European model gave too many freebies too early and now barely stays above the red. Meanwhile the US gives every freebie exactly when its rich enough to give it as a cheap additional expense upon the people.

The greatest lessons that the rest of the world can learn from America over Europe is the correct ratio of per capita income to net value of individual gibs ratio.

America gives just enough to make the people want to keep pushing themselves forward while still having enough to survive even if everything fails.

Europe gives enough for people to comfortably waste away if they felt like it.

The US clearly has a better system of government expenditure towards the local populace in terms of handouts.