Has he tried claiming that he hasn't been excommunicated and storming the Vatican?
I think this is unironically how they need to spin it. Convince the Republican base that this ruling is actually better for Biden than it is for Trump by repeating their own false narratives back to them - that the Biden Crime Family will get away with everything. Albeit, the things he could actually get away with are limited to what the court determines is an official act, and given the current makeup of the SCOTUS it's unlikely that they would side with him even if there were precedent, but he would be still almost untouchable under this new ruling no matter how you spin it.
Have a case against Joe Biden? Sorry, all of that evidence is now inadmissible in a court of law because it happened while he was president. Too bad, Republicans! Maybe if you were to... I dunno, pass a constitutional amendment that revoked that privilege. But oooooh nooooo, that would be horrible! Please, anything but that! All our nefarious plots would be undone and Biden would go to prison!
The left functionality doesn't exist in this country. We stamped them out in the Cold War and replaced them with the new Democrats who were all for social progressivism but economically were beholden to corporate interests. Then you have the conservatives who are so socially regressive they think Sharia Law is a roadmap and are so in bed with corporate interests that they'd be fine if kids died in coal mines as long as someone at the top is getting paid.
We can't have the true left back until we get voting reform. Ranked choice or approval voting is essential to allow 3rd parties to have a chance to flourish without causing a spoiler effect. That will also pull the Overton window back to the left again as the two major political parties will have less of an incentive to court extremists and will see better results at the polls if their platforms appeal to as many people as possible.
Except for the whole retiring from public life part. I wish Trump would just retire from life entirely.
If they toss out this guilty verdict, I'm going to burn it all down. No justice, no peace.
What Biden needs to do, like right fucking now, is pack the courts. AOC trying with a token effort to get them impeached is cute, but will ultimately fail because Republicans won't turn on their own. The Senate is tied (if you count Bernie as one of the dems) and Harris has the tiebreaker. The house is controlled by the Republicans, but only 7 individuals need to break from their party in order to get a simple majority to save the future of America.
Biden could expand the SCOTUS from 9 seats to 13 and immediately submit 4 liberal justices for confirmation to be seated. ~~Expanding the court doesn't require congressional approval, so Biden could do this unilaterally and~~ as long as he is able to get butts in those seats, they're there to stay even if Trump squeaks his way back in. They could then challenge and overturn the immunity ruling, as well as all the other dogshit rulings that have come out in the last couple of years like Dobbs.
He threatened to do it before. He needs to actually pull the trigger.
His failed plot to overturn the legitimate election by submitting a fake slate of electors? Yes, we remember.
You probably wouldn't hire a convicted felon either, but here we are.
Like seriously, I'm tired of whining on the internet about this shit. Where can I go to learn about joining a protest? It's better that doing fuck all by tut-tutting the establishment hellbent on fucking us over while they count their money.
I'm clairvoyant and I can see the future: They won't. It's always been all bark and no bite when it comes to armed revolution here in the states.
Literal last minute decision on this one. SCOTUS is definitely running interference for Trump, without a doubt.
Biden should declare Trump a national security threat and have him assassinated. That's an "official act", is it not? Sure, it helps Biden immensely, but now who is to determine where an official act ends and a private self-serving one begins? Are those two necessarily mutually exclusive?
Been saying that for years. It's been a quarter millennium, how about we get the best and brightest minds from every field of academia, science, philosophy, and yes, even *shudder* religion, to get together and literally hold a constitutional convention? Just toss that old scrap of parchment out and re-write it from scratch, with modern language that is unambiguous and straightforward. If the rights enshrined in the Constitution that we hold so dear to us are actually that important, I'm sure they'll make the cut for Constitution v2.0. But while we're in there, we might as well clarify some stuff. Let's clarify that 14th amendment, let's define what a "well regulated militia" is, and so on.
Of course, the people in power like the ambiguity. It means that as long as someone somewhere could interpret the constitution in some way that is favorable to them, they can have it mean whatever they want when it suits them and as long as they keep the populace at each other's throats with an unending culture war they know we'll never organize enough to change that. It's a bit of a pessimistic outlook. Our fates are controlled by people who like the dysfunction and that sucks because we could very easily fix a lot of the problems by unifying, but I don't know if that's possible at this point.