Oh absolutely, those numbers are extremely rough and not specific to any person. Nothing like being rich to help extend your life. And things can just be unfair sometimes too. Some people do seemingly everything wrong health wise and got very lucky, and some do everything right and get unlucky. I would be surprised if Biden didn't live longer than Trump.

There's somewhat of a myth in the medical field, that nice patients will have something terrible and are doomed, but cantankerous patients will somehow stay alive through pure channeled hate.

But yes with all the hamberders you would think. And he's 78, only about 2.5 years younger than Biden. According to actuary tables, roughly 5.3% chance of dying in the next year (7.1% for Biden).

Look, Judge Cannon says you raise some good points too. We'll need some time for written briefs from each side. Due three months from now. Then we'll need time for written responses, at least another month. We'll schedule a few days of hearings to really hash through those details. And then she promises to think about it real hard, imply she'll dismiss the case immediately once the trial begins, but make no actual official ruling yet, that would be premature. Then we have this backlog of other issues to work through of course even though we never actually decided anything yet on this issue. What, you suggest we address these issues in parellel? How dare you speak to a judge in this way, you are being inappropriate!! These issues that have been ruled on many times in the past by other courts as a routine matter are totally novel and demand years of study before a trial can begin!

Etc etc etc

If he doesn't win the election and just fire half the justice department next January, she may just push the trial date so far Trump dies of natural causes before it even happens.

I thought he was a little bit of a piece of shit. I was surprised to find out he's a facist who doesn't believe in the rule of law though. Not surprised at all about Alito and Thomas though. Or Thomas making a concurrence to explicitly try and help give Trump even more ammo. I guess both literally and figuratively if he gets back in office.

Exactly, that's what's so scary about this. The courts now explicitly can't consider things like motive to determine any of this. Just the action in a general sense. And since of course restricting the ability of a president to speak publicly to supporters in the general sense could infringe on the power of the executive, immune.

And even if by some miracle some act was declared unofficial, he could either pardon the person or himself (automatically an official act), or fire the prosecutors bringing the case (automatically an official act). Or in the extreme case, order an assassination (automatically official act). Those core powers in article 2 mean even when the president uses some power not described in article 2, even when a court overcomes the extremely high hurdle placed to declare something not an official act and without immunity, it will still all be for naught. There's effectively no limits.

Trump has already said he wants to pardon the January 6rh rioters/coup participants. Immune.

Weird cause I've got the FTC act right here. Says this:

(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

And then later on it has this whole entire section where it lays out the process for how the FTC is supposed to make rules in regards to unfair or deceptive practices

Except as provided in subsection (h) of this section, the Commission may prescribe-- (A) interpretive rules and general statements of policy with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of section 45(a)(1) of this title), and (B) rules which define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of section 45(a)(1) of this title)

And more sections about how they can enforce those rules on individual rule breakers.

Sure sounds like congress was trying to give the FTC the authority to make rules about unfair competition. Both general rules and with "specificity" apparently. Specifically here, non compete agreements have been declared an unfair practice and they followed all rule making procedures as laid out in the law.

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/statutes/federal-trade-commission-act/ftc_act_incorporatingus_safe_web_act.pdf

Except the means of helping to get them homes of course.

If anything it seems like the media hasn't grasped just how bad this is. Too focused on plastering the front page every day with more anonymous source opinions on if Biden is going to stay in the race or not. The whole official vs unofficial acts thing just has tricked people to believing there's some discretion or something. There's not. If it's a power listed in the constitution, like the military or pardons, the president can legally do whatever they want with that power for any reason. And the unofficial vs official acts determination explicitly doesn't allow consideration of motives or results. So talking to justice department employees is official? Alright, then talking with justice department employees to coordinate a bribe or a coup means immunity. As long as the president is using functions of government to commit crimes basically, they're golden.

I ate the onion on this one for a second.

Okay I'm not saying she's the best choice, wouldn't be my preferred choice, but also this is a poll run by the Daily Mail. I can't even find any pollster reputation ratings for them. I also can't find any of their methodologies published online, which is also sketchy. And knowing what we all do about the Daily Mail anyways, this should all be taken with a massive truckload of salt.

Edit: Ah found it, it was run by J.L partners, ranked 145 on five thirty eight pollster rankings for reliability (1.6/3 stars for reliability with a transparency score of 4.2/10). And again, without the methodology being published who knows. The pollster themself, James Johnson, is also a former senior advisor to Theresa May and the UK conservative party.

Whaaaaaaa???? But I thought Israel totally didn't have any nuclear weapons

The president already was protected from all civil lawsuits due to previous rulings. This ruling was only about criminal prosecutions.

He has absolute immunity for any use, for any reason, of his core presidential powers include anything listed in article 2 (the military, pardons, firing or hiring officials within the executive department). There is no determining if those are an official act or not. Anything the president does with an article 2 power is an official act with absolute immunity now. Motives or reason for using that power or the outcome of that cannot be questioned. It is legal for the president to accept a bribe to pardon someone right now. The fact that it happened couldn't even be mentioned in court.

Only when the president is doing something not listed in the constitution can it be determined if it's an official or unofficial act by the courts and should be immune. And again it's the action, not the motive or the result or purpose of the action, that determines whether it is official. The only example they gave was talking to justice department officials is official. So if he is talking to justice department officials to arrange a bribe or plan a coup? Legal, immune, can't even be used as evidence against him. It doesn't matter why he was talking to the justice department, the fact that he was makes him immune from any laws he breaks in the process of doing so. They aren't determining if a bribe or coup is an official act, they're determining if talking to justice department officials in general is. It doesn't matter what he's actually doing it for, arranging a coup? That's perfectly okay. Oh someone found out, pardon everyone else involved in the conspiracy who wasn't already immune. Now it can't even be brought up in court.

In the example you gave of ordering an assassination, if it used the military to do the assassination that is a core power, cannot be questioned. The supreme court ruling placed no limits on what can be done with his article 2 powers. Only a nebulous official vs not official test for things not listed in article 2. There's also a very worrying core power in article 2 about "ensuring laws are faithfully executed" that even Barrett thought was too much in her concurrence as it could apply to seemingly anything. Basically, as long as the president is using the levers of government to commit crimes, legal now.

Impeachment is the only recourse now as you say, but even if impeached and removed from office by some miracle, they still wouldn't be able to be held criminally liable afterwards for that.

Everyone panicking in this thread is right to do so.