Post New

The key question I have is:
When, in our 200 year history, was criminal immunity required for the President to make the correct choice for the country?

Judge Luttig blasts SCOTUS for avoiding ‘key question’ at the heart of Trump immunity case, April 28, 2024
The narrow and only question for the USSC is:
Can Trump be prosecuted for the specific offenses he committed while trying to overturn the 2020 election?
How do you draw the line between using hypotheticals ... versus discussing the very specific thing that you're talking about?...
It's fundamental to the judicial process that a court only decide what is before it, and no other issue... The Supreme Court barely discussed the straightforward question before it... It resembled a law class discussing all of the possible crimes a President could commit.
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/judge-lutti...

==================
hypotheticals in USSC oral arguments. The President needs criminal immunity for official acts such as: assassination of rival, election fraud, giving nuclear secrets to enemies, stage a coup, bribery, quid pro quo gifts, lying to Congress, unwarranted drone strikes, unlawfully inducing immigration, peaceful protest, to encourage a peaceful transfer of power.


If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?

What is plausible about the president insisting and creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates?

If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?

How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?

What if the president appoints a particular individual to a country, but it's in exchange for a bribe.

Justice Scalia wrote an opinion for a unanimous Court in which he used a hypothetical about what would happen if the president received a sports replica jersey at a typical White House event. Would that violate Section 201(c)?

Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq?

Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike?

Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies?

So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II?

A president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a piece of legislation that's going through.

An incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?

When, in our 200 year history, was criminal immunity required for the President to make the correct choice for the country?

Channeling the what I think the SCOTUS will say....always?

For example, in 1952 Harry S. Truman made the decision to nationalize the country's steel mills - basically just seized them from their private owners. This was in order to ensure that steel worker strikes wouldn't jeopardize the Korean War effort. Ultimately, Truman's actions were ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

The President's civil immunity clearly protects Truman from the rather well-supported claims that he damaged their businesses by unlawfully trying to seize the steel mills. But should he face criminal charges for conspiracy to commit theft? He certainly meets all the elements of that crime, at least under Florida law as it's written today - "a person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a) deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property." Could Truman be charged for that crime?

Or perhaps a more recent example - President Obama asserted executive privilege to prevent the disclosure of various government records to Congressional Republicans during the "Fast and the Furious" investigation. That assertion of executive privilege was later overturned by a federal judge, who ruled that Obama had an obligation to provide Congress the documents. Doesn't take much of a stretch to argue that President Obama was engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a federal proceeding by wrongfully withholding those documents - for the purpose of improving his personal political power to boot.

We've never needed to invoke immunity in contexts like that before, because no one would ever imagine prosecuting a President in those contexts. But if Truman or Obama (or any other President) had actually faced the risk of being hauled off into criminal court for making those kinds of decisions? Maybe they're a lot more tentative in fulfilling their office.

President's haven't needed immunity for the last 200 years in a legalistic framework, because they've enjoyed de facto immunity due to prosecutorial tradition. No prosecutor would ever have thought to bring charges against a President for things that are so obviously within the scope of their official duties. But if any ever had, you can bet the courts would have dismissed those charges under at least a finding of qualified immunity, and probably would find absolute immunity for those things too.

I think these are an accurate formulation of the arguments that can and will be made by those seeking to codify an expansion to some degree of this de facto immunity. I'm not sure if it will be successful in widening such immunity though I'm absolutely sure there are four votes on the court to do so, Roberts being the swing vote and I'm pretty sure he will lean towards an expansion as well.

But while these may be valid arguments, are they valid and comparable to the facts in the present? Absolutely not.

In 1952, the US was at war, needing ammunition produced for the war in Korea and had reconstruction obligations to projects in Europe to resurrect their economies and fend off Russia. Congress had enacted the Defense Production Act providing certain powers to the Executive branch to dictate manufacturing priorities and wage/price controls in industries related to defense. Unionized steel workers were organizing to act as one and strike nationally while steel firms were claiming higher wages would bankrupt the industry. Both parties worked through a government mediation board for months with no progress and both hardened their positions, leaving the country at a point where it might have virtually no new steel being made and would wind up short of shells in Korea in weeks.

I'm not an expert in labor law or aspects related to seizure of private assets in war time but with the benefit of hindsight, it seems like seizing control of the steel mills in an attempt to ensure continued production was not optimal and wasn't "legal" according to terms of the Defense Production Act and related amendments. However, no one at the time or since has argued that Truman seized the mills to force continued production to benefit from it personally. He did it in the process of acting as Commander in Chief to ensure viable support for Korea and our own troops in an active war.

In the Fast & Furious case, the "gun walking" at the core of the case originated in 2006 during a different Administration and all of the investigations into the fiasco indicate the concept of allowing a certain number of guns be sold to criminals to trace them to larger gun running rings originated in the Phoenix bureau of ATF, not in the upper echelons of the Bush or Obama Administrations in the FBI or DOJ or in the Attorney General's office. When the details of the plan became public in 2011 or 2012, it became an opportunity for Republicans in the House and Senate to make partisan points against Obama and Holder. They probably didn't know at that time how far back the program dated. At some point, that animosity triggered a subpoena for documents about internal decisions within the DOJ, which Holder refused at Obama's direction. The judge brought into the case at the appeals level backed the Republican push for a while triggering more litigation that lasted into the Trump Administration.

In hindsight, the fight over Fast & Furious documents appeared to be just partisan grandstanding. This is somewhat obvious because once Democrats reached a position to demand copies of internal DOJ documents regarding the Mueller investigation, the Trump Administration made precisely the same arguments trying to prevent those "internal documents" of the Executive branch from being reviewed by Congress. The courts eventually extricated themselves from the case ruling that Courts were given no authority to settle arguments between the Legislative and Executive branches only involving the two branch's internal operations. (That possibly became the excuse for the recent spike of mutual refusals of subpoenas between DOJ and Congress.)

Again, it's possible to argue that Obama intentionally hindered the ability of another branch of government to do its duties but A), it could be argued the documents were subpoenaed by Congress for exactly the same reason - to interfere with the Executive branch's internal operations and B) Obama was not personally or economically benefiting from his decision.

In contrast with the above examples, every criminal charge made against Trump involves actions which not just PARTLY benefited Trump as a side-effect of some public "good" sought by the action but PRIMARILY benefited Trump. In the case of the catch-and-kill charges, Trump's crimes exclusively benefited HIM alone

* by hiding tawdry personal matters (not a crime)
* by paying large sums of money (not a crime)
* disguised as business expenses (criminal)
* further disguised through tax-grossups to reduce personal and business taxes (criminal)
* to aid a political campaign (not a crime)
* without disclosing said campaign costs (criminal)

In the insurrection case, Trump's crimes exclusively benefited HIM alone

* by increasing the chance enough Republicans would alter electoral slates (criminal)
* by altering legitimate election outcomes and defrauding millions of voters (criminal)
* allowing him to retain power and further delay outcomes in looming personal lawsuits already pending

In the national security documents case, it frankly isn't clear WHO would benefit from Trump's decision to keep the documents. It would be difficult to USE any information in such documents without eventually seeing a link in some other event back to the documents. However, in the event of such a stupid, reckless action, clearly Trump would be the ONLY one to benefit by possibly

* using information within to extort political allies / enemies?
* using information within to extort bribes from foreign business interests or powers?
* seducing his next ex-wife by showing her his big secret document trove?
* autioning them off for cash on ebayforspooks.com?????

There is a UNIVERSE of difference between choices any prior President has made and the choices Trump made before, during and after his Presidency. If the US was ever going to contemplate relaxing that whole "no man is above the law" ideal, Trump is NOT the person to use in justifying a change.


WTH

Probably should have worded this:

In contrast with the above examples, every criminal charge made against Trump involves actions which not just PARTLY benefited Trump as a side-effect of some public "good" sought by the action but PRIMARILY benefited Trump.

like this:

In contrast with the above examples, every criminal charge made against Trump involves actions which not just PARTLY benefited Trump as a side-effect of some public "good" sought by the action but PRIMARILY benefited Trump and produced HARM for everyone else.


WTH

Thank you for the thought-provoking responses.

Truman thought he had authority, and so criminal immunity was not required for Truman's decision to seize the steel mills. There was no criminal intent. There are often different interpretations of laws. Acting under a mistaken good-faith interpretation of the law is not a crime for government officials.

"Truman was stunned by the decision, but he immediately restored control of the steel mills to their owners."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26...

"Truman himself was shocked by his Supreme Court smackdown, in part because he thought his arguments were sound."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/01/08/...

Truman thought he had authority, and so criminal immunity was not required for Truman's decision to seize the steel mills. There was no criminal intent. There are often different interpretations of laws. Acting under a mistaken good-faith interpretation of the law is not a crime for government officials.

No doubt. But proving that element of mens rea is a defense to a charge of a crime - not a basis for immunity from prosecution. IOW, even though Truman (or Obama) would likely prevail in a criminal prosecution by presenting evidence that his actions were founded on a good-faith interpretation of the law and not simply a callous disregard for someone else's property ownership, that's a factual question to be determined in the course of the prosecution. It's not a slam dunk, in Truman's case - lots of people were very vigorously arguing that he was breaking the law in taking that action. Proving that he didn't believe them, that despite there being objective arguments for why his actions were illegal that he didn't act with that state of mind, is a defense to be asserted in the prosecution. Not immunity....

...unless you adopt a rule that says that Presidents are immune from prosecution when they are acting within the scope of their authority, even where there is a strong claim that their actions were unlawful.

We've never had to parse that out before, because prosecutors have never gone after a former President for actions they took while President. But I don't think it would be too difficult to find a "conspiracy to defraud" charge against every modern President, because every modern President tries to hinder Congress from doing something. I mean, that's part of the point of checks and balances - Congress and the President are somewhat in competition in trying to wield Federal power, and there's always something that the opposition Congress is trying to do that the President would like to slow/stop (and vice versa). Is the President subject to prosecution for interfering with official proceedings every time he tries to thwart a Congressional committee from doing something he objects to? If not, what's the rule that we apply to reach that conclusion? 'Cause I bet it's going to look a lot like immunity....

The prosecution must prove mens rea. Truman had none, and so the prosecution fails. Criminal immunity is not needed in this case. (I'm still working through your other historical examples.)

The prosecution must prove mens rea. Truman had none, and so the prosecution fails.

The prosecution might indeed fail. People are acquitted all the time. There are also people who are arrested, arraigned, charged, and go through the early stages of a criminal prosecution before getting their cases dismissed on a legal point.

But that's not immunity. Immunity is that you can't be charged in the first place - you're immune from prosecution.

Plus....are you sure you can't prove mens rea for Truman? Despite his protestations, it's not like the outcome of Youngstown was a complete and total shock - there were plenty of well-founded legal objections to what Truman did, the action was widely excoriated in the press, and the Administration lost at both the trial court and the SCOTUS level. Mens rea is tricky - it's almost always proven by circumstantial evidence, and there's plenty of evidence that Truman knew that what he was doing was unlawful (certainly plenty of people telling him it was).

I mean, I agree - probably not enough to convince a jury. But you could probably convince a judge that there is enough evidence to ask the jury to rule on whether Truman knew (or should have known) his actions were illegal. Same thing with the Obama case: certainly the President will claim that he felt that he was within his rights to refuse to cooperate with the Congressional investigation, and that's probably where a jury would land - but it wouldn't be hard to assemble some evidence that he knew (or should have known) that his position was wrong, and that the prosecution should be allowed to put it to the jury.

Again, there's a difference between "the prosecution will probably lose" and "the President is immune from the suit."

albaby1: That assertion of executive privilege was later overturned by a federal judge, who ruled that Obama had an obligation to provide Congress the documents.

Not because the judge thought his original argument of privilege was wrong (or obstructive) but because other information the Justice Department had previously released on the topic rendered his claim unsustainable.

She wrote: “This ruling is not predicated on a finding that the withholding was intended to cloak wrongdoing on the part of government officials or that the withholding itself was improper.”

Again, there's a difference between "the prosecution will probably lose" and "the President is immune from the suit."

--------------------

Agreed. This conversation in the press and probably many forums like this frequently cross two separate issues:

* is it POSSIBLE for me to be CHARGED with a crime (and incur the expenses thereof)
* is it POSSIBLE / LIKELY for me to be CONVICTED of a crime (much higher standard)

If we are trying to shield presumably "good" individuals in elected office from the harm of malicious attempts at PROSECUTION by opponents simply hoping to harass them via judicial means and possibly bankrupt them with legal fees, then explicitly declaring certain types of "official acts" as immune from prosecution serves that purpose.

If we are trying to shield the COUNTRY from the acts of a potentially VERY BAD actor becoming President and using the already vast and ambiguous powers of that office for PERSONAL gain or for exacting harm on enemies, then explicitly NARROWING or REMOVING assumptions of immunity is a wiser course of action.

Perhaps the real philisophical debate to be had involves this question: Who is deserving of a wider margin of error? An individual holding the office of President and their presumption of innocence to the point of not being able to even prosecute them? Or We The People, in our right to assume the person elected to the Presidency will stay so far away from the line between ethical / moral / legal behavior and the other that if someone wants to make the charge, well, that's part of the deal of becoming President?

The founders of this country reflected a great deal of understanding of individual human nature when they devised the set of checks and balances between the branches of the American government. Those levers and knobs provided a proper balance between the immediate responsiveness and more calm, cool-headed thinking required to fend off a wide variety of individual and group corruption in government.

What the founders did NOT fathom when devising these checks and balances is a scenario when a vast portion of the electorate might actively, KNOWINGLY elect someone of such low moral caliber to office AND elect a supporting cast who have been rigging the judiciary for decades with people willing to support the abuse of a "unitary" President with nearly unlimited powers.

It seems 100% certain the USSC will continue backing the consolidation of power within the Presidency with the thought their preferred choice might regain power. It's up to the voters to see the cards on the table and the hands dealt and vote appropriately. No one can say they weren't warned of the consequences.


WTH

Not because the judge thought his original argument of privilege was wrong (or obstructive) but because other information the Justice Department had previously released on the topic rendered his claim unsustainable.

She wrote: “This ruling is not predicated on a finding that the withholding was intended to cloak wrongdoing on the part of government officials or that the withholding itself was improper.”

Fair enough - then just pick any other instance where the administration made a call that was later overturned by the courts. Say, some AG construing DAPA as an effort to obstruct immigration hearings.

albaby1: Fair enough - then just pick any other instance...

To what end? I'm not sure what point you think you're making but no one is talking about indicting a president for presidential acts. And as Trump's own attorney admitted, some of the actions for which he's been indicted were personal in nature, not presidential. They had nothing to do with his role as president but were performed as "candidate" Trump.

Trump had no role is state elections and has no business asking the Georgia secretary of state to go find him 11,000+ votes and threaten him by suggesting he could find himself in legal jeopardy.

Trump had no role in the ceremonial counting of electoral ballots.

Entering into a conspiracy to put forward illegitimate state electors is not part of the president's duties.

Sending a mob to the U.S. Capitol is not among a president's responsibilities.

Removing classified documents while leaving the White House, hiding them, refusing to return them under subpoena, and obstructing an investigation to have them returned is not a president's duties.

Trump is not being indicted for profiting off the presidency, arranging where an FBI headquarters can be located to make him the most profit, bungling a COVID pandemic that left more than one million Americans dead, or other unethical or perhaps illegal acts he performed while actually exercising his role as president.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making but no one is talking about indicting a president for presidential acts.

Oh, but we are.

Yes, we all disagree with Trump that these acts were official or presidential. But that's not how the lower courts decided the issue. Trump alleged at the trial court that all of his acts were official, and therefore immune from prosecution. The lower court could have disposed of that defense by having an evidentiary hearing and ruling that the acts were private, and therefore not immune. Instead, the lower court ruled that criminal immunity was not available for any acts. The appellate court also held that immunity was unavailable for any acts, even official ones.

So that's how the issue got presented to the SCOTUS - whether there is any immunity for any actions by the President, official or private. So the Court has to rule on both buckets of actions. Because if immunity does exist for presidential acts, then Trump has the right to make the argument that his acts were presidential. The lower courts never ruled on whether Trump's acts were official or private, the Court doesn't have that in front of them - all they can do is establish rules that the lower court has to follow when making that determination, if or when they draw a distinction between presidential and non-presidential acts.

So that's how the issue got presented to the SCOTUS - whether there is any immunity for any actions by the President, official or private. So the Court has to rule on both buckets of actions.

---------------------

And therein lies the madness.

The lower courts are trying to adjudicate this matter in a timely fashion given its criticality to the country. In fact, there are no immunities granted to the role of President in the original Constitution or any of its amendments. As Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in the hearing, there ARE references to immunity in several state Constitutions from the original thirteen states which predate the Constitution enacted in 1789. It's not like the parties who CREATED the Constitution were unfamiliar with the concept and "forgot" to include it. The lower court looked at the Constitution exactly like the majority of the Supreme Court CLAIMS to look at the Constitution when deciding issues and CORRECTLY found there is NO privilege of criminal immunity granted to Presidents,

* while in office
* after leaving office
* for criminal acts committed prior to office or after office
* for criminal acts committed while in office
* for "personal crimes" acting as an individual
* for "official crimes" acting as President

To avoid the defendant continually playing Constitutional whack-a-mole with the court, the court attempted to explicitly close off all potential pointless appeals by the defendant by explicitly itemizing all of the scenarios under which a Constitution with NO REFERENCE to Presidential criminal immunity would apply.

And now a majority of Justices all beholden to a Federalist Society world view that supports ever-increasing power for a President suddenly steps in using the "justification" of a lower court ruling outlining all of the "NO" scenarios to, in fact, turn that ruling on its head by launching a search for justifications to somehow FIND intent or the need for Presidential criminal immunity when there is ZERO support in the physical words of the Constitution, any legitimate history of the thinking of the original writers of the Constitution or in any legitimate reading of the larger legal history on this matter. As a history professor from Stanford put it, even the Founders at the time of the Revolution thought kings were bound by natural laws. It was the violation of those laws in the eyes of the founders that triggered our Revolution, not the fact that King George III was a king per se. The Supreme Court is literally working to create criminal immunity for a President which is part of no modern democracy's legal or historical underpinnings. In effect, the USSC is attempting to create a "super-king."

We are truly through the looking glass.


WTH

The lower courts never ruled on whether Trump's acts were official or private

I don't recall the lower court being asked to make that distinction (but then I don't read the transcripts).

Was there a motion by the defense to rule that Trump's all the charges were for official national purposes, as opposed to private desires of a candidate?

And now a majority of Justices all beholden to a Federalist Society world view that supports ever-increasing power for a President suddenly steps in using the "justification" of a lower court ruling outlining all of the "NO" scenarios to, in fact, turn that ruling on its head by launching a search for justifications to somehow FIND intent or the need for Presidential criminal immunity when there is ZERO support in the physical words of the Constitution, any legitimate history of the thinking of the original writers of the Constitution or in any legitimate reading of the larger legal history on this matter.

All true....but almost impossible to square with Nixon v. Fitzgerald, where the Court ruled that civil immunity existed for all Presidential actions. Almost all of the reasoning in Nixon as to civil suits applies to criminal liability as well. From the Court's syllabus:

The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/73...

None of these things seem to be worth worrying about in the specifics of the crimes alleged in Trump's case. We don't want to preserve the President's ability to stage a de facto coup, as Smith alleges. We don't want him to be able to order an assassination, either. But in a world where you can be brought up on charges for interfering with a federal proceeding - which is a fairly common thing for the two co-ordinate Constitutional branches of the Legislature and the Executive to do to each other - you might want to preserve the ability to step back and make sure that a sitting President isn't refraining from arguably lawful and appropriate (though hotly contested) actions because everything he does can land him in jail if his party loses the next election.

I don't recall the lower court being asked to make that distinction (but then I don't read the transcripts).

Was there a motion by the defense to rule that Trump's all the charges were for official national purposes, as opposed to private desires of a candidate?

They didn't specify. The defense moved to have the charges dismissed because all of Trump's actions were official, within the "outer perimeter" of his authority, and therefore all immune. The lower court denied the motion, and the appellate court upheld that decision - both courts ruling that no criminal immunity was available to the President.

They never reached the question of whether the acts in the indictment were official or not. They just ruled that no immunity existed - at all.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-c...
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.ns...

Cool.
It’s time for Barack Obama’s murder trial to begin, then.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-con...

You libs. You just never think anything through.

When, in our 200 year history, was criminal immunity required for the President to make the correct choice for the country?

perhaps a more recent example - President Obama asserted executive privilege to prevent the disclosure of various government records to Congressional Republicans during the "Fast and the Furious" investigation. That assertion of executive privilege was later overturned by a federal judge, who ruled that Obama had an obligation to provide Congress the documents. Doesn't take much of a stretch to argue that President Obama was engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a federal proceeding by wrongfully withholding those documents - for the purpose of improving his personal political power to boot.

This is the normal give-and-take between the executive branch and the legislative branch. The judicial branch intervenes when needed as a tie-breaking vote. Criminal immunity is not needed. (The "Fast and Furious" DEA operation was a disaster. The House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, but the DOJ did not pursue prosecution. Congress did a long investigation, but did not change any laws because of "Fast and Furious".)


We've never had to parse that out before, because prosecutors have never gone after a former President for actions they took while President. But I don't think it would be too difficult to find a "conspiracy to defraud" charge against every modern President, because every modern President tries to hinder Congress from doing something.

Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Biden were gone after by prosecutors. Nixon was the only one who asked for criminal immunity.

Conspiracy against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 requires criminal intent. The President would need to prevent Congress's normal functioning by means that are dishonest. I can't think of any examples of this where the country benefited. Bush may have lied to Congress to start the Iraq War. Trump tried to stop Congress from certifying the election. Neither of these was good for the country.

Conspiracy against the United States
"To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_against_t...

Trump's brief to the USSC lists some historical examples. Most are easy to dismiss as being bad for the country. (These should not be encouraged through criminal immunity.) The drone strikes are covered through separation of powers (the president is the commander in chief). I haven't seen any example when criminal immunity was required for the President to make the correct choice for the country.

"American history contains no shortage of examples of Presidents committing allegedly “criminal” official acts—at least in the eyes of their political opponents."
John Quincy Adams appointment of Henry Clay as Secretary of State.
Andrew Jackson infamous “Trail of Tears.”
President Roosevelt internment of Japanese Americans.
President Clinton "Wag the Dog" military strikes.
President Clinton pardon of Marc Rich.
President George W. Bush lying to Congress to start the Iraq War.
President Obama drone strikes.
President Biden’s management of the southern border.
President Biden’s dealings with Iran.
President Biden’s funding of international groups.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/3...

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.