Mediaboss Marketing

Former U.S. President Donald Trump participates in the CNN Presidential Debate at the CNN Studios on June 27, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

DONALD TRUMP WON the first presidential debate the minute he walked onstage. His win was cemented a few minutes later, when the moderators addressed him as Mr. President. He had no business being there and his presence was stark evidence that our system is not only dysfunctional, it is impotent when we need it most.

The guardrailsthe impeachment process, the Twenty-fifth Amendment, the courtsdid not hold. They have proved to be a fairytale we spin to make ourselves feel better. They will remain just that: a fantasy destined to implode, over and over.

Maybe as soon as in the next few days, if the Supreme Court tells us whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for laws broken during his presidency. Maybe a few months from now, at the polls. Maybe next year, when his federal criminal trials will amount to something, or nothing, but too late to matter.

Share

Ive never understood why so many people buy into the Trump shtickthe bluster, the lies, the grift, the corruption, the amorality, the utter indifference to truth, national security, public health, and economic logicand how polls could show a static, statistically tied race. But this has been the political wallpaper of American life for years now.

Trumps appearance on the CNN debate stage was a jolting reminder of what this country has done to itself. For me it was a lightning strike of disbelief: Why was a twice-impeached, convicted felon allowed to participate? A former president who tried to overturn an election, hoarded national security secrets, and faces federal and state charges on both?

Why did President Joe Biden and his campaign not merely consent to be onstage with this man but demand an early debate?

Team Biden certainly did not anticipate that their candidate would create (even more) panic and despair about his age, health, and capacities. But many of us anticipated almost exactly what Trump would do. Aided by the debate rules, he showed some discipline and self-control in his demeanor. Aided as well by CNNs avoidance of real time fact-checking, his lies were prodigious and outrageous. Fundamental, too.

When it was over, CNNs ace fact-checker, Daniel Dale, briefly ran down what he called at least nine false or misleading statements from Biden: Statistics on drug prices, troop deaths, border crossings, taxes, and unemployment. Claims that Trump wants to end Social Security (he doesnt, Dale said) and advised Americans to inject bleach (foolish comments but not framed as advice, he said).

Dale then delivered a three-minute virtuosic rapid-fire summary of Trumps way, way longer list of lies, a staggering catalogue of at least thirty false claims, on every subject or person anyone would care aboutBiden, Nancy Pelosi, abortion, China, veterans, immigrants, NATO, taxes, Ukraine, terrorism, crime, inflation, January 6th, and the 2020 electiondismissing them with phrases like zero evidence and total nonsense:

Who could have predicted this would happen?

Anyone who watched CNNs town hall with Trump, when moderator Kaitlan Collins tried to push back on the lies and in short order had lost control of Trump, the facts, and the event. Anyone aware that CNNs political director, David Chalian, had signaled a few days in advance that the moderators would not be fact-checking. The venue of a presidential debate between these two candidates is not the ideal venue for a live fact-checking exercise, he said. That responsibility was to be left to the candidates.

Terrific. So to set the record straight in real time, Biden would have had to dispute Trump thirty times or more. He did take some opportunities to strike back, but who among us would have all the statistics and facts in our brain to effectively deploy every time? What candidate would want to use up all their time arguing that the other guy was wrong? How do you weigh and conclude on the fly what is worth rebutting and what you need to let go in order to get your own points across? In a he-said, he-said situation, intentional and by design, who would trust your rebuttals? Only those who already trust you. And who will stay tuned for a fact check after the main event, even a spectacular and spectacularly brief one like Daniel Dales?

PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT, as David Frum notes, the format of presidential debates is ill suited to our moment. But the deeper problem is that Trump was not stopped before this. Republicans failed to convict and remove him in two Senate impeachment trials arising from egregious acts. The Justice Department did not act quickly enough to bring cases against Trump. The Supreme Court and U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon gave Trump far more deference than he is due, or than other defendants get. And Democrats failed in Bidens first two years to do enough to Trump-proof democracy.

Back in 201819, while Trump was still in office, a Brennan Center for Justice task force led by former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman delved into what Congress should do to strengthen our constitutional system. The to-do list would keep lawmakers busy for years. In the first installment they suggest, among many other things, laws that require disclosure of tax returns and business records, written justifications for pardons of close associates, an enforcement scheme for the Emoluments Clause, and new power for agency inspectors general to investigate improper interference in law enforcement matters. They also call for Congress to pass a resolution expressly and categorically condemning self-pardons. One item in the equally comprehensive part two says Congress must pass laws to address the Trump administrations stunning disregard for the White House security-clearance process that is critical to protecting national security.

In todays real world, though, theres no felons need not apply condition for the presidency and its scant comfort to recognize that reading a transcript of what Biden said in the debate is somewhat better than hearing and seeing him say it. By Friday, he was doing what he could to mitigate the damage. I know Im not a young man, to state the obvious, he told a cheering crowd in Raleigh, North Carolina. I dont walk as easy as I used to. I dont speak as smoothly as I used to. I dont debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know: I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job. But scripted speeches read from a teleprompter wont undo the impression of old age that Biden left last night.

Still, the much larger point remains about Trump, not Biden: Its a disgrace that a democratic superpower would miss every single opportunity to keep a man like Trump off the debate stage, off the convention stage, and out of the White House. The Founders gave us the tools they thought wed need to prevent this recurring nightmare. But every institution has let us down, from the GOP to (even and especially) the federal courts. If Congress doesnt change our laws, and if Republicans keep equating patriotism with diehard or even lukewarm Trumpism, those institutions will continue to fail us and the prospect of another Trump will always loom on the horizon. If not closer.

Know somebody who watched the debate? Send this article their way:

Share

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump Should Not Have Been on That Stage - The Bulwark

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former president Donald Trump and other presidents enjoy a significant degree of immunity for actions taken as president, a decision that could reverberate not just in Trumps criminal cases but also for future presidents.

The court split 6-3 along ideological lines in finding that a president is a) absolutely immune for actions taken while exercising his core constitutional powers and b) entitled to the presumption of immunity for all official acts.

It said this was required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.

The court did find, though, that a president is not immune from prosecution for unofficial acts.

That last finding opens the door to the continuation of Trumps 2020 federal election-subversion trial. But the decision takes some Trump conduct off the table and leaves plenty up in the air. That should lead to an even more protracted legal battle that appears even likelier to push the proceedings beyond the 2024 election, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee.

Below are some takeaways from the ruling.

While Trump didnt get the absolute immunity he initially sought for all acts oral arguments suggested that it was unlikely he would the decision is clearly a political victory. He got more than many predicted, and it should tie up his case.

The justices didnt delve deeply into extensive details of what is and isnt fair game in Trumps trials. They instead mostly set broad parameters and sent the case back to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to consider how those parameters affect the case.

All of which means some of Trumps conduct can still be prosecuted, but some cannot. And figuring out what can and cannot be is to be determined.

The other crucial point: The court ruled not only that Trump cant be prosecuted for certain conduct, but also that conduct for which he is immune cant even be used as evidence against him. So his interactions with Justice Department officials, for instance, cant be used to establish a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election.

On this point, one of the six conservative justices in the majority dissented.

The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurrence.

She added: To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the Presidents criminal liability.

While Trump can still technically be prosecuted, the decision will lead to plenty of uncertainty and most crucially for the 2024 election probably delay matters even further. Trump wasnt expected to face trial before the election; this reduces whatever chance existed.

Thats because Chutkan will have to consider which parts of the prosecutions case are now permitted. And that could lead to lengthy arguments and consideration. Such decisions could also lead to lengthy appeals. Chutkan previously stated she would give Trumps legal team three months to prepare for a trial should the case be sent back to her. That meant the earliest trial date was already October, irrespective of the new decisions that will have to be made.

The Supreme Courts majority suggested that certain aspects of the indictment will have to be revisited including comments Trump made on Jan. 6 itself.

[The indictment] includes only select Tweets and brief snippets of the speech Trump delivered on the morning of January 6, omitting its full text or context, the majority wrote. Whether the Tweets, that speech, and Trumps other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each.

It added: This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court.

Its tempting to view this decision in the context of Trumps trials, because thats the immediate concern. But it will also have far-reaching implications for future presidents, including for a potential second Trump term.

The courts liberal wing raised a giant red flag on that front, casting the decision as empowering future presidents to take drastic actions.

Perhaps the most striking arguments in the case revolved around hypotheticals about just what a grant of immunity could mean in the future.

The courts liberals say much is now on the table. Justice Sonia Sotomayor went the furthest in her dissent.

Orders the Navys Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune, Sotomayor wrote. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Sotomayor added: The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was more measured, warning only that a president could now be immune from such charges.

Thus, even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majoritys new Presidential accountability model, Jackson wrote.

The decision lands as Trump appears to be an increasing favorite to reclaim the White House in the 2024 election after President Bidens poor debate performance Thursday, and Trump has at the very least demonstrated a tendency to push the limits of the law and presidential power.

The decision could provide Trump a road map for exploiting those powers, and the liberal justices clearly fear what he might do with that.

With fear for our democracy, I dissent, Sotomayor concluded.

The ruling caps a remarkably bad five-day period for Democrats.

First came Bidens awful debate performance Thursday. Then came a pair of Supreme Court rulings Friday limiting government prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants a significant PR victory for Trump and giving the right a long-sought tool to challenge federal agency officials.

Now comes a ruling that significantly complicates the governments case against Trump, at the least, and could empower Trump to wield executive power in more extreme ways in a second term.

Given that prospect, which Democrats so fear, its likely that Mondays ruling will add even more urgency to internal party debates about how to proceed in the 2024 election and whether Biden is the right candidate to carry the torch forward.

Continued here:
Analysis | 4 takeaways from the Supreme Court's Trump immunity decision - The Washington Post

OPINION ANALYSIS

The justices handed a significant victory to former President Donald Trump in Trump v. United States on Monday. (Katie Barlow)

This article was updated on July 1 at 3:32 p.m.

In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly.

The decision left open the possibility that the charges brought against former President Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith alleging that Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election can still go forward to the extent that the charges are based on his private conduct, rather than his official acts.

The case now returns to the lower courts for them to determine whether the conduct at the center of the charges against Trump was official or unofficial an inquiry that, even if it leads to the conclusion that the charges can proceed, will almost certainly further delay any trial in the case, which had originally been scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024 but is currently on hold.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the president is not above the law. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, countered that if a future president misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.

The decision was the latest chapter in a case that began last year, when Trump was indicted on four counts arising from Smiths investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The indictment contended that Trump created widespread mistrust through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud and then conspired to undermine a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nations process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.

Trump asked Chutkan to throw out the charges against him, arguing that he is immune from prosecution because he was the president. Chutkan turned that request down in early December, explaining that the presidency does not confer a lifelong get-out-of-jail-free pass.

Smith went to the Supreme Court later that month, asking the justices to weigh in on Trumps immunity without waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule on Trumps appeal. But the justices declined to do so, and it was six weeks Feb. 6, 2024 before the court of appeals issued its opinion rejecting Trumps claim to immunity.

Trump then came to the Supreme Court, seeking review of the D.C. Circuits ruling. Two weeks later, the justices agreed to take up his case. They scheduled the argument for late April putting the case on a faster track than it normally would have been, but a slower schedule than they had established for another case involving Trump, the challenge to Colorados disqualification of the former president from its ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks. That case was set for argument just over one month after the court announced that it would review the case in January, and the court issued its decision for Trump just under one month after the oral argument.

In a ruling on the last day before the Supreme Courts summer recess, and just over two months after the oral argument, a majority of the court rejected the D.C. Circuits reasoning. As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.

But when it comes to the presidents other official acts, Roberts continued, there is on one hand the concern that allowing criminal charges against a former president for his official acts would affect his decision-making while in office. A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office, Roberts posited. On the other hand, Roberts noted, the public has an interest in fair and effective enforcement of criminal laws. Weighing those two sets of interests, Roberts concluded, a president should have immunity from criminal prosecution for his official but not his unofficial acts unless, at the very least, prosecutors can show that bringing such charges would not threaten the power and functioning of the executive branch.

Determining which acts are official and which are unofficial can be difficult, Roberts conceded. He emphasized that the immunity that the court recognizes in its ruling on Monday takes a broad view of what constitutes a presidents official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority. In conducting the official/unofficial inquiry, Roberts added, courts cannot consider the presidents motives, nor can they designate an act as unofficial simply because it allegedly violates the law.

Turning to some of the specific allegations against Trump, the majority ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to leverage the Justice Departments power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trumps fraudulent slates of electors.

With regard to the allegation that Trump attempted to pressure his former vice president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the senate, to reject the states electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures, the court deemed Trump presumptively immune from prosecution on the theory that the president and vice president are acting officially when they discuss their official responsibilities. On the other hand, Roberts observed, the vice presidents role as president of the senate is not an executive branch role. The court therefore left it for the district court to decide whether prosecuting Trump for this conduct would intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.

The court did the same for the allegations in the indictment regarding Trumps interactions with private individuals and state officials, attempting to convince them to change electoral votes in his favor, as well as Trumps tweets leading up to the Jan. 6 attacks and his speech on the Ellipse that day. Making this determination, Roberts wrote, will require a close analysis of the indictments extensive and interrelated allegations.

Roberts rejected the governments contention that, even if Trump has immunity for his official acts, prosecutors can still use evidence about those official acts to make their case to a jury for example, to prove that Trump knew that his election-fraud claims were false. That proposal, Roberts stressed, threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly hat he cannot do directly invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.

Roberts pushed back against the dissent by Sotomayor and a separate one by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, describing them as striking a chilling tone of doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today. He portrayed the ruling as a relatively narrow one that decides only that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts for them to determine whether the other acts alleged in the indictment are entitled to immunity.

Roberts also sought to downplay the political significance of the courts ruling. He emphasized that although most people are focused on this case because of its potential impact on the charges against Trump, the Supreme Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Our perspective, he wrote, must be more farsighted.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the majoritys immunity ruling but wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he questioned the constitutionality of Jack Smiths appointment as special counsel. He observed that [n]o former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country, despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, Thomas contended, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsels appointment before proceeding.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the case brought by Smith in Florida alleging that Trump illegally kept classified documents after leaving office, heard oral arguments on that question last month.

In her own separate concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the majority that the Constitution prohibits Congress from criminalizing a Presidents exercise of his core constitutional powers and closely related conduct. But she would have courts approach the question of immunity for other official acts differently, by focusing first on whether the criminal law under which a former president is charged applies to his official acts and, if so, whether prosecuting the former president would interfere with his constitutional authority.

Applying that principle to the facts of this case, she suggested that at least some of the conduct that serves as the basis for the charges against Trump such as his request that the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives hold a special session about election fraud claims would not be immune. The President, she concluded, has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power.

Barrett also disagreed with her colleagues in the majority on whether prosecutors can use evidence of a presidents official acts. The Constitution, she wrote, does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable. She acknowledged the majoritys concern that the use of such evidence could influence the jury, but she insisted that federal evidentiary rules and the trial courts can address those concerns on a case-by-case basis.

In her dissent, which (like Jacksons) notably did not use the traditional respectfully, Sotomayor contended that Mondays ruling reshapes the institution of the Presidency. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, she wrote, under the majoritys rule, a Presidents use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. With fear for our democracy, she concluded, I dissent.

Nothing in the text of the Constitution or the history of the United States supports the kind of immunity that the majority found in its opinion, Sotomayor maintained. To the contrary, she noted, the drafters of the Constitution did carve out a narrow immunity for members of Congress, and some state constitutions at the time did explicitly create criminal immunity for governors but the drafters did not include any such provision for the president.

Indeed, Sotomayor added, the drafters of the Constitution suggested that the president could face criminal prosecution, by indicating in the provision addressing impeachment that a president can be subject to prosecution even after impeachment.

Sotomayor contended that the majoritys decision might sweep more broadly than her colleagues acknowledged. First, she argued that the line that Roberts drew between official and unofficial conduct narrows the conduct considered unofficial almost to a nullity. It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority, he is taking official action. And the majority takes an expansive view of the core powers of the presidency, she continued, that will effectively insulate all sorts of noncore conduct from criminal prosecution. In every use of official power, she concluded, the President is now a king above the law.

In her own separate dissent, Jackson complained that Mondays ruling has unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three branches of government, giving more power to the courts and the executive branch at Congresss expense. And it undermines the constraints of the law as a deterrent for future Presidents who might otherwise abuse their power. She characterized the practical consequences of the ruling as a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our Government.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.

View original post here:
Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the last election, a blockbuster decision in the heat of the 2024 campaign that vastly expanded presidential power.

The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Its immediate practical effect will be to further complicate the case against Mr. Trump, with the chances that it will go before a jury ahead of the election now vanishingly remote and the charges against him, at a minimum, narrowed.

The decision amounted to a powerful statement by the courts conservative majority that presidents should be insulated from the potential that actions they take in carrying out their official duties could later be used by political enemies to charge them with crimes.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. He added that the trial judge must undertake an intensive factual review to separate official and unofficial conduct and to assess whether prosecutors can overcome the presumption protecting Mr. Trump for his official conduct.

If Mr. Trump prevails at the polls, the issue could become moot since he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges.

The liberal wing, in some of the harshest dissents ever filed by justices of the Supreme Court, said the majority had created a kind of king not answerable to the law.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Read more from the original source:
Supreme Court Says Trump Has Some Immunity in Election Case - The New York Times

President Joe Bidens debate performance was a disaster. His disjointed responses and dazed look sparked calls for him to drop out of the presidential race.

But lost in the hand wringing was Donald Trumps usual bombastic litany of lies, hyperbole, bigotry, ignorance, and fear mongering. His performance demonstrated once again that he is a danger to democracy and unfit for office.

In fact, the debate about the debate is misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump.

Trump, 78, has been on the political stage for eight years marked by chaos, corruption, and incivility. Why go back to that?

To build himself up, Trump constantly tears the country down. There is no shining city on the hill. Its just mourning in America.

Throughout the debate, Trump repeatedly said we are a failing country. He called the United States a third world nation. He said, were living in hell and very close to World War III.

People are dying all over the place, Trump said, later adding were literally an uncivilized country now.

Trump told more than 30 lies during the debate to go with the more than 30,000 mistruths told during his four years as president. He dodged the CNN moderators questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world.

Trumps response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection he fueled was farcical. He said a relatively small number of people went to the Capitol and many were ushered in by the police.

After scheming to overturn the 2020 election, Trump refused to say if he would accept the results of the 2024 election. Unless, of course, he wins.

The debate served as a reminder of what another four years of Trump would look like. More lies, grievance, narcissism, and hate. Supporters say they like Trump because he says whatever he thinks. But he mainly spews raw sewage.

Trump attacks the military. He denigrates the Justice Department and judges. He belittles the FBI and the CIA. He picks fights with allies and cozies up to dictators.

Trump is an unserious carnival barker running for the most serious job in the world. During his last term, Trump served himself and not the American people.

Trump spent chunks of time watching TV, tweeting, and hanging out at his country clubs. Over his four-year term, Trump played roughly 261 rounds of golf.

As president, Trump didnt read the daily intelligence briefs. He continued to use his personal cell phone, allowing Chinese spies to listen to his calls. During one Oval Office meeting, Trump shared highly classified intelligence with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.

Trumps term did plenty of damage and had few accomplishments. The much-hyped wall didnt get built. Infrastructure week was a recurring joke. Giant tax cuts made the rich richer, while fueling massive deficits for others to pay for years. His support for coal, oil drilling, and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement worsened the growing impact of climate change.

Trump stacked the judiciary with extreme judges consisting mainly of white males, including a number who the American Bar Association rated as not qualified. A record number of cabinet officials were fired or left the office. The West Wing was in constant chaos and infighting.

Many Trump appointees exited under a cloud of corruption, grifting, and ethical scandals. Trumps children made millions off the White House. His dilettante son-in-law got $2 billion from the Saudi government for his fledgling investment firm even though he never managed money before.

Trumps mismanagement of the pandemic resulted in tens of thousands of needless deaths. He boasts about stacking the Supreme Court with extreme right-wingers who are stripping away individual rights, upending legal precedents, and making the country less safe. If elected, Trump may add to the courts conservative majority.

Of course, there were the unprecedented two impeachments. Now, Trump is a convicted felon who is staring at three more criminal indictments. He is running for president to stay out of prison.

If anything, Trump doesnt deserve to be on the presidential debate stage. Why even give him a platform?

Trump allegedly stole classified information and tried to overturn an election. His plans for a second term are worse than the last one. We cannot be serious about letting such a crooked clown back in the White House.

If anything, Trump doesnt deserve to be on the presidential debate stage. Why even give him a platform?

Yes, Biden had a horrible night. Hes 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best.

Biden must show that he is up to the job. This much is clear: He has a substantive record of real accomplishments, fighting the pandemic, combating climate change, investing in infrastructure, and supporting working families and the most vulnerable.

Biden has surrounded himself with experienced people who take public service seriously. He has passed major bipartisan legislation despite a dysfunctional Republican House majority.

Biden believes in the best of America. He has rebuilt relationships with allies around the world and stood up to foes like Russia and China.

There was only one person at the debate who does not deserve to be running for president. The sooner Trump exits the stage, the better off the country will be.

Read the original:
To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race | Editorial - The Philadelphia Inquirer