Again, this is conveniently only partially correct. There is a lot of obvious propaganda targeted at the uneducated/uninformed peoples but the real propaganda is everything that you just accept as truth. You would assume incorrectly that the US is bad at propaganda if you just equate propaganda with Fox news but it goes much deeper than that.
In the 1950s the CIA began the work to create a vast propaganda network in order to combat the spread of socialism. They staffed some journalists in all the major news spots (i.e. NY Times etc) and started all these convenient organizations around the world to help spread false information about their enemies.
One of the many many organizations they founded was Radio Free Asia which is very active to this day. They use anonymous sources for most of their propaganda pieces, or cite one of the other CIA funded organizations, and then all major western news medias parrot their articles/claims. The founder of the National Endowment for Democracy admitted that the NED is a CIA cutout and they regularly give "grants" to journalists to spread their propaganda.
On top of that they have had direct involvement in hollywood since forever in order to control state messaging. Targeted social media campaigns, especially on reddit. It was accidentally revealed that one of the most active cities on reddit just so happens to be a military base 😂 Unfortunately, these things are just the tip of the iceberg.
There is a lot that Americans have been brainwashed into accepting as truth and it is certainly amongst the educated as well. It may sound crazy or conspiratorial but it is unfortunately the truth. It is a bit shocking once you start pulling on that thread.
Justice Sotomayor did not hold back in her dissent:
"Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. 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.
The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy,” Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Li-
brary ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the
common course of law.” Ibid. The answer after today is no.
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
The entire dissent was a solid read, if you're into that kind of stuff. Just another little choice quote which made me chuckle:
In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision
of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the
Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or
even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled under-
standings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority
in this case, and so it ignores them
It should, and the Democrats should absolutely use their own decision against them to reinstate a neutral Supreme Court. But I expect mild grumbling followed by silence.
Right. So I guess the main question now is what’s stopping Biden from going on a 3 month bender and reconstructing the entire government, from SCOTUS to Congress?
...the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of Trump's actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.
That part of the court’s decision likely ensures that the case against Trump won’t be tried before the election, and then only if he is not reelected. If he is reelected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases.
What an absolute joke the Supreme Court is — this does nothing but ensure the case is delayed beyond the election.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and they just ensured that the president (and specifically Trump) is beyond the rule of law.
The case is hardly the most important issue. A president who can order seal team 6 to kill their political opponent is. The SC is leading the insurection.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
But at the same time, the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of Trump's actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.
If he is reelected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases.
Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Now, she will also have to decide which of the charges in the Trump indictment should remain and which involve official acts that under the Supreme Court ruling are protected from prosecution.
Even after Judge Chutkan separates the constitutional wheat from the chaff, Trump could seek further delays, as immunity questions are among the very few that may be appealed prior to trial.
The vote was 8-0, with Justice William Rehnquist recusing himself because of his close ties to some of the officials accused of wrongdoing in the case.
