Just like CNN on Monday, MSNBC's live coverage of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity quickly launched into the hot talk of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, all about Trump ordering a Seal Team Six assassination of a political rival. These Democrat judges can't get enough of this hyperbole.  Legal analyst Neal Katyal -- an Obama appointee -- reduced the 6-3 decision to Republican-appointed justices vs. Democrat-appointed justices, and then he read from Sotomayor's bluster, finishing with "With fear for our democracy, I dissent." Katy Tur oozed: "It doesn't get any stronger than that." Tur then quoted from more of the dissent, including the line that this decision "lies about like a loaded weapon" for a corrupt president.  “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." Tur wrapped up, "The president is now a king above the law." She asked Katyal: "She's arguing that he can assassinate somebody now. Is that what this majority opinion is saying?" Katyal agreed: "That is basically what she's saying the majority is saying, and I'm sure that is how Trump will take it." Katyal then moved on to electioneering, saying the stakes now are "astronomical" and people need to vote for Biden. "This is a -- you know, a clarion call to the American public to understand the law, the courts are not going to protect us against a president who wants to violate the law." Legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg became the dissident in the midst of this MSNBC panic: "I'm still reading through it, Katy, but I don't see anything in here that says the assassination of a political rival is part of a president's core constitutional responsibilities for which he or she would be absolutely immune." He didn't like the "indeterminate" language of the decision, and "there is a lot more immunity here than I would have imagined, and I think it sets up some dangers. But I don't see anything here that sanctions, for instance, the assassination of a political rival." Later, in the 11 am hour, pundit Maya Wiley added: "My topline legal thoughts are [the decision is] cray-cray!" Tur suggested Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion was "Trump-like," because he wrote of an "energetic executive" and Trump describes himself as energetic. She didn't suggest the Sotomayor dissent was..."Rachel Maddowesque."

On Monday, the liberal media were so desperate to paint the U.S. Supreme Court’s limited immunity ruling as a 100-percent-win for former President Trump that CNN seemingly threw critical thinking out the window. Liberal activist and commentator Van Jones added to that chorus by suggesting the highest court in the land just gave presidents “a license to thug” and lamented that they gave too much credence to fears that former presidents would be subject to unfair legal cases. Seemingly misremembering or misconstruing a legal “maxim,” Jones declared that he found the ruling “very concerning” because “bad facts create bad law.” “[T]he stuff that Trump did an office, it creates these bad facts. The court has to come in and figure out what to do about it. It often creates bad law,” he stated. Jones, a big proponent of so-called criminal justice reform, huffed that the Supreme Court feared the wrong legal possibility: “The Supreme Court, do you more care about the unlawful conduct of a sitting president, or possibly the unfair prosecution of a former president? That's really what they had to balance. They’re obviously more concerned about the latter.” He argued that the court fearing overzealous prosecutors going after former presidents – regardless of party – was “bad” “politically” speaking and “look[ed] very partisan.” Further, he decried that the justices were supposedly not wearing “black and white umpire jerseys,” but rather “they're wearing red Jerseys, or even MAGA hats.”     According to Jones, it was “really, really scary” how the Supreme Court gave Trump “a license to thug” in a second term: But it's also scary because what is Trump going to do? If Trump gets elected and there's this idea that he can get away with even more stuff, that's really, really scary for the public because he already ran over every norm that he could. So, it seems like it – just look at this politically – not legally – politically. It's almost like a license to thug in a way like you can do whatever you want and Supreme Court is probably going to let you get away with it. That is very frightening in this case. And so, I'm I'm very, very concerned. Anchor Anderson Cooper later teed up Jones to give credence to the same liberal conspiracy theory anchor Jake Tapper peddled, suggesting presidents could now assassinate their political rivals: COOPER: Van as you read this, I mean, if the SEAL Team 6 argument; is Sotomayor right, that under this ruling, the president can task them to assassinate somebody? A political rival, not – not a foreign leader. JONES: She's not – She's not right yet because of this idea that it has to be limited to the core responsibilities of the president, but we don't know because this thing ping-ponging back and forth. This – I don't know. Republican Scott Jennings was on hand to inject a little bit of sanity into the conversation. “Look, I think there's some amount of overreaction here,” he said. “I mean, we're looking at this through the lens of Donald Trump, but the president of the United States has a lot of power for a reason and they do take a lot of official actions. And I just I think about a future where if it was open season on presidents for time immemorial, what, what action would any president ever take out a fear of being dragged into a courtroom every time they did it?” Their critical thinking failed because what Jones was arguing for would open his former boss, former President Barack Obama, up to legal liability. During his presidency, Obama ordered the extrajudicial killings of two American citizens who had become terrorists in the Middle East. Surely, Jones and Cooper wouldn’t want him dragged into court over it because killing terrorists was an official act of office as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Trump Immunity Ruling July 1, 2024 11:01:11 a.m. Eastern (…) ANDERSON COOPER: Van, as you look at this, what stands out to you? VAN JONES: Well it's very – very concerning outcome there's a maxim that says, in law: bad facts create bad law. So, when you have somebody doing some stuff that's so terrible, the stuff that Trump did an office, it creates these bad facts. The court has to come in and figure out what to do about it. It often creates bad law. Basically, the question is: The Supreme Court, do you more care about the unlawful conduct of a sitting president, or possibly the unfair prosecution of a former president? That's really what they had to balance. They’re obviously more concerned about the latter. And so, I think politically it's bad. It makes the Supreme Court look very partisan. They're supposed to be wearing these kind of black and white umpire jerseys or whatever; they look like they're wearing red Jerseys, or even MAGA hats. It's going to go down bad politically for Supreme Court. But it's also scary because what is Trump going to do? If Trump gets elected and there's this idea that he can get away with even more stuff, that's really, really scary for the public because he already ran over every norm that he could. So, it seems like it – just look at this politically – not legally – politically. It's almost like a license to thug in a way like you can do whatever you want and Supreme Court is probably going to let you get away with it. That is very frightening in this case. And so, I'm I'm very, very concerned. COOPER: Scott Jennings, Justice Sotomayor in her dissent, essentially makes that argument saying the main takeaway of today's decision is that all of a president's official acts to find without regard to motive or content are entitled to immunity that is at least presumptive and quite possibly absolute. SCOTT JENNINGS: Look, I think there's some amount of overreaction here. I mean, after all, they did kick it back down to the lower courts. So, some decisions could be made about differentiating between official and private acts. But look, this court has stood up for the office, the presidency and the executive power of the presidency in a way that maybe could have some benefit to future presidents. I mean, we're looking at this through the lens of Donald Trump, but the president of the United States has a lot of power for a reason and they do take a lot of official actions. And I just I think about a future where if it was open season on presidents for time immemorial, what, what action would any president ever take out a fear of being dragged into a courtroom every time they did it? So, I hear Van and I think there's interesting arguments on both sides of this today. I've listened to some of arguments like what Van is made. But at the same time, I do think the office deserves a lot of protection and a lot of deference because of the special place that it holds in our system. So, I'm okay with it, especially because I think a lower court may have decisions to make in the future. Of course, depending on the outcome of the election in November. COOPER: But Van, just to be clear, even if a lower court makes a ruling, then that can because what this record it says is that that can be appealed ultimately back to the Supreme Court. JONES: Yeah, I think supreme court is really hurting itself here. I mean, I think most Americans on either side would have preferred us getting some kind of finality around these cases. (…) 11:09:52 a.m. Eastern COOPER: Van as you read this, I mean, if the SEAL Team 6 argument; is Sotomayor right, that under this ruling, the president can task them to assassinate somebody? A political rival, not – not a foreign leader. JONES: She's not – She's not right yet because of this idea that it has to be limited to the core responsibilities of the president, but we don't know because this thing ping-ponging back and forth. This – I don't know. (…)

While CBS and NBC were far more balanced in perspectives and even behaved on Monday morning when it came to Special Reports on the Supreme Court’s Trump immunity case, it was not the case on Disney-run ABC as they kvetched over what they said was an “absolute”, “big”, and “total” win for Trump that was “hard to square” with the Constitution as we know it. The meltdowns started within minutes of breaking in. Supreme Court reporter Devin Dwyer showed he hadn’t read the full opinion as he told fill-in anchor Whit Johnson the 6-to-3 ruling was “in no short sense, Whit, a big win for Donald Trump” as “[i]t means [more] delay” and “all but impossible” for him to face more criminal charges before Election Day.     “So, as much as many Court observers had hoped that this Court would somehow try to find a decision that would unify their bench and the country, they did not do that here and this is a sharply divided opinion,” he added after giddily quoting the dissent from far-left Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Not quite 15 minutes later, Dwyer returned to hilariously claim that while this marked “a very good day for Donald Trump in terms of the timing of any potential prosecution…the Supreme Court makes clear, by writings by Chief Justice John Roberts, that in no way is this a free pass for Donald Trump” and wrote “at length…what is still fair game” in terms of potential illegalities by a president. Back to the initial reactions, chief Washington correspondent and three-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl seemed to be faux crestfallen (given the chances he’ll be able to make more hay off of Trump) (click “expand”): KARL: Now, look, this is an absolute win for Donald Trump, not just the substance of the opinion, but also the Court had the option here to make the decision effective immediately or go through a traditional waiting period of 25 days. There is no expedited period. This effectively grants Donald Trump blanket immunity because it makes it – it seems to me now – impossible for a trial to go forward, either in the classified documents case, because this is this is also at stake there and the January 6 case and I think when you look at the dissenting opinion – Devin read part of it. This line stands out to me, says the decision, “makes a mockery of the principle foundational to our constitution and system of government that no man is above the law.” Now, look, this decision doesn't say that what Trump did – to – to – in his effort to overturn the election is covered by – by this immunity. But it would take time. It's going to take time that simply isn't there and you have an election coming up and you have – Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear that if he wins this election, this case goes away. JOHNSON: And the timing is so key here. And I do want to put that graphic back up on the screen. We were listing out the various charges because now the special counsel would have to take another look at all of this. That's the graphic there. The Trump criminal trials and the charges there. Senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott was also hyperbolic, bemoaning “[t]here is no question…this is big for Donald Trump because time is something that his campaign, that the former President deeply worried about.” Karl, like Dwyer, tweaked his tune a few minutes later. After emphasizing his gripe about Monday’s ruling as “an absolute total victory for Donald Trump in the legal sense,” he correctly noted “this the Court does not affirm what Trump has been saying on the campaign trail” in demanding “absolute immunity for anything”. Senior White House correspondent Selina Wang parroted Team Biden’s spin, eagerly boasting the ruling “underscores the core theme of President Biden's reelection” with Trump being “a threat to democracy, someone who is obsessed with power”, and “wants the power of a king or a monarch to have an absolute power without accountability.” Legal analyst Kate Shaw – wife of MSNBC host Christ Hayes – naturally sounded the most worried. She told Johnson that the split ruling (as opposed to opening presidents up to constant and frivolous allegations and suits) was “hard to square with previous constitutional decisions” and “a very big win for former President Trump, recognizing for the first time this sort of immunity of ex-presidents from criminal prosecution” even though it’s “not for everything they do.” She added the ruling delineating official acts being protected and others being dubious to not protected was “an enormous addition of new powers and protections to the President in a way we just haven't seen before, so I think the dissent is quite right to say this is a seismic opinion.” Before signing off, Karl touted as though it were fact the apocalyptic and wildly false claim from Sotomayor’s dissent that Trump (and any future president) could kill Americans without impunity using Navy SEAL Team Six (click “expand”): JOHNSON: Let's go back to Jon Karl here again as we're reading more of this decision, we have the political implications here as well. And you were referencing a specific incident that's getting a lot of attention. KARL: You remember when the argument came before the Court that – this example was given about SEAL Team Six. If a President ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent, would that be immune? And Trump's lawyers said yes, it would be, unless the President was first impeached and then –and then tried. So, it's interesting to read the dissent here. Again, Sotomayor writing the dissent, saying “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 is now insulated from criminal prosecution.” And then, she goes through examples orders. “The Navy SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune, immune, immune.” That's how Sotomayor sees the implications of this decision. JOHNSON: And again, that decision along ideological lines there with the, you know, the three liberal justices, you know, teaming together and the six conservative justices with that decision. Johnson and Scott wrapped up, fretting this was yet another example of a win for Trump in what’s been “a good couple of weeks” for him, but it could all come crashing down when he’s sentenced July 11. To see the relevant ABC transcript from July 1, click here.

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) of New York accused the U.S. Supreme Court of corruption and promised to file articles of impeachment after the court's decision on presidential immunity. The court said Monday that former President Donald Trump did have some form of presidential immunity for official acts but not for those acts that could be classified as unofficial. 'The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.' “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," read the majority decision. "And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." The 6-3 decision was split along ideological lines. Democrats and others critical of Trump were incensed at the decision and accused the court of being biased in favor of the former president. Among the most histrionic of voices was Ocasio-Cortez. "The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy," she wrote on her official social media account. "It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture," she added. "I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) of Minnesota responded in support of Ocasio-Cortez. "It’s time, let’s get it done!" she posted on social media. Ocasio-Cortez had previously said that Justice Clarence Thomas should be impeached over accusations of alleged bribery, but she admitted that it would be nearly impossible with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives. While Trump proclaimed it a "BIG WIN" for the Constitution and for Democracy, others noted that the ruling found that no court had set forth the manner to distinguish an official act of the president from an unofficial act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the ruling had inappropriately given Trump all immunity he asked for and more. "It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law," wrote Soyomayor in part. "Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

UFC prospect Payton Talbott answered a series of unusual questions after a stunning victory at UFC 303 and said that he didn't want to be put "in a box" because he enjoys activities like pole dancing.Talbott improved to 9-0 after knocking out fellow 135-pound fighter Yanis Ghemmouri in just 19 seconds.Following the win, Talbott was asked many atypical questions in the subsequent press conference and interviews.During the post-fight press conference, Talbott was asked about his love for skateboarding and how his body has held up."What's harder on the body: skateboarding or MMA?" a reporter asked."Skateboarding, for sure. Nobody hits harder than concrete. Skateboarding has derailed so many fighters' careers," Talbott replied. 'I just think people have a really hard time characterizing me into this identity of a fighter.'That was, however, one of the more normal questions Talbott would face after his fight. Two days later, during an interview with Ariel Helwani on "The MMA Hour," Talbott was asked to shed light on some viral videos that fans have been asking about.Helwani asked about "pole stuff" in reference to videos of Talbott doing "pole dancing" or "pole fitness.""[Fans] are not sure what to make of it. ... Could I ask, when you see [negative reactions] how does that make you feel?" Helwani asked."I don't really like a lot of the MMA fan base, and I don't do [those] things out of spite for people, but I think it's hard for people when they see somebody that they can't box into their own parameters that they're used to," he said about the dancing. "They come up with a word that they feel they can box them into. I think it's really hard for MMA fans to put me in a box, and I hope so, I hope I'm very hard to box in," he told Helwani."A lot of times that's, like, gay. Like, 'He's a gay dude,' or 'he's zesty,' or he's this or he's that," Talbott added. "I just think people have a really hard time characterizing me into this identity of a fighter. Hopefully, maybe some day that changes what the expectations are of a fighter; we're not just mules that go out there and beat the s*** out of each other, we're actually people with hobbies."Talbott explained that his mother and his sister taught him pole fitness, noting that while they are fitness instructors, they did not want to "devalue" stripping on a pole, either.The bantamweight was also asked to clarify the claim that there was a video circulating online of him putting a vape pen in his anus."Maybe I just live on another planet," Helwani joked. "Can you explain what this is and explain why you felt the need to talk about this?"Talbott said that the video in question was not actually him, but rather he was the one filming his friend. He claimed that the idea for the video was to find a way for his friend to quit vaping and that doing the act would discourage the friend from using the smoking product again. Unfortunately, it did not.The Nevada native also told his host that he isn't a fan of answering too many questions at press conferences due to the repetitiveness of the queries and the general idea that "not everything needs to be explained."Talbott is 3-0 in the UFC since November 2023.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Department of Justice is preparing to offer Boeing a plea deal that would require the company to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration in connection with two fatal 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people, Reuters reported.The DOJ claims that Boeing violated a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement with the department, a source told the news outlet. As part of the agreement, a criminal charge against Boeing was dropped, and the company was asked to revise its compliance practices and submit to routine reporting. The aerospace company also agreed to pay $2.5 billion to end the investigation.In May, the DOJ accused Boeing of violating the terms of the agreement, stating that it failed to "design, implement, and enforce a compliance and ethics program to prevent and detect violations of the U.S. fraud laws throughout its operations."Boeing disagreed with the DOJ's findings, claiming it has "honored the terms" of the agreement.The relatives of those killed in the two crashes were briefed on the proposed settlement on Sunday. According to their attorney, they are urging U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor to reject what they have called a "sweetheart" deal for Boeing.Paul Cassell, a lawyer representing the relatives, said, "The Justice Department is preparing to offer Boeing another sweetheart plea deal.""The families will strenuously object to this plea deal," Cassell noted.The plea deal would require the company to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the FAA. Boeing would have to pay half of a $487.2 million penalty, with prosecutors allowing the company to receive credit for previous settlement payments. Additionally, Boeing would have to meet with the relatives and submit to third-party audits for three years.Boeing and the DOJ declined a request for comment, Reuters reported.Anything else?Boeing faced further scrutiny in January after one of its aircraft experienced a mid-flight door panel blowout. A preliminary U.S. National Transportation Safety Board report found that the Alaska Airlines plane may have left the Boeing factory without the key bolts needed to secure the panels in place. The NTSB's investigation discovered that Spirit AeroSystems, a fuselage maker, had performed maintenance work on the aircraft before delivering it to the airline. The maintenance required the door panel to be removed and reinstalled. On Monday, Boeing announced that it plans to buy back Spirit AeroSystems, its former subsidiary. The company aims to improve safety and quality control at the struggling company. Boeing agreed to pay $37.25 per share for a value of $4.7 billion.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If you’ve ventured into the corners of the health space on social media, it’s likely you’ve run into double board certified M.D. and advocate for an animal-based diet, Paul Saladino. Saladino became disillusioned with traditional medicine’s lack of focus on nutrition when he noticed that it’s blatantly ignored when addressing the skyrocketing health issues in American citizens. “I think that ultra-processed foods are the main problem for humans, but if you ask me as a physician, or any of my colleagues, we’re never taught about nutrition,” Saladino tells Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report.” The attitude the government has taken toward the idea that ultra-processed foods might be making people sick has set Saladino’s “alarm bells off” and made him believe there’s something “going on that’s not copasetic.” One of the major points of contention Saladino has with Americans' ultra-processed diets are the oils contained in much of our food or the oil we use to cook otherwise healthy food with. “Think about the oils you’re cooking with,” Saladino tells Rubin. “There are multiple different types of cooking oils, and I think seed oils are probably the worst.” These oils include corn, canola, sunflower, safflower, and soybean oil, which “we were sometimes told were healthy when we were children, and are often still told are healthy by the American Heart Association.” Those oils do not occur naturally; rather, they are ultra processed themselves. “What you’re getting in the grocery store, it looks like this clear oil, but it’s been deodorized. I mean, if it hadn’t been deodorized, you would smell it. And that smells horrible. These oils are fragile, they’re not meant to be crushed and extracted out of seeds,” Saladino explains. Olive oil, coconut oil, grass fed butter, and tallow are “much better,” because they’re fruit oils, which are not made from seeds. For example, when you make olive oil, you actually press the olive to extract the oil. “The pervasiveness of seed oils, I think, is a very likely driving factor of our chronic disease epidemic in the United States,” Saladino says. The chronic disease epidemic doesn’t just include diseases like cancer but mental issues as well. “Let’s talk about brain health a little bit, which is actually probably the most political thing we can talk about because everybody seems to have a theory or two on Joe Biden at the moment,” Rubin suggests, adding, “There’s clearly an epidemic of either dementia, or ultimately Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.” “I think there’s a lot of evidence that this is related to the quality of our lifestyle and diet,” Saladino explains. “I’ll tell you that neuro inflammation, which is inflammation in the brain, is affected by inflammation in the body. Absolutely, unquestionably.” “And how do we get inflammation in the body? Well, it starts in the gut.” Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

This sprawling burial site spans more than 270,000 square feet and contains the remains of hundreds of people laid to rest as far back as the sixth century B.C.E. The post More Than 900 Ancient Remains Spanning 1,500 Years Uncovered At Egypt’s ‘City Of The Dead’ In Aswan appeared first on All That's Interesting.

The tourist from Kazakhstan carved the letters "ALI" into a plaster wall at the House of Ceii before authorities stopped him, and now he will have to pay for repairs to the ancient structure. The post A Tourist In Pompeii Was Just Arrested For Carving His Name Into A 2,200-Year-Old Wall appeared first on All That's Interesting.

EL-OH-EL! Trump Campaign Manager Tells Biden's Waterboy, Harry Sisson, to Expect a Visit