Read The Supreme Court Ruling On Presidential Immunity

[Dante]

It's already happening..... and Jack might be removed for not being a legal special counsel......

really?

Okay.

You'll believe anything if it's MAGA-certified

 

[Sunsettommy]

really?

Okay.

You'll believe anything if it's MAGA-certified

Your bigotry is boring try seeking conversation instead.

 

[Dante]

Your bigotry is boring try seeking conversation instead.

Your delusional thinking will drive you into an early grave.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your delusional thinking will drive you into an early grave.

Then you have no constrictive counterpoint to offer, my statement then stands.

Cheers.

 

[Dante]

Then you have no constrictive counterpoint to offer, my statement then stands.

Cheers.

bigotry

 

[Sunsettommy]

So no counterpoint comes, enjoy the silence.

Cheers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't see it that way. I'm a bit disappointed in the alarmist rhetoric coming straight out of the gate regarding the decision. But I get it.

Most people in media and others have made comments that aren't fully informed. There was no time to fully digest the decision's opinion, concurring opinions, and dissents. We the public, the people have been poorly served/informed over the last few decades.

Hopefully, this is just a part of a cycle that we move through. The USofA has been here before, and in worse shape before. We survived. But history teaches us things go in cycles.

Why is it alarmist?

Yes, a lot of the decision is about the fact that the President needs to be able to get on with the job.

The scary parts are that they seem to try and then allow the President to get away with things that really they shouldn't.

One person has said Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate under this ruling.

Things go in cycles, the US went up, it's now going down, like the Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, English Empire etc etc etc.

 

[Dante]

Why is it alarmist?

Yes, a lot of the decision is about the fact that the President needs to be able to get on with the job.

The scary parts are that they seem to try and then allow the President to get away with things that really they shouldn't.

One person has said Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate under this ruling.

Things go in cycles, the US went up, it's now going down, like the Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, English Empire etc etc etc.

I suggest the idea that the days of Empires have been over for a while. I've said things are going in cycles, but my reference is to things in American politics and society.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see what I call alarmist screeches in the same way I see the imbecilic joy and delight of those who believe things favor Trump and are unaware of how this affects causes they believe they support. I favor a strong executive. But this is a momentous decision that requires time to digest, reflection...

Yes, there's a case of seeing how this plays out.

HOWEVER, there's the problem of what will happen in the future when people start quoting this case in the Supreme Court and saying "oh, it says this, it gives the president this power, you can't prosecute this person for anything ever"

The problem is the presidency is being turned into something else. It's never happened before. First Trump is attracting crazies. People who think they can win because all you need to do is say crazy shit people like. MTG is one of them, and she's prominent because she says crazy shit.

On top of that you're telling presidents that they can get away with shit. Nixon would have got away with Watergate.

The worst thing here is that a president suddenly has MASSIVE POWERS over the election process. We'll see what happens in the Georgia case, the Supreme Court did leave this up in the air, but it might be they can't use certain documents to prove their case because the Supreme Court just said "no, you can't prove things with those documents".

 

[frigidweirdo]

I suggest the idea that the days of Empires have been over for a while. I've said things are going in cycles, but my reference is to things in American politics and society.

Doesn't matter matter what they're called. There's power.

Right now the US, China, the EU and Russia are the world's big powers. They have more people than anyone else (except India and Brazil) but they have the money that the poorer countries don't have.

This cycle changes. A country gets powerful, it gets rich, it starts ******* around with everyone else, but at home it's rotting away because everyone believes that it'll remain forever, and they people want the power and the people get lazy and are easy to manipulate and the leaders just want to enrich themselves.

 

[Delldude]

Trump's imbecilic notion of absolute immunity struck down

They have absolute immunity for official acts..............small difference in your spin.

 

[Dante]

Yes, there's a case of seeing how this plays out.

HOWEVER, there's the problem of what will happen in the future when people start quoting this case in the Supreme Court and saying "oh, it says this, it gives the president this power, you can't prosecute this person for anything ever"

The problem is the presidency is being turned into something else. It's never happened before. First Trump is attracting crazies. People who think they can win because all you need to do is say crazy shit people like. MTG is one of them, and she's prominent because she says crazy shit.

On top of that you're telling presidents that they can get away with shit. Nixon would have got away with Watergate.

The worst thing here is that a president suddenly has MASSIVE POWERS over the election process. We'll see what happens in the Georgia case, the Supreme Court did leave this up in the air, but it might be they can't use certain documents to prove their case because the Supreme Court just said "no, you can't prove things with those documents".

There are two issues. One is how the decision affects the Trump current and future prosecutions, and the already decided cases.

The second issue is the decision itself and how it affects the Office of the Presidency, and in effect the Executive branch of government.

Much of what to me is of most interest and concern (not alarm), is how most of what is being written about and argued in media has yet to be tested in the courts. I suspect that at some future date the decision will be revisited and amended if not challenged as being constitutionally valid.

I have long held an opinion of being for a strong and robust Executive. What that means exactly would fill a whole nother thread,.

Dante

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They have absolute immunity for official acts..............small difference in your spin.

Indeed, and almost everything is an official act.

SCOTUS said that Tweets were official statements...aka an official act.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And so began this sad chapter of American history.

 

[Dante]

Doesn't matter matter what they're called. There's power.

Right now the US, China, the EU and Russia are the world's big powers. They have more people than anyone else (except India and Brazil) but they have the money that the poorer countries don't have.

This cycle changes. A country gets powerful, it gets rich, it starts ******* around with everyone else, but at home it's rotting away because everyone believes that it'll remain forever, and they people want the power and the people get lazy and are easy to manipulate and the leaders just want to enrich themselves.

Super powers are not Empires. And if they strive to be, fate awaits them. The world has crossed Bill Clinton's Bridge to the 21st Century.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That is crazy! This Court may grant him that power. It won't affect GA or the NY cases though. They can't rule that stealing documents is a core constitutional responsibility of his office, or committing felonies to hide the Stormy Daniels case are official components of his duties.,

The problem is that the “official” act cannot be used as evidence to even argue whether it’s actually even official let alone possibly criminal.

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution​

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution

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 […]

www.scotusblog.com

“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 president’s “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 president’s motives, nor can they designate an act as unofficial simply because it allegedly violates the law.”

“Roberts rejected the government’s 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.””

 

[Dante]

*note: "Trump's imbecilic notion of absolute immunity struck down." see: any acts

They have absolute immunity for official acts..............small difference in your spin.

.
Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity.
In his view, the conduct alleged in the indictment, properly characterized, was that while he was President he ( 1) “made public statements about the administration of the federal election";
(2) communicated with senior Justice Department officials “about investigating election fraud and about choosing the leadership" of the Department;
(3) “communicated with state officials about the administration of the federal election and their exercise of official duties with respect to it”;
(4) “communicated with the Vice President” and with “Members of Congress about the exercise of their official duties regarding the election certification";
and (5) “authorized or directed others to or- ganize contingent slates of electors in furtherance of his attempts to convince the Vice President to exercise his official authority in a manner advocated for by President Trump."

Motion To Dismiss Indictment Based on Presidential Immunity in No. 1 :23-cr-00257 (DC) , ECF Doc. 74, p. 9.

Trump argued that all of the indictment's allegations fell within the core of his official duties. Id. , at 27. And he contended that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, to ensure that he can undertake the especially sensitive duties of his office with bold and unhesitating action. Id. , at 14, 24.


1 Trump contends that the indictment stretches Section 1512 (c) (2) "far beyond its natural meaning." Brief for Petitioner 39 , n. 4. As we explained in Fischer v . United States, Section 1512 (c) (2) covers acts that impair “the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or . .. other things used in the proceeding." 603 U. S. (2024) (slip op. , at 16) . If necessary, the District Court should determine in the first instance whether the Section 1512(c)(2) charges may proceed in light of our decision in Fischer.

The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that “former Presidents do not possess absolute federal criminal immunity for any acts committed while in office." 2023 WL 8359833, * 15 (DC, Dec. 1 , 2023) . The District Court recognized that the President is immune from dam- ages liability in civil cases, to protect against the chilling effect such exposure might have on the carrying out of his responsibilities. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 , 749–756 (1982) .

But it reasoned that “the possibility ofvex- atious post- Presidency litigation is much reduced in the criminal context” in light of “[t] he robust procedural safeguards attendant to federal criminal prosecutions." 2023 WL 8359833, * 9–* 10. The District Court declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. See id. , at *15.

The D. C. Circuit affirmed. 91 F. 4th 1173 (2024) (per curiam). Citing Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 ( 1803), the court distinguished between two kinds of official acts: discretionary and ministerial . 91 F. 4th, at 1189-1190. It
observed that “although discretionary acts are ‘ only politically examinable, ' the judiciary has the power to hear cases" involving ministerial acts that an officer is directed to per- form by the legislature. Ibid. (quoting Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 166).

From this distinction, the D. C. Circuit concluded that the “ separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress's laws." 91 F. 4th, at 1191.

...

page:42/42
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that “former Presidents do not possess absolute federal criminal immunity for any acts committed while in office."


*note: For myself, I will be taking time to review and digest the opinion, concurring opinions and the dissents, before making what I consider ill-informed shit posing as the last word, all wrapped in bs definitive statements -- like most here and in the media are doing.

Dante

 

[Dante]

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution

ty

 

[Dante]

Indeed, and almost everything is an official act.

SCOTUS said that Tweets were official statements...aka an official act.

Entertainment for sure.

Trump see the role of Chief Executive as the role of a Chief Clown

LOL

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The GA case is dead. There is no way SCOTUS will not rule that was part of his official duty.

A president plays no part in elections. There is no “official” duty for a president to be involved in state election matters.