Read The Supreme Court Ruling On Presidential Immunity

[Harpy Eagle]

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

I agree, but I doubt SOCTUS will, and that is who will eventually decide.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

I don’t understand the court’s “urgency” for lack of a better word, in now protecting a president from something no other president until the criminal one needed to ever even consider.

 

[Delldude]

Indeed, and almost everything is an official act.

Nope.

Do you think a president could order a political rival to be wacked and that would be an official act?

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

They would be presidential communications.

 

[Delldude]

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

On June 30, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States (2024) that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts, but not for personal ones.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nope.

Do you think a president could order a political rival to be wacked and that would be an official act?

A president can order an American citizen killed by labeling them a terrorist and it is an official act. Why could they not do that to a political rival?

They would be presidential communications.

and making them is a....wait for it...."official act"

 

[Dante]

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

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."

On June 30, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States (2024) that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts, but not for personal ones.

The any acts is what Trump claimed. It got struck down and the Supreme Court agreed, sending the case back. So you see, you've been jerking yourself off -- intellectually.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Irrelevant. The case stands on its own.

And that's not happening, anyway.

 

[Delldude]

A president can order an American citizen killed by labeling them a terrorist and it is an official act.

Yes they can.

Why could they not do that to a political rival?

In both cases, they would have to have WH legal counsel make an assessment.. The first, most likely would be justifiable, IAW current international law. The second, I seriously doubt any WH legal counsel would make a legal recommendation.

and making them is a....wait for it...."official act"

Modern day bully pulpit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In both cases, they would have to have WH legal counsel make an assessment..

No they would not have to do that. That's the point.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In both cases, they would have to have WH legal counsel make an assessment.. The first, most likely would be justifiable, IAW current international law. The second, I seriously doubt any WH legal counsel would make a legal recommendation.

Perhaps you do not pay attention, but Trump only hires people that do what he wants. I mean this is the guy that got his doctor to say he was the healthiest president ever....an obese old dude that says exercise is bad for the heart as it waste heart beats.

Multiple lawyers that worked for him have been either sanctioned or disbarred for going along with what the told them to do.

There is no doubt they would tell him it was ok to do.

 

[Delldude]

The any acts is what Trump claimed. It got struck down and the Supreme Court agreed, sending the case back.

Looks like you're the one jerking yourself off................ ............Enjoy............

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024

Trump moved to dismiss the indictment
based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute
immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the
outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indict-
ment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties
____________________________
Held: 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 preclu-
sive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presump-
tive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no
immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

 

[Delldude]

Perhaps you do not pay attention, but Trump only hires people that do what he wants.

Legal counsel wouldn't go along or they would quit.

I mean this is the guy that got his doctor to say he was the healthiest president ever....an obese old dude that says exercise is bad for the heart as it waste heart beats.

Just like Joe Biden and his memory? Bet that doesn't count.

Multiple lawyers that worked for him have been either sanctioned or disbarred for going along with what the told them to do.

Not so............Trump didn't order anyone to do anything.

There is no doubt they would tell him it was ok to do.

Only in your head. Immediate congressional investigations.

No they would not have to do that. That's the point.

The point you missed..................LOL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Legal counsel wouldn't go along or they would quit.

Just like Joe Biden and his memory? Bet that doesn't count.

Not so............Trump didn't order anyone to do anything.

Only in your head. Immediate congressional investigations.


The point you missed..................LOL

So is he going to run it by lawyers like Rudy and Eastman?

 

[Delldude]

So is he going to run it by lawyers like Rudy and Eastman?

They were never WH legal counsel under Trump. Wanna try again?

 

[Dante]

Looks like you're the one jerking yourself off................ ............Enjoy............


Trump moved to dismiss the indictment
based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute
immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the
outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indict-
ment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties
____________________________

.

"Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized." - page 32

...and you have garbled the quotation(s) in your comment.

I cannot waste my time on serious subjects will seriousness people who can't help lying through omission, distorting, being dishonest. Link to the page that has what you've quoted in the way you have presented it.

 

[Dante]

They were never WH legal counsel under Trump. Wanna try again?

But personal lawyers...
.
Who else? Michael Cohen.

"The court found that Giuliani, 80, the former New York mayor who served as Trump's personal lawyer..." and Eastman was a lawyer for Trump.

 

[Delldude]

"Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized." - page 32

...and you have garbled the quotation(s) in your comment.

Quoted directly from the recent decision where the court stated exactly the opposite from what you claimed.
Page 32 deals with the application of the 'official acts' portion and being found not guilty in the impeachment process and attempting to apply it to the following criminal charges after that.

Link to the page that has what you've quoted in the way you have presented it.

I provided the entire decision......maybe read it if you wish to argue your point. Sorry if reality hurts your feelings.

But personal lawyers...
.

Not WH counsel by any means.

 

[Dante]

Quoted directly from the recent decision where the court stated exactly the opposite from what you claimed.
Page 32 deals with the application of the 'official acts' portion and being found not guilty in the impeachment process and attempting to apply it to the following criminal charges after that.


I provided the entire decision......maybe read it if you wish to argue your point. Sorry if reality hurts your feelings.

Not WH counsel by any means.

You strung words together.

bad

could've used "..." to denote it's what you were doing. But you knew that.

carry on

 

[Delldude]

You strung words together.

No......................you're just butt hurt from failing the Eleanor Woods speed reading course.

Try reading what you're trying to debate...............my quotes are from the first page of the SCOTUS opinion, the first three paragraphs. I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

My bad.....................

 

[Dante]

No......................you're just butt hurt from failing the Eleanor Woods speed reading course.

Try reading what you're trying to debate...............my quotes are from the first page of the SCOTUS opinion, the first three paragraphs. I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

My bad.....................

Leaving out words changes meanings.

bye