Barrett, of all people, spills the beans in the immunity case.

[JoeB131]

There would be no need for this discussion if it weren't for the BLATANT LAWFARE being waged against him by the demented LEFT.
We can go round and round in a circular argument to nowhere if you insist.

again, did you all forget the shit you tried against Bill and Hillary for a quarter century? We didn't.

How many millions did Ken Starr spend trying to prove Clinton broke a law, any law?

before he sheepishly admitted Clinton did nothing wrong in Whitewater, firing the Travel Office staff, keeping FBI files on white house visitors, or Vince Foster's death.

But it didn't stop there. You spent years making accusations about Benghazi and Emails.

Now your boy has been caught, breaking actual laws.

 

[SeaMajor7]

again, did you all forget the shit you tried against Bill and Hillary for a quarter century? We didn't.

How many millions did Ken Starr spend trying to prove Clinton broke a law, any law?

before he sheepishly admitted Clinton did nothing wrong in Whitewater, firing the Travel Office staff, keeping FBI files on white house visitors, or Vince 6Foster's death.

But it didn't stop there. You spent years making accusations about Benghazi and Emails.

Now your boy has been caught, breaking actual laws.

 

[berg80]

The Schumer clown show was a joke. Just another example of Dem / Socialist totalitarianism.

The House Repubs who marched over to the Senate knew the case against Mayorkas was a charade. Done to deflect attention away from their sabotage of the border security bill and as revenge for Don's impeachments since the case against Joe Biden is a total fabrication.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not taking Trump out of context.... Just view the videos of what he has been claiming...


EVERYONE BUT TRUMP knows that there is presidential immunity for official acts, for mistakes made during an official presidential act.

Immunity for official acts has been the law and followed and believed by all presidents in our history, but Trump, who has appealed this, and argued no no no, it's ABSOLUTE immunity, for everything a president does...

There was no need for an appeal if Trump agreed with the Nation that presidential immunity is NOT absolute for unofficial acts.

Even breaking the law to perform an official act can be prosecuted

 

[Hollie]

The House Repubs who marched over to the Senate knew the case against Mayorkas was a charade. Done to deflect attention away from their sabotage of the border security bill and as revenge for Don's impeachments since the case against Joe Biden is a total fabrication.

The Dem / Socialist hacks who knew the impeachment of Mayorkas was warranted followed orders from the Biden politburo and squashed it. Just typical behavior from the totalitarian democrat party.

 

[MarcATL]

again, did you all forget the shit you tried against Bill and Hillary for a quarter century? We didn't.

How many millions did Ken Starr spend trying to prove Clinton broke a law, any law?

before he sheepishly admitted Clinton did nothing wrong in Whitewater, firing the Travel Office staff, keeping FBI files on white house visitors, or Vince Foster's death.

But it didn't stop there. You spent years making accusations about Benghazi and Emails.

Now your boy has been caught, breaking actual laws.

What Republicans have doing for decades now, is called LAWFARE.

 

[berg80]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett most clearly charted the way forward, asking Trump lawyer John Sauer to divy up the charges in the indictment between what would count as an official act versus a private one. She later asked the Department of Justice’s Michael Dreeben how he’d prefer the Court to proceed, given his concerns about “speed”: to send the case back down to the district court to sort out which acts are official and which aren’t, or to drop the official acts and plug ahead in the trial with whatever Trump conduct remains.

He chose the latter, likely the best Smith can hope for after Thursday’s showcase of the conservatives’ hostility to the government’s arguments.

But he may not even get that. Many of the conservatives, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in particular, seemed eager to send the case back down. Such a move would amass months of delay, as whatever the district court decides would work its way back up the court system, all but guaranteeing that the trial on the merits wouldn’t end (and likely wouldn’t start) before the November election. If Trump wins, he’ll direct his Justice Department to drop the case.

The conservatives throughout displayed much more concern about the threat of criminal prosecution chilling presidential conduct than they did the myriad dangers of a president unbound and free to ignore the law while in office.

Trump Will Be Happy With Supreme Court Arguments On Immunity

The Supreme Court conservatives seemed to solidify around a middle-ground position on Trump’s claims of absolute presidential immunity Thursday, a win by another name for the former president as it would add months of delay to the Jan. 6 case.

talkingpointsmemo.com

While the conservatives fretted about the prez feeling constrained without immunity Justice Jackson expressed concern about the opposite. Namely, the perils for the nation if a prez feels completely unconstrained about violating the law knowing he/she will face no consequences.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would argue that everything a POTUS does is an official act as long as he holds office....Now if that act pisses off congress they can impeach him and try him in the Senate. If that fails the smell test and a POTUS is found innocent in the Senate that should be the end of any further proceedings. Done and done.

That would be bullshit. Defaming E. Jean Carroll wasn't an "official act".

More Soviet LAWFARE is nor acceptable for the country.

Republicans started "lawfare" with the Starr Investigation. 6 1/2 years investigating the Clintons, and an impeachment over a lie about a consenual blow job. Not a single charge against the Clintons or ANYONE in the Obama Administration.

And now you have the Biden Impeachment investigation. An investigation in search of a crime. Trump spent 4 years trying to jail Clinton, Obama and Biden, all while Republican whistleblowers were filing reports of criminal wrongdoingn by Trump.

Seaslug thinks Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for his proven crimes, but Biden should be jailed for the things Republicans say he did.

 

[SeaMajor7]

That would be bullshit. Defaming E. Jean Carroll wasn't an "official act".


Republicans started "lawfare" with the Starr Investigation. 6 1/2 years investigating the Clintons, and an impeachment over a lie about a consenual blow job. Not a single charge against the Clintons or ANYONE in the Obama Administration.

And now you have the Biden Impeachment investigation. An investigation in search of a crime. Trump spent 4 years trying to jail Clinton, Obama and Biden, all while Republican whistleblowers were filing reports of criminal wrongdoingn by Trump.

Seaslug thinks Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for his proven crimes, but Biden should be jailed for the things Republicans say he did.

Take off, hoser.

 

[berg80]

The Dem / Socialist hacks who knew the impeachment of Mayorkas was warranted

There were none because it wasn't. Even the Repubs knew that.

 

[Lesh]

I would argue that everything a POTUS does is an official act as long as he holds office....Now if that act pisses off congress they can impeach him and try him in the Senate. If that fails the smell test and a POTUS is found innocent in the Senate that should be the end of any further proceedings. Done and done.

So if the President orders a coup upon losing an election, that’s an official act? If he uses the military to “take out” and Congressmen who might vote to Impeach


That’s also an official act?

Wrong. Illegal unconstitutional acts are NOT “official acts”

And we can NOT count on Congress to impeach… obviously. We had numerous GOP Senators refuse to vote to impeach saying that Trump’s actions should be dealt with by the courts or at the ballot box

 

[Cellblock2429]

As a starting point it should be noted attorneys from both sides of the immunity case, and all the justices, agree what has been referred to as private acts, not official ones, have no claim to immunity.

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument​

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

www.nbcnews.com

There's one more thing worth mentioning as a precursor. The Court should never have heard this case. Because the claim that Don has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy that no man is above the law. Which is how the lower courts have ruled.

With that in mind, Amy Coney Barrett's questioning of Trump's attorney, John Sauer, was game over for Don. Or at least it should have been. Here's why.

She read the individual charges from the Jan. 6 case Jack Smith has brought, asking Sauer each time whether they constituted a private act or an official one. In every instance he acknowledged they were private acts, not part of Trump's official, Article II duties as prez. That, as they say, is the ballgame. Because as Justice Jackson pointed out that is the question before the Court.

The question is decidedly not what most of the conservatives wanted to make it. An exploration of what constitutes a private and an official act. That is an intellectual exercise having nothing to do with the merits of this case since there is general agreement, even by Sauer, that the acts in question are not official in nature. Which makes the Court's willingness to hear the case yet another travesty ushered in by Trumpery.

/----/ It's not the first time democRATs opened the door into their collective faces. Remember, the pendulum swings both ways. Former democRAT presidents can be charged too.

 

[1srelluc]

So if the President orders a coup upon losing an election, that’s an official act? If he uses the military to “take out” and Congressmen who might vote to Impeach


That’s also an official act?

Wrong. Illegal unconstitutional acts are NOT “official acts”

And we can NOT count on Congress to impeach… obviously. We had numerous GOP Senators refuse to vote to impeach saying that Trump’s actions should be dealt with by the courts or at the ballot box

Amend the Constitution then.....Till such time we have what we have.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Schumer clown show was a joke. Just another example of Dem / Socialist totalitarianism.

The House Impeachment was the "clown show". Republicans could not name a single "high crime" that Mayourkas has committed. MTG, the head clown of the Insurrectionist Caucus, filed the Articles of Impeachment.

The idiocy of attempting to impeach someone because you don't like their policies, is assinine, but that's today's Republican Party: Constantly showing their asses to the American people.

I feel sorry for someone as obviously ignorant of the law as you are.

 

[berg80]

Ironically, Trump is arguing he can be assassinated by Biden without consequence. Biden's justification being the threat Trump poses to our constitutional republic.

 

[Dragonlady]

/----/ It's not the first time democRATs opened the door into their collective faces. Remember, the pendulum swings both ways. Former democRAT presidents can be charged too.

Yes, but Republicans have yet to FIND any crimes that Democrats have committed. 25+ investigations of the Clintons. 8 years of investigating the Obama Administration, and now 3 years into investigations of the Biden Administration and still no charges against anyone.

If you don't commit any crimes, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[berg80]

/----/ It's not the first time democRATs opened the door into their collective faces. Remember, the pendulum swings both ways. Former democRAT presidents can be charged too.

As well they should if they commit crimes in office.

 

[Lesh]

Ironically, Trump is arguing he can be assassinated by Biden without consequence. Biden's justification being the threat Trump poses to our constitutional republic.

Oddly … true

 

[Cellblock2429]

As well they should if they commit crimes in office.

/---/ You say that just to sound fair, but you really want to give democRAT presidents a pass.

 

[berg80]

Former President Trump is charged with conspiring to thwart the peaceful transfer of power following the2020 election. In his defense, he asserts that a doctrine of permanent immunity from criminal liability for a President’s official acts, while not expressly provided by the Constitution, must be inferred. To justify this radical assertion, he contends that the original meaning of the Constitution demands it. But no plausible historical case supports his claim.

The Constitution does not expressly confer any presidential immunity, even though it does for members of Congress in limited cases. The Court must discern whether that silence indicates that permanent presidential immunity was so integral as to need no description (as Petitioner contends), or whether it reflects an intention not to confer immunity.

That inquiry, in turn, would benefit from an examination of the historical record, including the Framers’ own statements and evidence of their views on accountability, the rule of law, and democracy. While “a page of history” may not always be “worth a volume of logic,”2 history provides valuable insight into the meaning and context of the words and principles at issue in Petitioner’s claim.

Sometimes history speaks ambiguously. But here, it speaks with surpassing clarity: The principle that a President may be prosecuted—which informed President Nixon’s 1974 pardon and President Clinton’s 2001 plea bargain—began in the beginning. As James Iredell, one of this Court’s inaugural justices, explained, “If [the President] commits any crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country.”3 The only thing novel about the case before the Court is Petitioner’s conduct, which violated a principle as old as the United States of America itself.

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/23-939%20Brief.pdf