BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Trump is entitled to some immunity in Jan. 6 case

[DigitalDrifter]

4 min ago

Supreme Court embraces Trump’s argument on chilling presidency​

From CNN's John Fritze
Chief Justice John Roberts picked up and embraced one of the central themes raised by former President Donald Trump in his arguments: That allowing prosecutors to look back at actions taken by a former president would potentially chill his ability to do the job.
“A president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts wrote.
“And if a former president’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, “the independence of the executive branch” may be significantly undermined.

 

[pknopp]

It’s not a question of supporting more power to the government it was unrealistic to think the court was not going to give Presidents some immunity.

I disagree with the idea that a president or anyone should be above the Constitution and our laws.

That is a horrible idea.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jack Smith gets bitch slapped again.

Nope. Wrong again.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What Trump did surrounding attempts at obstructing the election. That is what it's all about, Little Alfie.

Trump was just trying to protect democracy, what could be more official than that?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

4 min ago

Presidential historian says today's decision makes it harder for Americans to "protect themselves"​

From CNN's Antoinette Radford
Presidential historian Tim Naftali said today’s decision would make it “much harder for the American people to protect themselves from a corrupt president.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his presidency.
Naftali said that the fact that a district court had to decide which elements of Trump’s presidency had immunity was “chilling.”
“The fact that the discussions with Vice President Pence have a presumption of immunity has to be determined by the district court though, has a chilling effect,” Naftali said

 

[debbiedowner]

Anything that can deter these Trump investigations and bring this election back to something that resembles fair, is OK with me. MAGA

You seem to think this only applies to Trump.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You seem to think this only applies to Trump.

Cultist are very short sighted

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

4 min ago

Supreme Court embraces Trump’s argument on chilling presidency​

From CNN's John Fritze
Chief Justice John Roberts picked up and embraced one of the central themes raised by former President Donald Trump in his arguments: That allowing prosecutors to look back at actions taken by a former president would potentially chill his ability to do the job.
“A president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts wrote.
“And if a former president’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, “the independence of the executive branch” may be significantly undermined.

People need to pay attention.


"a former president’s official acts"

The cases against Trump are about actions outside of what are viewed as official duties. Can assassination of a political rival by the President be viewed as an official act? Yes. Wuld it be outside what are considered official duties? Yes.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

1 min ago

Justice Jackson says Supreme Court has "let down the guardrails of the law"​

From CNN's Devan Cole
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a separate dissent that the majority’s ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground” by granting immunity “only to the most powerful official in our Government.”
She said that her conservative colleagues were “discarding” the nation’s long-held principle that no one is above the law.
“That core principle has long prevented our Nation from devolving into despotism,” she said. “Yet the Court now opts to let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizen: any future President who has the will to flout Congress’s established boundaries.”
The liberal justice described the impact of the court’s ruling in dark terms, saying that “even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup, has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model.”
“In the end, then, under the majority’s new paradigm, whether the President will be exempt from legal liability for murder, assault, theft, fraud, or any other reprehensible and outlawed criminal act will turn on whether he committed that act in his official capacity, such that the answer to the immunity question will always and inevitably be: It depends,” Jackson wrote.

 

[JGalt]

Trump will be tried and convicted.

 

[pknopp]

People need to pay attention.


"a former president’s official acts"

The cases against Trump are about actions outside of what are viewed as official duties. Can assassination of a political rival by the President be viewed as an official act? Yes. Wuld it be outside what are considered official duties? Yes.

True BUT I am looking beyond Trump. It's a horrible idea to create a protection out of nothing that says a president is above the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Fake Electors Scheme, Explained​

The plan to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election by creating slates of electors pledged to Donald Trump in states he had lost was expansive, long-running and often confusing.

Charlie Savage NYT
"The Supreme Court majority ruling sets the stage for a new appeals fight if prosecutors continue to want to tell the jury about former President Trump pressuring former Vice President Pence to disrupt the counting of Biden’s electoral college votes — a linchpin to understanding the fake electors scheme, according to the indictment."

An appeals fight. Get it JGalt ? What is an appeal? Something that comes after a conviction.

 

[Mashmont]

Here it is:

What you need to know​

• JUST IN: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his presidency in a decision that will likely further delay a trial on the federal election subversion charges pending against him.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24/index.html

It looks like the great man is on an incredible winning streak the past four days. Good things happen to good people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here it is:

What you need to know​

• JUST IN: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his presidency in a decision that will likely further delay a trial on the federal election subversion charges pending against him.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24/index.html

I haven't read the decision yet but based on commentary I was listening to this morning, the Court ruled that ALL PRESIDENTS have immunity for official acts but not for nonofficial acts during his/her presidency. What constitutes an official vs a private act should be determined first by lower courts. But it was pretty clear that the President calling up a governor or whomever (Georgia) and asking that election fraud be examined or conferring with the Vice President (J6) as to what the Vice President should do re certification of a potentially fraudulent election are official and non prosecutable acts by the President.

But if he goes out and guns down some people in the street, that would not be an official act but would be a private act fully prosecutable.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"a former president’s official acts"

which is just about every thing they do besides choosing what to have for dinner

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

True BUT I am looking beyond Trump. It's a horrible idea to create a protection out of nothing that says a president is above the Constitution.

.
The ruling has not said a US President is above the US Constitution.

But I will go further into treading it all to see if your fears and ideas are based on facts, in reality.

Trump will still be tried. That is a given.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I haven't read the decision yet but based on commentary I was listening to this morning, the Court ruled that ALL PRESIDENTS have immunity for official acts but not for nonofficial acts during his/her presidency. What constitutes an official vs a private act should be determined first by lower courts. But it was pretty clear that the President calling up a governor or whomever (Georgia) and asking that election fraud be examined or conferring with the Vice President (J6) as to what the Vice President should do re certification of a potentially fraudulent election are official and non prosecutable acts by the President.

But if he goes out and guns down some people in the street, that would not be an official act but would be a private act fully prosecutable.

And then you prove all of my comments about this are correct.

 

[MarathonMike]

Sounds like possibly good news for the Unified Reich!

Tired of losing yet Mac? Your Nazi smear rings hollow.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

1 min ago

How the Supreme Court ruling on Trump immunity hamstrings Jack Smith’s election subversion case​

From CNN's John Fritze

The court made clear that unofficial actions do not receive immunity and special counsel Jack Smith has long made clear that he feels he could continue the case based on those unofficial actions. In that sense, if Smith narrowed his indictment, lower courts could hear the Trump trial this year.
But the court also left a lot of work for lower courts to sort out on what constitutes an official act versus a private one.
Perhaps even more important, the majority made clear that official acts cannot be considered at all as evidence in a potential trial, which could make it much harder for Smith to demonstrate Trump’s motive. And Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the lower courts may not look into a former president’s motive.
“Certain allegations – such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General – are readily categorized in light of the nature of the president’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” Roberts wrote. “Other allegations – such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the vice president, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public – present more difficult questions,” Roberts wrote.
But Roberts said lower courts that must decide whether those actions “are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.”
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the discussion of evidence makes it even more difficult for the special counsel.
“Even more striking than the majority’s recognition of both categorical immunity from ‘core’ acts and ‘presumptive’ immunity from other official acts is the Court’s insistence that immunized conduct can’t even be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune,” Vladeck said.
“That’s a huge issue both in Trump’s case and going forward, because it will make it much harder to prove that former presidents committed crimes for which they can be tried, even if they’re not necessarily immune from being tried for such offenses,” he added.

 

[MarathonMike]

.
The ruling has not said a US President is above the US Constitution.

But I will go further into treading it all to see if your fears and ideas are based on facts, in reality.

Trump will still be tried. That is a given.

When Joe Biden becomes a citizen in 2025, so will he.