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

[DigitalDrifter]

3 min ago

Immunity case will impact other charges brought against Trump, CNN legal analyst says​

From CNN's Antoinette Radford
Former President Donald Trump will likely not face court before the November election for charges relating to his role in attempting to reverse the election result in 2020, but the district judge will have to hold an evidentiary hearing, CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig said.
“There’s not going to be a convicted felon tag hung on Donald Trump on this case,” he said.
But Honig said the case could have a series of implications for other legal matters, including the Georgia election subversion case brought against the former president.
“They’re going to have to contend with this immunity problem as well,” Honig said.

 

[pknopp]

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

In official actions, it most certainly did.

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.

As I noted, Trump means little to me. It was a bad hypocritical ruling.

 

[JGalt]

MSNBC is already talking about impeaching Supreme Court justices.

 

[Rawley]

Jack Smith is likely not a happy man this morning.

Another of his bullshit theories shot down the tubes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Mostly good comments. But then you allow your ideology and cultish knee jerk mind to stray into defending actions by Mr. Trump, when he was President.

The charges (and evidence should show) Trump went far beyond asking and conferring. Evidence will rule the day. Evidence, not narratives and spin.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Poor lefties they've had it bad since Thursday 9:00 pm Eastern time.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

Not after this ruling, Biden was just handed the world's best get out of jail free card.

Trump better watch his back, Biden might decide it is in the best interest of the country that Trump is not living any longer

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And they ruled that way because they noted there is no such protection in the Constitution but here they found for a protection despite there no being any such protection in the Constitution.

Its not a personal right unless a state says it is.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Poor lefties they've had it bad since Thursday 9:00 pm Eastern time.

The country has had it bad since then.

It was proven to the whole world that the two men running for POTUS are not qualified to visit the white house let alone be POTUS and now they have both been handed the world's biggest get out of jail free card

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In official actions, it most certainly did.




As I noted, Trump means little to me. It was a bad hypocritical ruling.

The legal arguments have always been based on Trump going outside of what are considered to be official duties.

Any defense of actions outside of what will be determined to be official duties, will not hold during any prosecution.

 

[Smokin' OP]

 

[pknopp]

Its not a personal right unless a state says it is.

Avoid my point. I expect it.

 

[blackhawk]

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

That is a horrible idea.

The court did not rule that Presidents have blanket immunity.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not after this ruling, Biden was just handed the world's best get out of jail free card.

Trump better watch his back, Biden might decide it is in the best interest of the country that Trump is not living any longer

No protection granted to senators or vice presidents. Everything against Biden happened while he was a senator or VP.

 

[odanny]

Sounds like possibly good news for the Unified Reich!

The cult celebrates lawlessness.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

MSNBC is already talking about impeaching Supreme Court justices.

I bet they are having an absolute meltdown!

 

[struth]

This institutionalized the idea. As I note, giving even more power to the government. A really bad idea.

Not even sure what you mean…it’s existed for hundreds of years.

It’s not giving more power, since it already existed

All that this case is about is the demafacist trying to undermine the concept to go after polltical rivals. Had they succeed it would be giving the govt more power, and dangerous power, that regimes like castro, Saddam, Xi etc have

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Avoid my point. I expect it.

I didn't avoid it numbnuts. I have you the constitutionality of it

 

[Mac1958]

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

"Unified Reich" is not my term.

Trump's social media account shares a campaign video with a headline about a 'unified Reich'

The headline appears among messages flashing across the screen such as “Trump wins!!” and “Economy booms!” Other headlines appear to be references to World War I.

apnews.com

You're getting what you want. Congrats. I had no idea this was coming.

 

[pknopp]

The court did not rule that Presidents have blanket immunity.

There should be NO immunity. A president should not be above any law.