Read The Supreme Court Ruling On Presidential Immunity

[Harpy Eagle]

Not sure the point you're trying to make.

Justice will move slowly -- take time? Hello?

in a few months Trump will likely be the president, which will end all the cases.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You wrote: "It appears that two of the Lawsuit will collapse, the Georgia and Pence pressure lawsuits."

I commented: "Your analysis is wrong."

and you are wrong. but at least you are consistent.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

no process will start again if trump wins, except my flight to costa rtica.

we will be neighbors as we are looking at Panama

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

in a few months Trump will likely be the president, which will end all the cases.

Indeed it will. Then that will sink in and Americans will be sitting there wondering how we "let" this happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump is fully aware this decision does not let him off the hook in Georgia or in the documents case. Not in the least.

He will make hay today, but Trump is still fully aware that he has to win this election to stay out of prison.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity​

July 1, 2024

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/58e874be6164060e/df3181b1-full.pdf

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity

The court rules that former presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, and are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for official acts.

www.nytimes.com

As with most of the Trump legal issues, the World Wide Web and sites like USMB have comments and narratives that stray from what is fact, what is truthful. It's human nature to do what people have been doing with these contentious issues. Mr. Trump must love the attention. He will certainly get more than a few paragraphs in future history books.

But let some of us here read the actual ruling, and use that for discussion, conversation, arguments.


June 1, 2024
Dante

no paywall

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity​

July 1, 2024

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/58e874be6164060e/df3181b1-full.pdf

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity

The court rules that former presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, and are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for official acts.

www.nytimes.com

As with most of the Trump legal issues, the World Wide Web and sites like USMB have comments and narratives that stray from what is fact, what is truthful. It's human nature to do what people have been doing with these contentious issues. Mr. Trump must love the attention. He will certainly get more than a few paragraphs in future history books.

But let some of us here read the actual ruling, and use that for discussion, conversation, arguments.


June 1, 2024
Dante

So, immunity exists if the Constitution grants the president that power.

There are powers which are "outer perimeter" powers which are also protected, which they say are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority."

They have said Trump going to the Justice Department and asking them to look into replacing the electors is legitimate.

They have said he can replace, or threaten to replace, any official under his control for whatever reason he likes.

They say he can go to the VP and ask the VP to carry out fraud, simply because they are discussing "official responsibilities". Seems a bit weird to say "I want you to break the law, therefore we're talking about official responsibilities, therefore it's protected." When I say "a little weird" I mean FUCKING CRAZY.

They've sent this back to a lower court to see whether it would "pose any dangers" to the power of the executive.

When Trump went to talk to people outside of the federal govt, his legal team didn't manage to show that Trump actually had the power to do what he did. It's not the US federal govt's place to tell states how to do their EC, or if it is, it's the Supreme Court's not, the President's.

However they're sending it back to see if this is "official" or "unofficial".

This is where Trump will have the most problems, because it's simply not Presidential power.

They also say The president can say whatever the fuck he likes, no matter how bat shit crazy, as long as he is speaking in an official capacity.

The president can be speaking unofficially, for example if Trump is speaking as a presidential candidate, he's not acting as president. So I'd say this could also cause him problems because he wasn't speaking as president, but depends on how they see this.

They also say testimony or private records of the president can't be used.

To be continued, maybe

 

[frigidweirdo]

OK Dante, should Citizen Biden be tried for manslaughter for the deaths of the 13 Marines killed during the Afghanistan withdrawal? Why or Why not?

The question you probably want to ask is "when should a president be liable for prosecution?"

Because like the ruling says, it's about "official" and "unofficial duties".

How do you separate them? When is something official, and when isn't it?

Sometimes it depends on what the president is doing.

If a president is running for re-election, say at a campaign rally, he isn't there as President, but as a presidential candidate, so it's all "unofficial".

The question is here, if a president is doing something about the election which they themselves ran in, and then lost, and that president is trying to win that election, is it "official" or "unofficial"?

Certainly talking to people in Georgia asking them to overturn the results is not "official" as he doesn't have any business talking to these people about this.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They have said Trump going to the Justice Department and asking them to look into replacing the electors is legitimate.

"legitimate?"


really?

Where?

 

[frigidweirdo]

"legitimate?"


really?

Where?

(2)(i) page 5

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(2)(i) page 5

"They have said Trump going to the Justice Department and asking them to look into replacing the electors is legitimate." your wording

"(i) The indictment alleges that as part of their conspiracy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump and his co -conspirators attempted to leverage the Justice Department's power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump's fraudulent slates of electors."

"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials." - the exact wording

I guess I'm thinking it's much more nuanced than your portrayal. The Justice Dept was not asked to replace electors. They were asked (reads the indictment) to try and convince certain states to do Trump's bidding. Justice had no power to actually interfere. They were consulted, and that is protected. The President could ask advice about shooting somebody on 5th Ave in NYC.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no paywall

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

The link to the decisions has no pay wall.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/58e874be6164060e/df3181b1-full.pdf

 

[frigidweirdo]

"They have said Trump going to the Justice Department and asking them to look into replacing the electors is legitimate." your wording

"(i) The indictment alleges that as part of their conspiracy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump and his co -conspirators attempted to leverage the Justice Department's power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump's fraudulent slates of electors."

"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials." - the exact wording

I guess I'm thinking it's much more nuanced than your portrayal. The Justice Dept was not asked to replace electors. They were asked (reads the indictment) to try and convince certain states to do Trump's bidding. Justice had no power to actually interfere. They were consulted, and that is protected. The President could ask advice about shooting somebody on 5th Ave in NYC.

What's happened is they're looking into whether Trump can be prosecuted under the guise of "official" and "unofficial" business. Because they've said "official" presidential business means he cannot be prosecuted ever.

He can decide which cases appear or don't appear in court. That is a part of the president's job. He can talk to the Justice Department, they don't have to do what he says, but he can replace those who don't do what he says.

Which means he can put in someone who says they'll do what they're told too.

So, I'm assuming that we kind of agree with what the Supreme Court has said.

 

[Delldude]

I am interested in the dissents, because I have long been for a strong Executive branch more than a strong Legislative branch.

Well the dissents may get you a free cup of coffee somewhere, but that's about all they're good for.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What's happened is they're looking into whether Trump can be prosecuted under the guise of "official" and "unofficial" business. Because they've said "official" presidential business means he cannot be prosecuted ever.

He can decide which cases appear or don't appear in court. That is a part of the president's job. He can talk to the Justice Department, they don't have to do what he says, but he can replace those who don't do what he says.

Which means he can put in someone who says they'll do what they're told too.

So, I'm assuming that we kind of agree with what the Supreme Court has said.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What's happened is they're looking into whether Trump can be prosecuted under the guise of "official" and "unofficial" business. Because they've said "official" presidential business means he cannot be prosecuted ever.

He can decide which cases appear or don't appear in court. That is a part of the president's job. He can talk to the Justice Department, they don't have to do what he says, but he can replace those who don't do what he says.

Which means he can put in someone who says they'll do what they're told too.

So, I'm assuming that we kind of agree with what the Supreme Court has said.

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...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because like the ruling says, it's about "official" and "unofficial duties".

How do you separate them? When is something official, and when isn't it?

The SCOTUS punted that. This corrupt court loves saying "it's up to the lower courts", then accepting challenges to their rulings.

Hey SCOTUS.. the lower courts DID decide, and you took up the challenge.

It's a game of doublespeak.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity​

July 1, 2024

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/58e874be6164060e/df3181b1-full.pdf

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity

The court rules that former presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, and are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for official acts.

www.nytimes.com

As with most of the Trump legal issues, the World Wide Web and sites like USMB have comments and narratives that stray from what is fact, what is truthful. It's human nature to do what people have been doing with these contentious issues. Mr. Trump must love the attention. He will certainly get more than a few paragraphs in future history books.

But let some of us here read the actual ruling, and use that for discussion, conversation, arguments.


June 1, 2024
Dante

re: What has the Roberts' decision changed here?

previous post: December 4, 2023

Trump's imbecilic notion of absolute immunity struck down


Two D.C. courts on Friday shot down former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims related to January 6 and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday ruled that being president does not equate to "a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."


quotes:
"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," she wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."

Chutkan also shut down Trump's argument that the case presents a violation of his First Amendment rights, as his attorneys have alleged that his challenging of the election via claims of election fraud was a protected act of free speech.

"It is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime," Chutkan observed. "Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements ... but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process."

Trump prepares for court fight to prove he was right to doubt 2020 election results

This could be a major turning point in these trials. Americans from every state thing something shady happened back on election day in 2020. Hopefully Trump's lawyers can use this to end this travesty. ---In new challenge to indictment, Trump's lawyers argue he had good basis to question...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OK Dante, should Citizen Biden be tried for manslaughter for the deaths of the 13 Marines killed during the Afghanistan withdrawal? Why or Why not?

Various Considerations Related to Federal Immunity​

Under the Feres Doctrine, those who are injured during their military service cannot sue the federal government.

sovereign immunity

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wrong. Your analysis is wrong.

next


keeper thread and post

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