The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

And the path is fully clear for a future Trump presidency to become a dictatorship, if all of that is legal. King Trump. Turns my stomach. And it should certainly turn the stomach of anyone who believes in freedom or America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

No, they did not. They said that he has absolute immunity for those powers defined in the Constitution and presumtive immunity for official acts. But the President has no powers definied or official for oversight of the election process. The election process is run by the states and Congress. Even if Mike Pence as VPOTUS had the power to do what Trump asked (which is not enumerated in the Constitution), then the President trying to sway the VPOTUS to do or not do his job, is still not an official responsibility of the President. As for directing the DOJ and Clark, that is certainly within his official capacity. However, instructing them to do illegal acts is still an unofficial act. That would be akin to illegal wiretapping by the NSA. The President cannot order the executive branch to violate federal law without that being an illegal action. Trying to order executive branch departments to violate the law would be an unofficial act and no longer assume presumptive immunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

And the path is fully clear for a future Trump presidency to become a dictatorship, if all of that is legal. King Trump. Turns my stomach. And it should certainly turn the stomach of anyone who believes in freedom or America.

Not only that, but they really worked him over whilst in office and ever since.

He's going to be an even angrier Trump. The retribution will be glorious. /grinch smile/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

And the path is fully clear for a future Trump presidency to become a dictatorship, if all of that is legal. King Trump. Turns my stomach. And it should certainly turn the stomach of anyone who believes in freedom or America.

Which is why Joe may as well act now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

No, they did not. They said that he has absolute immunity for those powers defined in the Constitution and presumtive immunity for official acts. But the President has no powers definied or official for oversight of the election process. The election process is run by the states and Congress. Even if Mike Pence as VPOTUS had the power to do what Trump asked (which is not enumerated in the Constitution), then the President trying to sway the VPOTUS to do or not do his job, is still not an official responsibility of the President. As for directing the DOJ and Clark, that is certainly within his official capacity. However, instructing them to do illegal acts is still an unofficial act. That would be akin to illegal wiretapping by the NSA. The President cannot order the executive branch to violate federal law without that being an illegal action. Trying to order executive branch departments to violate the law would be an unofficial act and no longer assume presumptive immunity.

Conservative jurists disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

And the path is fully clear for a future Trump presidency to become a dictatorship, if all of that is legal. King Trump. Turns my stomach. And it should certainly turn the stomach of anyone who believes in freedom or America.

Not only that, but they really worked him over whilst in office and ever since.

He's going to be an even angrier Trump. The retribution will be glorious. /grinch smile/

You do know that the main people he's truly against are the actual Republicans, don't you? Watch out McConnell, Pence, Jeb Bush, and God help Ted Cruz and Chris Christie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

And the path is fully clear for a future Trump presidency to become a dictatorship, if all of that is legal. King Trump. Turns my stomach. And it should certainly turn the stomach of anyone who believes in freedom or America.

Not only that, but they really worked him over whilst in office and ever since.

He's going to be an even angrier Trump. The retribution will be glorious. /grinch smile/

Hope Trump appoints Vivek as the next AG. Vivek is vicious as a bulldog on steroids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

And the path is fully clear for a future Trump presidency to become a dictatorship, if all of that is legal. King Trump. Turns my stomach. And it should certainly turn the stomach of anyone who believes in freedom or America.

Which is why Joe may as well act now.

If he were, you know, fully functional. Which is a bit of a question mark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

No, they did not. They said that he has absolute immunity for those powers defined in the Constitution and presumtive immunity for official acts. But the President has no powers definied or official for oversight of the election process. The election process is run by the states and Congress. Even if Mike Pence as VPOTUS had the power to do what Trump asked (which is not enumerated in the Constitution), then the President trying to sway the VPOTUS to do or not do his job, is still not an official responsibility of the President. As for directing the DOJ and Clark, that is certainly within his official capacity. However, instructing them to do illegal acts is still an unofficial act. That would be akin to illegal wiretapping by the NSA. The President cannot order the executive branch to violate federal law without that being an illegal action. Trying to order executive branch departments to violate the law would be an unofficial act and no longer assume presumptive immunity.

Trump can wave his arms and claims "official acts" and then it is what it is, no matter how much someone like you wants to sugar coat it. The court could have left the appeal decision alone back in January, but instead took this extraordinary step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

No, they did not. They said that he has absolute immunity for those powers defined in the Constitution and presumtive immunity for official acts. But the President has no powers definied or official for oversight of the election process. The election process is run by the states and Congress. Even if Mike Pence as VPOTUS had the power to do what Trump asked (which is not enumerated in the Constitution), then the President trying to sway the VPOTUS to do or not do his job, is still not an official responsibility of the President. As for directing the DOJ and Clark, that is certainly within his official capacity. However, instructing them to do illegal acts is still an unofficial act. That would be akin to illegal wiretapping by the NSA. The President cannot order the executive branch to violate federal law without that being an illegal action. Trying to order executive branch departments to violate the law would be an unofficial act and no longer assume presumptive immunity.

Trump can wave his arms and claims "official acts" and then it is what it is, no matter how much someone like you wants to sugar coat it. The court could have left the appeal decision alone back in January, but instead took this extraordinary step.

No, that PP is right. And the Supreme Court wasn't wrong to take up this extraordinary issue. It's a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

No, they did not. They said that he has absolute immunity for those powers defined in the Constitution and presumtive immunity for official acts. But the President has no powers definied or official for oversight of the election process. The election process is run by the states and Congress. Even if Mike Pence as VPOTUS had the power to do what Trump asked (which is not enumerated in the Constitution), then the President trying to sway the VPOTUS to do or not do his job, is still not an official responsibility of the President. As for directing the DOJ and Clark, that is certainly within his official capacity. However, instructing them to do illegal acts is still an unofficial act. That would be akin to illegal wiretapping by the NSA. The President cannot order the executive branch to violate federal law without that being an illegal action. Trying to order executive branch departments to violate the law would be an unofficial act and no longer assume presumptive immunity.

Trump can wave his arms and claims "official acts" and then it is what it is, no matter how much someone like you wants to sugar coat it. The court could have left the appeal decision alone back in January, but instead took this extraordinary step.

Nah, he can waive his arms all he wants. He can't make an illegal act into an official act. It doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

No, they did not. They said that he has absolute immunity for those powers defined in the Constitution and presumtive immunity for official acts. But the President has no powers definied or official for oversight of the election process. The election process is run by the states and Congress. Even if Mike Pence as VPOTUS had the power to do what Trump asked (which is not enumerated in the Constitution), then the President trying to sway the VPOTUS to do or not do his job, is still not an official responsibility of the President. As for directing the DOJ and Clark, that is certainly within his official capacity. However, instructing them to do illegal acts is still an unofficial act. That would be akin to illegal wiretapping by the NSA. The President cannot order the executive branch to violate federal law without that being an illegal action. Trying to order executive branch departments to violate the law would be an unofficial act and no longer assume presumptive immunity.

You obviously haven't read the decision. It says straight out that instructing Clark to undertake sham investigations is absolutely immune.

"The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment ¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is
therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

No, they did not. They said that he has absolute immunity for those powers defined in the Constitution and presumtive immunity for official acts. But the President has no powers definied or official for oversight of the election process. The election process is run by the states and Congress. Even if Mike Pence as VPOTUS had the power to do what Trump asked (which is not enumerated in the Constitution), then the President trying to sway the VPOTUS to do or not do his job, is still not an official responsibility of the President. As for directing the DOJ and Clark, that is certainly within his official capacity. However, instructing them to do illegal acts is still an unofficial act. That would be akin to illegal wiretapping by the NSA. The President cannot order the executive branch to violate federal law without that being an illegal action. Trying to order executive branch departments to violate the law would be an unofficial act and no longer assume presumptive immunity.

Trump can wave his arms and claims "official acts" and then it is what it is, no matter how much someone like you wants to sugar coat it. The court could have left the appeal decision alone back in January, but instead took this extraordinary step.

Nah, he can waive his arms all he wants. He can't make an illegal act into an official act. It doesn't work that way.

Uh, it's not illegal if you have immunity.

From Jackson's dissent (non-lawyers would learn a lot from reading it):

To fully appreciate the profound change the majority has wrought, one must first acknowledge what it means to have
immunity from criminal prosecution. Put simply, immunity is “exemption” from the duties and liabilities imposed by
law. Black’s Law Dictionary 898 (11th ed. 2019); see Hopkins v. Clemson, 221 U. S. 636, 643 (1911) (explaining that
immunity is “exemption from legal process”). In its purest form, the concept of immunity boils down to a maxim—
“‘[t]he King can do no wrong’”—a notion that was firmly “rejected at the birth of [our] Republic.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 697, n. 24 (1997)
To say that someone is immune from criminal prosecution is to say that, like a King, he “is not under the coercive power of the law,” which “will not suppose him capable of committing a folly, much less a crime.” 4 Blackstone *33. Thus, being immune is not like having a defense under the law. Rather,
it means that the law does not apply to the immunized person in the first place. Conferring immunity therefore “create[s] a privileged class free from liability for wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened.” Hopkins, 221 U. S., at 643.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how a president could possibly be prosecuted for bribery under this decision. By definition, bribery is receipt of money or other thing of value in exchange for an official act. Official acts are now absolutely immune, and prosecutors can't even introduce evidence about them. So you can get stacks of gold bars al a Menendez, but prosecutors couldn't introduce any evidence that those gold bars were in exchange for signing legislation for example.

But why would you be criminallly charging a president with piddling little bribery? That's just a peccadillo compared to bugging an opponent's office or fomenting a couple.

The Supreme Court basically divided a line between really really big bad actions that are chargeable and small or medium bad acts that have immunity.

That's not remotely what the decision says.

The opinion draws a line between official acts, which are absolute immunity including prohibiting inquiries into motive or evidence, and other acts including outer official and unofficial acts with no immunity. The letter about fake election fraud was considered part of official duties, since the letter was not sent. However, had the letter been sent, then that would have been an unofficial act, opening inquiry into motive and evidence.

IOW, really really bad acts do not have absolute immunity.

It doesn't say that. If anything, it says the opposite. If the president does some ordinary petty crime that's unrelated to his official duties, like DWI or shoplifting, he can be fully prosecuted. If he sells pardons, orders baseless criminal prosecutions, or orders the military to assassinate people, that's all official and he's immune.

Nobody is going to be charging a president with a DUI. SMH Read the opinion again and think about what it means, not just what it says.

Trump tried to stay in power illegally used a number of means, some certainly "official" and all at least arguably "official" as SCOTUS is defining it. That's about the worst thing a president could possibly do. So this only "really really bad acts don't have absolute immunity" line you're trying to draw is bull.

He's literally being criminally charged for his actions during his presidency. That's what this case is about.

And SCOTUS just let him off.

They just did the opposite.

How so? They said that many of the pillars of the prosecution are subject to absolute immunity (pressuring Pence, getting Clark to gin up DOJ investigations), and the remaining ones (pressuring the GA Secretary of State, the ellipse speech) are presumptively immune and you can't ask about his motives or intentions. So those are going too. The case is effectively done.

No, they did not. They said that he has absolute immunity for those powers defined in the Constitution and presumtive immunity for official acts. But the President has no powers definied or official for oversight of the election process. The election process is run by the states and Congress. Even if Mike Pence as VPOTUS had the power to do what Trump asked (which is not enumerated in the Constitution), then the President trying to sway the VPOTUS to do or not do his job, is still not an official responsibility of the President. As for directing the DOJ and Clark, that is certainly within his official capacity. However, instructing them to do illegal acts is still an unofficial act. That would be akin to illegal wiretapping by the NSA. The President cannot order the executive branch to violate federal law without that being an illegal action. Trying to order executive branch departments to violate the law would be an unofficial act and no longer assume presumptive immunity.

Trump can wave his arms and claims "official acts" and then it is what it is, no matter how much someone like you wants to sugar coat it. The court could have left the appeal decision alone back in January, but instead took this extraordinary step.

Nah, he can waive his arms all he wants. He can't make an illegal act into an official act. It doesn't work that way.

Confused. I thought they said he in effect he could trade ambassadorships for bribes. Is that legal?

[Anonymous]

The entire DOJ prosecution is illegal because Jack Smith can't be appointed by the Attorney General. It was always egregious given the plain language of the Appointments Clause, but the idea that the DOJ can, by fiat, create a position rescinded by Congresss is absurd.

All you folks worried about "King" Trump should look in the mirror because the Dems are the ones taking unilateral action not authorized by the Constitution.

Trump is a clown but he's no tyrant. Whoever follows Trump may be.