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:

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."

Keyword: discussion

In the previous paragraph, they note that the letter about purported fraud was not sent.

If the letter had been sent, we would move beyond examining discussions to deeds, which would not be an official act.

[Anonymous]

SCOTUS majority notes the chilling consequences of Jack Smith's J6 indictment against Donald Trump:

"Criminally prosecuting a President for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession, as in Burr and Nixon.

The danger is akin to, indeed greater than, what led us to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from civil damages liability—that the President would be chilled from taking the “bold and unhesitating action” required of an independent Executive. Although the President might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than the range of civil damages suits that might be brought by various plaintiffs, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent. Potential criminal liability, and the peculiar public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings, are plainly more likely to distort Presidential decision-making than the potential payment of civil damages.

The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under “a pall of potential prosecution,” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 575 (2016), raises “unique risks to the effective functioning of government." (this refers to Jack Smith's prosecution of former VA Gov Bob McDonnell, which SCOTUS overturned 8-0)

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. 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. The Framers’ design of the Presidency did not envision such counterproductive burdens on the “vigor” and “energy” of the Executive. The Federalist No. 70."

[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.

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."

Keyword: discussion

In the previous paragraph, they note that the letter about purported fraud was not sent.

If the letter had been sent, we would move beyond examining discussions to deeds, which would not be an official act.

Yeah, it doesn’t say that.

[Anonymous]

I have a question for any libertarian leaning folks out there today:
are you okay with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except they didn't. Congress created a position that does not answer to the attorney general.
AG creating a position like Jack Smith's is perfectly legal. The problem is putting in someone who hasn't been confirmed by the Senate to do the job of a US attorney.

[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:

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?

It is 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:

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."

Keyword: discussion

In the previous paragraph, they note that the letter about purported fraud was not sent.

If the letter had been sent, we would move beyond examining discussions to deeds, which would not be an official act.

First, it doesn't say that. And second, Trump's immunity regarding ANYTHING the DOJ does or that he orders they do is ABSOLUTE.

Game, set, match. Why do you think we're freaking out?

[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:

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."

Keyword: discussion

In the previous paragraph, they note that the letter about purported fraud was not sent.

If the letter had been sent, we would move beyond examining discussions to deeds, which would not be an official act.

Yeah, it doesn’t say that.

That's exactly what it says. It says the president "is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials". Discussions - immunity. Actions? Had he sent that letter, that would be a different question.

[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:

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."

Keyword: discussion

In the previous paragraph, they note that the letter about purported fraud was not sent.

If the letter had been sent, we would move beyond examining discussions to deeds, which would not be an official act.

Yeah, it doesn’t say that.

That's exactly what it says. It says the president "is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials". Discussions - immunity. Actions? Had he sent that letter, that would be a different question.

Please quote where it says he wouldn't have immunity if the letter was sent? TYIA.

That doesn't make any sense. If that was the case, then the immunity would turn on how the officials reacted to the president's request and not on anything he himself did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except they didn't. Congress created a position that does not answer to the attorney general.
AG creating a position like Jack Smith's is perfectly legal. The problem is putting in someone who hasn't been confirmed by the Senate to do the job of a US attorney.

I take that back. Clarence Thomas's concurrence says that Congress never created Smith's office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well now, according to the Supreme Court, Biden can't be prosecuted for official acts. And president following can't be prosecuted for official acts.

Not sure the GOP and donors thought this out too well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what’s stopping Biden from drone striking Mar A Lago (and Trump in it) right now for the sake of national security concerns?

He doesn't need to do this. But he can have the justice department detain Trump without bail for Treason and Sedition for his part in trying to overthrow the government, trying to overturn lawfully held elections, trying to stay in office past his term and threatening both executive branch and legislative branch officers of the federal government. At least for the next 6 months. That would most definitely be within the legal jurisdiction and authority of the current executive branch of the government; it definitely falls under domestic national security. And he wouldn't need to kill anyone to do it.

The courts would just release him. Checks. Balances.

The courts don't imprison people. The executive does.

Biden was the person imprisoning in this scenario. I said the courts would release.

Could he just rearrest?

Sure and pigs could fly.

[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:

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."

Keyword: discussion

In the previous paragraph, they note that the letter about purported fraud was not sent.

If the letter had been sent, we would move beyond examining discussions to deeds, which would not be an official act.

Yeah, it doesn’t say that.

That's exactly what it says. It says the president "is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials". Discussions - immunity. Actions? Had he sent that letter, that would be a different question.

It says that because that's what the indictment charges him with. It has nothing to do with whether or not the letter was sent.

Because anything the President does vis-a-vis the DOJ is immune from prosecution, it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to commit a crime that involves his authority over the DOJ. Got it?

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.

[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:

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."

Keyword: discussion

In the previous paragraph, they note that the letter about purported fraud was not sent.

If the letter had been sent, we would move beyond examining discussions to deeds, which would not be an official act.

Yeah, it doesn’t say that.

That's exactly what it says. It says the president "is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials". Discussions - immunity. Actions? Had he sent that letter, that would be a different question.

Please quote where it says he wouldn't have immunity if the letter was sent? TYIA.

That doesn't make any sense. If that was the case, then the immunity would turn on how the officials reacted to the president's request and not on anything he himself did.

Of course any and all discussions of legal or illegal things would be covered by executive privilege, attorney client privilege, and presidential absolute immunity. Doing illegal things is a totally separate question. In the preceding paragraphs in the section, the unsent letter about fake fraud is noted.

There's no text that says, But if they sent the letter... Because that's unnecessary. They don't have to reach it, so they don't. But you can fill it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well now, according to the Supreme Court, Biden can't be prosecuted for official acts. And president following can't be prosecuted for official acts.

Not sure the GOP and donors thought this out too well.

They are counting on Biden AND ALL FUTURE DEMS being wimps and living by the "When they go low, we go high."
They are betting that we are all upright citizens who will play by the rules. And, looks like they may be right. Someone really smart needs to be at the helm at this moment in time. Someone with cojones.