The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

[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:

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.

All of the preceding discussion is about how the president has absolute control of DOJ under the constitution. It's absolutely crazy to say the president is absolutely immune for any requests he makes to DOJ, no matter how corrupt, but if DOJ actually complies with the request, then it's suddenly not immune. There is no inkling whatsoever that this is what SCOTUS is saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. I said this earlier in the thread. They know the Democrats will "be the bigger person" and not test the ruling.

[Anonymous]

And we have a feeble, doddering old man in charge.
Biden isn’t up to this moment.
Neither is Garland.

Trump is going to love abusing all this power come next January.

[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:

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.

All of the preceding discussion is about how the president has absolute control of DOJ under the constitution. It's absolutely crazy to say the president is absolutely immune for any requests he makes to DOJ, no matter how corrupt, but if DOJ actually complies with the request, then it's suddenly not immune. There is no inkling whatsoever that this is what SCOTUS is saying.

They explicitly say absolutely immune from prosecution for discussion. They didn't say absolutely immune to prosecution for everything DOJ related.

[Anonymous]

President Biden should order the immediate arrest and imprisonment of Fatty Orange on the ground of a national security. We know he intentionally held onto and shares top secret information. He is simply a threat to our national security, an area in which the President has exceedingly broad powers, even before today's bizare opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

To the extent the Supreme Court rules that something is an "official act."

Something tells me the current Court would give Trump more latitude than Biden.

[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:

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.

All of the preceding discussion is about how the president has absolute control of DOJ under the constitution. It's absolutely crazy to say the president is absolutely immune for any requests he makes to DOJ, no matter how corrupt, but if DOJ actually complies with the request, then it's suddenly not immune. There is no inkling whatsoever that this is what SCOTUS is saying.

They explicitly say absolutely immune from prosecution for discussion. They didn't say absolutely immune to prosecution for everything DOJ related.

What else would the president do with respect to DOJ that is not "discussion"?

[Anonymous]

Everyone should understand that any and all appeals related to the 2024 election to the Supreme Court will be decided in favor of Trump, regardless of the facts or opinions leading up to said appeal, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

To the extent the Supreme Court rules that something is an "official act."

Something tells me the current Court would give Trump more latitude than Biden.

And something tells me they wouldn’t. You’re entitled to your opinion born of a court that disagrees with you, but that’s all it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should understand that any and all appeals related to the 2024 election to the Supreme Court will be decided in favor of Trump, regardless of the facts or opinions leading up to said appeal, right?

Sorry you didn’t get your way on this decision. Doesn’t make the court a rubber stamp for Trump. The hysterics on this board are really intolerable at times.

[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.

First, the tribe pressured Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Small One, presumably on the theory that the sc would be somewhat independent of the WH. Now, once a sc was appointed, the tribe objects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should understand that any and all appeals related to the 2024 election to the Supreme Court will be decided in favor of Trump, regardless of the facts or opinions leading up to said appeal, right?

Sorry you didn’t get your way on this decision. Doesn’t make the court a rubber stamp for Trump. The hysterics on this board are really intolerable at times.

I know, totally like the hysterics about Roe v. Wade. Why can't everyone just calm down, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

To the extent the Supreme Court rules that something is an "official act."

Something tells me the current Court would give Trump more latitude than Biden.

This. Biden is not protected at all. The Supreme Court gets to decide ex post facto which of Biden's acts were "official" and which were "unofficial" once he leaves the office of the Presidency. The Supreme Court has taken a huge swath of power for itself in the last two days at the expense of Congress and the office of the POTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

To the extent the Supreme Court rules that something is an "official act."

Something tells me the current Court would give Trump more latitude than Biden.

This. Biden is not protected at all. The Supreme Court gets to decide ex post facto which of Biden's acts were "official" and which were "unofficial" once he leaves the office of the Presidency. The Supreme Court has taken a huge swath of power for itself in the last two days at the expense of Congress and the office of the POTUS.

Okay, but if Biden pushes on what he should push on right now, then at least it's in writing that the President has limited power.