The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Besides setting a dangerous precedent, this effectively delays Trump's trials even more. By leaving the definition of "official acts" to the lower courts, this guarantees that any finding that any decision that an act fell outside, that decision would immediately be appealed to the SC. Round and round we go; Trump will be dead before this case ever sees a jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Besides setting a dangerous precedent, this effectively delays Trump's trials even more. By leaving the definition of "official acts" to the lower courts, this guarantees that any finding that any decision that an act fell outside, that decision would immediately be appealed to the SC. Round and round we go; Trump will be dead before this case ever sees a jury.

Ugh - we really need an edit button.

[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.

This Court is simply a joke. While I am not an expert on Constitutional law, I am a lawyer, who took many political theory and constitutional law classes in college and law school. The MAGA Supremes are issuing opinions that fundamentally run counter to the basis on which this country was founded. Today's opinion is Example 1.

[Anonymous]

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

Absolutely! This was the textually correct decision.

[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.

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?

You’re freaking out because lawfare is not working

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutely! This was the textually correct decision.

Well sure. The fancypants official/unofficial line sounds good but makes no sense when you start to dig in to it. Correct? Yeah. Useful? Nope.

[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.

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?

You’re freaking out because lawfare is not working

Or maybe because our representative Democracy was just basically eliminated? If it doesn't sink in for you, it will for your grandkids.

[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.

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?

You’re freaking out because lawfare is not working

Or maybe because our representative Democracy was just basically eliminated? If it doesn't sink in for you, it will for your grandkids.

The drama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutely! This was the textually correct decision.

Where's the text that confers immunity on the president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS says its limited immunity ruling will protect senior Biden officials from being prosecuted for refusing to enforce immigration law. That's obviously good news for Mayorkas and Biden, who have deliberately opened the border.

The fact the left isn't happy about this victory would indicate that they want our government to descend, Venezuela-style, into an endless series of tit-for-tat prosecutions, regardless of who's being prosecuted. The caterwauling about how this ruling allows the president to drone strike his opponents (it does not) is disingenuous; that's precisely the outcome they want.

You keep repeating the lie. It isn't true, and your continued harping on the lie undermines anything else that follows.

An open border doesn't have drug interdictions, deportations or turnaways, all have been happening under Biden in numbers much greater than at any time during the Trump Administration.

[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.

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?

You’re freaking out because lawfare is not working

It seems it's working quite well. Indeed, SCOTUS just said that all of Trump's lawfare was totally fine and legal.

[Anonymous]

I am thankful I do not have any current or former family members who died in service to the USA fighting against tyranny abroad and democracy at home. What a total waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutely! This was the textually correct decision.

What text in the Constitution supports the President getting absolute or presumptive criminal immunity?
Especially in light of the Speech or Debate Clause which explicitly gives Congress immunity?

[Anonymous]

Biden needs to stop enforcing the Supreme Court’s decisions. It’s an illegitimate Court at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutely! This was the textually correct decision.

What text in the Constitution supports the President getting absolute or presumptive criminal immunity?
Especially in light of the Speech or Debate Clause which explicitly gives Congress immunity?

DP. It's implied. Like the right to privacy.