The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am baffled that "legal experts" here along with the justices think this is an appropriate conclusion even if it "follows the law." It's so vague you can effectively never actually regulate the president, because they will always claim they are reasonable and in line with presidential duties-hell, technically they are the most knowledgeable about what that vaguely means and can stretch the law (as these justices do every ruling more and more) to fit their narrative. I don't think this is a "party" question, but a genuine concerning ruling by people openly ruling that it is fine for our presidents to commit crimes.

The proper check on this is impeachment.

Not jailing your political opponent in tainted lawfare exercises.

No, impeachment is for high crimes. Criminal prosecution is for crime.

No. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors meant to remove a corrupt president from office and is separate from the criminal system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seditious conspiracy is not insurrection.
Seditious conspiracy is plotting, and as the name implies, conspiracy.
Insurrection is a violent attempt to overthrow, an act.

So again. No insurrection charges.

...

SMH

Don’t shake your head. Read the NYT.
“While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.”

Are you really trying to say that sedition is better than insurrection? More moral? Less bad?

Or are you just arguing word choice for no reason?

[Anonymous]

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.

How can selling pardons be an official act. He has the power to grant pardons not to sell pardons.

[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.

Forget it, Jake. It's MAGA town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seditious conspiracy is not insurrection.
Seditious conspiracy is plotting, and as the name implies, conspiracy.
Insurrection is a violent attempt to overthrow, an act.

So again. No insurrection charges.

...

SMH

Don’t shake your head. Read the NYT.
“While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.”

Are you really trying to say that sedition is better than insurrection? More moral? Less bad?

Or are you just arguing word choice for no reason?

Don’t suggest people including Trump have been charged with insurrection. Those charges could have been brought but were not. Words matter. Seditious conspiracy is not sedition and it’s not insurrection. These all refer to different things and it’s deception to try to say things that aren’t true.

[Anonymous]

If you ever took a civics class you would understand that a President has immunity for official acts, not private. The burden of proof is discerning official vs private. The SC got it right. This is nothing new. The sheeple are out in full force today,

[Anonymous]

I think this was a bought decision with the three appointed by Trump and I would not be surprised that the three discussed this with Trump. Trump is corrupt and he chose corrupt people to save him.

However. I don't think this is as wonderful as trump thinks it is. The likelihood of Republicans and Independents who find this decision as repugnant as most of us. I think many will vote for Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you ever took a civics class you would understand that a President has immunity for official acts, not private. The burden of proof is discerning official vs private. The SC got it right. This is nothing new. The sheeple are out in full force today,

The right wingers disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you ever took a civics class you would understand that a President has immunity for official acts, not private. The burden of proof is discerning official vs private. The SC got it right. This is nothing new. The sheeple are out in full force today,

Read the rest of the decision. ANY communication between the President and the DOJ, or with WH officials, is automatically presumed to be "official" and therefore off limits. The SC most definitely did not get this right.

[Anonymous]

I am of the opinion that Biden should just take Trump out now that he's immune from prosecution. And suspend elections in red states.

Amurka, eff yeah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am of the opinion that Biden should just take Trump out now that he's immune from prosecution. And suspend elections in red states.

Amurka, eff yeah.

Exactly. This seems like an excellent green light for Biden to go guns blazing, not like he's doing great right now. Might as well take Trump for his word and eliminate his opposition-it's an official act, of course.

[Anonymous]

From page 6:

<< Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.>>

That goes against what they have been peddling for 4 years.

[Anonymous]

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.

How can selling pardons be an official act. He has the power to grant pardons not to sell pardons.

Silly getting money after giving a pardon is just a “gratuity,” that’s what the SC said last week!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From page 6:

<< Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.>>

That goes against what they have been peddling for 4 years.

Not sure which "they" you mean. Fwiw, when I read this, I wondered how the clerk write this with a straight face.