Reply to The President is Above the Law

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "The President is Above the Law"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

That's not remotely what the decision says.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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

And SCOTUS just let him off.  [/quote]

They just did the opposite.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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."[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Yeah, it doesn’t say that.  [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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

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

Let's see.  DOJ does something horrible because the President asked DOJ to do that horrible thing.  But the President-DOJ discusses are off limits, while the actual DOJ actions are not.  Not sure how the President gets convicted.   Mafia boss tells underling to kill someone, but DOJ is preventing from using that boss-underling conversation to go after the boss.
[/quote]

As long as the instructions are not mailed, I think all is fine.[/quote]

That doesn't matter. Trump is absolutely immune for ANY action taken by DOJ. The opinion explicitly says that. And anyone else can get pardoned.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics