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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it is legal for trump to tell pence not to count the electoral votes, then it is legal for Biden to tell harris not to count the electoral votes.

It's probably not legal. The Supreme Court sent it to the lower court to make that determination.

Anonymous wrote:If it is legal for trump to tell pence not to count the electoral votes, then it is legal for Biden to tell harris not to count the electoral votes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it is legal for trump to tell pence not to count the electoral votes, then it is legal for Biden to tell harris not to count the electoral votes.

Democrats don't do that. They are so obsessed with playing "fair" that that are unfair to themselves. Biden would be prosecuted with support from Democrats and SCOTUS would uphold it.

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.

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 ruling only means Biden can't be criminally charged for doing so. It doesn't mean Trump, in this scenario, loses his right to challenge those decisions in court.

Yes but Biden could arrest any judge who rules in favor of Trump and Trump’s lawyers can be arrested on the same charges. Though the best way would be to arrest Trump, move him to Guantanamo and say federal judges have no authority to act.

Seriously. Taking action like this might be the only way to get the Supreme Court to put any limits on a future President's power.

Can they just be arrested as well?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it is legal for trump to tell pence not to count the electoral votes, then it is legal for Biden to tell harris not to count the electoral votes.

Democrats don't do that. They are so obsessed with playing "fair" that that are unfair to themselves. Biden would be prosecuted with support from Democrats and SCOTUS would uphold it.

Anonymous wrote:If it is legal for trump to tell pence not to count the electoral votes, then it is legal for Biden to tell harris not to count the electoral votes.

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.

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.