Trump immunity case

[Mountain Man]

Manages to be both grossly untrue and ignorant of which of Trump's criminal cases we're talking about with this ruling.

-Sam

You are correct, at least in so far as me confusing which case is being referred to and not that anything I said is "grossly untrue".

[CivilDiscourse]

The continued expression that to disagree with the merits of a court's stated reasoning, even when that reasoning is starkly opposed to precedent and the constitutional order, can be held in equal comparison to attacking judges and prosecutors as inherently corrupt on the flimsiest of pretenses is, again, just lazy contrarianism. It's not only devoid of objective analysis but antagonistic to it.

The question for this issue is "What can a president now do with sweeping presumptive immunity and the explicit ability to hide illegal intent behind a veil of advisors who can't be compelled to testify or produce documents that might refute the president's claim of acting with 'official intent'?' If the answer is "Well, the president can order criminal acts, pardon the people who commit those acts, and then evade prosecution by claiming the acts were official", then it's very much the wrong reasoning and the wrong ruling.

-Sam

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-threatens-supreme-court-articles-impeachment-over-immunity-ruling

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threatened to bring articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court after Monday's immunity ruling regarding former President Trump.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X. "Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-threatens-supreme-court-articles-impeachment-over-immunity-ruling

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threatened to bring articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court after Monday's immunity ruling regarding former President Trump.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X. "Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."

© Copyright Original Source

Wow.

The supreme court didn't change anything with their ruling. We have always considered a President immune from prosecution for carrying out his duties while in office. This only clarifies that he is NOT covered for unofficial acts. And the constitution allows for removing a President from office if he commits "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[seer]

Wow.

Well, she is an idiot, so...

[CivilDiscourse]

Wow.

The supreme court didn't change anything with their ruling. We have always considered a President immune from prosecution for carrying out his duties while in office. This only clarifies that he is NOT covered for unofficial acts. And the constitution allows for removing a President from office if he commits "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

So much for Sam's disingenuous claim about "merits"

[Sam]

Wow.

The supreme court didn't change anything with their ruling. We have always considered a President immune from prosecution for carrying out his duties while in office. This only clarifies that he is NOT covered for unofficial acts. And the constitution allows for removing a President from office if he commits "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

That's not remotely the only thing this ruling does and this interpretation demonstrates a lack of reading, well, anything of substance about it.

One big reason the above interpretation is just wildly uninformed: this ruling makes a president immune from prosecution for "carrying out his duties" after they leave office. Additionally, it makes it nearly impossible for a prosecution to prove an act wasn't intended to be within the president's periphery of official duties by forbidding testimony and document production of senior advisors and aides from being used as evidence.

-Sam

[Sparko]

That's not remotely the only thing this ruling does and this interpretation demonstrates a lack of reading, well, anything of substance about it.

One big reason the above interpretation is just wildly uninformed: this ruling makes a president immune from prosecution for "carrying out his duties" after they leave office. Additionally, it makes it nearly impossible for a prosecution to prove an act wasn't intended to be within the president's periphery of official duties by forbidding testimony and document production of senior advisors and aides from being used as evidence.

-Sam

Not prosecuting a President for what he did as President after he leaves office seems to make sense. If a President did something as President that would be a crime for a normal citizen (e.g. order the assassination of a foreign enemy) and then when he left office they tried to prosecute him for murder, that would pretty much negate the whole point of Presidential immunity. The ruling says nothing about the ex-president being immune for what he does after leaving office. He has no immunity then for acts while not POTUS.

[Stoic]

They did give a clear judgement - there is substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office. How it applies to Trump's case is what is going back to the lower court. In any case you are correct it will be pushed out unit after the election. It is win for Trump.

It's an even bigger win for Trump if he wins the election. There basically won't be anything limiting what crimes he can commit.

[Sparko]

It's an even bigger win for Trump if he wins the election. There basically won't be anything limiting what crimes he can commit.

The constitution does. Just like it always has.

[Mountain Man]

It's an even bigger win for Trump if he wins the election. There basically won't be anything limiting what crimes he can commit.

[NorrinRadd]

[Stoic]

The constitution does. Just like it always has.

The Constitution assumes that Congress will be willing to limit what crimes the President can commit. The Founding Fathers couldn't imagine the relationship between Trump and the Republican party.

[Sam]

Not prosecuting a President for what he did as President after he leaves office seems to make sense. If a President did something as President that would be a crime for a normal citizen (e.g. order the assassination of a foreign enemy) and then when he left office they tried to prosecute him for murder, that would pretty much negate the whole point of Presidential immunity. The ruling says nothing about the ex-president being immune for what he does after leaving office. He has no immunity then for acts while not POTUS.

First the ruling wasn't a big deal because you completely misunderstood the nature of the ruling. Now, without taking the time to read and process what it actually involves, the ruling "makes sense".

What happens when the president orders a military operative to kill a US citizen, pardons the operative, and claims it was an official military act? What happens when the president steers $5 billion in misappropriated congressional funding to their own businesses and claims that doing so was in accordance with their official duties?

How do you go about prosecuting a president for corrupt and criminal "official conduct" when you can no longer pierce the veil of executive decisions?

The point of presidential immunity, ostensibly, was to allow a president to act without endlessly tying them up with investigations and court appearances. Now the point of presidential immunity is apparently to allow presidents to do what they want, so long as they can direct that action through executive branch conduits. And, contrary to your initial take, they can now do so without worrying about what's on the other end of their presidential term.

What, exactly, is to stop a president from accepting a $10 billion bribe now? Impeachment? Even if a president were to be impeached and convicted over such a thing, why should they care if they can keep the money and not worry about being charged afterward?

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

bee2.jpg

[Sam]

bee2.jpg

Biden is, actually. And all the complaints about Biden using the DOJ to target his opponents, misdirected as they were, are complaints about something SCOTUS just ruled is both legal and not subject to thorough investigation by a subsequent DOJ.

-Sam