Trump immunity case

[Ronson]

You wouldn't have cared if the president ordered the illegal destruction of government-owned documentary evidence that allegedly painted him in a bad light?

What was destroyed?

[RumTumTugger]

What was destroyed?

Sam was doing a what if due to Sotomeyer's dishonest dissenting opinion that Biden would be considered immune if he had Merrick destroy the audio tapes of Hurd's interrogation of Biden. You Walks under the impression that Robert's concurringopinion did not specifically excluded any act that was not Part of the job description of the duties of the POTUS.

[Ronson]

Sam was doing a what if due to Sotomeyer's dishonest dissenting opinion that Biden would be considered immune if he had Merrick destroy the audio tapes of Hurd's interrogation of Biden. You Walks under the impression that Robert's concurringopinion did not specifically excluded any act that was not Part of the job description of the duties of the POTUS.

If the Hur interview was paid for by taxpayers as part of an official report, then destroying it would not be an official act. Destruction would be a personal act. Just like Biden can't go destroy his tax records.

[RumTumTugger]

If the Hur interview was paid for by taxpayers as part of an official report, then destroying it would not be an official act. Destruction would be a personal act. Just like Biden can't go destroy his tax records.

Bingo. What is also not an official act is having a U.S. citizen killed without due process, and accepting a bribe. Hence my initial impression that Sam thought all those are official acts

[Sam]

If the Hur interview was paid for by taxpayers as part of an official report, then destroying it would not be an official act. Destruction would be a personal act. Just like Biden can't go destroy his tax records.

Says who? Biden would have presumptive immunity when he claimed that the documents were destroyed for an official purpose. He could pardon whomever he tasked with doing the deed and a future DOJ could not compel senior aides who could testify as to Biden's intent.

"That wouldn't be an official act!" presumes to know conclusively not just what constitutes an "official act" but who gets to decide what's an official act and who if anyone can have access to evidence that would prove otherwise.

-Sam

[Sam]

Roberts said the POTUS can only be immune to prosecution if it is an official, i.e Presidential duty, i.e job description; the Job Description of the office of POTUS has every thing to do with this you and Sotomeyer are saying that having a U.S. Citizen killed, taking a bribe, and destroying evidence needed for a legal investigation are official duties of the POTUS i.e his job description.

You seem to be under the impression that the court ruled completely in Trumps favor on the contrary SCOTUS ruled against the extreme of both sides on Trumps side they ruled against extreme view of complete immunity from prosecution of any act of the President not just the official acts i.e job description while he is in office; and the extreme view of Jack Smith that once the President leaves office he can be can be prosecuted for any thing even the acts that are a part of the POTUS official duties. What Roberts concurrence said only the official acts in performance of his duty as POTUS i.e. job description found in the Constitution, are immune from prosecution, any unofficial act not part of the job description have no such immunity.

Sotomeyer's dissenting opinion was dishonest her examples do not fit the limited criteria of official duties only, in fact they fit in with unofficial duties which does not have immunity.

Again, the president can claim something is an official act and Roberts' ruling for all intents and purposes precludes an investigation from determining otherwise.

Say that Trump gets offered $15 billion from a Saudi-connected firm to have an exclusive Build The Wall contract. The Saudi firm's bid is $400 billion over the next highest bidder but Trump chooses it anyway, securing himself a nice $15b bribe. Trump claims that this was an official act and that the Saudi firm's contract was in the best interest of the United States. Border security is firmly within the president's "job description".

Let's float the unlikely scenario that Trump is impeached and convicted in the Senate for his obvious graft. Great, now he's not president anymore. But his bribe was part of an official act that is, according to the Roberts court, totally immune from future prosecution.

What's to stop any president from taking such a bribe on their way out the door?

-Sam

[Terraceth]

Roberts said the POTUS can only be immune to prosecution if it is an official, i.e Presidential duty, i.e job description; the Job Description of the office of POTUS has every thing to do with this you and Sotomeyer are saying that having a U.S. Citizen killed, taking a bribe, and destroying evidence needed for a legal investigation are official duties of the POTUS i.e his job description.

You seem to be under the impression that the court ruled completely in Trumps favor on the contrary SCOTUS ruled against the extreme of both sides on Trumps side they ruled against extreme view of complete immunity from prosecution of any act of the President not just the official acts i.e job description while he is in office; and the extreme view of Jack Smith that once the President leaves office he can be can be prosecuted for any thing even the acts that are a part of the POTUS official duties. What Roberts concurrence said only the official acts in performance of his duty as POTUS i.e. job description found in the Constitution, are immune from prosecution, any unofficial act not part of the job description have no such immunity.

Sotomeyer's dissenting opinion was dishonest her examples do not fit the limited criteria of official duties only, in fact they fit in with unofficial duties which does not have immunity.

While it is true that the Court did not go as far as Trump wanted it to, I am not so sure Sotomayor's examples were dishonest. Here is what she said:

When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

How do these not work? The majority opinion repeatedly claims that the President has absolute immunity when exercising "core constitutional powers", presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for other acts. What are these core constitutional powers? Apparently, these:

Article II of the Constitution provides that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President’s duties are of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800 (2020). They include, for instance, commanding the Armed Forces of the United States; granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States; and appointing public ministers and consuls, the Justices of this Court, and Officers of the United States. See §2. He also has important foreign relations responsibilities: making treaties, appointing ambassadors, recognizing foreign governments, meeting foreign leaders, overseeing international diplomacy and intelligence gathering, and managing matters related to terrorism, trade, and immigration. See §§2, 3. Domestically, he must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” §3, and he bears responsibility for the actions of the many departments and agencies within the Executive Branch. He also plays a role in lawmaking by recommending to Congress the measures he thinks wise and signing or vetoing the bills Congress passes. See Art. I, §7, cl. 2; Art. II, §3.

Commanding the Armed Forces and granting pardons are listed here. If the President enjoys absolute immunity for exercising of those powers, then how precisely is him ordering the military to kill a political rival (an official act of commanding the Armed Forces), staging a coup (an official act of commanding the Armed Forces), or take a bribe to give a pardon (an official act of granting pardons) not included in them? I have read the majority opinion and do not see an answer. I will admit that I could have missed it given how a lot of it is very boring (perhaps necessary in some of the more technical issues, but that didn't make it any more interesting to read), but I tried to pay special attention to its section where it addresses the dissent, and it seems to give no answer to this point outside of dismissing it as an "extreme hypothetical" (which is not actually saying it's wrong) and to assert "The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next" which is again not actually disputing the hypothetical as wrong, just that one can come up with an extreme hypothetical in the opposite direction.

So how would those actions mentioned in the dissent not count as official duties of the President according to the majority opinion? Am I missing something in the majority opinion that offers an actual response?

[JimL]

This will test the claim that it's the republicans who don't respect the courts, and that democrats support the judicial process instead of attacking when things don't go their way.

What are you talking about, doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the corrupt republican party has finally appointed a majority corrupt SCOTUS and they are going full out in overturning precedent in deference to the treasonous Ex-president in placing him above the law, basically making him a King. Case in point: the president spoke with and directed the Justice Dept in the "fake electors" scheme, and even if such a scheme is determined not to be official business, and indictable, the evidence of the Presidents conversations with his justice dept, his directing the scheme itself is "official business" so the evidence against him being that it is "official businesis" is inadmissable which basically means, case closed. So, official business or not, the President is basically
immune from prosecution. A King!!
Democrats respect the law, and aren't going to ignore the fact that it is being ignored by an ideological activist SCOTUS itself in deference to, and to the aid of the criminal and treasonous ex-president.This new Trump led republican party is an Autocracy in the making and a Trump second chance at it is what all the behind the scenes (project 2025) plutocrats are counting on to get them there. Vote Blue or you're kissing your democracy goodbye!

[Starlight]

So... if Biden's response is to have the Republican-appointed SCOTUS justices arrested... that's legal now and Biden has presidential immunity?

[Sam]

So... if Biden's response is to have the Republican-appointed SCOTUS justices arrested... that's legal now and Biden has presidential immunity?

He can certainly order the justices' numerous "gratuities" be ruthlessly investigated by the DOJ for potential tax violations, using whatever intrusive means the DOJ deems necessary. Thomas' RV "loan" would be as good as any to plant an "official conduct" flag.

Of course, the justices have left themselves room to ultimately determine what is and is not protected as an official act. And that's the trick: we're faced with the prospect of a despotic president because the justices have established themselves as an imperial court.

-Sam

[JimL]

So... if Biden's response is to have the Republican-appointed SCOTUS justices arrested... that's legal now and Biden has presidential immunity?

Actually Biden could as the Trump Lawyers argument goes, could order the assassination of S.C. Judges, or even the assassination of Trump himself, and the President would be immune from prosecutions so long as the crime is found to be within the realm of a Presidents "official business."
But even if the crime is found to be private, not the "official business" of a President, he would still be immune from prosecution aka being above the law, because the just "order to assassinate itself" would be within the realm of a presidents "official business" and therefore the "order itself" would be inadmissible as evidence. A King!!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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

Is this not a dangerous move towards the President having absolute power? The apocryphal comment, "L'État, c'est moi" comes to mind.

It is somewhat ironic that in two days Americans will be celebrating the rejection of what they viewed as a tyrant and tyranny and here is the SCOTUS effectively opening the way for, any future president to be above the law and become a potential tyrant.

As Sotomayor noted in her dissent, acts such as the assassination of political rivals, a military coup to hold on to power, the acceptance of bribes for pardons or favours, will all, effectively, be permissible and above the law.

Under this ruling if any future president decided to introduce a US version of Ermächtigungsgesetz, and permit the President and the Cabinet to act without recourse to Congress what then?

[CivilDiscourse]

Is this not a dangerous move towards the President having absolute power? The apocryphal comment, "L'État, c'est moi" comes to mind.

It is somewhat ironic that in two days Americans will be celebrating the rejection of what they viewed as a tyrant and tyranny and here is the SCOTUS effectively opening the way for, any future president to be above the law and become a potential tyrant.

As Sotomayor noted in her dissent, acts such as the assassination of political rivals, a military coup to hold on to power, the acceptance of bribes for pardons or favours, will all, effectively, be permissible and above the law.

Under this ruling if any future president decided to introduce a US version of Ermächtigungsgesetz, and permit the President and the Cabinet to act without recourse to Congress what then?

Impeachment by co-equal branch of congress.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Impeachment by co-equal branch of congress.

How? Assuming the worst case scenario.

[CivilDiscourse]

How? Assuming the worst case scenario.

Same way impeachments are always done.

Don't forget, congress controls the purse strings as well. It's hard to run a dictatorship when you don't have the money for it.