Trump immunity case

[CivilDiscourse]

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

It would be quite possible to argue (under the scenario presented) that the impeachment determined that such graft was not part of an official act, and as per the constitution, the impeachment does not prevent further prosecution.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[firstfloor]

SCOTUS have created the Tyrant’s Charter. Actions that are both official and illegal or corrupt will be allowed.

[rogue06]

Basically, it means that courts have to quibble about what an official act is (undefined in the Constitution) before a former President can be charged for a crime he allegedly committed while in office. Use Seal Team 6 to assassinate your political rivals. Is that an official act? Stage a military coup. Is that an official act? Suspend elections until further notice. Is that an official act?

Biden may have to consider using his newfound powers while the time is ripe. If Trump returns to power, you know that Biden will suddenly suffer from the disease common in Russian politics, Fall-Outa-Window-itis.

That you actually think that assassinating political rivals, staging military coups and suspending elections could be viewed as official acts until the court made a determination puts you square into little jimmy territory.

Don't be a little jimmy.

[rogue06]

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

There's more of that trying to delegitimatize the courts that we all have come to expect from the left. Maybe she should call for the judges to face retribution like Schumer did which attracted someone to come from California and show up outside of Kavanaugh's house with a loaded gun intent on killing him.

[Mountain Man]

I see what you're saying, but Trump wouldn't get to put $15 billion in his bank account.

Sam's scenario is stupid, because nowhere in the Constitution can it be even remotely construed that accepting bribes is an official presidential duty, or that he can accept a contract from a foreign government without it going through the checks and balances of Congress and the courts. He's being as idiotic as the hysterical talking heads on the networks claiming that this ruling would allow a president to legally order the assassination of his political rivals.

[rogue06]

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

Only a leftist nut case would regard targeting political opponents for prosecution and imprisonment as being protected official acts.

[Mountain Man]

SCOTUS have created the Tyrant’s Charter. Actions that are both official and illegal or corrupt will be allowed.

Since illegal and corrupt acts do not fall under the purview of official duties of the president as defined in the Constitution then, no, they would not be allowed by this ruling.

[Roy]

Only a leftist nut case would regard targeting political opponents for prosecution and imprisonment as being protected official acts.

Trump's lawyers are suggesting that falsifying business records to hide payments made to porn stars is a protected official act.

[CivilDiscourse]

Trump's lawyers are suggesting that falsifying business records to hide payments made to porn stars is a protected official act.

Of course they are. Lawyers argue stupid stuff all the time. It's only meaningful if such an argument gets accepted.

[seer]

SCOTUS have created the Tyrant’s Charter. Actions that are both official and illegal or corrupt will be allowed.

Yes, I worry about Biden taking advantage...

[Sparko]

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?

Nothing happens. Ask Obama. He killed a US citizen with a drone, remember? Was he prosecuted? Was anyone?
So nothing is different now.

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?

You impeach him. That is the only method available to ousting a president.

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

I don't see how accepting a bribe would be a legitimate official presidential act.
In fact it sounds like a betrayal of the office. It would also be impeachable.

[rogue06]

Sam's scenario is stupid, because nowhere in the Constitution can it be even remotely construed that accepting bribes is an official presidential duty, or that he can accept a contract from a foreign government without it going through the checks and balances of Congress and the courts. He's being as idiotic as the hysterical talking heads on the networks claiming that this ruling would allow a president to legally order the assassination of his political rivals.

Or he's trying to offer up a defense for the Biden Crime Syndicate by saying that old Joe getting his 10% is a protected official act.

[Sparko]

Yes, liberals are spinning this decision as saying that anything the president does can be arbitrarily declared an official duty and shield him from all consequences, when that's not what the decision says at all. But watching their little heads explode is amusing.

Exactly. The President has always had immunity from prosecution for official acts in office. That doesn't make all acts "official acts" - it never has. And it doesn't stop him from being impeached. For a president in office nothing has changed. For an ex president all that has changed is that they can't prosecute for official acts AFTER he leaves office if they don't like them. They can still prosecute for non-official acts done while in office (like taking bribes from China for instance).

[Sparko]

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

Why would anyone bribe a president on the way out? He couldn't do anything for them.

Accepting bribes is not an official duty of any Federal Employee. Thus not an official act of the office of President. It would not be covered.

[Sam]

Why would anyone bribe a president on the way out? He couldn't do anything for them.

Accepting bribes is not an official duty of any Federal Employee, in fact it violates their oath of office. Thus not an official act of the office of President. It would not be covered.

Because the president could direct a major contract their way, as illustrated above.

"Bribes aren't an official act" completely misses the point. The president would say "This was a bribe, so what?!" The president would claim an official purpose and intent and they would have total immunity for what is ostensibly a core presidential function, federal regulation of immigration on the border.

The thought experiment of "What happens when the president does this?" isn't a hard or obscure one.

-Sam