Trump immunity case

[Sam]

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

Why not? What's stopping him when a future prosecutor cannot even use eyewitness testimony as evidence of intent? What does the prosecution have to rebut the president's testimony that he believed the contract to be part of executing his official duties and the Saudis just really wanted his ramshackle Mastodon-clone web site, which is totally worth $15b?

You say "That won't happen" with absolutely no justification or reason to believe that it won't. The guardrail — the threat of criminal prosecution — has been completely hamstrung, if not eliminated completely.

-Sam

[Sparko]

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

You are losing it Sam. There is nothing in the ruling that allows the President do anything he wants and call it an official act. The ruling changes NOTHING about the powers of a sitting president. They already have immunity for official acts and always have. And if they are impeached, the constitution allows the crimes to be prosecuted after he leaves office. The ruling doesn't change that either, it can't. All the ruling does is let the President keep the immunity for the official acts he did as President. For example, Obama ordered a drone strike that killed a US Citizen. As POTUS he was immune form prosecution. This ruling just means they could not try Obama for murder after the fact now that he is out of office. Before they could have but didn't. That is the way it should be.

[Mountain Man]

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

Be honest, this is satire, right? Because a president can not blatantly break the law and then escape prosecution by arbitrarily declaring it an official act. That's not even close to what this ruling determined.

[Sam]

You are losing it Sam. There is nothing in the ruling that allows the President do anything he wants and call it an official act. The ruling changes NOTHING about the powers of a sitting president. They already have immunity for official acts and always have. And if they are impeached, the constitution allows the crimes to be prosecuted after he leaves office. The ruling doesn't change that either, it can't. All the ruling does is let the President keep the immunity for the official acts he did as President. For example, Obama ordered a drone strike that killed a US Citizen. As POTUS he was immune form prosecution. This ruling just means they could not try Obama for murder after the fact now that he is out of office. Before they could have but didn't. That is the way it should be.

You're just repeating yourself. You didn't understanding what the ruling said in the first place and you still don't. Presidents have not "always had immunity for official acts"; the first time that idea was even codified into a non-binding opinion was with Nixon and it was only while the president remained in office. This ruling not only extends that immunity into forever, it expands the concept of total immunity and prevents a future investigation from using key evidence of intent.

You're just flat-wrong about what you're talking about, still, having done absolutely nothing in terms of real reading or analysis.

And, yes: Obama killed a US citizen abroad in a drone strike. And there was a major furor about it and lots of talk about criminal prosecution for the act. Obama could have been prosecuted by a subsequent DOJ and potentially been found guilty of murder if it could be shown that his action, including his intent, wasn't legal. Now we can't do that: such actions are considered a "core" presidential function and important conversations that presidents have with their advisors and officials that might prove intent of wrongdoing can't be used in court.

And you think that's "the way it should be".

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

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

As the late Paul Harvey used to say, "And now, the rest of the story..."

The effort to set aside the conviction might be a long shot. The Manhattan case centers on acts Mr. Trump took as a candidate, not a president.

Yet his lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only may not charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations.

It is unclear how the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which brought the case, will respond, or whether the judge will delay the first sentencing of an American president. But Mr. Trump’s effort appeared to cause at least a brief interruption: The district attorney’s office did not on Monday make a sentencing recommendation to the judge about whether to imprison Mr. Trump, as was expected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/n...ush-money.html

[Slave4Christ]

If we're talking precedent, then there was never been a problem with presidents taking documents with them when they leave office until Trump did it.

I'm not aware of presidents taking classified and top secret documents with them being a 'precedent'.

[Sparko]

You're just repeating yourself. You didn't understanding what the ruling said in the first place and you still don't. Presidents have not "always had immunity for official acts"; the first time that idea was even codified into a non-binding opinion was with Nixon and it was only while the president remained in office. This ruling not only extends that immunity into forever, it expands the concept of total immunity and prevents a future investigation from using key evidence of intent.

You're just flat-wrong about what you're talking about, still, having done absolutely nothing in terms of real reading or analysis.

And, yes: Obama killed a US citizen abroad in a drone strike. And there was a major furor about it and lots of talk about criminal prosecution for the act. Obama could have been prosecuted by a subsequent DOJ and potentially been found guilty of murder if it could be shown that his action, including his intent, wasn't legal. Now we can't do that: such actions are considered a "core" presidential function and important conversations that presidents have with their advisors and officials that might prove intent of wrongdoing can't be used in court.

And you think that's "the way it should be".

-Sam

You are the one who has no idea what he is talking about Sam.

[Slave4Christ]

I suspect, as with most things, this will come back to bite our Republican Party in the butt when Democrats use this decision to do extremely shady stuff.

[Sam]

You are the one who has no idea what he is talking about Sam.

Well, you started the conversation completely ignorant of what you were talking about and worked hard to do absolutely no learning on the way. A fitting end to the conversation; at least it shows how we got here.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

I suspect, as with most things, this will come back to bite our Republican Party in the butt when Democrats use this decision to do extremely shady stuff.

Only if you think "extremely shady stuff" falls under the purview of official presidential duties as defined in the Constitution.

[Slave4Christ]

Only if you think "extremely shady stuff" falls under the purview of official presidential duties as defined in the Constitution.

Given some of the things described in the decision as potential official acts, it certainly does. But hey if you want to defend the purity of the Democrat party and claim they won't abuse this decision for shady stuff, you've got more faith in them than I do, good for you!

[Sparko]

Well, you started the conversation completely ignorant of what you were talking about and worked hard to do absolutely no learning on the way. A fitting end to the conversation; at least it shows how we got here.

-Sam

[firstfloor]

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.

The dissenters, Roberts wrote, were engaging in “fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.”

And it follows that there are no protections against those extreme hypotheticals. All you need do now is elect the tyrant to the office of President. Official duties are not limited to those set out in the Constitution.

[Mountain Man]

Official duties are not limited to those set out in the Constitution.

According to who?

[Roy]

I'm being called 'ignorant' by some-one who's confirming I'm correct.