Trump v United States (Immunity Ruling)

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The bottom line is Biden is the current President and he will be the first to feel or take advantage of the ruling. Trump is not President, so the ruling will not apply to him, unless he wins and how he behaves in the future. You guys are whining hypotheticals and avoiding the actuals, now that the line in the sand has been set by this court ruling. You guys are the one's who started the dangerous precedent of going after a former President, that resulted in this ruling. The court had to act on unprecedented injustice it was seeing, where no distinction was being made between official and unofficial acts. You guys are blaming everyone, but are the ones who started this and forced this ruling that now applies to you.

Is going after a former President and current opposing Party prime candidate, with Kangaroo Courts, an official act as President? Biden will be the first real time test of the new precedent. You fear is your crimes will come back to bite you. This is take away your game and makes it appear like election interference.

For example, Hunter Biden was about to get a sweet heart deal, until that was caught by a Judge. Is helping a member of your family escape the legal system an official act of a President? A President can pardon anyone, but I am not sure about legal tampering, to avoid the political blow back from such a pardon. The President does not make laws but enforces them.

What about failing to release the tapes of his interview with the FBI that allowed him to avoid prosecution for taking classified documents home. Is this other act of placing his thumb on the scale of injustice and is that an official act as President? The President is the head of the Executive Branch; President, DOJ and FBI, etc. and the buck stops at the Big Guy. If his subordinates so something, like Nixon's Aids in Watergate, the President takes the heat, since he is the commander and chief and the buck stops there. Nixon was not allowed any buffer excuse with the middlemen scapegoated, who then get pardoned.

We have the election coming up and the Biden team had been accused of election tampering in 2020. Although the buck stops at Biden, he never allowed a deep investigation into those serious charges, to help unite the country. Is neglect of duty the job of the President? The first amendment allows for the airing of grievances against the Government, and the Government needing to act and set the minds of citizens at ease with an internal investigation of any alleged corruption. Was the lack of over sight an admission of guilt?

What about the death of US civilians, due to illegal immigration; the drugs pouring over the border, human trafficking, crime against citizens, and now even possible future terrorism caused by his reckless and self serving open door policies? Does the blood count as an official duty as president? This is the type of question that may come up in the future after the bodies are counted and reach a milestone.

This new blame game of the Left; blame Trump, is another Russia, Russia, Russia, scam to set up a future defense with an early offense. If one is vulnerable and fears a future attack, you attack first, to keep your opponent off balance, so he cannot mount a good offense. Trump learned from being the victim of this game; Russian Collusion offense for defense.

For example, President Obama and the VP Biden spied on the Trump campaign in a style worse than Nixon. Nixon also spied, but in a milder civilian way. Nixon did not use the FBI, yet he is still the poster child of corruption. What that illegal spying an official act for Obama? That coverup could explain the need for the Russian Collusion campaign; a good offense can also be a good defense. Is covering up crimes like illegal spying by a President, the job of a President or can he/she be brought to trial, seeing that the Democrats weaponize that option against Trump who was also a former President and the same political opponent who was spied on.

The DNC is again trying to make two sets of rules. They can throw a sucker shots since 2016, but the victim cannot. I believe the victim gets his shoot and maybe even monetary compensation due to being the initial victim. That may require draining the Swamp and their bank accounts for legal defense. Expensive legal defense was part of the original sucker shot and still is.

Well said.

 

[crossfire]

Trump was president at the time. And the constitution says the individual states legislatures get to make the rules for federal elections, not governors or courts. That was the reason Trump wanted Pence to send the electors back to some states for review. Pennsylvania and Georgia had election laws changed by the governors and court systems in the weeks leading up to the election violating the US constitution.

I was talking about the fraudulent certificates of ascertainment sent to Pence to count in the certification of the election.

 

[F1fan]

I would say unofficial, however it was not illegal. He never asked anyone to makeup votes. He said to find the votes he believed were there and the illegal votes that he thought were there as well. The transcripts are available to read for yourself.

Funny how Trump was asking them to find exactly 11,780 votes in a state election he was behind by 11,779. And where exactly did Trump expect the election officials to "find" any number of votes that weren't there after recounts? Why would a Trump ask at all? The election officials were republicans, so there was no suggestion of democrats hiding mysterious ballots.

Let's note that states are under their own authority to conduct their elections, and it is highly inapvropriate for a president to attempt what Trump did. At face value the impression most everyone walks away from in Trump's call is that he was asking for the republican election officials to manufacture 11,780 votes for Trump. Of course Trump didn't ask them directly to commit election fraud, but he certainly implied it by asking election officials to "find" exactly 11,780 votes.

This call is one item of evidence against him in Georgia.

 

[F1fan]

The bottom line is Biden is the current President and he will be the first to feel or take advantage of the ruling.

Not in an unethical or dishonorable way as Trump has done. This ruling isn't problematic until a corrupt presdient takes office and violates the rust of the office, like Trump has, and will do again if elected. MAGA voters don't care, as their ethics don't exist, nor does any empathy, dignity, honor, or patriotism. These MAGA posts are so horrifying that I really worry about the future of the USA if Trump is elected. Economists have concern about Trump if he's elected

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/25/nobel-prize-winners-biden-economy-trump-inflation#:~:text=%22We%20believe%20that%20a%20second,has%20come%20down%20remarkably%20fast.

and global security could become critical as well

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/02/nato-second-trump-term-00164517

Trump and MAGAs underestimate the impact on the global economy that his ideas will create. It's one of many important issues the voters don't seem to be thinking about. Jumping off a cliff as voters pick Trump.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The bottom line is Biden is the current President and he will be the first to feel or take advantage of the ruling. Trump is not President, so the ruling will not apply to him, unless he wins and how he behaves in the future. You guys are whining hypotheticals and avoiding the actuals, now that the line in the sand has been set by this court ruling. You guys are the one's who started the dangerous precedent of going after a former President, that resulted in this ruling. The court had to act on unprecedented injustice it was seeing, where no distinction was being made between official and unofficial acts. You guys are blaming everyone, but are the ones who started this and forced this ruling that now applies to you.

Is going after a former President and current opposing Party prime candidate, with Kangaroo Courts, an official act as President? Biden will be the first real time test of the new precedent. You fear is your crimes will come back to bite you. This is take away your game and makes it appear like election interference.

For example, Hunter Biden was about to get a sweet heart deal, until that was caught by a Judge. Is helping a member of your family escape the legal system an official act of a President? A President can pardon anyone, but I am not sure about legal tampering, to avoid the political blow back from such a pardon. The President does not make laws but enforces them.

What about failing to release the tapes of his interview with the FBI that allowed him to avoid prosecution for taking classified documents home. Is this other act of placing his thumb on the scale of injustice and is that an official act as President? The President is the head of the Executive Branch; President, DOJ and FBI, etc. and the buck stops at the Big Guy. If his subordinates so something, like Nixon's Aids in Watergate, the President takes the heat, since he is the commander and chief and the buck stops there. Nixon was not allowed any buffer excuse with the middlemen scapegoated, who then get pardoned.

We have the election coming up and the Biden team had been accused of election tampering in 2020. Although the buck stops at Biden, he never allowed a deep investigation into those serious charges, to help unite the country. Is neglect of duty the job of the President? The first amendment allows for the airing of grievances against the Government, and the Government needing to act and set the minds of citizens at ease with an internal investigation of any alleged corruption. Was the lack of over sight an admission of guilt?

What about the death of US civilians, due to illegal immigration; the drugs pouring over the border, human trafficking, crime against citizens, and now even possible future terrorism caused by his reckless and self serving open door policies? Does the blood count as an official duty as president? This is the type of question that may come up in the future after the bodies are counted and reach a milestone.

This new blame game of the Left; blame Trump, is another Russia, Russia, Russia, scam to set up a future defense with an early offense. If one is vulnerable and fears a future attack, you attack first, to keep your opponent off balance, so he cannot mount a good offense. Trump learned from being the victim of this game; Russian Collusion offense for defense.

For example, President Obama and the VP Biden spied on the Trump campaign in a style worse than Nixon. Nixon also spied, but in a milder civilian way. Nixon did not use the FBI, yet he is still the poster child of corruption. What that illegal spying an official act for Obama? That coverup could explain the need for the Russian Collusion campaign; a good offense can also be a good defense. Is covering up crimes like illegal spying by a President, the job of a President or can he/she be brought to trial, seeing that the Democrats weaponize that option against Trump who was also a former President and the same political opponent who was spied on.

The DNC is again trying to make two sets of rules. They can throw a sucker shots since 2016, but the victim cannot. I believe the victim gets his shoot and maybe even monetary compensation due to being the initial victim. That may require draining the Swamp and their bank accounts for legal defense. Expensive legal defense was part of the original sucker shot and still is.

I can only hope the sheer intentional negligence and dereliction of duty by Biden and all Democrats involved dosent cause aggreious harm to the citizens living here.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Funny how Trump was asking them to find exactly 11,780 votes in a state election he was behind by 11,779. And where exactly did Trump expect the election officials to "find" any number of votes that weren't there after recounts? Why would a Trump ask at all? The election officials were republicans, so there was no suggestion of democrats hiding mysterious ballots.

Trump told them where he thought the fraud was. Read the entire phone conversation.

Let's note that states are under their own authority to conduct their elections, and it is highly inapvropriate for a president to attempt what Trump did. At face value the impression most everyone walks away from in Trump's call is that he was asking for the republican election officials to manufacture 11,780 votes for Trump. Of course Trump didn't ask them directly to commit election fraud, but he certainly implied it by asking election officials to "find" exactly 11,780 votes.

This call is one item of evidence against him in Georgia.

Yes because that is how many he needed to win, why would he ask for more? He said there was fraud, told them where he thought the fraud was and asked them to go look for those votes because there was fraud. He never asked them to create votes.

 

[F1fan]

Trump told them where he thought the fraud was. Read the entire phone conversation.

And he was wrong. The bottom line is that Trump asked them to “find” 11,780 votes. That’s very specific, and the Georgia election officials did not allow Trump to pressure them to “find” these non-existent votes.

Yes because that is how many he needed to win, why would he ask for more?

Because any fewer would not help Trump cheat.

He said there was fraud, told them where he thought the fraud was and asked them to go look for those votes because there was fraud. He never asked them to create votes.

And there was no fraud. Trump and his corrupt allies made up all the fraud, as was revealed in the 60 lawsuits they lost.

You should drop all this. Trump lied.

 

[F1fan]

I can only hope the sheer intentional negligence and dereliction of duty by Biden and all Democrats involved dosent cause aggreious harm to the citizens living here.

Give us examples. If you can’t cite anything then your assertion here is dismissed as false rhetoric.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Give us examples. If you can’t cite anything then your assertion here is dismissed as false rhetoric.

I'll give you examples alright.

DHS identifies over 400 migrants brought to the U.S. by an ISIS-affiliated smuggling network

Over 150 have been arrested, but the whereabouts of over 50 remain unknown, officials said. ICE is looking to arrest them on immigration charges when they are found.

www.nbcnews.com

Alarming Rise in Military-Aged Chinese Men Entering US Illegally, Border Patrol Union Chief Warns

The head of the Border Patrol union has raised the alarm on the sharp rise in the number of military-aged Chinese men crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, warning that he

www.myheraldreview.com

Are there really Chinese sleeper cells operating in the US?

Is the Chinese Communist Party operating "sleeper cells" on American soil? That’s what Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said

www.politifact.com

Are terrorists trying to enter the U.S. through the southern border? Here are the facts.

Concerns about whether known or suspected terrorists are exploiting the migration crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border have intensified following the brutal terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas.

www.cbsnews.com

Arrests of eight ISIS-tied migrants should be wake-up call for Biden on border crisis, senator says

The Republican senator who warned about the possibility of a Central Asian terror threat making its way to the U.S. hopes the recent ICE arrests serve as a wake-up call for Biden.

www.foxnews.com

Let us hope to God for Biden and the Democrat party's sake, that none of these people allowed into this country by their willful and intentional inept and derelict actions , will do horrendous and egregious damage to the people living in this country on a scale as 911 in the coming years.

If they do , I'm sure there will be sheer hell to pay for their disregard for the safety of any American citizen harmed or killed by them and I certainly wouldn't want to be in any Democrat shoes if and when it happens.

All just so they can pack in foreigners to get potential votes for themselves In exchange for intentionally putting this country in incredible danger.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And he was wrong. The bottom line is that Trump asked them to “find” 11,780 votes. That’s very specific, and the Georgia election officials did not allow Trump to pressure them to “find” these non-existent votes.

Because any fewer would not help Trump cheat.

And there was no fraud. Trump and his corrupt allies made up all the fraud, as was revealed in the 60 lawsuits they lost.

You should drop all this. Trump lied.

No Trump may have been wrong, can you prove he lied? It is obvious in the conversation he believed there were enough fraudulent votes that should be thrown out. The left does this all the time with Trump but give Joe a pass when he lies. Read the entire phone conversation. They rarely do.

 

[F1fan]

No Trump may have been wrong, can you prove he lied?

Trump is a chronic liar. Are you suggesting the president didn't have valid intel on the election? Trump has been caught in so many lies that it's absurd to think he just made a mistake. Remember, he made up the election fraud claim that the Jan 6 protest was based on. He is still claiming the election was stolen even though there are witnesses that reveal he knows he lost. No rational person thinks Trump tells the truth, but you seem to believe his lies. That's why Trump lies, to dupe his followers.

It is obvious in the conversation he believed there were enough fraudulent votes that should be thrown out.

He was wrong, as president. Shouldn;t he have the best intel? The Georgia officials knew it wasn't true, so who was Trump listening to, and why is his judgment so bad? If you want Trump off the hook then you have to concede his judgment is extremely poor.

But don't forget Trump asked them to "find" 11,780 votes. That shows his intent. That is what he wanted from these state officials. The audio reveals they sid no, and pushed back on his demands. Do you know why? They were honorable and ethical. What Trump was trying to do was criminal. That is why he was charged in multiple jurisdictions. I'm curious why you are so enthusiastic for a criminal candidate. It's odd.

The left does this all the time with Trump but give Joe a pass when he lies.

Not really. The lies Biden has told are more stretching the truth or not fully accurate. This differs for the level of Trump lies which are completely contrary to fact. Claims of democrats destroying America is complete nonsense. Trump never gives examples, and nor do you.

Read the entire phone conversation. They rarely do.

Trump never should have called them. It was a complete breach of ethics for state autonomy and independence. Trump made calls to other states as well. If you think there is something in the full transcript that gets Trump off the hook then post it, and argue for it.

 

[F1fan]

I'll give you examples alright.

DHS identifies over 400 migrants brought to the U.S. by an ISIS-affiliated smuggling network

Over 150 have been arrested, but the whereabouts of over 50 remain unknown, officials said. ICE is looking to arrest them on immigration charges when they are found.

www.nbcnews.com

So they got caught. That's not negligence.

Alarming Rise in Military-Aged Chinese Men Entering US Illegally, Border Patrol Union Chief Warns

The head of the Border Patrol union has raised the alarm on the sharp rise in the number of military-aged Chinese men crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, warning that he

www.myheraldreview.com

Are there really Chinese sleeper cells operating in the US?

Is the Chinese Communist Party operating "sleeper cells" on American soil? That’s what Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said

www.politifact.com

Are terrorists trying to enter the U.S. through the southern border? Here are the facts.

Concerns about whether known or suspected terrorists are exploiting the migration crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border have intensified following the brutal terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas.

www.cbsnews.com

Arrests of eight ISIS-tied migrants should be wake-up call for Biden on border crisis, senator says

The Republican senator who warned about the possibility of a Central Asian terror threat making its way to the U.S. hopes the recent ICE arrests serve as a wake-up call for Biden.

www.foxnews.com

Let us hope to God for Biden and the Democrat party's sake, that none of these people allowed into this country by their willful and intentional inept and derelict actions , will do horrendous and egregious damage to the people living in this country on a scale as 911 in the coming years.

If they do , I'm sure there will be sheer hell to pay for their disregard for the safety of any American citizen harmed or killed by them and I certainly wouldn't want to be in any Democrat shoes if and when it happens.

All just so they can pack in foreigners to get potential votes for themselves In exchange for intentionally putting this country in incredible danger.

More of you right wingers expecting the government under a democrat to be impossibly perfect. Your examples don't suggest any negligence.

And remember Trump couldn't close the border either, until the pandemic gave him an excuse. And what they did to many migrants was illegal both domestically and interlationally. And don't forget that Trump sabotaged the border bill that would have passed with bipartisan votes. So in reality he doesn't care about the border at all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So they got caught. That's not negligence.

More of you right wingers expecting the government under a democrat to be impossibly perfect. Your examples don't suggest any negligence.

And remember Trump couldn't close the border either, until the pandemic gave him an excuse. And what they did to many migrants was illegal both domestically and interlationally. And don't forget that Trump sabotaged the border bill that would have passed with bipartisan votes. So in reality he doesn't care about the border at all.

Trump did nothing like the careless and intentional opening of the border instigated and encouraged by the Democrats.

You can't even begin justify this egregious action much less putting the blame on Trump.

 

[F1fan]

Trump did nothing like the careless and intentional opening of the border instigated and encouraged by the Democrats.

I don't believe you. What did the democrats do that was careless, and wasn't following the laws of the USA? Remember, there are exiting laws that the government has to follow. Trump could not close the border on his own authority for the first three years. Only when the pandemic hapvened that he could do it for public health reasons. Even Biden kept that policy in place for a while.

You can't even begin justify this egregious action much less putting the blame on Trump.

It's not my place to justify anything. Congress had a bipartisan border/immigration reform bill but Trump (who isn't even in government any more) sabotaged it with the help of his republican puppets. Biden made an executive order to limit migrants, but since that goes against the existing laws there have been lawsuits filed.

 

[fantome profane]

"However bad you think it is, it's worse"

 

[Alien826]

"However bad you think it is, it's worse"

Yah. The majority of this was conveniently omitted from the OP. What stand out for me are the extreme difficulty in distinguishing between official, peripherally official and unofficial acts and the roadblocks that have been set to make prosecution of a President practically close to impossible.

If a President wants to commit a crime and get away with it, all he/she has to do is to wrap it up in some official looking action.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Trump is a chronic liar. Are you suggesting the president didn't have valid intel on the election? Trump has been caught in so many lies that it's absurd to think he just made a mistake. Remember, he made up the election fraud claim that the Jan 6 protest was based on. He is still claiming the election was stolen even though there are witnesses that reveal he knows he lost. No rational person thinks Trump tells the truth, but you seem to believe his lies. That's why Trump lies, to dupe his followers.

He was wrong, as president. Shouldn;t he have the best intel? The Georgia officials knew it wasn't true, so who was Trump listening to, and why is his judgment so bad? If you want Trump off the hook then you have to concede his judgment is extremely poor.

But don't forget Trump asked them to "find" 11,780 votes. That shows his intent. That is what he wanted from these state officials. The audio reveals they sid no, and pushed back on his demands. Do you know why? They were honorable and ethical. What Trump was trying to do was criminal. That is why he was charged in multiple jurisdictions. I'm curious why you are so enthusiastic for a criminal candidate. It's odd.

Not really. The lies Biden has told are more stretching the truth or not fully accurate. This differs for the level of Trump lies which are completely contrary to fact. Claims of democrats destroying America is complete nonsense. Trump never gives examples, and nor do you.

Trump never should have called them. It was a complete breach of ethics for state autonomy and independence. Trump made calls to other states as well. If you think there is something in the full transcript that gets Trump off the hook then post it, and argue for it.

I have responded to these posts many times. Hope you have a good day.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought I would start a thread to discuss the actual ruling and what it says and what it does not say. Some people are saying this allows presidents to do anything or are kings now. These accusations are false and should be retracted. Here is what it actually says.

Here is what Trump is claiming from page 1:

Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment's allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump's motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.

The court decided Page 1:

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

They only decided on immunity for official acts not unofficial acts. On page 2 they say His authority to act necessarily stems either from an act of Congress or from the constitution itself. (Youngstown Sheet vs Sawyer).

When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.

This makes sense that congress cannot make a law that forces the President to break the law. The president is immune to criminal prosecution based on their duties to execute the laws congress passes.

Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.

It goes on to say a president needs to be able to make decisions without having in the back of their mind a possible criminal charge.

The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750. Appreciating the “unique
risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.

The clarify about presidential subpoenas and getting evidence from presidents do not have absolute immunity but they have executive privilege.

By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. During the treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, for instance, Chief Justice Marshall rejected President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that the President could not be subjected to a subpoena. Marshall simultaneously recognized, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper[s].” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 14,694) (CC Va.). And when a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon, the Court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 703.

They agreed with this ruling about what prosecutors must show to criminally charge a president.

At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.

They make it clear the President has no immunity for unofficial acts

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of
separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

Prosecutors must show any acts that they want to criminally charge for was done as an unofficial act.

So basically presidents have presumptive immunity for official acts but none for unofficial acts and prosecutors need to show the acts were not an official act to prosecute them. There is a lot more in the decision, history and citing many past cases.

These quotes from the left are lies:

"The framers of the Constitution envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people. They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity. - Hakeem Jefferies

"This decision will give Donald Trump cover to do exactly what he's been saying that he wants to do for months, which is an act of revenge and retribution against his political enemies. Quenton Fulks - Bidens campaign manager

"This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy. The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president." Chuck Schumer

These are lies that should be rejected based the actual decision. You can be against the decision but at least be against the decision and not against what you think is the decision.

On the surface, the ruling is reasonable & pretty much what I expected.
But the risks lie in a President's misdeeds, & what "official" means to
the lower courts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the surface, the ruling is reasonable & pretty much what I expected.
But the risks lie in a President's misdeeds, & what "official" means to
the lower courts.

There is a lot of abuse that can be passed off as "official". It has been noted that Biden could abuse it and postpone the elections until Trump's legal cases were finished.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a lot of abuse that can be passed off as "official". It has been noted that Biden could abuse it and postpone the elections until Trump's legal cases were finished.

A fine example.
And a case that shows potential for SCOTUS to rule
based upon whether they favor a President or not.