United States Supreme Court Rules Donald Trump Is Immune For Official Acts And Is Not Immune For Unofficial Acts

[Wandering Monk]

From Sotomayor:

Even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.​

 

[Twilight Hue]

6-3!? What the hell!

https://meidasnews.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-rules-donald-trump-is-immune-for-official-acts-and-is-not-immune-for-unofficial-acts

Link to ruling.

Big frigging deal. It's for official acts. Hence requiring approval. Not personal retribution.

What a massive nothingburger alarmist thread.

 

[Watchmen]

All this hand-wringing. It’s pathetic. The Constitution and our Republic are just fine. We’re experiencing a muddy time. It’s not our best moment. But four years from now when it’s Newsom vs DeSantis (or whoever the GOP puts forward) this is going to all feel like ancient history.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Big frigging deal. It's for official acts. Hence requiring approval. Not personal retribution.

What a massive nothingburger alarmist thread.

Completely false. You haven't read the opinion.

The opinion says "official acts" must be construed to the "widest perimeter" of actions taken by the President -- and it says that within that perimiter, the question of "motive" cannot be considered. How can any prosecutor establish "mens rea" without inquiring after motive?

You assumption of "requiring approval" is nonsense with those constraints.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is so wrong. A felon can't vote, but he can be President!?

Depends on the felony. Trumps particular felony is just above misdemeanor which it should be anyways.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Well for all the MAGA Trump Supporters celebrating: SCOTUS just gave this power to Joe Biden, TODAY!

Maybe you MAGA folks want to rethink a bit.

What if Biden decided today that Steve Bannon was a threat to democracy and ordered him killed?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well for all the MAGA Trump Supporters celebrating: SCOTUS just gave this power to Joe Biden, TODAY!

Maybe you MAGA folks want to rethink a bit.

I was just going to point that out. This applies to Biden as well. Totally agree.

I have no issue with that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well for all the MAGA Trump Supporters celebrating: SCOTUS just gave this power to Joe Biden, TODAY!

Maybe you MAGA folks want to rethink a bit.

I'd give my left testicle to see him use the new power. Perhaps, you know, instructing DOJ to jail Trump, perhaps for 86 years. Nobody can ask his motive for making such a demand of his own DOJ. It certainly comes somewhere withing the "widest perimeter" of his "officials duties."

I mean, after all, all he has to do is claim that as President, he saw Donald Trump as a threat to the Constitution, which he (Biden) is sworn to defend.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I was just going to point that out. This applies to Biden as well. Totally agree.

I have no issue with that.

So what if Joe should decided that Steve Bannon is a threat to democracy and order him killed. Would you be good with that? Official act, can't use any notes or discussions with advisors to prosecute him for an unofficial act of murder.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'd give my left testicle to see him use the new power. Perhaps, you know, instructing DOJ to jail Trump, perhaps for 86 years. Nobody can ask his motive for making such a demand of his own DOJ. It certainly comes somewhere withing the "widest perimeter" of his "officials duties."

I mean, after all, all he has to do is claim that as President, he saw Donald Trump as a threat to the Constitution, which he (Biden) is sworn to defend.

I'd say go for it. I'd be interested as well to see something like that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'd say go for it. I'd be interested as well to see something like that.

Let's go for it! As Gandalf said, "even the very wise cannot see all ends." SCOTUS may just have given Biden, in his last 6 months, powers that he never dreamed of. If only had the courage (and lack of decency and ethics) to use them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So what if Joe should decided that Steve Bannon is a threat to democracy and order him killed. Would you be good with that? Official act, can't use any notes or discussions with advisors to prosecute him for an unofficial act of murder.

Look at history.

Like the time Obama ordered the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki , an American born from New Mexico. Drones were used to kill him and the CIA had carried it out.

That should answer your question sufficiently enough , and that was well before the Supreme Court ruling at present.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Look at history.

Like the time Obama ordered the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki , an American born from New Mexico. Drones were used to kill him and the CIA had carried it out.

That should answer your question sufficiently enough , and that was well before the Supreme Court ruling at present.

In January 2010, White House lawyers debated whether or not it was legal to kill al-Awlaki, given his U.S. citizenship.[176] U.S. officials stated that international law allows targeted killing in the event that the subject is an "imminent threat".[18] Because he was a U.S. citizen, his killing had to be approved by the National Security Council.[18] Such action against a U.S. citizen is extremely rare.[18] As a military enemy of the US, al-Awlaki was not subject to Executive Order 11905, which bans assassination for political reasons.[177] The authorization was nevertheless controversial.[178]

 

[We Never Know]

Just like the last several special prosecutors back to Nixon.

But were they all that way? If not "the last several back to Nixon" you mention, were any of them challenged?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Or how about this for a twist: Christian Nationalists who have supported the Right Wing take over of SCOTUS can now be targeted by Biden as threats to national security and rounded up thanks to the six MAGA judges.

 

[Wandering Monk]

But were they all that way? If not "the last several back to Nixon" you mention, were any of them challenged?

In its 1988 ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the Appeals Court's decision in a 7 to 1 decision, and upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel law. The Supreme Court found that Congress did not seek to increase its own powers by passing the law, and held that it did not interfere "unduly" or "impermissibly" with the executive branch's powers. The Court also held that independent counsels were "inferior officers" over which the Attorney General retained ultimate authority through her or his power to recommend appointment or dismissal. For these reasons and others, the majority of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the majority's opinion.

The Office - A Brief History Of The Independent Counsel Law | Secrets Of An Independent Counsel | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[We Never Know]

In its 1988 ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the Appeals Court's decision in a 7 to 1 decision, and upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel law. The Supreme Court found that Congress did not seek to increase its own powers by passing the law, and held that it did not interfere "unduly" or "impermissibly" with the executive branch's powers. The Court also held that independent counsels were "inferior officers" over which the Attorney General retained ultimate authority through her or his power to recommend appointment or dismissal. For these reasons and others, the majority of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the majority's opinion.

The Office - A Brief History Of The Independent Counsel Law | Secrets Of An Independent Counsel | FRONTLINE | PBS

Is that talking about private citizen special councils?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Right, congress can’t criminalize official acts. But if a president commits existing crimes outside the scope of his office then an investigation and indictment can happen.

I agree.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The opposition can only (successfully) prosecute them if the "official act" was against the law. That is the way it should be. If the "official act" is not against the law the President does not need immunity for it

Look at the desperate attempts to impeach Joe Biden. They have failed, and will continue to fail because they have not been able to show that Biden has done anything illegal or worthy of impeachment. The same thing would happen after Biden's term in office if they tried to prosecute him. They would need to show he did something illegal. And if they can do that then Biden should face the penalty.

Don't you understand that they just gave the President permission to break the law?

There was no DOJ when the constitution was ratified. The DOJ is under the executive branch, they report to the president. Is it right that a person have the power to indict and prosecute the president when they work for the president? Can you see how that might be unstable?

Immunity is not just for Trump but for all presidents. It is not a license to break the law, it is protection for presidents to do what they think is best within their duties without getting caught up in a legal mess when they get out. An example is Obama's drone program or Biden sending weapons to Israel, some people think those are against the law. Should they be prosecuted for these possible crimes? How does a president break a law by executing the law? If they are doing their jobs they are following the law.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I wish all you folks would read the opinion in its entirety. Unless you do, you are opining based on nothing.