DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024 #2

[BeginnerSleuther]

It's a presumptive immunity for official acts of the Eecutive Branch of government. For example, former president Obama would not be able to be criminally charged for the decision to kill an American citizen overseas. Acting in his official role, he is giving presumptive immunity. Also, motive is irrelevant according to this Supreme Court opinion, in cases of presidential immunity.

It's a good ruling, clarifies immunity for the executive branch of government under the U.S. Constitution. Now the case will be returned to the lower court and they will have to review charges based on the Supreme Court's ruling. I imagine there will be lots of motions, appeals, etc by both sides and some charges will be dropped and/or added and it will continue to be reviewed by the higher courts.

Constiutional legal experts are still reviewing the 96-page Supreme Court Opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

I actually think it's a devastating ruling for America and totally unConstitutional. JMO. No person should be above the law. No one. Had this ruling been in place in 2020, Trump would still be in office and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it. It's a travesty. MOO.

 

[MamaSleuth5]

In my opinion, what Trump wants is to be made a king, a king with all the powers to do whatever he wants, no matter what, and to answer to no one.

I'm afraid that if he gets back in, he'll try to find a way to stay President for life, and then hand it on to his children.

This is my fear too JMO, MOO

 

[Lilibet]

I actually think it's a devastating ruling for America and totally unConstitutional. JMO. No person should be above the law. No one. Had this ruling been in place in 2020, Trump would still be in office and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it. It's a travesty. MOO.

Yes, there is much more to this ruling than people first thought when it was released this morning.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/presidents-immunity-supreme-court-what-matters/index.html

 

[Lilibet]

If they do rule in favor of immunity, aren't there some [reasonable but impactful and otherwise legal/ethical] things the current President could do with this new power which must logically apply to him as well?

You were rather prophetic, @Auntie Cipation, in saying that the immunity ruling would apply to President Biden too, and essentially empower him to do any number of things. There are ideas galore in the comments section at WaPo, mostly illegal wishful thinking actions that Biden would never take. But I can imagine that Biden and his aides are considering the “reasonable but impactful and otherwise legal/ethical things” he could do, as you mentioned. “Official acts” of course.

From the Washington Post…(gift article)

Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling poses risk for democracy, experts say​

https://wapo.st/3W6klak

 

[Lilibet]

This very detailed and interesting article what Judge Chutkan and Jack Smith can and should do soon…an evidentiary hearing.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/opinions/trump-immunity-ruling-evidentiary-hearing-eisen-perry-kolb/index.html

From the article:
Beyond the procedural considerations, the mini-trial would also serve a vital function for the public — allowing voters to learn more details about Trump’s alleged election interference. It would utilize the adversarial process at the heart of our criminal justice system to elucidate crucial information about the most grievous attack on our democracy since the Civil War.

One other thing that this opinion makes clear is that Smith should seriously consider slimming down his indictment — not only excising the portions that the court has tossed for him (such as the allegations concerning the DOJ) but also considering where else he can “slim to win,” as prosecutors often refer to this process. Smith should do that immediately, to make Chutkan’s task as easy as possible before the inevitable appellate review of her decision.

 

[Inthedetails]

what did you think of his remarks? I am glad he commented, but he appeared kind of wooden to me---- sort of robotic

I don't care about any robotic tone as, to me, it just shows he rehearsed, is reading a teleprompter, and has to manage his stutter. All of that is understandable and shows he takes this seriously. He's not the best speaker to begin with, and I'm sure he is working hard to get past the debate disaster.

When I first heard he was going to address SC decision, I was surprised. But when I heard his point of view, I understood. I think he had to, as President, take a stand in an effort to protect the presidency. I really do think it's that serious.

Not only does the SC decision affect #45, it sets up the USA for another one just like him, or worse.

It's a reminder, once again, that when we vote for president, we're also essentially voting for the supreme court justices.

jmo

 

[Marantz4250b]

I actually think it's a devastating ruling for America and totally unConstitutional. JMO. No person should be above the law. No one. Had this ruling been in place in 2020, Trump would still be in office and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it. It's a travesty. MOO.

As someone watching this from afar - the other side of the pond - it just seems to be a completely and utterly insane decision! How can any "civilised" society consider anyone to be immune from criminal acts? And we aren't just talking about regular crimes. We are talking about stuff which is potentially pivotal to how the whole of that society functions.

It's insanely frightening, quite frankly.

So, Nixon was actually correct when he said ....what I'm saying is that when the president does something it is not illegal... or words to that effect. Who'd have thunk that he was such a constitutional scholar?

 

[Marantz4250b]

You were rather prophetic, @Auntie Cipation, in saying that the immunity ruling would apply to President Biden too, and essentially empower him to do any number of things. There are ideas galore in the comments section at WaPo, mostly illegal wishful thinking actions that Biden would never take. But I can imagine that Biden and his aides are considering the “reasonable but impactful and otherwise legal/ethical things” he could do, as you mentioned. “Official acts” of course.

From the Washington Post…(gift article)

Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling poses risk for democracy, experts say​

https://wapo.st/3W6klak

So, basically, Biden could just have Trump whacked by Seal Team 6 and get rid of his problem?

Or he could just call off the election?

Mind boggling!

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I think now if Trump did something illegal, this so called Supreme Court would say he had a legal right

But if Biden did the exact same thing, the same court would say it was illegal and he had no legal right.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think now if Trump did something illegal, this so called Supreme Court would say he had a legal right

But if Biden did the exact same thing, the same court would say it was illegal and he had no legal right.

But they've just confirmed that the President can do anything he/she wants.

So what's to prevent Biden from assassinating Trump? Nothing as far as it appears.

 

[ilovewings]

But they've just confirmed that the President can do anything he/she wants.

So what's to prevent Biden from assassinating Trump? Nothing as far as it appears.

Here's the thing: Good and decent men like Biden won't take advantage of what the Supreme Court did-- which was to basically sanction criminal behavior by a president-- on the other hand, authoritarian wanna-be's like Trump have, and will benefit greatly from this ruling should he become president (God forbid)

 

[Marantz4250b]

Here's the thing: Good and decent men like Biden won't take advantage of what the Supreme Court did-- which was to basically sanction criminal behavior by a president-- on the other hand, authoritarian wanna-be's like Trump have, and will benefit greatly from this ruling should he become president (God forbid)

Hmmm....well, he's a politician same as Trump so I wouldn't be entirely convinced of his integrity, tbh.

Power is corrupting, though, and even the most honest and decent of folks are corruptible. When you know you can get away with things a person may be very tempted to step across the line on occasion. Given unchecked power I imagine that it's not difficult to convince yourself that you aren't doing wrong - which you won't be as far as the legal sense goes!

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I think now if Trump did something illegal, this so called Supreme Court would say he had a legal right

But if Biden did the exact same thing, the same court would say it was illegal and he had no legal right.

One way to get the Supreme Court to reverse its decision is for Biden to do something illegal (in which no one gets hurt of course). Under this ruling, I fear we could have a president cancelling all elections or declaring a civil war or "ethnic cleansing" with no repercussions. MOO.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

You were rather prophetic, @Auntie Cipation, in saying that the immunity ruling would apply to President Biden too, and essentially empower him to do any number of things. There are ideas galore in the comments section at WaPo, mostly illegal wishful thinking actions that Biden would never take. But I can imagine that Biden and his aides are considering the “reasonable but impactful and otherwise legal/ethical things” he could do, as you mentioned. “Official acts” of course.

From the Washington Post…(gift article)

Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling poses risk for democracy, experts say​

https://wapo.st/3W6klak

Thanks, but as I learned more yesterday, I see it's not that simple.

Yes, the ruling applies to Biden as well, but only official acts are immune, and the determination of what is an "official" act was left undefined, which means it will be determined by the courts.

So let's say Biden does something. He's tried for his action with the prosecution claiming it's not an official act and therefore not covered by immunity. Even if lower courts find that it IS an official act, there could be challenges that bump it to higher courts, all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary, and they will declare it an unofficial act because they oppose Biden and they are corrupt.

But they do (probably) still have to use normal legal procedures (precedents etc) to justify their ruling. So he would have to choose VERY carefully to do only things that cannot in any rational way be considered unofficial.

Or, as I saw someone suggest yesterday, he could accept that he will likely be found guilty but given his age and knowing how long things take to move through the courts, decide to throw himself on the legal pyre to save the country.

And of course if his action is an administrative ruling of some sort, even packing the court, it could later be reversed. But if his action is something that prevents Trump from being elected, even if the action is later ruled not immune, it will have saved the country anyway.

MOO of course.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Hmmm....well, he's a politician same as Trump so I wouldn't be entirely convinced of his integrity, tbh.

Power is corrupting, though, and even the most honest and decent of folks are corruptible. When you know you can get away with things a person may be very tempted to step across the line on occasion. Given unchecked power I imagine that it's not difficult to convince yourself that you aren't doing wrong - which you won't be as far as the legal sense goes!

I agree with you partly, in that politicians are inherently suspect for wanting such power in the first place. I also agree that a job such as the presidency inherently involves doing, directing, allowing, or overlooking unethical things. Even the most ethical person would, in that job, be faced with "lesser of evils" choices in which there are atrocities under both choices.*

However, I disagree if you are suggesting this means Trump and Biden are similar in that respect. Nope, not even close. One is a good man who wants the best for the world but who is willing to engage in at least some standard political shenanigans along the way. The other is not a good man but is someone who cares only for himself and is willing to lie, steal, and kill the planet in the draw for more power and adulation for himself. IMO of course.

* Separate from current events, I have long thought that if a politician came along who was determined to not accept/allow *any* atrocities in their name, and if this person were somehow to end up in office, it would so upset other leaders' grabs for power, not to mention the entire global capitalist system, that said person would most likely be assassinated shortly after taking office. In my view this is supremely sad but most likely true. :-(

 

[ilovewings]

I agree with you partly, in that politicians are inherently suspect for wanting such power in the first place. I also agree that a job such as the presidency inherently involves doing, directing, allowing, or overlooking unethical things. Even the most ethical person would, in that job, be faced with "lesser of evils" choices in which there are atrocities under both choices.*

However, I disagree if you are suggesting this means Trump and Biden are similar in that respect. Nope, not even close. One is a good man who wants the best for the world but who is willing to engage in at least some standard political shenanigans along the way. The other is not a good man but is someone who cares only for himself and is willing to lie, steal, and kill the planet in the draw for more power and adulation for himself. IMO of course.

* Separate from current events, I have long thought that if a politician came along who was determined to not accept/allow *any* atrocities in their name, and if this person were somehow to end up in office, it would so upset other leaders' grabs for power, not to mention the entire global capitalist system, that said person would most likely be assassinated shortly after taking office. In my view this is supremely sad but most likely true. :-(

There are the typical politicians- the ones you describe- they all want power, they all do lots of unethical shenanigan-type things to grab and keep power- we are used to those kinds of politicians. Then there is Trump. He is a horse of a different color. He is a narcissistic meglomaniac - He yearns to rule, like Putin -- . He attempted to overthrow a legitimate election- by the Grace of God, there were enough guardrails in place to stop him. If he loses this election he will make another attempt and I am not sure there are enough guard rails in place at this time--- He represents a true danger to the democracy we treasure---He is also a danger to the world---

 

[Lilibet]

There are the typical politicians- the ones you describe- they all want power, they all do lots of unethical shenanigan-type things to grab and keep power- we are used to those kinds of politicians. Then there is Trump. He is a horse of a different color. He is a narcissistic meglomaniac - He yearns to rule, like Putin -- . He attempted to overthrow a legitimate election- by the Grace of God, there were enough guardrails in place to stop him. If he loses this election he will make another attempt and I am not sure there are enough guard rails in place at this time--- He represents a true danger to the democracy we treasure---He is also a danger to the world---

It’s been mind boggling to watch Trump steamroll over the guardrails and traditions that have been respected and followed by most presidents. The Founding Fathers could never have built guardrails high enough because they couldn’t have imagined anyone like Trump existing.

For example:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-liz-cheney-military-tribunal/index.html

Former President Donald Trump amplified posts on social media calling for a televised military tribunal for former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney and the jailing of top elected officials, including President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
BBM

 

[Inthedetails]

It’s been mind boggling to watch Trump steamroll over the guardrails and traditions that have been respected and followed by most presidents. The Founding Fathers could never have built guardrails high enough because they couldn’t have imagined anyone like Trump existing.

For example:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-liz-cheney-military-tribunal/index.html

Former President Donald Trump amplified posts on social media calling for a televised military tribunal for former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney and the jailing of top elected officials, including President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
BBM

I respectfully disagree that the founding fathers couldn't imagine someone like #45. I think they also encountered dastardly people in politics and they did what they could to give future generations the tools to deal with such people. I think we would disappoint them in how those tools are being used.

jmopinion

 

[Bibbers]

I respectfully disagree that the founding fathers couldn't imagine someone like #45. I think they also encountered dastardly people in politics and they did what they could to give future generations the tools to deal with such people. I think we would disappoint them in how those tools are being used.

jmopinion

The founding fathers also didn't imagine the other two branches of government bending to a wannabe king's desires.

 

[musicaljoke]

One way to get the Supreme Court to reverse its decision is for Biden to do something illegal (in which no one gets hurt of course). Under this ruling, I fear we could have a president cancelling all elections or declaring a civil war or "ethnic cleansing" with no repercussions. MOO.

Lawmakers need to tighten up the law. If this is the interpretation of the current laws by the Supreme Court, then it might not be entirely those judges that are the problem, but rather the law itself.

It wouldn't surprise me that the law allows the president to carry on whatever criminal activity he wants without repercussions. No one ever anticipated that the people would elect a criminal. The laws were put in place by the elite landowners and protect their position of power.

The election process is designed to keep the elite in power at all costs, even if it costs the country their democracy. The political leaders have had no reason to make the necessary changes because the current system acts in their favour. Why didn't they question the Electoral College procedures when it was evident they were open to fraud? Because the Electoral College keeps power in the hands of those who would be in the position to make a safer and more democratic process. For those leaders, equality feels like they have lost something.

If equality makes them feel that they have lost power, then they were living in privilege. That privilege is dangerous and ought to be wiped from the laws. Is anyone talking about legal reform? I hear only concerns about the judges' interpretation of the law, not the law itself.