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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Special Counsel Is Said to Be Planning to Pursue Trump Cases Past the Election

Jack Smith plans to continue two criminal cases against Donald J. Trump until Inauguration Day if the former president wins, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Lilibet]

Special Counsel Is Said to Be Planning to Pursue Trump Cases Past the Election

Jack Smith plans to continue two criminal cases against Donald J. Trump until Inauguration Day if the former president wins, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

www.nytimes.com

From the link:
Mr. Smith believes that under Justice Department regulations, his mandate as special counsel and his authority to keep the cases going do not depend on a change of administration and extend until he is formally removed from his post, the person said.
BBM

If the administration changes to Trump you can guarantee that Smith will be “formally removed from his post” on day one.
JMO

 

[MadMcGoo]

This thread has one topic which is described in its title. Please stick to discussing only that. Thanks!

 

[Betty P]

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.

Agree. The Founders never intended for the Constitution to allow a president to illegally work to overthrow the government of the United States.

 

[musicaljoke]

Agree. The Founders never intended for the Constitution to allow a president to illegally work to overthrow the government of the United States.

I agree. But then the current government needs to work toward tightening up the Constitution, but is there even a hint that they are working in that direction? I hear crickets.

 

[GRT]

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.

You are correct--this ruling clarifies the immunity that virtually every president has taken for granted. While the wording is up for interpretation (as evidenced by the 6-3 split), the ruling is based on the broad powers granted a president in Article II of the Constitution.

I once heard a constitutional scholar say that by protecting the power of a president, the "will of the people" is also protected.

I'm not surprised SCOTUS ruled as they did, given historical precedents such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Iraq War, and Edward Snowden et al.

Like you, I think we'll see appeals from both sides and maybe some dropped charges.

And, if Trump wins, I expect we'll see a couple more impeachments.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I saw a post recently that I found compelling -- the founders, in writing the Constitution, would have had no need to include parameters for the impeachment of a president, if presidents had immunity for all official acts. Thus, the fact that they did include impeachment is a clear indication that no such immunity was intended. MOO

 

[GRT]

I saw a post recently that I found compelling -- the founders, in writing the Constitution, would have had no need to include parameters for the impeachment of a president, if presidents had immunity for all official acts. Thus, the fact that they did include impeachment is a clear indication that no such immunity was intended. MOO

The Constitution makes an exception for "treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors."