This should Be No Surprise

[thetragichippy]

This affects positively EVERY case President Trump is involved in.

Defining "official acts" will take years.......

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

This affects positively EVERY case President Trump is involved in.

Defining "official acts" will take years.......

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

True, but the Jan. 6 Trials could begin as soon as September. The Supreme Court will let a lower court decide in this case, what is and what is not an official act as pertains to this case.

[thetragichippy]

36 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

True, but the Jan. 6 Trials could begin as soon as September. The Supreme Court will let a lower court decide in this case, what is and what is not an official act as pertains to this case.

The legal experts that I follow are saying it will takes a long time to sort through what is official and what is not. It also stated even unofficial acts should presume immunity......so, that means it is appealable.  Maybe @tvc184 can shed some light

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

The legal experts that I follow are saying it will takes a long time to sort through what is official and what is not. It also stated even unofficial acts should presume immunity......so, that means it is appealable.  Maybe @tvc184 can shed some light

Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6.

He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court.

Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity.

The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity.

The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive).  What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country.

The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity.

A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove.

As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work. 

The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide.

So….

For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity.

For an official act, he has presumed immunity.

Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity.

In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established.

Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime.

Therefore….

Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court  has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act.

Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out.

If you don’t want to read all of that…… 

To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future. 

[thetragichippy]

15 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

If you don’t want to read all of that……

Read it all - good info - thanks

[Reagan]

Sotomayor's Dissent in Presidential Immunity Case Certainly Has People Talking!

This is the stupidly you get when commie-pinko Presidents are able to select judges.  They are there not to interpret the Constitution but to do the left’s political bidding.  This ruling should have been 9-0.  But…

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

30 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Sotomayor's Dissent in Presidential Immunity Case Certainly Has People Talking!

This is the stupidly you get when commie-pinko Presidents are able to select judges.  They are there not to interpret the Constitution but to do the left’s political bidding.  This ruling should have been 9-0.  But…

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Pretty much every decision should be 9-0 if we had a group of unbiased SCJs that simply interpreted the Constitution in it's purest form.

Happens both ways, much more from the left imo, but without a doubt there is legislation from the bench even in the highest court in the land.

[Reagan]

Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling is what the body was designed for — unpopular but constitutionally correct.
 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[CardinalBacker]

Just remember… for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction. 
 

The rules won’t apply for democrat presidents, either.  
 

[Bobcat1]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Just remember… for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction. 
 

The rules won’t apply for democrat presidents, either.  
 

This is what worries me most - It will be used to justify anything 'offical'....... 

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Just remember… for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction. 
 

The rules won’t apply for democrat presidents, either.  
 

Just remember, the democrats brought this on by weaponizing the DOJ and FBI to "silence" the opposition, that everyone said was so defeatable, I will add.

And the rules don't apply to the democrats anyway.

[CardinalBacker]

42 minutes ago, Bobcat1 said:

This is what worries me most - It will be used to justify anything 'offical'....... 

Trump is already claiming that trying to overturn the election was “official.”

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

While simultaneously calling for Liz Cheney to be brought up on Treason charges.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is going to go badly. 

[baddog]

It’s the Supreme Court. Agree or not, it’s what you have to live with. We had to live with Roe vs. Wade for decades. Take your basketball and go home and sit in the corner while sucking your thumb. This is to no one in particular. I just couldn’t help myself.

[LumRaiderFan]

33 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Trump is already claiming that trying to overturn the election was “official.”

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

While simultaneously calling for Liz Cheney to be brought up on Treason charges.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is going to go badly. 

So that's what he said?  He actually said that trying to overturn the election was official?

I would like you to find me the quote of him saying that.

Good grief, at least put out actual facts.

[CardinalBacker]

17 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So that's what he said?  He actually said that trying to overturn the election was official?

I would like you to find me the quote of him saying that.

Good grief, at least put out actual facts.

From the article you didn’t read:

“When pressed by Collins whether using a "false slates of electors" would constitute enough for a trial, Scharf (Trump’s attorney) denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act."

 

If Trump’s attorney said it on Trump’s behalf in relation to another criminal case in which Trump will refuse to testify, then yes… that’s Trump’s position. 

[Separation Scientist]

Some democrats, the same ones screaming "threats to democracy" so much, and now voicing threats against Conservative SCOTUS Justices. Rhetoric like "taking them out" etc. What are they talking about? Assinations?  

[LumRaiderFan]

10 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

From the article you didn’t read:

“When pressed by Collins whether using a "false slates of electors" would constitute enough for a trial, Scharf (Trump’s attorney) denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act."

 

If Trump’s attorney said it on Trump’s behalf in relation to another criminal case in which Trump will refuse to testify, then yes… that’s Trump’s position. 

I actually did read the article, so if what you said about Trump "claiming" to overturn the election and it was an official act and turns out to not be an official act...

then that's it...they got him...finally.

lol, just when your TDS was waning.

[LumRaiderFan]

7 minutes ago, Separation Scientist said:

Some democrats, the same ones screaming "threats to democracy" so much, and now voicing threats against Conservative SCOTUS Justices. Rhetoric like "taking them out" etc. What are they talking about? Assinations?  

Probably, democrats have always been ok with using violence to address their problems.

Even have senators and congressmen touting it.

[CardinalBacker]

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I actually did read the article, so if what you said about Trump "claiming" to overturn the election and it was an official act and turns out to not be an official act...

then that's it...they got him...finally.

lol, just when your TDS was waning.

I'm just saying.... if the left wants to scream about how another Trump Presidency will be the end of our Democracy (scare tactic, right?) then the Supreme Court comes out with some complete BS about a President having immunity for criminal wrongdoings (which is nowhere in our Constitution... you know, the one that the Right loves so much).... then you have the President coming out and claiming Presidential immunity for actions taken to remain in power after getting his big fat S turned red in the election... while simultaneously calling for congressional members who oppose Trump to be brought before a military tribunal under charges of treason? How very Saddam Hussein of him.   Well, maybe that Democrat scare tactic isn't just "the sky is falling" after all.  

The Rs in the Senate failed America when they didn't convict Trump in that second impeachment trial.  It let the Red Hatted Fools push to renominate him again (after he tried to halt the peaceful transfer of power last time) and now we're all going to be worse off for it.  

Because the next time a "d" gets into office, they're going to take full advantage of the new immunity the conservative justices just created for them.  

What SHOULD have happened is that this ACTIVIST supreme court should have stayed away from creating new laws (Like they did with Roe v Wade, and are now doing with this verdict on Presidential Immunity), then heard the appeal of a Trump conviction in this case on Constitutional grounds... you know, the kind of grounds that the SC was created to interpret.  

 

The President shouldn't be finding himself in Federal Court, in front of an activist Judge, fighting for his freedom on baseless charges.  But you don't fix that by giving a President free rein to do whatever criminal acts he wants.  By the Supreme Court (and Trump's) logic, if Joe Biden ordered the murder of Trump tomorrow, he would be immune from prosecution because it was an act that he (Biden) believed was in the best interest of the country.   That's scary. 

[thetragichippy]

20 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I'm just saying.... if the left wants to scream about how another Trump Presidency will be the end of our Democracy (scare tactic, right?) then the Supreme Court comes out with some complete BS about a President having immunity for criminal wrongdoings (which is nowhere in our Constitution... you know, the one that the Right loves so much).... then you have the President coming out and claiming Presidential immunity for actions taken to remain in power after getting his big fat S turned red in the election... while simultaneously calling for congressional members who oppose Trump to be brought before a military tribunal under charges of treason? How very Saddam Hussein of him.   Well, maybe that Democrat scare tactic isn't just "the sky is falling" after all.  

The Rs in the Senate failed America when they didn't convict Trump in that second impeachment trial.  It let the Red Hatted Fools push to renominate him again (after he tried to halt the peaceful transfer of power last time) and now we're all going to be worse off for it.  

Because the next time a "d" gets into office, they're going to take full advantage of the new immunity the conservative justices just created for them.  

What SHOULD have happened is that this ACTIVIST supreme court should have stayed away from creating new laws (Like they did with Roe v Wade, and are now doing with this verdict on Presidential Immunity), then heard the appeal of a Trump conviction in this case on Constitutional grounds... you know, the kind of grounds that the SC was created to interpret.  

 

The President shouldn't be finding himself in Federal Court, in front of an activist Judge, fighting for his freedom on baseless charges.  But you don't fix that by giving a President free rein to do whatever criminal acts he wants.  By the Supreme Court (and Trump's) logic, if Joe Biden ordered the murder of Trump tomorrow, he would be immune from prosecution because it was an act that he (Biden) believed was in the best interest of the country.   That's scary. 

Trump should of never been impeached either time.......Democrats were so outraged (as they are today) that he didn't conform to the standards they were used to they tried, continuing to this day, to take him out.  It would have 150% worked if it was anyone else than someone like Donald Trump, who has the money to fight it......Most others would of took the hint versus bankruptcy. 

The SC ruling has affected every case and more than likely none make it to court.......because when you target a man and look for a crime, it's usually weak.