Immunity decision dropped!
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
None of it applies to the docs case, because he's not charged for any actions he took while still in office.
I'm not a huge fan of AOC - I think she plays into the winner-take-all/bloodsport of politics way too much - but I'd take her word any day over someone like catturd. Some people here treat that person's tweets like gospel.
I have zero idea if this is relevant, but I wonder if Trump having those classified documents and being indignant about not returning them as a private citizen matters. I don't see how taking boxes of classified documents on your way out the door fits into official duties of an outgoing president.
What am I wrong about? Don't give me a tweet. Explain it with big boy words.
Watch ny judge give him a max sentence now 🤣🤣
The payment to Stormy occurred while he was President. Also, they allege he committed this act while President so that he could remain President. Some of the evidence introduced like his conversations with Hope Hicks were Presidential. And Merchan never had a hearing to decide what falls under immunity and what doesn't. It will be thrown out.
No, it didn't. You are wrong.
The argument was about Trump paying her off to avoid looking bad to voters in the 2016 election. Hence, he had to pay her off before being elected.
When Did Donald Trump Allegedly Pay Stormy Daniels Hush Money?
Donald Trump, who allegedly paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money in 2016 before the U.S. Presidential elections, is now on trial. Daniels claimed in her Peacock documentary, Stormy, that Trump’s then-lawyer-turned-fixer Michael Cohen made the payment on the former president’s behalf. The...
Correct. He's confusing the payment to Daniels with the reimbursement Trump made to Cohen, which occurred after he was elected.The argument was about Trump paying her off to avoid looking bad to voters in the 2016 election. Hence, he had to pay her off before being elected.
When Did Donald Trump Allegedly Pay Stormy Daniels Hush Money?
Donald Trump, who allegedly paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money in 2016 before the U.S. Presidential elections, is now on trial. Daniels claimed in her Peacock documentary, Stormy, that Trump’s then-lawyer-turned-fixer Michael Cohen made the payment on the former president’s behalf. The...www.yahoo.com
Not that that matters. No serious person would claim that Trump's hush money payment from his own pocket (or that of his company) was an official act of the Presidency. Merchan had no responsibility to even entertain such a frivolous argument, even if it were brought up.
Cannon will still accept briefs and hold hearings. There's got to be a loophole in there somewhere.
According to CNN legal analyst and Harvard law grad, Elie Honig, the immunity decision threw a big wrench into Bragg's case. Wait and see. You're all the same buffoons that said he'd never get immunity in the first place.
The Hope Hicks testimony was barred according to this decision. Mistrial.
You're wrong again. I never said Trump wouldn't "get immunity in the first place." Go back and check.
And you didn't respond to your first incorrect statement, regarding the timing of the Stormy Daniels payment.
As I've told Cosmic before, you can't play the authority card on me. It doesn't work. As for Honig's opinion, he thinks it might lead to a retrial based on the admission of the Hicks' testimony, if the court finds it harmful error. He says nothing about the timing of the payments, nor does he argue they are possibly within a president's official duties, because he's not stupid.
Last edited:
We as a country have to vote for Biden. Democracy as we know it will in. The Supreme Court is another arm of maga. It is bought and paid for. It should no longer be called the Supreme Court, it is called trumps court.
If you'd like to place a wager about whether or not any court will hold that Trump's payment to Daniels, reimbursement to Cohen, or how it was described in his books is immune from criminal prosecution because they are presidential acts or occurred during his presidency, I will gladly do so.
I'm currently sitting on one BTC. I'll put that up. You can put up a BTC, or a cash equivalent. Snarlcakes can escrow our money. Up for it?
This seems like the correct analysis to me........I'm not saying that letting all of Ms. Hick's testimony in was not error. Some of it may have been harmful and not relevant. I don't know, didn't follow it that carefully. And the conviction's ultimately going to get overturned for many reasons, but this SC decision isn't one of them.
If given the choice between Biden and Trump, yes, I'll vote for Biden.
That said, I do hope the Democratic party can somehow thread the needle and replace Biden on the ticket. I know the ins and outs of that have been discussed ad nauseum here, but if push comes to shove, I'll vote against Trump and his sycophant, insane clown posse getting power again.
The PRA will make some of his decisions official therefore giving him a presumption. The opinion does not provide much guidance in rebutting the presumption.
He's not being charged for any actions taken while president in the document case, so how could his decisions be "official?"
Except for the actions after the 20th. Attempts to hide documents will have no presumption. Plus, the fact he tried cover it up would indicate he did not believe it to be official actions.
He's not being charged for decisions he made in designating his own records while he was still in office. He's being charged for what he did with records after he left office. There is no definition of "official act" that touches those actions.
Strictly speaking, it's also not crazy, simply from reading the majority opinion. The court makes it clear that those constitutional authorities that are designated as the conclusive and preclusive purview of the executive are subject to absolute immunity. And although they only go into detail with pardons and removal of officers, it's clear that command of the armed forces is part of that list. Under the logic used in this ruling, the President can ignore posse comitatus, can direct the military to carry out covert (or overt) actions on US soil, and he cannot be touched.
Now, those actions may very well be illegal, and the military members who carry them out could very well be court martialed, and others involved charged criminally, but the President himself could not be touched.
I think they simply dodge the issue and hypo, call it "rhetoric of doom" or some such description, and say they are only addressing, for now, presidential discussions with his AG and VP. I looked and couldn't find a direct response to that argument.
I thought they would analogize to Latin phrases and common law concpets such as ultra vires, etc. (there is one for state officials being unable to act unconstitutionally in their official capacity and I can't recall it because I'm losing it mentally), and offer a way out for that example.
By the way, he could be "touched"--he could be impeached and removed.
If he made decisions under the authority of the PRA i think they are official acts. As I understand it, the PRA covers some post presidency records issues.
That wouldn't be an immunity issue; it would be an affirmative defense.
This avowed lefty is usually not all that alarmist, but this decision has him wound up.
Don’t Believe John Roberts. The Supreme Court Just Made the President a King.
“With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” —Sonia Sotomayor
Hm. Fair point. When talking about qualified immunity, that distinction comes fuzzy. Maybe the same for presumed immunity.
Last edited:
It was a glaring dodge. To include the armed forces in the list, and then pretend it wasn't there while discussing pardons and firing people, that was judicial cowardice.
