Supreme Court to decide Trump immunity claim

[hoot1]

SCOTUS will soon. The President can't just murder someone or sell nuclear secrets and get off Scott free. No one is arguing that. But he must immune from bullshit.

DBM, actually it has been argued Obama killed American noncombatants with drones and escaped being prosecuted due to presidential immunity.

This has been put forward as an example of official actions by a president who in protecting the nation against terrorism is immune from prosecution.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I never said or implied any such thing. There's a thing called due process and the Constitution. Someone commits treason you arrest them and put them on trial. No I'm not ok with the President being able to take out any US Citizen he deems a threat.

Change Obama to Trump and you’d be defending Trump to your last breath. I have no doubt about that at all.

 

[larsIU]

SCOTUS will soon. The President can't just murder someone or sell nuclear secrets and get off Scott free. No one is arguing that. But he must immune from bullshit.

So the presidents lawyers will get to determine if it’s an official act?

I guess we’ll see how much latitude they’ll grant a president.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Jan 6 was in no way shape or form an action that was any part of his official functions.

It was a set of activities designed specifically to meet his personal agenda.

 

[UncleMark]

Jan 6 was in no way shape or form an action that was any part of his official functions.

It was a set of activities designed specifically to meet his personal agenda.

Yeah, and it's going to take 8-10 months of hearings and litigation to determine that. It's complicated. Law shit, donchya know.

 

[IU_Hickory]

SCOTUS will soon. The President can't just murder someone or sell nuclear secrets and get off Scott free. No one is arguing that. But he must immune from bullshit.

And who gets to decide what is bullshit? Trumpers?

 

[UncleMark]

SCOTUS will soon. The President can't just murder someone or sell nuclear secrets and get off Scott free. No one is arguing that. But he must immune from bullshit.

How about inciting a riot? Stealing classified documents? Bullshit?

 

[Bowlmania]

There is absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to compile some complicated road map for all possible criminal prosecutions of a president. All they need to do is affirm that overthrowing a presidential election is not a Constitutional power of a president and is therefore subject to criminal prosecution.

Agreed. However . . .
Supreme Court is in no hurry to decide this issue. I think there's little doubt Trump ultimately loses on absolute immunity, but it's possible the Court throws out a portion of Smith's case depending on what happens below. They're going to remand the case to Chutkan for further findings (re "official acts").

Zero chance the underlying case is tried before the election.

 

[zeke4ahs]

This is the Trump effect in action. The poster showed up on the OTF years ago and was ignored and ratioed into non existence because he had absolutely nothing to offer that was interesting, knowledgably or humorous .. Just another out of focus guy with poor social skills and a bland boring personality..

Now all he has to do is post stupid shit and everyone pays attention to him. And, there is no doubt that he craves attention it's his only purpose on this board.. I can't wait until the weirdos, slack jaws and morons go back where they belong ... Trump gave the whack jobs a loud obnoxious public voice ... That's one thing I will never forgive him for.

You finally explained it. I’ve wondered exactly why he continues doing what he is doing, posting from nonsensical sources every single day, no matter how much ridicule he gets. I’ve often thought he had to be trolling, that no one could really believe that garbage. But I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s all for attention. It finally makes sense.

 

[Indyhorn]

I never said or implied any such thing. There's a thing called due process and the Constitution. Someone commits treason you arrest them and put them on trial. No I'm not ok with the President being able to take out any US Citizen he deems a threat.

In Yemen- just to keep things fully factual. American citizen killed by drone strike in Yemen- carry on.

 

[cosmickid]

This stuff is literally in the motion. It was one giant coordinated frame job by Biden, Garland, and Smith.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

The President swears an oath to protect the Constitution.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

"A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” - Marbury v Madison

States like Georgia illegally changed election laws without allowing the state legislature to have a say. Trump takes his oath seriously. He was defending the Constitution.

Exactly what law did the GOP Gov, Lt Gov. Sec of State,AG etc... of GA change without allowing their fellow State GOP Legislature not to have a say?

You make stuff up that doesn't even make any sense...

 

[cosmickid]

Agreed. However . . .
Supreme Court is in no hurry to decide this issue. I think there's little doubt Trump ultimately loses on absolute immunity, but it's possible the Court throws out a portion of Smith's case depending on what happens below. They're going to remand the case to Chutkan for further findings (re "official acts").

Zero chance the underlying case is tried before the election.

I think there's a pretty good chance that you're right, that they'll remand the case to Chutkan if they want to establish the distinction between "private and official" acts. But Conway has an interesting theory of how that might work in real time...

Starting the trial in Sept would make an actual verdict prior to the election pretty impractical. But Conway believes that a remand to Chutkan would result in a hearing prior to the start of the trial where the case is basically laid out and the issues discussed.Sort of a "mini trial"...

IIRC the DOJ has already taken the position that the 60 day prior to election day directive only applies to starting a case. I believe that both the DOJ and Chutkan have both indictaed that this trial is already in progress and would not fall under the definition of a new trial starting. So I think this trial resuming in Sept is highly likely...

 

[BradStevens]

I don’t see how his actions or the timing of same could give rise to immunity. But from the questions I’ve read I bet he has hope now

I havent followed this closely but part of the allegations against him include his talking to Pence about his duties/powers in certifying electors, while he was still President. That might be a gray area of official duty v. campaigning.

So part of the ruling could be that a President is immune from any criminal liability arising from such discussions, no matter how outlandish because we want the Pres to be able to discuss/debate/ talk through all options or matters that relate to official duties among those in his administration.

This would not insulate him from every charge brought or the factual underpinnings of those charges.

 

[TomEric4756]

… So part of the ruling could be that a President is immune from any criminal liability arising from such discussions, no matter how outlandish because we want the Pres to be able to discuss/debate/ talk through all options or matters that relate to official duties among those in his administration. ..

Yes, gathering opinions, is a key part of the the job, weighing unpopular and potentially controversial courses of action is necessary. Taking things out of context and leaking them is the bane of an administration.

It would be terrible to throw that away by isolating the President from his advisors. But maybe I’m just being naive and idealistic. Washington, as I recall, was the first to invoke executive privilege. Let’s tear down what Washington built.

 

[UncleMark]

From what I can gather, ACB is going to be the swing vote and it wouldn't surprise me if she writes the opinion. She, more than anyone else, laid out how ridiculous Trump's position was, and also wasn't buying Alito's shit about how denying the President immunity would hamstring them in the future.

 

[mcmurtry66]

From what I can gather, ACB is going to be the swing vote and it wouldn't surprise me if she writes the opinion. She, more than anyone else, laid out how ridiculous Trump's position was, and also wasn't buying Alito's shit about how denying the President immunity would hamstring them in the future.

I think Brad hit it if I had to guess. Parse it out

 

[hoot1]

From what I can gather, ACB is going to be the swing vote and it wouldn't surprise me if she writes the opinion. She, more than anyone else, laid out how ridiculous Trump's position was, and also wasn't buying Alito's shit about how denying the President immunity would hamstring them in the future.

The Supreme Court at a time when many Americans have concluded the court is too politically partial is facing a dilemma. The dilemma is magnified due to this being an presidential election year with one of the candidates facing criminal charges for actions taken while being president.

All in all, the immunity defense by Trump is a perfectly legitimate argument in my view. Just wish the entire question could have resolved under different circumstances.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I havent followed this closely but part of the allegations against him include his talking to Pence about his duties/powers in certifying electors, while he was still President. That might be a gray area of official duty v. campaigning.

So part of the ruling could be that a President is immune from any criminal liability arising from such discussions, no matter how outlandish because we want the Pres to be able to discuss/debate/ talk through all options or matters that relate to official duties among those in his administration.

This would not insulate him from every charge brought or the factual underpinnings of those charges.

All public officials have areas of absolute immunity for discretionary acts. The Supreme court will certainly recognize that for the President. The question will be the limits of absolute immunity. I expect the court to establish guidelines and factors to consider and remand the case for a determination using those factors and guidelines. Some charges may not survive as a matter of law. .

 

[dbmhoosier]

From what I can gather, ACB is going to be the swing vote and it wouldn't surprise me if she writes the opinion. She, more than anyone else, laid out how ridiculous Trump's position was, and also wasn't buying Alito's shit about how denying the President immunity would hamstring them in the future.

Trump definitely got snookered by McConnell when he picked Barrett who is a country club Republican over Lagoa. Lagoa would've been another Gorsuch. Those Cubans don't mess around certainly when it comes to issues like this. They've been through this type of blatant fascism before as they saw what happened to grandpa during the Castro reign of terror. But maybe she'll replace Thomas or Alito.

 

[Noodle]

DBM, actually it has been argued Obama killed American noncombatants with drones and escaped being prosecuted due to presidential immunity.

This has been put forward as an example of official actions by a president who in protecting the nation against terrorism is immune from prosecution.

How did he "escape being prosecuted"? I don't recall him being charged with a crime let alone found immune from criminal liability by a court. In fact, there is no presidential immunity that is keeping him from being charged with a crime to this day - if, in fact, he committed a crime.

 

[Bowlmania]

I think there's a pretty good chance that you're right, that they'll remand the case to Chutkan if they want to establish the distinction between "private and official" acts. But Conway has an interesting theory of how that might work in real time...

Starting the trial in Sept would make an actual verdict prior to the election pretty impractical. But Conway believes that a remand to Chutkan would result in a hearing prior to the start of the trial where the case is basically laid out and the issues discussed.Sort of a "mini trial"...

IIRC the DOJ has already taken the position that the 60 day prior to election day directive only applies to starting a case. I believe that both the DOJ and Chutkan have both indictaed that this trial is already in progress and would not fall under the definition of a new trial starting. So I think this trial resuming in Sept is highly likely...

View embedded media

Yeah, that's an important consideration.

Even if the trial can't be completed (or even started) before the election, a pre-trial hearing of that nature could be compelling and impactful.

 

[IU_Hickory]

The Supreme Court at a time when many Americans have concluded the court is too politically partial is facing a dilemma. The dilemma is magnified due to this being an presidential election year with one of the candidates facing criminal charges for actions taken while being president.

All in all, the immunity defense by Trump is a perfectly legitimate argument in my view. Just wish the entire question could have resolved under different circumstances.

Not sure how the immunity defense on non-official actions is much of a legitimate argument. Trump had no official duties as it relates to the election. His lawyer is also arguing everything under the sun (even murder) falls under immunity. It's just another thing Trump threw up against the wall to see if it would stick. He wins by bringing it up either way because he successfully delayed the trial.

His refusal to return classified documents also mostly happened after he left office.

 

[hoot1]

How did he "escape being prosecuted"? I don't recall him being charged with a crime let alone found immune from criminal liability by a court. In fact, there is no presidential immunity that is keeping him from being charged with a crime to this day - if, in fact, he committed a crime.

Noodle, agree with your post.

Thanks also for quoting my post, so I can formally apologize for submitting it in the first place.

On Obama and drones, it may or may not have been criminal, but recall a forum led by former Congressman Lee Hamilton being critical of Obama's decision for setting a bad precedent.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Supreme Court at a time when many Americans have concluded the court is too politically partial is facing a dilemma. The dilemma is magnified due to this being an presidential election year with one of the candidates facing criminal charges for actions taken while being president.

All in all, the immunity defense by Trump is a perfectly legitimate argument in my view. Just wish the entire question could have resolved under different circumstances.

I don’t think the Justices pay any attention to the “circumstances “. Gorsuch said they are deciding a question that will define the office of President forever. If they find any immunity in Trump’s favor, the rubes wI’ll do what they do. Schumer will Likely again make an ass of himself.

Public official immunity for discretion is a necessity. I can’t believe the court of appeals got this so wrong in both its analysis and result.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Noodle, agree with your post.

Thanks also for quoting my post, so I can formally apologize for submitting it in the first place.

On Obama and drones, it may or may not have been criminal, but recall a forum led by former Congressman Lee Hamilton being critical of Obama's decision for setting a bad precedent.

Don’t confuse arguments about immunity with arguments about defense to a charge. Two different things.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Not sure how the immunity defense on non-official actions is much of a legitimate argument. Trump had no official duties as it relates to the election. His lawyer is also arguing everything under the sun (even murder) falls under immunity. It's just another thing Trump threw up against the wall to see if it would stick. He wins by bringing it up either way because he successfully delayed the trial.

His refusal to return classified documents also mostly happened after he left office.

Well he doesn't need immunity as he committed no crime as relates to the election. All actions he took are protected under the 1st Amendment and the Elecoral Count Act. But go ahead with your completely unconstitutional novel legal theories.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Well he doesn't need immunity as he committed no crime as relates to the election. All actions he took are protected under the 1st Amendment and the Elecoral Count Act. But go ahead with your completely unconstitutional novel legal theories.

Then he wouldn't be trying to get immunity. Innocent people don't beg for immunity. If he was innocent, then he would testify and prove it so he could get it over with and focus on the election. He wouldn't be paying all of these legals fees to drag it out if he was innocent.

What is the best way to prove that he is a victim of a partisan witch hunt? Wouldn't it be having the judge or jury declare his innocence?

Keep living in fantasy land with mcm

 

[hoot1]

Don’t confuse arguments about immunity with arguments about defense to a charge. Two different things.

CoH, help me here.

Is Trump saying that he didn't commit a crime, and even if he did, he would be exonerated due to presidential immunity ?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

CoH, help me here.

Is Trump saying that he didn't commit a crime, and even if he did, he would be exonerated due to presidential immunity ?

I don’t fully understand Trumps immunity argument. What I do understand about it, I don’t agree with. Whether he committed a crime is not a factor in deciding the extent of immunity. Trumps conduct is a factor in deciding whether said conduct, which is the basiscfor the charge, is immune conduct.

I don’t think the question of whether Trump committed a crime is before the court, no matter what his lawyers argue.

The word “ exonerated” doesn’t fit with the concept of immunity. Exoneration goes with whether Trump committed a crime.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

John Roberts isn’t happy with previous ruling against Trump – what happens now?

During nearly three hours of historic Supreme Court arguments, John Roberts said little. But the cagey chief justice made some points abundantly clear.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

John Roberts isn’t happy with previous ruling against Trump – what happens now?

During nearly three hours of historic Supreme Court arguments, John Roberts said little. But the cagey chief justice made some points abundantly clear.

www.yahoo.com

I have no idea how the court will rule in this case but I do know Roberts is correct in worrying about relying on the good faith of prosecutors.

That has been made crystal clear recently with some of the kangaroo court cases against Trump.

 

[BradStevens]

CoH, help me here.

Is Trump saying that he didn't commit a crime, and even if he did, he would be exonerated due to presidential immunity ?

He’s saying you can’t sue me for this because I’m immune from suit.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

He’s saying you can’t sue me for this because I’m immune from suit.

His lawyers seem unclear on limiting principles.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I have no idea how the court will rule in this case but I do know Roberts is correct in worrying about relying on the good faith of prosecutors.

That has been made crystal clear recently with some of the kangaroo court cases against Trump.

I originally thought it would be unanimous against Trump's position. Now I don't have a good idea on how it's going to go.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I originally thought it would be unanimous against Trump's position. Now I don't have a good idea on how it's going to go.

we have to get rid of these activist prosecutors. That’s not their role and they are very dangerous. My guess is the court provides guidance going forward and ultimately trump has immunity on some stuff but not others and he can still be prosecuted. It won’t go before the election

 

[cosmickid]

Well he doesn't need immunity as he committed no crime as relates to the election. All actions he took are

protected under the 1st Amendment and the Elecoral Count Act. But go ahead with your completely unconstitutional novel legal theories.

Pretty sure SCOTUS refused both of those arguments when they initially decided to hear his appeal.


Here is what SCOTUS said when they decided to hear his appeal of the COA decision...

The unsigned order specifies the question that the justices will consider: "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

Freedom of speech was not even in consideration, and while Trump's attorneys briefly tried to interject the "Impeachment judgement clause" that issue seemed to be pretty summarily dismissed even by the Conservatives.

In fact it was basically ACB going thru the litany of specific acts that Trump (allegedly- that's where the witnesses come into play) committed to interfere with the election (fake electors,hiring private attorneys to spread the Big Lie) with Sauer, which resulted in Sauer conceding that the majority of them were actually private. Sauer even admitted that the GA call did not qualify as an official act.

 

[cosmickid]

I have no idea how the court will rule in this case but I do know Roberts is correct in worrying about relying on the good faith of prosecutors.

That has been made crystal clear recently with some of the kangaroo court cases against Trump.

How about the danger of relying on the "good faith" of Presidents not to enage in criminal acts? Did the various prosecutors force Trump to commit crimes? 80-something felony counts, and you believe the prosecutors are to "blame"? Is that the stance you regularly take with other defendants charged with committing felonies?

 

[UncleMark]

I have no idea how the court will rule in this case but I do know Roberts is correct in worrying about relying on the good faith of prosecutors.

That has been made crystal clear recently with some of the kangaroo court cases against Trump.

For the sake of argument, let's say the Bragg NY case and the Georgia election case are bogus. But can you really say the J6 DC case and the MAL documents case are "kangaroo court" cases brought in bad faith?