Sends immunity case back to DC Circuit to determine whether Trump’s actions were official or unofficial.

I have only read half the case and none of the dissents.

Of important, the Majority continues to refuse to grand absolute immunity.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

https://youtu.be/ohC1VSrivWg?si=sDVSl2DYPsYwBWZZ

SUPREME COURT RULES ON TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE

quote:

Of important, the Majority continues to refuse to grand absolute immunity.

Of further, perhaps most important, will Jack Smith be able to go to trial before the election?

I recently read that he will at least be able to present lots of evidence as to what Trump actually did, distinguishing official from unofficial, in the hearings about to happen.

This ruling protects 0biden quite well too. He will never be prosecuted or held responsible for the order to bomb and kill an innocent man and his family. This works both ways.

A president would indeed be prosecuted if he did something like murder his wife, etc, while in office.

Regardless of policy or party.

SCOTUS has saved us from the "any means to an end" democrats!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Of important, the Majority continues to refuse to grand absolute immunity.

Any chance the half you read, included the first fricken page?

"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential powers entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

It is official if he is denied a win!

Quote:
"presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts"

First - I don't think that's saying the same thing as "presumed innocence".

Substitute "preemptive" for "presumptive" regarding the words immunity and official.

Was the speech on January 6th "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority"? IOW official or unofficial?

"If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

He also said, "and I'll be with you", but wasn't.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Capitol riots: Did Trump's words at rally incite violence?
13 February 2021

===========================================

There is another, associated question relating to immunity.

Did Trump engage in and foment an elaborate plan to thwart or obstruct an official proceeding, of which the speech on January 6 was part?

The relevancy of that question may have been dealt a fatal blow with another recent SCOTUS decision.

This whole mess is, for those running the Heritage Foundation, and Trump's defense, a wet dream.

============================================

This is systematic, with specific deference to Trump.

Foremost, it shocks with awe the founding principle that has held for so many years: no one is above the rule of law.

It presumes that the "system" provides adequate checks on executive powers. IOW, Trump can be controlled from his extreme impulses, by means other than traditional rule of law. Trump with GOPer help has shown that is not the case. And he has no respect for law. All his adult life has been fighting and all too often winning against the rule of law.

Somehow the SCOTUS decision also seems to presume that the person holding the office of POTUS has morals and restraint accordingly and will serve the country honorably and not abuse power. All those attributes of some imaginary person, and associated regime, are not character traits of Trump. IMO, SCOTUS has given Trump and posterity a presumptive Monster license specifically for the powerful office of POTUS. Only god and Trump knows fully what he will do with such license, but we can easily make an educated guess. It is, after all, his lifetime dream and ambition, for himself specifically, not for or on behalf of the country. Such Monster License has been granted before by so deemed "we the people", and we know what happened. Trump, with such presumptive Monster License could do much worse.

One thing for sure, with a presumptive Monster License and official power as cover, Trump/Trumpism will change the country and thus the world possibly forever. Good or Bad - you decide based on the evidence we have so far.

If there is one rule in human nature, it's never allow a toxic narcissist monster Carte Blanche. SCOTUS just did that.

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Of important, the Majority continues to refuse to grand absolute immunity.

Any chance the half you read, included the first fricken page?

"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential powers entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

Don't look like an idiot. That says exactly what Joshua said it says.

quote:

presumptive immunity

This is the best I found on short notice. After reading it, I'm still not sure what it means practically in the current situation. But here it is:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...rYc?ocid=socialshare

What is presumptive immunity? Here's what the Supreme Court ruling could mean for Trump
Story by Maya Homan, USA TODAY • 1h • 2 min read

In a 6-3 decision released Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump is at least partially immune from crimes he committed while in office. The decision comes as a blow for prosecutors seeking to hold the former president accountable for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.

As Trump is the first president – former or current – to be charged with a crime, the Supreme Court’s ruling veered into uncharted territory in declaring that “official” acts taken by a president are protected, while steps he took as a candidate are not.

However, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that presidents are not fully above the law.
“Under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” Roberts wrote. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”

But what exactly does “presumptive immunity” entail?

What is presidential immunity?
Presidential immunity is a power that presidents claim under the Constitution, shielding them from civil and presumed criminal immunity for acts they commit in their official capacity as president. While it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, presidents have claimed it is inherent in the separation of powers clause, and courts have largely upheld the right.

Past presidents, including Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon, have cited it.

This form of immunity is not and has never been absolute. During the Watergate scandal, courts ruled that Presidents could be subpoenaed or compelled to provide documents for criminal proceedings. And as far back as Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, courts ruled that unlike common law privileges afforded the King of England, the President must follow the general provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

How does “presumptive immunity” work?
While the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have “absolute” immunity with respect to their “core constitutional powers,” the ruling still leaves room for presidents to be prosecuted under a narrow set of circumstances, pertaining to responsibilities that fall “within the outer perimeter” of presidential duties, or to unofficial acts.

However, prosecutors will now face a high legal bar to hold a president accountable in a court of law.

More: In Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling, a fierce Sotomayor dissenting opinion

“At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Roberts wrote in his majority opinion for the court.

The majority did find:
Absolute immunity for actions within conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

That doesn't seem to be the same as the majority continues to refuse to grant absolute immunity.

So there is absolute immunity for some actions (see above). At least presumptive immunity for all official acts. Then no immunity for unofficial acts.

Well, there is no doubt that Trump wanted and thought he should have absolute, unconditional immunity from the rule of law.

That should be a stunning thing.

Does anyone know the meaning of syllogism?

Per Wikipedia:
A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός, syllogismos, 'conclusion, inference') is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

In its earliest form (defined by Aristotle in his 350 BC book Prior Analytics), a deductive syllogism arises when two true premises (propositions or statements) validly imply a conclusion, or the main point that the argument aims to get across.[1]

Here's a quote credited to 19th century writer Lord Acton:

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Evidence of this notion is littered across the chapters of human history, from ancient civilizations to modern politics, business and entertainment industries.

So, here are the syllogism examples:

Power tends to corrupt
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Power seeks absolution

And another:
Absolute corruption seeks power
Power seeks absolution
corruption seeks absolution

And another:
The Rule of Law curtails corruption
Trump has no respect for the rule of law
Trump wants unrestricted corruption

"Representative AOC Calls for impeachment of at least one of SCOTUS."

Source: UPI

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/U...tices/8281719870561/


It won't be her first foray into threatening SCOTUS with impeachment, so she has some experience with this for whatever that's worth...


.

From the article:

Last year, Ocasio-Cortez called for the impeachment of Justice Clarence Thomas

===================

IMO, he should have been impeached long ago. I wouldn't mind a bit if he was impeached to set an example for the future.

He's corrupt in so many ways, and has been from the start.

This is something that might happen in a Biden second term.

...and a year before that,

https://ocasio-cortez.house.go...rt-justices-who-lied


.

Well, we know she's correct. They did lie.

But she is not going to get traction on this one.

IMO, this is political posturing and flame. That's okay. Somebody on the left needs to do it.

It's a favorite thing from the right.

I previously said that this next election will be a referendum on Trump and Trumpism.

https://youtu.be/LS7_b8KU_Zs?si=5vDFpWZ7Kdp_Emsh

President Biden's Remarks on The Supreme Court's Immunity Ruling

And trump,won't be able prosecute Biden for intentionally leaving our border wide open.....

So now the president, because pardons are within his official duties, can take bribes for it, perfectly legal. He's immune.

https://youtu.be/_m_Rkop0noc?s...FZfSnK5E0cg6JY&t=401

Lawrence reveals the ‘very bad news’ for Trump in the immunity decision

(I didn't start this video at the beginning on purpose. You can scroll back if you want.)

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
The majority did find:
Absolute immunity for actions within conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

That doesn't seem to be the same as the majority continues to refuse to grant absolute immunity.

So there is absolute immunity for some actions (see above). At least presumptive immunity for all official acts. Then no immunity for unofficial acts.

Where does ordering the "removal" of a foreign leader fall under the immunity ruling? Absolute? Conditonal or presumptive?

A great shame for America.

Since the president has constitutional authority over foreign affairs, I assume his removal of a foreign leader would be immune. He could order an assassination with impunity.

A president could order an unprovoked invasion of a foreign country and be immune. Well, Bush II got away with it without the SC help.

How can anyone vote to entrust that kind of power with a scoundrel like Trump?

What if I’m doing so he violates a ratified treaty or an act of Congress?

What if the Congress removed him for the assignation.

Does either of those conditions make the assignation an unofficial act?

Justice Thomas ok his concurrence has flagged the appointment of Special Prosecutor is unconstitutional.

No court has ever agreed with that
, but one judge has this issue still pending bf her. That judge is Judge Cannon.

The case gives little guidance on how to analyze official vs non-official acts.

However, the case is clear the charges indicated from Trumps “conversations” with then acting attorney general are official acts and shall be dismissed as an official act.

The motives of a president in taking an action cannot be considered.

Taking the money for himself is the private act. Granting a pardon is official.
That said, didn’t Slick Willie sell a pardon or two?

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
So now the president, because pardons are within his official duties, can take bribes for it, perfectly legal. He's immune.

quote:

The motives of a president in taking an action cannot be considered.

That has big implications. Perhaps you could help us understand how that's going to work?

For example, his actions before, during and after the 1/6 riot were clearly motivated. How are the actions going to be sufficient without considering the motive?

Also, take the stolen documents case. He stole them for sure, then lied, and obstructed the recovery. He has his reasons or motives. Are the acts themselves sufficient? Perhaps not having to show or prove motive could be a blessing, thus conviction easier? Maybe it destroys the case. I don't know enough to analyze that.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The case gives little guidance on how to analyze official vs non-official acts.

However, the case is clear the charges indicated from Trumps “conversations” with then acting attorney general are official acts and shall be dismissed as an official act.

The motives of a president in taking an action cannot be considered.

Running for ANY public office is a PERSONAL choice. Therefore it can be concluded that ALL actions associated with that choice are UNOFFICIAL acts of the office for which you are running. The judicial branches [state and Federal] in particular have NO duty or obligation to provide time or opportunity for campaign purposes.

Also it is expected that successful candidates will discharge their duties within the law. Giving any individual unfettered opportunity to break laws at will just because he can is just WRONG.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Taking the money for himself is the private act. Granting a pardon is official.
That said, didn’t Slick Willie sell a pardon or two?

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
So now the president, because pardons are within his official duties, can take bribes for it, perfectly legal. He's immune.

Good question.

So, is spreading lies, disinformation, conspiracy theories, even cheating in golf, official or un-official?

What about instructing DOJ or AG to not investigate the trail of money to himself, directly or indirectly, to relatives, to favored sycophants, or perhaps rampant Quid Pro Quo, or extortion, or blackmail, coercions of all sorts and means, unconstitutional arrests or detainment, harassment, public threats, incitement of harm, and so forth, all of which he and GOPers in congress and his attorneys and WH attorneys will say it's official anyway, so why waste money investigating.

Directing investigations, both in congress and DOJ, farce or not, fully disclosed or not - we will never know - targeting specific deemed foes, if for nothing more than harassment and intimidation or retributions, all will be claimed to be official.

Attacking news media which doesn't meet his approval or demands - all official.

Attacking poll workers, and making false claims about poll results, executive orders supposedly to fix all that, deploying a team of poll watchers, farce recounts, all official.

If challenged in court, that will take years to resolve, if ever, and partizan justices will lean deference to Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://youtu.be/_m_Rkop0noc?s...FZfSnK5E0cg6JY&t=401

Lawrence reveals the ‘very bad news’ for Trump in the immunity decision

(I didn't start this video at the beginning on purpose. You can scroll back if you want.)

Can only hope it's true and that Judge Chutkan gets on it as soon as she possibly can.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Taking the money for himself is the private act. Granting a pardon is official.
That said, didn’t Slick Willie sell a pardon or two?

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
So now the president, because pardons are within his official duties, can take bribes for it, perfectly legal. He's immune.

Good question.

So, is spreading lies, disinformation, conspiracy theories, even cheating in golf, official or un-official?

What about instructing DOJ or AG to not investigate the trail of money to himself, directly or indirectly, to relatives, to favored sycophants, or perhaps rampant Quid Pro Quo, or extortion, or blackmail, coercions of all sorts and means, unconstitutional arrests or detainment, harassment, public threats, incitement of harm, and so forth, all of which he and GOPers in congress and his attorneys and WH attorneys will say it's official anyway, so why waste money investigating.

Directing investigations, both in congress and DOJ, farce or not, fully disclosed or not - we will never know - targeting specific deemed foes, if for nothing more than harassment and intimidation or retributions, all will be claimed to be official.

Attacking news media which doesn't meet his approval or demands - all official.

Attacking poll workers, and making false claims about poll results, executive orders supposedly to fix all that, deploying a team of poll watchers, farce recounts, all official.

If challenged in court, that will take years to resolve, if ever, and partizan justices will lean deference to Trump.

Playing golf is not normally an official duty of the office. Should he get pissed and attack someone with a golf club that would be grounds for prosecution IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
So now the president, because pardons are within his official duties, can take bribes for it, perfectly legal. He's immune.

Art. 2 Section 4 discusses bribery.

The bribery was a hypothetical proposed by Chief Justice Roberts.

The opinion is clear that issuing the pardon would not be grounds for a criminal charge and conviction bc issuing pardons is a core, official act of the President. The motives of the president when engaging in a core, official act are not to be considered when analyzing whether an action is official or unofficial.

The opinion states a president issuing pardons that were paid for w bribes could be prosecuted for accepting the bribe, but not issuing the pardon pursuant to the bribe.

So, help me out if I am wrong here…

Isn’t this SCOTUS opinion really no change from the past? That official acts were immune, but things unrelated to the office remained up to interpretation?

I thought this decision was kind of a nonentity except for now SCOTUS has put it into precedent for them?

I don’t see where this is a “big win” for Trump, since the acts he is charged with, excepting any accusations about not doing his job on 1/6 are really not applicable. His issues with classified documents are all retention after he left office. His pre office issues re Daniels are not official acts.

It’s a nothingburger that both sides are bloviating about.

It is a change in that the analysis with this official and unofficial actions that does not take into account the subjective motives of the actor.

This limits the Nixon case that they refused to follow.

This is the controlling case United States v Nixon. The majority ignores it. Frankly, it narrows it.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...8683/usrep418683.pdf

Thomas’ concurrence seems to overturn the Special Prosecution appointment portion.

Reading the two cases together, o believe US v Notion is overturned. US v Notion granted immunity based only on the need to protect military, diplomatic rational. A generalized assertion of the president’s privilege “official acts” did not suffice to grant immunity.

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
The majority did find:
Absolute immunity for actions within conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

That doesn't seem to be the same as the majority continues to refuse to grant absolute immunity.

So there is absolute immunity for some actions (see above). At least presumptive immunity for all official acts. Then no immunity for unofficial acts.

Yes it does.
On Page 32 IV expressly refuses to extend absolute immunity.