What honestly do you think will happen so terrible in Trump’s second term in terms of his abuse of power enabled by the court, and most importantly, in terms of how it impacts Americans? Specifics please. Looking forward not backwards. What’s he gonna do to negatively affect Americans? By listening to you and media it seems like we should be terrified. Of what specifically?I think you need to reexamine what the court determined this week.
The assumption is now that everything is an official act and the burden of proof is extremely high to determine that it isn't an official act. The court also made clear that any evidence from an official act is inadmissible in determining motive regarding the determination in official versus unofficial act. They have completely hamstrung a prosecutor's ability to prove that determination.
This is directly from the decision:
(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which theyare immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.
SCOTUS even determined that Trump's public tweets must be assumed official, and the government must prove otherwise, but with a very high burden and great limitations on supporting evidence.
So, back to Watergate, the tapes and any testimony from HR Halderman would be protected and as such inadmissible.
A few other thoughts.
Where in the Constitution or other relevant legal precedent did these supposed rigid originalists find their support for presidential immunity?
Why did they make this decision the very last case they shared when everyone knows that the election is looming, and resolution of this matter is in the country's best interest? They effectively rendered Trump completely immune before the election.
I'm sincerely interested in reading any competing opinions you have to share.
'Originalism is a dead letter': Supreme Court majority accused of abandoning legal principles in Trump immunity ruling
Critics on the left and the right said the decision finding absolute immunity for certain official acts lacks any basis in the Constitution or historic tradition.www.nbcnews.com
What to know about the Supreme Court immunity ruling in Trump's 2020 election interference case
The Supreme Court’s ruling in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case makes it all but certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.apnews.com
SCOTUS immunity decision
- Thread starter willdup
- Start date
The assumption that everything is an official act? That assumption is not based on the ruling. It is based on fear mongering jackasses.I think you need to reexamine what the court determined this week.
The assumption is now that everything is an official act and the burden of proof is extremely high to determine that it isn't an official act. The court also made clear that any evidence from an official act is inadmissible in determining motive regarding the determination in official versus unofficial act. They have completely hamstrung a prosecutor's ability to prove that determination.
This is directly from the decision:
(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which theyare immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.
SCOTUS even determined that Trump's public tweets must be assumed official, and the government must prove otherwise, but with a very high burden and great limitations on supporting evidence.
So, back to Watergate, the tapes and any testimony from HR Halderman would be protected and as such inadmissible.
A few other thoughts.
Where in the Constitution or other relevant legal precedent did these supposed rigid originalists find their support for presidential immunity?
Why did they make this decision the very last case they shared when everyone knows that the election is looming, and resolution of this matter is in the country's best interest? They effectively rendered Trump completely immune before the election.
I'm sincerely interested in reading any competing opinions you have to share.
'Originalism is a dead letter': Supreme Court majority accused of abandoning legal principles in Trump immunity ruling
Critics on the left and the right said the decision finding absolute immunity for certain official acts lacks any basis in the Constitution or historic tradition.
What to know about the Supreme Court immunity ruling in Trump's 2020 election interference case
The Supreme Court’s ruling in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case makes it all but certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.
That statement alone is an utterly ridiculous statement and so far off base.
That is not worth responding to at all. You and the left are doing mental gymnastics again to create a narrative to make Joe Biden electable in the undecideds eyes.
Last edited:
It’s absolute hysteria. Rational thought trumped (haha) by emotion.
Rachel Maddow's words: “This is a death squad ruling,” Maddow argued. “This is a ruling that says that as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything ― absolutely anything ― and never be held accountable, not only while you are president, but forever.”
I guess she thinks Trump is, literally, going to send people to kill his political enemies. Give me a break
The ranting of a lunatic. Or maybe just a hysterical dumbass.
I respectfully suggest you read the eight-page syllabus at the beginning of the ruling.
AI warning, but you can get all of this from the beginning of the ruling itself.
{Begin}
Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, there is indeed a presumption of immunity for official acts performed by a president. Here are the key points regarding this presumption:
- The Court established that presidents have presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts. This means there is an initial assumption that actions taken by a president in their official capacity are immune from criminal charges.
- The burden of proof is placed on prosecutors to demonstrate that an action was not an official act or that it falls outside the scope of immunity.
- The Court held that presidents enjoy full immunity from criminal charges for their "core constitutional" acts, which are actions central to the president's constitutional responsibilities and powers.
- However, the Court did not provide a comprehensive definition of official acts, instead leaving it to lower courts to determine on a case-by-case basis.
- Some examples were provided: Trump's conversations with Department of Justice officials regarding the election results were considered official acts. However, other actions, such as interactions with state officials, private parties, and public comments, present more difficult questions.
- The presumption of immunity applies to acts within the "outer perimeter" of official functions, as long as they are "not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority".
- This presumption does not extend to unofficial or private acts of the president, for which there is no immunity.
{End}
So, there is a starting presumption that any act is an official act.
Also, SCOTUS clearly claims that their interpretation of what constitutes an official act is going to be very broad (see 6 above, "outer perimeter").
SCOTUS generally kicks the determination of what is official or not back to the lower courts, but they sent a very clear signal by determining that the alleged corrupt direction from Trump to his AG to announce fraud when the DOJ had zero proof of fraud is an official act and that Trump is immune. No evidence regarding motive or state of mind will be considered much less accepted.
How do you think the SCOTUS is going to rule when the lower court determinations of official versus official make their way back, eventually, to SCOTUS? There is every reason SCOTUS will be extremely broad in their interpretation.
And, beyond all of that, SCOTUS has taken huge swaths of potential evidence in those determinations entirely off the table. For example, any future Watergate tapes equivalent are now protected.
I think it's the right that is trying to downplay the implications of this ruling and the reality of how much immunity the SCOTUS just conferred to the POTUS. It's not scaremongering in any way.
Last edited:
This is the most worthless conversation. You are smarter than this. You cannot truly believe this crap that you and the left are stating about this ruling.
If it were true then why wouldn’t Biden assassinate Trump and say he is threat to our democracy? Because he knows all this is a dog and pony show.
I have read and I understand it. The critical point and what everything hinges on is what an official act is defined as being. The left is exaggerating and outright lying about what would be defined as an official act.
I will not respond anymore to this outright lie. I would talk in person only so I could see your face and read whether you actually believe what you are saying.
Most of the time you are reasonable but this is not one of those times and I will no longer waste any of my time on this.
I am sure you feel the same way about me and what I am saying.
I do hope you have a happy 4th.
Last edited:
OK. I thought my last post laid out the basis for my argument, but I'm not here to force a discussion. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to discuss an actual application of the new ruling in the future.
Have a great 4th.
Again with the far left sources and fear-mongering. Trump is the debil.I think you need to reexamine what the court determined this week.
The assumption is now that everything is an official act and the burden of proof is extremely high to determine that it isn't an official act. The court also made clear that any evidence from an official act is inadmissible in determining motive regarding the determination in official versus unofficial act. They have completely hamstrung a prosecutor's ability to prove that determination.
This is directly from the decision:
(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which theyare immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.
SCOTUS even determined that Trump's public tweets must be assumed official, and the government must prove otherwise, but with a very high burden and great limitations on supporting evidence.
So, back to Watergate, the tapes and any testimony from HR Halderman would be protected and as such inadmissible.
A few other thoughts.
Where in the Constitution or other relevant legal precedent did these supposed rigid originalists find their support for presidential immunity?
Why did they make this decision the very last case they shared when everyone knows that the election is looming, and resolution of this matter is in the country's best interest? They effectively rendered Trump completely immune before the election.
I'm sincerely interested in reading any competing opinions you have to share.
'Originalism is a dead letter': Supreme Court majority accused of abandoning legal principles in Trump immunity ruling
Critics on the left and the right said the decision finding absolute immunity for certain official acts lacks any basis in the Constitution or historic tradition.
What to know about the Supreme Court immunity ruling in Trump's 2020 election interference case
The Supreme Court’s ruling in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case makes it all but certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.
Dims are saints.
Rep. Golden predicts a Trump victory in November and said he is 'OK with that'
The three-term Democratic incumbent criticized other Democrats for predicting that another Trump term would endanger the nation. Instead, he said it will be up to Congress — as it has been in the past — to block harmful policies.
www.mainepublic.org
This Democrat gets it. Pulls back the curtain and tells the truth. Stop falling for the fear mongering idiocy.
Dude. If you think lying abt the Watergate break-in and refusing to turn over tapes that contained evidence of his knowledge is within the scope of Presidential duties, you're too brainwashed to talk abt it.
I checked out for the holiday and have to work today, but I’ll start with this and provide a more detailed answer later.
Last edited:
Rick Wilson and Liz Chaney are idiots. I suppose identifying with them does not bother you since you also identify with other tds sufferers like AOC, Omar, Maxine, schiff and Schumer etc etc etc.
Oh and they are liars as well. Just like the others listed.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this is just putting into writing what has naturally been assumed to be a thing for presidents already correct? Otherwise every time a bombing happens in another country the president would be charged with mass genocide no matter which side of the isle they sit.
care to answer the following?
What honestly do you think will happen so terrible in Trump’s second term in terms of his abuse of power enabled by the court, and most importantly, in terms of how it impacts Americans? Specifics please. Looking forward not backwards. What’s he gonna do to negatively affect Americans? By listening to you and media it seems like we should be terrified. Of what specifically?
Too much winning, I suppose.
But I get it. Who wants a vibrant economy, secure border, criminals behind bars, meritocracy, lower taxes, and the pro-Hamas crowd expelled from the country?
Not me. 🙄
Commie loving libs do not want any of those things.
Similar threads
