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.
Sotomayor = no surprise and lol, but
Sotomayor = no surprise and lol. It’s politics, you have dem and republican beliefs/policy’s, In this take of the law you have Sotomayor with her liberal ridiculous interpretation, but that’s her vote.
Let’s start with what the SCOTUS explicitly identified as immune in their ruling.
Trump is charged with, among other things, conspiracy to defraud the US, obstruction of an official proceeding and attempting to coerce DOJ officials to accomplish the two charges above.
There is ample proof that Trump did pressure the AG to publically announce proof of fraud that did not (and nearly four years later still doesn’t) exist and when the AG wouldn’t do it, Trump attempted to replace him with Jeffrey Clarke, who was an active and compliant participant in the alleged scheme itself. If the DOJ had fallen in line and announced evidence of fraud, Trump would have clearly had a much better chance of postponing the certification, which he was so focused on as part of his scheme that he watched the attack on the Capitol for over three hours before instructing his followers to stop.
All of that is now covered as an official act. Would you be good with Biden going to Garland and insisting he announce evidence of and an official investigation into the recently revealed allegations that Trump participating in the rape of minors with Epstein? That’s now an official act and immune. Biden could do it today and you and the rest of the GOP better not complain about it if you support this ruling.
Do you really think Trump in his second term will not try to do exactly what he already attempted in his first term, but more? If so, what leads you to that belief?
High irony that the same GOP who are constantly complaining the politicization of the executive branch are celebrating a ruling that clearly opens the door to much more politicization of the executive branch.
Obstruction is effectively off the table for a sitting POTUS in any scenario.
And, no evidence from an official act, such as talking to your Chief of Staff as captured on the Watergate tapes, is explicitly off the table. Any prosecution is fully barred from considering motives, which is foundational to many criminal prosecutions. Coney-Barrett strongly objected to this part of the ruling and sided with the liberal judges.
The SCOTUS claims they must protect the POTUS’s ability to freely and boldly pursue the best interest of the country. So which former POTUS has ever suggested that they were constrained by the separation of powers as they were defined before this ruling? Yes, Trump’s prosecution is unique in our history, but that’s because no former POTUS ever attempted to steal an election. The crimes came before the prosecution.
Perhaps the most brilliant element of this ruling for a SCOTUS looking to assert the power of both the Executive and Judicial branches, is that they were vague enough about what constitutes an official versus unofficial act, it’s obvious that any determination related to this matter will end up back in front of the SCOTUS. We can count on favorable rulings for conservatives and unfavorable ruling for liberals when applied to whoever is sitting in the WH when the matter at hand is decided.
Last edited:
I do not agree with your last statement about partisan rulings. I think what we saw and hopefully what we will see is rulings that are aligned with the constitution. This latest ruling was 6-3 with KBJ siding with what is deemed the more conservative judges. She stated a non partisan view and chose to uphold what is framed in the constitution. I agree with what she said and I am surprised and please with that.
She stated she thought his actions were abhorrent but that should not influence the ruling. That is how every case should be approached.
We have seen this on a good number of rulings and it is how it should be. Feelings and emotions be damned, what should the outcome look like going forward. Too many people are projecting their individual distaste for Trump and that is affecting their long term rational thinking. You still must act within the framework and make decisions without prejudice( that is difficult).
Where in the Constitution is the language that supports the concept that for the POTUS to be effective that they must be above the law for “official acts”, which the SCOTUS has already made clear is going to be very broadly and generously interpreted in favor of the POTUS? This is a new and novel legal framework that seems to go against both the letter and spirit of our founding documents.
Do you agree that the ruling explicitly allows the scenario I outlined above regarding Biden demanding an investigation of the Trump rape of a minor allegations, and if so do you think that this is a healthy assertion of the rights of the POTUS or will this lead to extensive and fully legal politicization of the executive branch?
How long do you think it will take Trump to round up all the journalists he doesn't like and send them to prison or a labor camp? I give him six months.
I hope you are being sarcastic. If not, Sharyll Attkisson, James Rosen and Catherine Herridge say hello. Trump seems to enjoy arguing with his foes in the press. It's the left that has demonstrated a willingness to attack the 1st amendment as well as attempt to muzzle journos and dissenting bloggers.
Last edited:
Again - please tell me what specifically you think he will do that affects Americans. Specifically.
I did, and if you choose to not acknowledge that you are being obtuse.
Presidential elections are the single most impactful event in the political life of this country. Any action that aims to fraudulently or illegally impact the outcome of a presidential race by definition impacts every American.
I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on the now entirely immune scenario where Biden insists on a DOJ investigation into the documented Trump allegations of rape of a minor. There seems to be more than enough evidence to pursue an investigation of these very serious allegations. Should Biden call Garland to the WH and tell him to move forward regardless of what Garland's thoughts are on the matter?
Donald Trump 'threatened to kill rape accuser if she reported him'
Jane Doe pulls out of press conference citing 'numerous threats'
www.independent.co.uk
Last edited:
Your wording is so sensationalized. The president is in a totally different category than normal citizens when he acts within the parameters of the executive office.
This all comes down to what happened and everyone wants to draw their own conclusions as to what happened and could have happened. Trump asked for them to find the votes, fraud etc. Had they acted on false information and overturned the results with out finding irregularities to justify the action then what Trump did would have met the criteria and he would be in trouble.
They did not doing anything to change the results and Trump did not say I know there is no fraud and I put right lost but make it happen anyway. He stated he knew he won there was fraud/irregularities and told them to find the votes/proof. They could not and did not and thus the ruling covers his request. This is why she said(KBJ) what he did was wrong but not illegal within his constitutional role. He messed up in so many ways with what he said and his actions. Had he been controlled and deliberate and focused on the issues where there were potential problems and irregularities he himself, the country and the Republican Party would be in a much better place.
You are missing the point, leaning on super broad theoretical what-ifs? I am simply asking you to lay out a specific prediction of exactly what you think Trump will do with this new power. I've seen some suggest he will put media members in prison camps, etc.I did, and if you choose to not acknowledge that you are being obtuse.
Presidential elections are the single most impactful event in the political life of this country. Any action that aims to fraudulently or illegally impact the outcome of a presidential race by definition impacts every American.
I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on the now entirely immune scenario where Biden insists on a DOJ investigation into the documented Trump allegations of rape of a minor. There seems to be more than enough evidence to pursue an investigation of these very serious allegations. Should Biden call Garland to the WH and tell him to move forward regardless of what Garland's thoughts are on the matter?
Donald Trump 'threatened to kill rape accuser if she reported him'
Jane Doe pulls out of press conference citing 'numerous threats'
Do you believe that? Or anything else specifically that will negatively impact Americans? There's a list of a million thiings a President can legally do that would negatively impact Americans - most notably doing things that weaken us on the global stage from a national security standpoint.....SCOTUS decision or not.
My simple question stands - what specifically do you fear Trump will actually do that will negatively impact you or other Americans with this "new" power now granted to him by the biased Supreme Court. If and when he does these things between 2025-2028, you can call me out and say I was right. For example - do you believe he will attempt to just stay in past the maximum two terms? Did the SCOTUS just enable that kind of thing?
Looks pretty damning. I wonder why Mueller's crack staff armed with 40 mil bucks didn't find this during the 40 mil rectal exam performed on DJT.I did, and if you choose to not acknowledge that you are being obtuse.
Presidential elections are the single most impactful event in the political life of this country. Any action that aims to fraudulently or illegally impact the outcome of a presidential race by definition impacts every American.
I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on the now entirely immune scenario where Biden insists on a DOJ investigation into the documented Trump allegations of rape of a minor. There seems to be more than enough evidence to pursue an investigation of these very serious allegations. Should Biden call Garland to the WH and tell him to move forward regardless of what Garland's thoughts are on the matter?
Donald Trump 'threatened to kill rape accuser if she reported him'
Jane Doe pulls out of press conference citing 'numerous threats'
Pretty sure the media knew there were plenty of smoking guns that Trump raped a minor, but they chose to look the other way in order to protect their preferred candidate.
It's not "new" power in quotes, it's new power and immunity with an entirely new limit on evidence related to official acts. That's all new.
I've already outlined a specific situation that the SCOTUS expressly identified in their decision. Trump instructed the AG to publicly announce evidence of fraud and a new investigation to give him the air cover to postpone certification. Funny, it's the same tactic he attempted to use to get Biden dirt out of Zelensky and Ukraine (all I need is the announcement of an investigation and I'll take it from there).
Trump could strike a deal where he trades help getting elected with a promise to push withdrawal from NATO. Negotiating with foreign powers in an enumerated act, Trump would be immune. If, say, the incriminating meeting notes from a session with Putin were released, it wouldn't matter as that evidence is protected now. And please don't tell me that the fall back is impeachment. The GOP has already made it clear that there are almost no circumstances where they will impeach Trump or any other GOP president.
Laws are always about the theoretical until the first case, so dismissing potential illegality because it hasn't occurred yet is not a valid argument. Trump has a well-established track record that we can use to project future behavior, particularly without the issue of having to win a next election. Are you suggesting that Trump would somehow self-govern any efforts to ensure that whoever the next GOP presidential candidate is would take office?
I have responded to that specific instance.
Trump would not be immune in that scenario unless it was in the countries best interest.
We have no track record of past behavior when he does not need to consider being re elected.
He is not immune from these crazy hypotheticals. Only in the DNC’s bizarro world they are trying to scare all of the uninformed nitwits.
No, because a military coup isnt realistic at all outside of the mind of a TDS sufferer. It didnt happen then, and isnt happening in 4 years.
