Supreme Court: Trump Entitled To “At Least Presumptive Immunity From Prosecution For All His Official Acts”
Absolute immunity in carrying out “core constitutional powers”, and presumptive immunity for all official acts: “Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.” Remands to determine whether actions at issue were official or personal.
The U.S. Supreme Court just released its Opinion on Trump’s presidential immunity:
We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient….
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with the usual suspects dissenting. ACB concurred in the majority in part.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT – VERY GOOD DAY FOR TRUMP
We have been covering whether and to what extent Trump enjoyed presidential immunity that would preclude the DC federal prosecution (and potentially the Georgia and Florida prosecutions) since last fall:
- Trump Seeks Dismissal Of DC Case Based On “Presidential Immunity”(October 5, 2023)
- DC Court Denies Trump’s Motion To Dismiss DOJ Criminal Case Based on Claimed ‘Absolute’ Presidential Immunity (December 1, 2023)
- Special Counsel Jack Smith Asks Supreme Court to Weigh In on Trump’s Claim of Presidential Immunity from Criminal Prosecution (December 13, 2023)
- Judge Pauses Trump’s Jan. 6 Case as Courts Above Her Decide if He has Immunity (December 13, 2023)
- Supreme Court Won’t Expedite Special Counsel’s Request to Review Trump’s Immunity Claims, Leaving it to Lower Courts for Now (December 22, 2023)
- Judge Delays Trump’s D.C. Trial as Courts Consider Presidential Immunity (February 2, 2024)
- Appeals Court Affirms the Denial of Trump’s Presidential Immunity Claim in D.C. Election Interference Case (February 6, 2024)
- Trump Asks Supreme Court to Stay Appeals Court Ruling Rejecting Immunity in D.C. Case (February 12, 2024)
- Supreme Court To Hear Trump DC Case Immunity Defense On Schedule Making Trial Before Election Unlikely (February 28, 2024)
- Trump SCOTUS Immunity Argument – Consensus Is Trump Likely To Get At Least A Partial Win (April 25, 2024)
SCOTUS accepted the case for review on the following question:
“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.”
The SCOTUS Opinion pretty much came down as I predicted after the oral argument (link above):
“I think they will simply find in response to their question that there is presidential immunity for official acts while done in office and send it back down to the district court to opine on whether the charges in this case involve official acts or not.”
Some selective passages from the majority opinion which may be relevant to how this plays out.
As to charge of unlawfully colluding with DOJ officials, absolute immunity:
The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment ¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.
As to the charge of unlawfully pressuring Pence, presumptive immunity:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. Ibid. Despite the Vice President’s expansive role of advising and assisting the President within the Executive Branch, the Vice President’s Article I responsibility of “presiding over the Senate” is “not an ‘executive branch’ function.” Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 2 (Aug. 28, 1974). With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754; see supra, at 14.
At the same time, however, the President may frequently rely on the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate to advance the President’s agenda in Congress. When the Senate is closely divided, for instance, the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote may be crucial for confirming the President’s nominees and passing laws that align with the President’s policies. Applying a criminal prohibition to the President’s conversations discussing such matters with the Vice President—even though they concern his role as President of the Senate—may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions.
It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
As to communications with persons – including state electors – outside the executive branch, it depends:
Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.
As to Trump’s tweets and speech and other conduct on January 6, it depends:
Whether the Tweets, that speech, and Trump’s other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. Knowing, for instance, what else was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.
From the Sotomayor Dissent, Trump now can call out Seal Team 6:
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent….
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law….
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT – VERY GOOD DAY FOR TRUMP
BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
Donald Trump Truth Social 10:41 AM EST 07/01/24 pic.twitter.com/WzuatoTze1
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) July 1, 2024
REACTIONS FROM THE LEFT
Yep. I thought Trump would win, but not completely.
He won completely. https://t.co/srtv7ojcv8
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) July 1, 2024
The DOJ stuff was probably the most egregious abuse of his direct power as president and would have created an even worse crisis had it been successful https://t.co/WRKJKDKNct
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 1, 2024
Holy fuck this is bad. #SCOTUS https://t.co/QYbFj4PYve
— Annika Brockschmidt (@ardenthistorian) July 1, 2024
Lmao that would be funny if Joe Biden came out today and said in an official act he was now refusing to leave office … They can’t charge him … 🤣🤣🤣 #Scotus
— CJ G (@cjgproduxions) July 1, 2024
Can’t believe #SCOTUS just ruled Biden can officially take out Trump Tower in a drone strike.
— Jeffrey Sconce (@JeffreySconce) July 1, 2024
The Supreme Court just gave Biden unequivocal immunity to order the military to take action against Trump.
Today. Right now.
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) July 1, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Obama, Biden and Trump breath a collective sigh of relief.
…as does every elected official, for being voted out is better than torches and pitchforks.
Exactly. If the president doesn’t have immunity then no government official in this country has immunity. The Supreme Court saved these democracy savers from themselves.
The truly heinous acts of governmental abuse that go undisclosed occur at the county level, where it is easier to avoid accountability.
Don’t count out Bush. I think there could be cases made against him by radical Left wing.
Only if you consider murdering a US citizen is an official act
I wonder if the Big Guy taking 10% from his corrupt son would be considered an official act
that all depends on the judge,…in DC it would be approved
Not if it was prior to 2021…or to his wife.
but that’s not what this ruking is about, it is about when the act is done by an in office president
I’ve been wondering if this means that Obama can’t be prosecuted for the murder of the AL-Awlakis. If not, then no president can ever be prosecuted for executing Americans without due process. That seems ridiculous and terrifying.
I don’t think it’s an issue at all, as Roberts explains…
If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,”the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J.,concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id.,at 582–589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.
This decision changes nothing about existing precedent that forbids a president from acting without ‘authority without law.” The Obama case is a complicated one because had he droned an American citizen on US or even allied soil, that’s likely prima facie evidence of acting with authority of law. But, since he order was carried out an a unlawful combatant in a theater of combat who was engaged in kinetic action against US forces, it is – at worst – only a debatable action. I think a trial court would likely dismiss an indictment against Obama using this decision. But, a trial court evaluating a droning of a US citizen on US soil would likely not dismiss such an indictment and this section in the Majority Opinion would be why.
You make an important point here (probably not the one you intended) that virtually *no one* reads these decisions before running their fool mouth. You don’t need to read the entire thing (although I find them interesting for some strange reason) you can just read the syllabus for goodness sake.
But no. People can’t wait to eat the intellectual junk food offered up by the (expletive deleted) press and then repeat it as though they were one of the justices.
Good decision. No POTUS should be hamstrung over official acts but no one should confuse the immunity enjoyed by the Office of President with a blanket immunity extending to actions not part of the job of President.
Democrats showed us why blanket immunity is so important. They have politicised EVERYTHING and because of this blanket immunity should have been granted because there is no end to Democrats and their desire for absolute power.
In a sane world blanket immunity shouldn’t be a thing BUT we dont live in a sane world. We live in a world inhabited by Democrats and they have shown us what they will do to hang on to power.
Your proposed permanent ‘get of jail free card’ even post Presidential term, which has NEVER been the case, would also equally apply to our Cray Cray political opposition. No thanks.
So many people think questions around presidential immunity is a binary choice. They seem to think the president either has immunity or he doesn’t. I hope these people are writing in shorthand and know it is much more complicated. Let’ just assume, for the sake of my sanity, the guy to whom you responded knows a president shouldn’t be able to do whatever he wants with no repercussions. Let’s also assume the people who think a president should have zero immunity for official acts know what they are truly saying. I have far less confidence the latter is true.
We are in the situation of this case being heard EXACTLY because of the Democrats and their never ending lawfare activities these last 8 years.
As I said earlier, in a sane world immunity wouldn’t even be a consideration how ever Democrats have show us just why this is even more important today because of their determination to litigate Trump out of the election.
This decision applies to every former, current and future POTUS. The CT simply stated the obvious:
1. A sitting POTUS has absolute immunity for actions with in his core powers and responsibilities
2. A sitting POTUS has a PRESUMPTION of immunity for official actions in office.
That was the understanding at least implicitly until a short time ago, here the CT has made it explicit. The CT didn’t give a sitting POTUS cart Blanche to do ‘whatever they want’ without the possibility of prosecution when they leave office as the shrieking d/prog are claiming.
The Constitution has already decided this issue and SCOTUS just took it upon itself to amend the Constitution. Considering that not prosecuting a president while in office is not in the Constitution or statute, but only a policy of the DOJ, this opens any president to prosecution by any prosecutor not only in the country but, in the world,..what is to prevent a country with an extradition treaty from demanding a US president be extradited elsewhere for trial if some judge, in say Germany determines that something a president does is not official?
You quoted the Constitution in another post. It literally says you have to get a conviction of an impeachment and then file a criminal indictment. You posed it. Too bad you don’t understand what you post. It would be a great help to you if you did.
Stop and think for just one second of the alternative. All it takes is a second. What would happen if any DA in any county could file criminal charges against a president for official acts. How about Texas AG filing charges against Biden for negligent homicide for his pullout of Afghanistan killing 13 soldiers (not that Biden remembers)?
Now, as we have seen over the past few years Dems actually love that idea. I doubt they would love it if Swalwell was prosecuted for being a traitor for his Chinese spy friend. Republicans, at least in lawfare, have maintained a respect for freedom and democracy.
I agree that it is a bad idea, but that’s apparently what Roberts just decided, what he did is to leave a president open to just the acts of a prosecutor that you mentioned, and there are more, in fact a prosecutor using Roberts logic could indict a president onmost anything
You obviously didn’t read the opinion or Prof. Jacobsen’s summary. Try again. Maybe you did and just don’t understand what it means. Fat lotta good it will do but I shall try to explain since my knowledge is infinitesimally small compared to Robert’s and the Prof’s.
A president’s immunity from prosecution is absolute when conducting constitutional duties. You quoted the Constitution. A president can be impeached and then convicted for his actions in which case it it was determined they were not acts that fall under his constitutional authority. Barring such a political determination of “high crimes and misdemeanors” his actions were lawful and therefore constitutionally protected.
Obama deliberately targeted and executed an American citizen who was fighting for the Taliban instead of trying to arrest. Such an act is clearly unconstitutional under normal circumstances and he could be tried for numerous civil rights violations. There is no exception for the Bill of Rights for just killing traitors without a trial. However, he couldn’t be prosecuted by a rogue AG because he had immunity unless he was impeached and then convicted by congress determining he acted beyond the scope of his constitutional powers. Sotomayor and others believe Obama can be prosecuted without such protections.
As far as potential crimes committed outside of his constitutional authority, the court offered no opinion and said the lower court needs to determine the specific acts that were supposedly beyond that authority. The lower court didn’t make a distinction and just refused immunity. The lower court didn’t determine the alternate electors “crime”, urged and used by Kennedy in 1960 and then urged by Hillary in 2016, was beyond his authority. SCOTUS will revisit if and when the lower courts make that decision. THEY DID NOT RULE HE HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR ACTS OUTSIDE HIS POWERS.
And Trump certainly has not been given immunity from alleged crimes committed while not office.
Are you arguing that a person who while President could commit an overtly criminal act and be forever immune simply by virtue of having held the office of President?
He is saying the opposite. He wants Presidents to be convicted of crimes even if it is a part of his official duty without an impeachment first. I think he wants any DA in any county to be able to charge the president with whatever the DA thinks is a crime. See Bragg except make it official acts as President. My example earlier was Texas AG Paxton filing criminal charges against Biden for negligent homicide of the Texas soldier killed in the pullout of Afghanistan. While I think dems would be happy with such power, as long at it is the right person, Republicans have not yet gone down that rabbit hole.
As prescribed by the Constitution, unless and until an impeachment removal occurs, yes.
As we’ve seen with Trump, any prosecutor can decide that a legal act is now somehow a criminal act and the only protection a president has is afforded by Congress
So to be very. clear then…you are arguing that absent an impeachment in HoR and a successful vote in the Senate to remove a President then no criminal charges could be filed against a FORMER President post Presidency for overtly criminal actions he committed in office? So if a POTUS shot/murdered their Spouse they couldn’t EVER be criminally charged/prosecuted without an impeachment? Nah, man. They can’t be prosecuted IN their term but post Presidency however it happened; resignation, removal, expiration of term they have always been subject to prosecution for overtly criminal acts.
Do you extend that same immunity argument revolving around impeachment and removal (which is a political act) to Appointees? So if a successful impeachment in the HoR and a successful vote in the Senate to remove an official didn’t occur they couldn’t be prosecuted either?
If not why not if impeachment and removal by the Congress is such the impediment to prosecution you claim? Surely you wouldn’t argue that we should ignore that for an appointed official and thus in effect allow a local DA to deny the POTUS the ability to be served by whomever he can get through a Senate confirmation?
It’s good to see that there are still some adults in the room.
Six adults and three children.
I disagree, six toddlers,…..now any corrupt partisan hack federal judge, or maybe even a County judge, gets to determine what are official acts of any president,..and prosecute any act by any president that they decide is ‘unofficial’ .a scary situation
It will take two or three appeals to the Supreme Court for prosecutions of “unofficial acts” in order to get some rulings for specific acts to determine the fall out from this..
don’t you realize the absurdity of your position? An administration can be hamstrung for its entirety playing that game
As opposed to any county judge stopping our govt from functioning in a time of war by charging POTUS with murder? Your argument is childish
There is nothing, no law, no statute, no constitution that will prevent the left from playing the lawfare game. They Do Not Care About The Rule of Law.
Guess who Democrat pressure groups are suing AGAIN, despite clear and specific federal law saying they cannot?
Unless they are very specific as to what a official acts is, this will go up again when it is decided whether or not something is an official act.
Nevermind they were specific. So it’s “fake electors”.
Let me clarify, he can;t be tried for what he said, but he can be tried for the fake electors,
but alternate electors are not fake, they’re the real deal
I should have put quotes about “fake electors”. They can’t try him for his speech and DOJ iinteraactions, but whether or not they are “fake electors” can be tried.
That was not without precedent, it certainly wasn’t the first time it happened.
You keep using the pejorative “fake electors.” Why? Alternate electors have been used before. In Hawaii in 1960 Kennedy used alternate electors and submitted them pending a recount. Nobody screamed bloody murder. Trump wanted alternate electors pending court reviews that didn’t happen. Stop falling prey to the propaganda.
Oh good lord. I said fake electors because someone describing the position used fake electors. Get real. The court essentially said that Chutkan has to determine whether his actions wih respect to certification is an “official act”.
They can try him for “fake electors” but it won’t work because there were no “fake electors,” only “alternative electors,” the existence of which has historic precedence and has never been considered a crime.
Sad, in a way, because Trump is actually innocent while Biden is actually guilty when it comes to following the law.
I expect arguments to be made that Trump’s involvement trying to find out what happened to the various states’ votes in 2020 was “personal” and not “official,” and/or not “core.”
But of course they were/are. We taxpayers pay for all manner of federal departments to monitor voting, etc., and the president is responsible for all of them. In addition, if an election of a federal officer such as himself is questionable, it is fit and proper for him to be questioning, investigating and working to have such an election thoroughly examined and to encourage others to thoroughly examine it.
Let’s not engage in Kantian fake divisions of responsibilities.
that’s what’s wrong with this opinion, it lets a corrupt Judge Chutkan be the sole decider on what are official acts
That can be appealed again.
How much of one’s live and money are to be spent on this crap? reappealing takes time and money and when related to a president it effects the entire country
You prefer one judge decide and be done with it, huh? Didn’t you say in another post “…it lets a corrupt Judge Chutkan be the sole decider on what are official acts.” Make up your mind would ya! You either hate appeals or you hate a single judge deciding. You can’t have both. Well you can if you think the law shouldn’t be consistent.
Actually read my pst they lay down some guidelines.
OK, I’m not a lawyer so explain just how ‘guidelines’ actually limit a judge with an agenda?
I haven’t read it it thoroughly yet. From the summaries I heard, the charges that are gone are charges for his speech and instructions to DOJ, but actions regarding certifications ( aka “fake electoors”) go back to Chutkan to determine if they are “official acts”. Expects whether she does to be appealed.
but it serves to bring all of this to a finer point toward being worked out
“Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
The Court just blew up almost all of Smith’s case. Even though some of FNC are saying this likely won’t cover the ‘fake electors’ element of the case, I’m not so sure. If immunity covers Trump’s discussions with Justice Department officials, why wouldn’t it cover discussions with members of Congress or state employees?
True dat. The POTUS needs immunity when discussing, pressuring, cajoling, or even brow-beating any other government official, simply because a POTUS doesn’t only converse about government matters with others in the executive branch (any of those conversations could involve the executive in some way, if only in a president’s capacity as someone bound by oath to “support and defend the Constitution”). So, for instance, if Trump believed refusal to certify some electors on J6 was necessary to preserve the integrity of the election (because some electors were appointed under rules not created by their respective States’ legislatures, as required by the Constitution), this makes a discussion with ANYONE over this matter an executive function/responsibility (assuring the preservation of the integrity of the Republic and the rule of law).
I also want to address what Roberts wrote: “This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer.”
We have never needed an answer before, because we were all embued with the same culture. Now with foreigners running our federal government as well as communists, we need an answer.
We did not even need an answer after The War Between the States. Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens were not tried for any crime after that war, and many Confederates returned to Congress after the war. As I recall, the only men tried, convicted, and hung were those that ran Andersonville prison.
Another thing we have lost: an understanding that political disagreements, even violent ones, are POLITICAL, not crimes.
Only Major Wirz was hanged–and it was a bit of a retribution verdict given how bad other camps (including Federal ones) were.
The victors make and enforce the rules.
One Nazi (Otto Skorzeny) on trial at Nuremberg was exonerated by the testimony of a British officer that he had done the same thing (operating behind enemy line in enemy uniforms) as that for which the Nazi was being tried.
To expand on what you’ve said, not only did the Union prosecute almost no one after the Civil War, the adults who were running the country would go out of their way to heal the wounds – actual and cultural – of the Civil War. They understood that comity and restraint were the only way forward if the Republic were going to endure. One way they did this was by federally protecting confederate cemeteries and monuments and decades later, even naming vitally important military bases after CONFEDERATE soldiers and officers.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that shortly after the progressive left blew up a century of restraint they indicted a former president for the first time in US history,.
… and tore down a bunch of monuments.
In his concurrence, Thomas took a direct shot at Garland and his appointment of Jack Smith, from Thomas
In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a pri-
vate citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former Presi-
dent on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that
any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by
Law,” as the Constitution requires.
whoop de do,..Smith is still on the job so Thomas’ opines are quite irrelevant
As we have seen from your other remarks, you really shouldn’t be questioning a third graders knowledge of the Constitution–much less a SCOTUS Justice.
instead of ad hominems, how about you detail something relevant to your argument?
As you did in the post to which I replied? Sure.
The Constitution is clear, SCOTUS just amended the Constitution
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Well, they tried convicting him from impeachment twice, and neither succeeded.
which means that he cannot be prosecuted, period,…full stop,…end of story
No, that is not what it means. Daftness suits you.
Perhaps some improvement in your reading comprehension skills is in order, because that’s exactly what it means
What? Didn’t you read the opinion? Your comment is not true.
I’m quoting from Article 1, Section 3 Clause 7 of the Constitution, so please tell me what part of what I posted is not true?
The Constitution makes no distinction of unofficial acts
Uhhh, no. I am guessing you do not know what “…but the Party convicted…” means. Hint: the “conviction” you mentioned is a conviction in the Senate after an impeachment. Why would a criminal indictment be necessary if he has already been convicted? Pro tip. Actually read The Constitution and UNDERSTAND the terms before trying to claim SCOTUS rewrote it. A constitutional scholar you are not.
Allow me to enlighten you,….impeachment punishment is limited to removal from office and denial of future office,..and as such, some legal scholars, not this one, have opined that impeachment is a civil act, and that is why the following phrase about the conviction making the one removed eligible for criminal prosecution,..in short, the Founders gave Congress, not the Courts, the ability to remove presidential immunity and when a president may be subject to Indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. To sum it all up for you, the Founders, obviously decided that a Senate conviction is not a criminal conviction because they knew about the double jeopardy clause that the put in the 5th Amendment
That is not what I said. You stated SCOTUS amended the Constitution by saying he has immunity. Then you quoted the “conviction.” I might have wrongly assumed, but with good reason considering your other posts, that you thought the “conviction” mentioned was proof the president doesn’t have immunity. Your current post is correct. If you really understand it (doubtful) then SCOTUS didn’t rewrite the Constitution, They are simply following it. The president has immunity until congress impeaches him for acting outside his authority.
Oh boy, try reading what I wrote once again, real slowly
The Constitution also says that pardons are not valid in cases of impeachment.
How is that even relevant?
The “conviction” you refer to is not the result of a judicial proceeding (which you effectively, and correctly, admitted when you said the “conviction” occurs in the Senate – that’s self-evident if you take a moment to think about it).
The Constitution is saying 1.) that impeachment and removal from office is a political act, not a judicial act; 2.) that after being removed from office, a former POTUS can be tried for the crimes that led to his removal (although it is unclear if a POTUS can be impeached only for crimes committed while in office, only for crimes committed before achieving the office, or both); and 3.) that prosecution (a judicial process) after removal from office (via impeachment) does not constitute double jeopardy (see #1 above).
However, until and unless he is removed from office (or leaves office), a POTUS can’t be indicted and tried because allowing such trial while a POTUS is in office would be disruptive to the administration of government. Congress, via the impeachment process, is allowed to judge – Do the alleged crimes of the POTUS require his removal now for the good of the Republic and the administration of government, or can they wait until after he leaves office at the end of his term? This is a political judgment, not a judicial judgement. (This is why double jeopardy doesn’t apply when trying an ex-president for the same crimes that led to his removal from office.)
But because the judgment of the Senate is not a judicial judgment, this does not actually exonerate a POTUS, it’s merely the Senate’s judgment that the allegations don’t warrant the POTUS’ removal and the upset to the administration that might occur due to his removal.
Sotomayor appears to believe that the majority of the court would allow a POTUS to commit crimes while in office, but committing crimes is not within the authority of any POTUS, so crimes can’t be “official acts.”
This will not stop the lawfare against Trump. The process is the punishment.
I can’t wait for July 11 when Judge Merchan gives Trump some jail time, IMO in an attempt to interfere with his campaign and the election – given that all the indictments and trial have failed to do so far.
I hope so as well. It will force SCOTUS to take up the case immediately. And anybody with an ounce of sense knows this conviction will not stand. It would rob Biden of his only campaign strategy, “convicted felon.” Which is one of the reason why Merchan will not do it
If you are going to take an enemy out, you take him out – as Putin or Stalin would tell you. Merchan will give Trump a long jail sentence at hard labor in upstate NY, near the Canadian border. He will be that no NY appeals court will be willing to take it up quickly, and that SCOTUS won’t intervene.
I don’t see how either Fani or Smith move forward.
It’s too bad that SCOTUS even had to hear this at all but the corrupt Judges, Prosecutors and Dems have become so blinded by TDS they forced it.
quite simply, Smith has a team player in Chutkan in DC and a cowed princess in FL….nether have dismissed so Smith moves onward
Florida?
I do t think so
I disagree, The Constitution, the presidential records act and Judicial Watch v National Archives all have determined that Trump is entitled to any documents that he deems personal
…..and that fact that Cannon has not dismissed with prejudice and is instead playing silly games with Smith indicates that she knows she is not doing the right thing
I don’t think so either. But, that case will likely be dismissed before they come close to tackling this issue. It’s on life-support already.
fjb and the boxes of classified info HE ILLEGAL TOOK WHEN HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO
GET HIM!!!!!
Indeed. Biden’s failure to withdraw now is evidence that he is perfectly capable to stand trial and is not an old man with a poot memory. /s
“he illegal took”
It’s been a bad, no good week for Democrats. Probably their worst week since Appomattox.
Sotomayor: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. ”
Has she never heard of Impeachment? However, with this specific example, I am not sure that the parties responsible were ever brought to justice in the assassination of JFK.
Yes, but it’s hard to argue that the question of the assassination of a president is even tangentially related to the potential immunity of an assassin president.
Lies and immunity: Remembering Congressman Murtha
Murtha outright lied and stated that Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt “killed innocent civilians in cold blood”
3rd Circuit Voids Marine’s Suit Over Murtha’s Remarks on Iraq Incident
https://archive.is/YSFe2#selection-3117.0-3117.70
On February 8, 2010, God had sorted it out and turned Murtha to dust.
So, how far will the current President try to push the boundaries? While I doubt Biden will go full “Seal Team Six”, in order to stay in power he could at least do as much, if not potentially more than Trump did.
Interesting times, indeed.
I wouldn’t want to be the issuer of a life insurance policy on Trump
Not a good post. Very distasteful. BTW, Trump has full secret service protection.
TBH, MarkS has not been covering himself in glory in this comment section. He seems to think that listening to Schoolhouse Rock on TV is the same as being a practicing attorney.
And I am pretty sure that in addition to having full SS protection, Trump has full protection from his SS protection, too.
OK, now riddle me this: How about a president commits a criminal unofficial act while performing an official one?
https://rumble.com/vb8hhh-joe-biden-pinches-girls-nipple.html
It is up to congress to impeach and convict him for the “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Thereby opening up criminal prosecution. Which is the reason congress tried to impeach him after he left office. You can read further on what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are. Suffice to say they don’t mean an actual misdemeanor like jaywalking.
THANK YOU,…That’s the point that I’ve been making all day. It takes Congress and only Congress to decide
Although I figured the Court would find some form of immunity for official acts squarely within the Constitutional scope of the President’s discretion, and they would be correct to do so, I think they went too far. In particular, the blanket prohibition on considering the President’s motives struck me as far too blunt and broad. I would also have adopted the DC circuit’s framework distinguishing discretionary duties from ministerial duties.
Maybe, but do we really want the next AG under a different president and judge determining the president committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” when it is clearly established whose role that is in The Constitution? Congress knew this which is why they tried to impeach and convict for Jan 6 after he left office.
Given that the sole remedy given under the impeachment power is removal and disqualification, I don’t agree that impeachment is aimed at the conduct of former office holders, or that it is the sole venue for the prosecution of such.
Congress can judge motives during impeachment – and they can impeach former officials to disqualify them from office and to negate any self-pardons.
Censure AOC and Biden, among others.
Sorry for the Biden Derangement Syndrome. Censure AOC and Schumer.
The term “desperate” comes from the Latin word “desperatus,” which means to be deprived of hope.
The Democrats visibly have a feeling of helplessness and loss of control. They are in a state of mind where they are willing to do anything to escape their current, difficult situations post-debate and post-SCOTUS.
Desperate people do desperate things. Desperation often distorts a person’s vision. The more desperate the democrats are, the more mistakes they will make.
So the FBI and Federal courts are not succeeding. Although who would fear a military that is wackily obsessed with pronouns?
Bert and Ernie.
Ah, the tangled consequences of a Muppet Presidency
Assume, for the moment, that Trump’s contact with Pence concerning electors wasn’t “official” or that he lacked the executive authority to make the request. What does that leave? It was a private request, made in Trump’s capacity as a citizen. Does not citizen Trump have a right to petition government? Does the Constitution say the courts are the only avenue allowed for such petitions? Can we not call, write, or email (or even protest outside an office or building) to convince, pressure, or cajole our representatives and other officials for any favor or benefit we desire? If the request asks for something prohibited by law or beyond the official’s capacity to provide, it’s up to the official to deny the request. No citizen should be exposed to prosecution for petitioning government in any way (although offering money is bribery, regardless of the legality of the ask).
Citizen Trump had a right to petition Mike Pence to refuse to certify certain electoral votes (as Pence has since admitted he had the authority to do), and a right to petition the AG of GA for him to “find more votes” (it would have been up to the AG to determine how or if such a request might be legally met). (Al Gore did exactly this, using the courts instead of a direct approach to an official. One means of petition is as valid as any other.)
before they adjourned, Congress was holding debate as to whether or not to accept the electors from each of the states
of course lefty wants to use the military against the citizens
they used the courts against him and others where no evidence existed except that which was created in yet another “chinese” lab
Agree this was a dangerous decision. But far from the first dangerous decision in recent years. Things really went to hell when an ineligible individual held the office for 8 years, then the Dems tried to steal the 2016 election (counted ballots 6 times in Detroit), then stole the 2020 election (counted more than 6 times in Detroit, also multi-counted in Phila, and lots more known cheating) …
The current president is on video as VP boasting of doing an “official act” on behalf of the president in Ukraine, for a billion dollars. At least Biden can maybe breathe a sigh of relief over that.
We’re already not the country we were. We’ve been in the world of “by any means necessary” for some years now, and it’s good that the Dems are no longer the only ones who realize it.
“The current president is on video as VP boasting of doing an “official act” on behalf of the president in Ukraine, for a billion dollars. At least Biden can maybe breathe a sigh of relief over that.”
That may give Obama a sigh of relief. But at the time, Biden was NOT President, so he does not enjoy the immunity that the president has, UNLESS Obama goes on record stating that Obama told him to do it.
I hope someone goes after Biden for this alone.