Supreme Court (finally) takes up Presidential Immunity

[GMDino]

With all the talk about the timing of the cases against Trump the delay in this and the lack of the court expediting it should be looked at also.

I'm listening on and off at work and the justices are asking about what could be considered "official acts" and when Trump's lawyer was asked if telling the military to perform a coup would be considered an official act that is immune he replied that it "probably" would be.

He said a president should be immune from prosecution for attempting a coup.

Also "probably" for accepting a bribe.

This is crazy.

[HarleyDog]

A coup against who? Was he specific?

[GMDino]

(04-25-2024, 11:55 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: A coup against who? Was he specific?

The United States.

[*Nately120*]

I gotta hand it to Trump, he's found a way to spin being under fire for campaign interference while running for and being president of the USA as something that can happen to anyone, while making it seem like giving every president from here until the end of time total immunity as something that couldn't possibly affect us regular folks.

[Luvnit2]

(04-25-2024, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: With all the talk about the timing of the cases against Trump the delay in this and the lack of the court expediting it should be looked at also.

I'm listening on and off at work and the justices are asking about what could be considered "official acts" and when Trump's lawyer was asked if telling the military to perform a coup would be considered an official act that is immune he replied that it "probably" would be.

He said a president should be immune from prosecution for attempting a coup.

Also "probably" for accepting a bribe.

This is crazy.

Why should Supreme Court stop everything and hear this case and allow others on the schedule to be pushed backwards? 

Is Trump is deemed not immune and it goes to trial in 2025, why is that an issue? 

You cry foul, yet Bragg charged Trump with something that happened in 2016, 8 years ago. Smith and Fani waiting to charge Trump in 2023 with alleged crimes that occurred in 2021? 

It appears Biden's DOJ colluded to interfere with the 2024 election based on them waiting.  Biden's DOJ could have brought these charges a lot earlier if they were concerned SC may get involved. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-25-2024, 12:39 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Is Trump is deemed not immune and it goes to trial in 2025, why is that an issue? 

Because in 2025 Trump will either be the president or be running for 2028.  If there is one thing that I simply can't visualize it is that there is ever going to be a time to go after Trump that everyone deems "acceptable."

[GMDino]

(04-25-2024, 12:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Because in 2025 Trump will either be the president or be running for 2028.  If there is one thing that I simply can't visualize it is that there is ever going to be a time to go after Trump that everyone deems "acceptable."

Clearly.

Because if the cases do continue when he is not given absolute immunity it will still be a "political witch hunt" by a "corrupt DOJ" and "the left" who all "want to get" Trump.

[GMDino]

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1783506951940231600

[GMDino]

[GMDino]

[*Nately120*]

I have to wonder, if they rule the president can assassinate his political rivals and Biden doesn't have Trump assassinated how many votes he'll lose.

[Luvnit2]

(04-25-2024, 12:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Because in 2025 Trump will either be the president or be running for 2028.  If there is one thing that I simply can't visualize it is that there is ever going to be a time to go after Trump that everyone deems "acceptable."

They have indicted him 91 times so the liberals and Biden D.O.J. passed the threshold a long time ago attempting to put Trump in jail. 

Why didn't Smith, Bragg or Fani indict him in 2021 or 2022?

Simple, they can't win the legal cases, this is about trying to tarnish him and keep him in a court room.

The D.O.J. has never in our history attempted to place a former President or a candidate in jail within 6 months of an election. A new first by the corrupt Biden D.O.J. 

To Trump's credit, he plans to campaign in Queens and at Madison Square gardens since he is stuck in NY. He is calm prior to entering the court room and calm giving his view of Biden's economy and lack of great policy each day. 

The media wants him to go crazy, most men would, be once again Trump is smart and making the liberal media look stupid who keep saying he looks unhinged. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-25-2024, 05:55 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They have indicted him 91 times so the liberals and Biden D.O.J. passed the threshold a long time ago attempting to put Trump in jail. 

Why didn't Smith, Bragg or Fani indict him in 2021 or 2022?

Simple, they can't win the legal cases, this is about trying to tarnish him and keep him in a court room.

The D.O.J. has never in our history attempted to place a former President or a candidate in jail within 6 months of an election. A new first by the corrupt Biden D.O.J. 

To Trump's credit, he plans to campaign in Queens and at Madison Square gardens since he is stuck in NY. He is calm prior to entering the court room and calm giving his view of Biden's economy and lack of great policy each day. 

The media wants him to go crazy, most men would, be once again Trump is smart and making the liberal media look stupid who keep saying he looks unhinged. 

My point is that there is no way or time or process to go after Trump that people are going to agree is the "right" time or the "right" way, so you've pretty much summed it up.  I assume it's the same reason Trump didn't actually lock up Hillary Clinton and why Trump's promises to go after Biden are going to be forgotten eventually.

Nixon, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, Trump, Biden...all people who have been cited as targets for retribution for their crimes and misdeeds but they all skate and die rich and free because no one likes the idea of the justice system being used to go after big-name politicians...it's too upsetting to think that we the voters would get behind criminal scum.

Just let 'em all go.  Make 'em all immune.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I won't pretend to have listened to the whole session, but the difference between the liberal and conservative justices was rather interesting. Jackson and Sotomayor in particular were cutting off the attorneys mid sentence rather consistently.

I think Gorsuch made a very good point when he asked the Biden DOJ attorney if the Ag signed off on an action would that automatically make the POTUS immune to any potential future prosecution. The response was yes to which Gorsuch asked why wouldn't a POTUS just appoint an AG who would give him the green light on anything he wanted? I am, obviously, paraphrasing.

[Luvnit2]

It appears to have been a very bad day for Jack Smith. At a minimum, it appears that any act while a POTUS (they were discussing any current or future POTUS) will be immune from prosecution. Any official act is yet to be defined, but appeared the conservative justices were leaning towrd while still the POTUS. This would take anything Trump said or did off the table for Jan.6th or prior.

It was interesting it was brought up Obama killed US citizens on foreign soil, if not immune he could be charged with murder.

I don't see full immunity for personal acts, if a POTUS murders someone, he should not be immune.

The justices seemed to be very concerned the action taken by the D.O.J. against a political opponent is a concern because as soon as the other party gets in office, they can do the same thing and where does it end.

They also understand this is a huge ruling, not just for this case, but any future cases brought against the POTUS.

The liberal justices were rude cutting off Trump's attorney numerous times. It was obvious they do not care about the constitution; they want to destroy Trump.

If I were Obama or Biden, I would be very concerned if they decide to remove Presidential immunity. In Obama's case, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-26-2024, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think Gorsuch made a very good point when he asked the Biden DOJ attorney if the Ag signed off on an action would that automatically make the POTUS immune to any potential future prosecution.  The response was yes to which Gorsuch asked why wouldn't a POTUS just appoint an AG who would give him the green light on anything he wanted?  I am, obviously, paraphrasing.

Not sure if that was the same exchange, but I thought I saw a response about Congress having to confirm appointees, servings as a checks-and-balance.

People expecting this to be a quick or simple matter aren't comprehending the unbelievably complex and seriousness of the key question.  I think most people would agree the POTUS has some degree of LIMITED immunity, particularly as commander-in-chief (and this question arises primarily from Trump's actions, IMO, as a campaigner/candidate).  And then the more nuanced issue is precisely what role & responsibility the SCOTUS has in defining this, and what role the legislative body holds.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but military have a DUTY not to follow an unlawful order.  So while POTUS might theoretically have immunity, the person pulling the trigger would not.  And since the state could also charge them with murder, POTUS can't keep them out of jail with a pardon.

There's a reason the DOJ and courts have avoided weighing in on this for, well, a very long time.  But in the hyperbolic get-Trump media, these complexities are glossed over or ignored to impune the integrity of the SCOTUS.  Which I thought undermining the courts was undemocratic, but I guess only when Trump does it.

[Luvnit2]

(04-25-2024, 02:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I have to wonder, if they rule the president can assassinate his political rivals and Biden doesn't have Trump assassinated how many votes he'll lose.

Very bad suggestion. You should be banned. 

[Luvnit2]

(04-26-2024, 01:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not sure if that was the same exchange, but I thought I saw a response about Congress having to confirm appointees, servings as a checks-and-balance.

People expecting this to be a quick or simple matter aren't comprehending the unbelievably complex and seriousness of the key question.  I think most people would agree the POTUS has some degree of LIMITED immunity, particularly as commander-in-chief (and this question arises primarily from Trump's actions, IMO, as a campaigner/candidate).  And then the more nuanced issue is precisely what role & responsibility the SCOTUS has in defining this, and what role the legislative body holds.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but military have a DUTY not to follow an unlawful order.  So while POTUS might theoretically have immunity, the person pulling the trigger would not.  And since the state could also charge them with murder, POTUS can't keep them out of jail with a pardon.

There's a reason the DOJ and courts have avoided weighing in on this for, well, a very long time.  But in the hyperbolic get-Trump media, these complexities are glossed over or ignored to impune the integrity of the SCOTUS.  Which I thought undermining the courts was undemocratic, but I guess only when Trump does it.

The check and balance are Congress. It is Congress's responsibility to prosecute a POTUS. 

The example brought up about murdering someone came from left field from the liberal justices. 

Our system of Congress over seeing the POTUS (constitution) has worked for 284 years. 

Again, we have an example of Obama ordering a drone strike and killing US citizens on foreign soil. Should he be prosecuted by a GOP controlled AG for murder?  If no immunity, it opens a huge can of worms.

[*Nately120*]

(04-26-2024, 02:07 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Very bad suggestion. You should be banned. 

I didn't say he should do it, I'm just saying I wonder if he'd lose votes if he didn't.  Go find a safepace.

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2024, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I won't pretend to have listened to the whole session, but the difference between the liberal and conservative justices was rather interesting. Jackson and Sotomayor in particular were cutting off the attorneys mid sentence rather consistently.

I think Gorsuch made a very good point when he asked the Biden DOJ attorney if the Ag signed off on an action would that automatically make the POTUS immune to any potential future prosecution. The response was yes to which Gorsuch asked why wouldn't a POTUS just appoint an AG who would give him the green light on anything he wanted? I am, obviously, paraphrasing.

Yeah, the conservatives did plenty of cutting off as well. I am about 2/3rds through the whole recording at this point.

I think Dreeben's response to that was actually pretty good, though (not sure if you heard that part). He responded that there is a constitutional check on that through the Senate's role of "advice and consent" when it comes to the appointment of cabinet officials. Which is really how it all should work. If only we had a functioning government.