I posted this in another thread.
I am really confused about this ruling.
“But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
He’s not being prosecuted for exercising core constitutional powers or official acts. He’s being prosecuted for election fraud, inciting an insurrectionist mob and mishandling classified documents. None of those are core constitutional powers and they clearly can’t be official acts.
Edit: I just love this part-
Without immunity, Trump’s lawyer said, sitting presidents would face “blackmail and extortion” by political rivals due to the threat of future prosecution.
Trump just faces blackmail and extortion from his political allies. Like Vladimir Putin.
They sent it back down to the lower courts because they need to determine if he was acting officially. If he was acting outside of an official constitutional capacity he is criminally responsible. If he was doing his official duties with in the constitution he’s alright.
It’ll probably end up with him hit with some charges and avoiding others.
Why does this need to be determined? He wasn’t. He just wasn’t. Nothing he is being charged with is constitutional, which is the point.
That’s just due process of law. The lower court can’t just wax seal issues of constitutionality with out looking at them. Doing so would be a fantastic grounds for appeal.
Devil’s Advocate: It’s been needing to be determined since fucking Nixon left office, and our entire government has been waffling about it for 70 years, because it’s a question they don’t actually want answered. It’s only convenient to them now as a reason to give Trump a legal time-out so he can make it to the election without more indictments.
The District Court in question has already defined official versus unofficial acts, which is part of why the SC released this so late on fucking purpose. Because even though the DC is ready to go with their findings, they’ll have to wait until October to kick it back up the chain to the Supreme Court when Trump inevitably appeals.
Some of the evidence that Jack Smith has put together involve some form of Trump’s official capacity. for instance, the Times notes that one of the points of the prosecution was that Trump tried to get Jeffrey Clark installed as acting AG in the days before Jan 6, presumably because he would go along with the coup. One of the findings of the Court is that appointments like that are within the President’s direct duties, and can’t be used as evidence against him, even if it can be proven that the appointment was made to directly piss on the Constitution Trump swore to protect.
The Times also notes that Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence is similarly protected now.
because they need to determine if he was acting officially.
this was already ruled on, reelection campaign is NOT an official capacity thing PERIOD. This move is nothing but another delay to ensure this shit falls on a date post-election
Delaying until after the election was the main point yeah. He did get a couple other goodies from it though to my understanding. Presumption of immunity and not being able to admit testimony or communications of the president and his staff being the big ones from what I’m reading.
But absolutely Remand is the big prize for Trump here. Having the case remanded back to the lower courts all but guarantees that it won’t be concluded before the election. Hopefully it doesn’t entirely gut the other prosecutions as well but I don’t have a lot of faith that it isn’t going to basically kill the other cases.
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.
Right, and why do the questions “can a president officially commit election fraud” and “can a president officially incite a violent mob” and “can a president officially mishandle classified documents?” need to be determined? The answers have already been determined. They are all no.
Constitutionally defined roles have absolute immunity (e.g., pardons). Other “official acts” are presumed to have immunity, but what acts are official is not well defined and as written can be very expansive. Since the Court gets to decide each one on a case by case basis, it will presumably apply more expansively to fascist allies and more narrowly to opponents. All Trump needs to do is present a flimsy excuse for how he was “protecting the election” or “making a political speech as president”. The liberal judges are correctly ringing alarm bells. “Official acts” isn’t a guardrail.
