And they’ve also argued that ordering assassinations of political rivals are official acts.
So now Biden has the best opportunity of all time to clean and prevent the fascist right wing usurpation of the nation.
I mean, that’s what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he’s operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?
I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they’ve opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there’d be nothing a court in this country could do about it.
Please, someone tell me I’m missing something.
“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,” Sotomayor wrote.
You’re missing that the Supreme Court is taking the piss and the District Court they’re kicking this back to has already done their homework and defined the official acts versus unofficial acts. They’re ret-2-go but the Supreme’s did their job of punting this until at least October, since that’s when they come back from vacation. So when the District Court punts it back up the chain to the Supreme Court, they have to wait for the Supreme Court to reconvene. It’s fucking stupid, but it accomplished getting Trump nothing but a legal time-out.
Oh, ALSO:
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
They literally fucked us out of a ton of evidence with this part of the ruling.
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Of course that’s only for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court has already shown that they don’t care about precedent, so if Biden does something, it’ll come back up and they’ll find it was not an official act and can be prosecuted, no matter what it was.
I don’t think assassinations of political rivals would be covered under the president’s constitutional duties.
But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that’s planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It’s not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.
Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It’s not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don’t even need evidence, they just need motive. We’re real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.
He didn’t want to pack the court so I’m not holding out hope that he’d empty the court either. Obviously assassinating justices would completely fuck the country up, but one could argue that the current justices are slow playing us into a fascist dictatorship.
Honestly, the quickest way out is to officially order the summary executions of the judges who established this new immunity - then pass a second law ordering that SCOTUS must always evenly represent all major parties, one out, one in.
Then get new judges in that will reverse the immunity ruling. That way this sort of problem won’t come up again.
Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood. This is may be one of those times.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
After stalling just long enough to make it a problem that won’t be resolved before the election. Wonderful.
And also making it so that you can’t actually use a ton of the gathered evidence:
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
I think this is the part that’s going to fuck up the rest of Trump’s trials. Everything is going to suddenly be a private record.
Everything is going to suddenly be a private record.
Except the audio transcript of Biden’s Special Counsel interview, of course.
And note that they don’t give him his immunity now. They 100% will when it makes it back up to them, but they can do half the ruling now to blow off a little steam and then when they declare insurrection and espionage official acts people will already be resigned to it. Same reason they leaked the Roe ruling. They’re worried about riots and being lynched if they give people enough of a focal point to organize.
And going forward, who decides what’s an official vs. unofficial Presidential act?
Pretty much everything the president does while in office is official. So the more important question is what is within the president’s powers.
The problem with immunity rather than changing the law is that all he has to do is prove that in some circumstance he has that power and that he believes that circumstance existed at the time and he used that authority to do it.
For example, he has the power to order the military to assassinate, so the specifics of whether it was legal to assassinate a certain person can’t be questioned in court, only whether he has the power to issue that type of order. Because once it’s established that it is within his power and he states that he used his authority as president to issue the order, he is immune to any further prosecution. Also, it doesn’t matter if he ordered the CIA to do it and they don’t have that legal authority to act inside the US. In that case the president is breaking the law, he just can’t be prosecuted for it, only the CIA agents involved could be. It’s not presidential authority that is being violated in that case so it’s off the table for prosecution regardless of how illegal it is.
2021-01-02 Trump on a call with Georgia election officials asked them “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
Not an official act on any planet in this solar system, how is this not a loss for Trump?
Problem is that with this, proving that it fell under one power basically means all other laws, even ones that specifically were meant to restrict that power, are meaningless. What he did could be 100% illegal, but he can’t be prosecuted for it, so he can’t be removed from office or punished after he leaves office.
If he was making that call as the official president of the United States, speaking in an official capacity, then it doesn’t matter if the order he gives is illegal if it was within his power to order the Governor of a state to do anything at all. If it’s not in his power for him to give an order to the Governor, then he just has to say it was an official suggestion as the president of the US. There’s no restriction that says a president can’t suggest that the Governor of a state does something to benefit the president. Doesn’t matter that the thing he asked for was illegal because it can’t be questioned in court at all to determine its legality.
Now it depends on if the Governor were to actually do it. And if as president Trump decides to order the assassination of that Governor once he refused, that would not be prosecutable. The assassin would be the only one who could be punished for the illegal act.
Immunity from prosecution doesn’t mean the thing you’re doing isn’t legal, it means that no one has the right to punish you for that act. It’s still unethical to break the law, but there is no enforceable consequence.
They also included in the ruling that:
“Chief Justice Roberts determines that “official conduct,” which garners presumptive immunity under the Court’s framework, may not be used as evidence of other crimes when prosecuting former presidents.”
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-supreme-court-s-presidential-immunity-decision
My understanding, a president having an “official” meeting with his staff regarding commiting a crime that falls outside of his normal presidential duties is no longer admissible as evidence for the criminal act.
