Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Benggaul]

Yeeeeah this SCOTUS decision isn't the victory Team Trump seems to think it is. While it also is absolutely "kicking the can down the road", the language of the decision doesn't really put Jack Smith's case in any jeopardy. Not even the Georgia case, really, since telling people to find votes isn't a Presidential duty...

[Shadowferal]

Yeeeeah this SCOTUS decision isn't the victory Team Trump seems to think it is. While it also is absolutely "kicking the can down the road", the language of the decision doesn't really put Jack Smith's case in any jeopardy. Not even the Georgia case, really, since telling people to find votes isn't a Presidential duty...

Judge Cannon wouldst have words with you. Nit that she'd make any sense. Just delay things a bit.

[Sunseeker]

I mean, didnt they basically rule what the law says? Only official acts have protection? This doesnt seem like theyre saying the President has carte-blanche immunity.

[Paranoid Android]

Ahh I see the Lib'd up post already that "the justice system will prevail". "Jack Smith with truth, justice and the American way will fight for our freedom".

Ooph! We have defeated in almost every judge and of the course the final boss of the Supreme Court just shitted on the United States can have a God King. What' best is Garland, this feckless dumb fuck waited over 2 years to at least begin the Jan 6th.

[Marfrilau]

I mean, didnt they basically rule what the law says? Only official acts have protection? This doesnt seem like theyre saying the President has carte-blanche immunity.

I don't think so. Read Sotomayor's dissent.

[Shadowferal]

I mean, didnt they basically rule what the law says? Only official acts have protection? This doesnt seem like theyre saying the President has carte-blanche immunity.

The ruling demands that certain acts be argued over as to what constitutes "official" actions.

[Teriz]

So a president can purposely undermine the results of an election if they don't like the results as long as they utilize the executive apparatus to do so? Motive doesn't matter as long as they have their subordinates in the executive branch along for the ride.

Seriously, WTF? What a horrifying decision!

[D Luniz]

So a president can purposely undermine the results of an election if they don't like the results as long as they utilize the executive apparatus to do so? Motive doesn't matter as long as they have their subordinates in the executive branch along for the ride.

Seriously, WTF? What a horrifying decision!

He can't shoot someone on 5th Ave, but if he orders it using the power of the office then it's ok.

I never want to hear a republican vomit the phrase "lawless president" ever again.

[Teriz]

He can't shoot someone on 5th Ave, but if he orders it using the power of the office then it's ok.

I never want to hear a republican vomit the phrase "lawless president" ever again.

The real horrendous part of it is that there's no real guidance behind what is out of bounds as long as the person is in office. I mean ANYTHING can technically be justified as "official".

If the president does something horrific it has to be litigated AFTER the fact, and if he's still in office, he could pull multiple levers of power to insure that they never face consequences when their tenure is over.

[Breccia]

I mean, didnt they basically rule what the law says? Only official acts have protection?

Well, now it's specifically spelled out, if nothing else. Further cases are now "yes, but what Trump did was unConstitutional and we can prove it".

[Xyonai]

The real horrendous part of it is that there's no real guidance behind what is out of bounds. If the president does something horrific it has to be litigated AFTER the fact, and if he's still in office, he could pull multiple levers of power to insure that they never face consequences when their tenure is over.

Just like any shitty conservative piece of legislation; the wording is left open enough for them to ignore or persecute as they see fit, while also adding enough of a legal barrier between themselves and consequences to tie this shit up in court.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservative judges didn't just get the exact wording for their ruling from the Heritage Foundation, it's got the stink of their pseudo legal tomfoolery all over it.

[ManjiSanji]

Apparently there's a whole thing about how communications between a President and their staff can't be used against them to determine if something is an official act or not.

Sooooo even if there's gross evidence that proves conspiracy to commit major crimes, that are outside of a President's official acts or duties...we can't use it to prove that.

Yeah the US is dead.

At what point is it ok to say it's time to use guillotines?

[arandomuser]

so yeah trump will be a dictator scotus confirms, not looking good..

- - - Updated - - -

under the scotus viewpoint, if applied to the nuremburg trials , had hitler survived and was captured, he would be immune from persecution because everything he did was an official act

[Shadowferal]

The Supreme Court gave Biden the power to sic the military on Trump: legal analysts

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that former presidents — including Donald Trump — have absolute immunity for core official acts, but that not all acts are official.

The 6-3 ruling itself was a "mixed bag," according to legal analysts giving commentary on the decision via X. They walked through the opinion, saying that what has changed is that a president can claim "official acts" and declare his or her innocence.

It means that President Joe Biden can order the military to arrest or even kill Trump, they said.

"The president is now a king above the law," as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

The majority ruled that it was down to a lower court to decide if Trump's actions of Jan. 6 were official.

Instead, they have established a test that his attempted coup cannot meet, back to D.C. for a mini-trial," said former ethics czar Norm Eisen. "The court does repudiate Trump's outlandish version of immunity, but it is absurd that they took almost 7 months to do so. I agree with the dissenters on what the test should be, but now we need to push for a mini-trial applying the test ASAP."

"I don't ever want to f-----g hear again that Roberts is an institutionalist," said political scientist Miranda Yaver.

University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky said, "MISREPORTING HAPPENING: I'm seeing a number of news breakers reporting that Trump has absolute immunity for all official acts. This is wrong. He has absolute immunity for "core" presidential powers and there is only a PRESUMPTION of immunity for the rest of official acts."

As Politico's Kyle Cheney wrtote, the case was essentially sent back to Judge Tanya Chutkan to decide if Trump's Jan. 6 actions were official acts. She will decide, for example, whether Trump's communication with Vice President Mike Pence, pressuring him to throw the election to the states, was official.

Civil rights lawyer Matthew Segal explained, "The legal system had one job after Jan. 6, which was to make clear that the President of the United States cannot do what Trump did. This is... not that."

The Supreme Court just gave Biden unequivocal immunity to order the military to take action against Trump. Today. Right now," lawyer Bradley Moss wrote.

In a thread from The Nation's legal commentator, Elie Mystal, quoted a part of Chief Justice John Roberts' decision.

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts," Roberts wrote.

The analyst then lamented, "You can't use like EVIDENCE against the President either."

"Welp, that's all folks," Mystal also said. "The President is immune from prosecution so long as he says he committed crimes as part of his 'official' duties. So ends the part of the American experience where our leaders were bound by the rule of law. Thanks for playing."

[AntiFascistVoter]

under the scotus viewpoint, if applied to the nuremburg trials , had hitler survived and was captured, he would be immune from persecution because everything he did was an official act

I'm sure Madame Alito has a flag for this. Totally coincidence it appropriates the स्वस्तिक symbol, but with a teutonic twist.

[Sunseeker]

The ruling demands that certain acts be argued over as to what constitutes "official" actions.

This makes sense to me, since what consititutes "official acts" is not strictly defined. Some acts will obviously qualify and some obviously wont. I dont think theyre suggesting that every act is some wishy-washy grey area, but that there is, in fact, some wishy washy grey area.

All theyre saying is the President gets the benefit of the doubt when he claims "official act" and the burden of proof lies on those who claim it isnt.

[Marfrilau]

This makes sense to me, since what consititutes "official acts" is not strictly defined. Some acts will obviously qualify and some obviously wont. I dont think theyre suggesting that every act is some wishy-washy grey area, but that there is, in fact, some wishy washy grey area.

All theyre saying is the President gets the benefit of the doubt when he claims "official act" and the burden of proof lies on those who claim it isnt.

Which is problematic because they also can't question the motive of a president if he claims "official act". It's absolutely retarded...

[Gorsameth]

Yes, Biden ordering Seal Team 6 is part of his official constitutional powers, so Biden can now order them to assassinate Trump and Biden would be immune from prosecution.
Oh and he can kill these moron conservative justices while he's at it.

[Teriz]

I'm seeing jubilation all over Fox News and conservative media.

Any conservative Republican or MAGA person cheering for this because it benefits their Cheeto dictator is a fucking idiot.

[ati87]

This makes sense to me, since what consititutes "official acts" is not strictly defined. Some acts will obviously qualify and some obviously wont. I dont think theyre suggesting that every act is some wishy-washy grey area, but that there is, in fact, some wishy washy grey area.

All theyre saying is the President gets the benefit of the doubt when he claims "official act" and the burden of proof lies on those who claim it isnt.

Way I'm reading the articles is that the ruling is way to open to consider this a victory for Trump,which is why it was mostly send back to the lower courts and told them what we already knew, that the Presidential acts are by themselves not punishable.

Obama killin a American citizen abroad was done as a President, Obama as a canidate didn't benefit anymore then any other presidential act he could carry out.
Obama killing Mit Ronmey however would be zero benefit for him as President and would be considered in my opinion only a benefit for Canidate Obama so not a official act.

If Trump wins however he will probably consider himself to be god king or something, because from his pov that is what the SC told him even if that wasn't the case.